Loading...
11-30-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 301r,2022 INDEX Notice of Appeal No.1-2022 Starr Mowery 1. WITHDRAWN Tax Map No. 302.7-1-24 Area Variance No. 60-2022 Loreen Harvey(Kasselman Solar LLC) 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.266.3-1-76.1 Area Variance No.57-2022 Russell Thomas 2. Tax Map No.296.5-1-17 Area Variance No.5S-2022 Cynthia Arberger 6. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-30 Area Variance No. 61-2022 Nancy Nicholson 9. Tax Map No. 30S.11-1-39.1 Area Variance No. 62-2022 David&Penny Kovacs 13. Tax Map No.266.1-1-52 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 30TH 2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RICHARD CIPPERLY ROBERT KEENAN,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Wednesday,November 30`h,2022. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is pretty simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each application up,read the application into our record, allow the applicant to present the case. We'll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised,then we'll open the public hearing,take input from the public. Then we'll close the public hearing,poll the Board and then proceed appropriately. I have a couple of administrative items to take care of first. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. NOA 1-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 STARR MOWERY AGENT(S) STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER O WNER(S) CKT ENTERPRISES,LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 2 GLENDALE DR. APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE. CROSS REF CC-0229-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-24 SECTION 179-16-090 MR. MC CABE-First,NOA 1-2022,Starr Mowery,has been withdrawn. So that case is done. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 LOREEN HARVEY (KASSELMAN SOLAR LLC) AGENT(S) LOREEN HARVEY OWNER(S) RORY RUSSELL ZONING MDR LOCATION 1516 RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECT FOR 2592 KW(54 PANELS)APPROXIMATELY 1,348 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING HOME OF 5,035 SQ.FT. IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE PROJECT WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WHERE NO VEGETATION IS TO BE REMOVED. SITE PLAN FOR GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 75-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-76.1 SECTION 179-5-140 MR. MC CABE-And AV 60-2022 is going to be tabled. If there's anybody here, is there anybody here regarding that case,which is AV 60-2022,1516 Ridge Road? So I will,at this time,open the public hearing, and seeing no one,is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Well,I don't know if we read this in last time,but I'll read it in again. The Planning Board based on its limited review,tabled,no,there's nothing to read in. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I'm going to seek a motion to table that particular application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Loreen Harvey (Kasselman Solar LLC). Applicant proposes a ground mounted solar project for 25.92 kw(54 panels) approximately 1,34E sq.ft. The existing home of 5,035 sq.ft.is to remain with no changes. The project will be located on the north property line where no vegetation is to be removed. Site plan for ground mounted solar project for residential use. Relief is requested for setbacks. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2022 LOREEN HARVEY (KASSELMAN SOLAR, LLC ,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the December 14`h,2022 Meeting. Duly adopted this 30'day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 57-2022,Russell Thomas,23 Highpoint Drive. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 RUSSELL THOMAS OWNER(S) RUSSELL THOMAS ZONING MDR LOCATION 23 HIGHPOINT DR. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN 192 SQ.FT.SHED IN CURRENT LOCATION. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,717 SQ.FT.WITH PORCHES TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE SHED RECEIVED A PERMIT IN 2006 FOR LOCATION DIFFERENT THAN CURRENT LOCATION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 17-2022; SUB 4-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 1.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-17 SECTION 179-5-020 RUSSELL THOMAS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.57-2022,Russell Thomas,Meeting Date: November 30,2022 "Project Location: 23 Highpoint Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain 192 sq.ft. shed in current location. The existing home of 2,717 sq. ft. with porches to remain with no changes. The shed received a permit in 2006 for location different than current location. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for an already installed shed. The parcel is 1.17 ac located in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040,Section 179-5-020 accessory The applicant proposes the shed to be I ft.from the property line where a 10 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.Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project is within I ft.of the adjoining property line. 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 may be considered to locate the shed to a compliant location. The shed has been moved recently to allow for a power connection. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial. Relief requested is 9 ft. 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 maybe considered to have minimal impact. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) The applicant requests to maintain 192 sq.ft.shed one foot from the property line. The plans showprevious building permit for the shed with elevations and original location to be 12 ft.from the property line in 2006. The applicant was granted a survey waiver and as a condition may need to provide an as built survey of the shed location." MR. MC CABE-So,do you have anything to add? I mean it's pretty straightforward. MR.THOMAS-Yes,it is. The only reason basically I'm doing this is that there was a house built next door and there were trees and when you speak about the 2006 survey, where it was, that was all wrong and that's why some property lines changed,okay. The shed was on,where the lines were,there were survey stakes at that time. The surveyors had made big mistakes, going back to 1998, and then in 2006 again because they put driveways in wrong places and things of that nature,but the trees were taken down,also on my property. So there's no buffer also along that side. I have cameras shining right into my house and into bathrooms of the house and everything else from the next door neighbors, and power has been taken out from when they started building. That's the reason I had to move it away to where it is right now. I can move it to the one foot part because I had to wait nine months for them to allow me to put the power back in my house. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-It sounds kind of confusing. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has 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 provide input on this particular application? Seeing none,I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Sorry,there are written comments. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. MRS.MOORE-I'm going to pinch hit here because the individual that prepared letters is ill and I'll explain that information on her behalf. This is she was planning on attending and she has attached photos of the shed to discuss at 23 Highpoint and she had understood I would be able to display them. So I can show them to you. It's larger than 120 square feet. Required building permit is to be 10 feet from the property line. The shed currently is 160 square feet sitting only 5 feet from the property line. And the stake indicates that. She's concerned with the character of the neighborhood and noting that it's an eyesore. What I also have is a letter from her husband. This is"Hi,Laura,I realize that you and Diane have spoken regarding the shed variance for 23 Highpoint Drive. Unfortunately, Diane is under the weather and has been hospitalized for the flu and is unable to attend the 11/30/2022 meeting. I am out-of-town on business and also cannot attend. I realize that Diane has provided detailed photos to depict the poor condition of the shed which is located less than the required 10 feet from the property line. At some point during the summer, Russell Thomas was performing electrical work which required movement of the shed. At one point,the shed was moved to a distance of more than 10 feet from the property line,but it subsequently moved back to its current location. I recognize that Russell has lived at 23 Highpointe for many years but this does not relinquish him or anyone else, from following the code requirements set forth by the Town of Queensbury,NY. If he is granted a variance for this shed,what is the point of having codes for everyone else in Queensbury to follow? I am not sure what makes him so special. Please consider this email our request to have the variance declined. Thank you so much for your time and consideration with this ongoing issue." This is Michael Pobok&Diane Barbera" MR. MC CABE-That's it? MRS. MOORE-That's it. Yes. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to make any comments on the comments that they made? MR. THOMAS-Only that,like I said,with the trees. I spoke with Craig Brown back when we did this in July. He said that the Town approved it. They could take down the trees on my personal property,which was the buffer also on the maps of the original subdivision of 1993. It actually shows that there's supposed to be trees all along the property lines there, and they're all taken down. They were taken down on my property and on theirs and there's no tree buffer as you can see. MR. MC CABE-So is your point that the shed is basically. MR.THOMAS-I'll fix up the shed. I'll do whatever I have to do. I'm not going to leave it an eyesore. They didn't show you the rest of the property,but. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MR. MC CABE-But that's the purpose of it,in the location that it's in,so that it provides a buffer. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and there was also a letter written to Mr. Brown in July regarding the conversation that we had about this that I would even take away the shed if they would put back the trees. Okay, and it's all,I believe,I'm sorry,her name? She has a copy of it. MRS. MOORE-Of the letter? MR. THOMAS-Of the letter. MRS. MOORE-I don't have it with this application,if that's what you're wondering. MR. THOMAS-It was supposed to be with that,because I had spoken to Craig Brown about it. MR.HENKEL-So you're saying the neighbors took down your trees? Who took the trees down that you're talking about? MR. THOMAS-The neighbor,yes,they're part of it,yes. MR.HENKEL-Who took the trees down on your property? MR. THOMAS Joe Leuci who built it. MR.HENKEL-But that has nothing to do with the other people. MR. THOMAS-Well,they own the property. MR. HENKEL-It sounds like you've moved the shed quite a few times. Why can't you put it back to 10 foot? MR. THOMAS-Because it would be into my driveway at that spot. MR.HENKEL-In that spot,but you could move it towards Birdsall. MR. THOMAS-No,I cannot. MR.HENKEL-Why not? MR. THOMAS-Because of the stuff that's in the back there,in the underground. MR.HENKEL-What do you mean the underground? Because I drove up that road,up your driveway. Are you saying? MR. THOMAS-I just had to have, because of them I had to have a whole new complete underground sprinkler system replaced and there's heads all right there,where that would be. MR.HENKEL-It looks like there's some property there that you could put that actually on the driveway a little bit there and it wouldn't cause any problem. MR. THOMAS-Well it's right where the sprinkler heads and everything else are. MR.HENKEL-In the driveway? MR. THOMAS-Right next to the driveway. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Well I'm just saying you could place that in that little section of the driveway. Right? MR. THOMAS-It would block off my driveway from turning around at the garage. MR.HENKEL-Well,I went up. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MR.URRICO-I'm going to go,but I'm going to say no,because I think there's room to move this shed back at least somewhat,and I have not heard a good reason why it needs to be one foot off the property line. So I'm going to say no. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR.CIPPERLY-I tend to agree. This isn't like a thing that's glued to the ground. It's moveable so it seems reasonable to move it to a location where it meets the Code. MR. MC CABE-So you're contention is it can't because it would be in your driveway? MR. THOMAS-That and I just spent an enormous amount of money having my yard re-done because of the power being torn out by them,the sprinkler system being torn out,all underground lighting that I had all down through there. Plus I've got no buffer. MR. HENKEL-I don't understand why you're saying that they tore it up. Why would they tear out the stuff? MR. THOMAS-Because if you go back to that map. MR.HENKEL-I rode up the driveway and I don't see why there's any reason. MR. THOMAS-Okay. If you go back to that original map,if you go back down,you see where my shed was,okay. Now you can see right there,they had a driveway coming out,okay,right next to my shed. All right,now,comedown this way. See that line where it says the 143.55. MRS. MOORE-I know,but the driveway no longer does that. MR. THOMAS-But they tore it all out. That's what I`m saying. When the Town approved them to give them permission to go across private property,outside the easement. MR.HENKEL-There was an easement granted. MR. THOMAS-No,there was not. MRS. MOORE-There was, according to our records. Maybe not to your understanding. MR. THOMAS-There is no easement from that line right there,from the 143.55,that's my shed. MRS. MOORE-That's actually a whole separate issue. I will mention that the shed,you re-located it at one point so that it was for your electrical, and I was to mention that it has been already moved at least once. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-I'm still sitting on the fence on this one. I think taking down the vegetation is what precipitated this whole episode here. I think I would agree with you 1000/o on that one. I think due to the fact that there's no vegetation,the neighbors next door are the ones who created the situation. MRS. MOORE-They're not necessarily required to maintain vegetation. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know you're not. MRS. MOORE-So, again,both sites have that opportunity to maintain vegetation on their site. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I mean there's an opportunity to put up new vegetation, an arborvitae hedge or something like that to mitigate the circumstances here in this situation. I don't think that the shed,you know,a lot of people put sheds on the edge of their property. I don't think it's an eyesore either. So I would vote to grant the relief. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I think that one foot buffer is a little too narrow. Although I think vegetation would help the situation. So I think at this point I would say no. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I agree that the neighbors probably should have some vegetation there to shut off the looks 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) of the shed, but there's no reason why the shed, he's got plenty of property there, and I think it should comply. I think it definitely should be 10 feet from the line. MR.MC CABE-And one foot from the line is a bit much. That kind of puts us at a disadvantage,allowing you only to be one foot off the property line,particularly,like you say,there's been a number of problems with surveys in that area. So I'm going to have to vote no also. So the situation is this. You don't have enough votes for the project to go ahead. So you can callus to do a vote,but it's not going to go well. Or you can ask us to table this application. You can take another look at how you might get the shed a little further away from the property line. So it's basically up to you here. MR. THOMAS-I'll take the tabling. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So can we get a motion? MR.HENKEL-When are we going to table it to? MRS. MOORE-So you could table it to the first meeting in January with information due by December ISth MR.HENKEL-Okay. So we're going to do January 18th. Okay. MR. CIPPERLY-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a quick question? Would we feel better if the shed were moved back,say,five or six feet and some vegetation were planted along the line? MR.HENKEL-Well,we can't ask the neighbors to do that. MR. CIPPERLY-No,if he moved it back,he would have some place to put some vegetation. MR. THOMAS-I kind of agree with what he's saying. I would like proper vegetation,if they would put it back to where it's supposed to be according to the 1993 map. If you look at the 1993 maps,okay. I have it right here if you'd like to see it. MR.HENKEL-That doesn't say that they have to keep that. MR. THOMAS-It says that they,it says on the map that it's a no cut zone, okay. MR. MC CABE-But I think that there is another issue here,right? MRS. MOORE-That's probably a whole different issue. MR. THOMAS-Yes,there is. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Thomas. Applicant requests to maintain 192 sq.ft.shed in current location. The existing home of 2,717 sq. ft.with porches to remain with no changes. The shed received a permit in 2006 for location different than current location. Relief is requested for setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2022 RUSSELL THOMAS, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the January 18th, 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information due by December 15th,2022. Duly adopted this 30th day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-We'll see you in January. MR. THOMAS-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 58-2022,Cynthia Arberger,26 Pine Street. AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II CYNTHIA ARBERGER AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN&z STEVES OWNER(S) CYNTHIA ARBERGER ZONING NR LOCATION 26 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) PINE ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 312 SQ.FT.DETACHED GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,002 SQ. FT. WITH PORCH/DECK AREAS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE EXISTING SHED IS ALSO TO REMAIN. GARAGE WILL BE PLACED TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA. THE GARAGE IS TO BE 11 FT. IN HEIGHT AND 12 FT. X 26 FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 103-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-30 SECTION 179-5-020;179-3-040 MATT WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2022, Cynthia Arberger, Meeting Date: November 30, 2022 "Project Location: 26 Pine St. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 312 sq. ft. detached garage. The existing home of 1,002 sq. ft. with porch/deck areas to remain with no changes. The existing shed is also to remain. Garage will be placed to align with the existing driveway area. The garage is to be It ft.in height and 12 ft.x 26 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of a detached garage. The parcel is 0.23 ac and is located in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 NR dimensional,Section 179-5-020-garage The proposed 312 sq. ft. detached garage is to be located 2 ft. from the property line where a 10 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. Minor to no 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 may be considered limited due to the lot size,location of the existing home and existing driveway. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is S ft.from the side yard setback. 6. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes no changes to the existing conditions. 7. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to place a garage on the north side of the property to align with the existing driveway. The survey shows the proposed location of the garage along with plans for the garage structure.,, MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. My name is Matt Webster with Van Dusen&Steves Land Surveyors,here with Ms.Arberger on her behalf,and as you stated,it's relatively straightforward. In this case we feel that the best location for any garage is right at the end of the existing driveway to cover where existing pavement is already. This is a neighborhood where lot lines and buildings are incredibly close as it is. As you can see actually on the neighbor to the north side,their house is just about two feet off their property line. So it shouldn't be too far out of character or anything like that,but if you have any questions,that's what we're here for. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I'm going to ask a question. I know there's Town water there. Is there Town septic,too, or is there a septic tank? CYNTHIA ARBERGER S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MS.ARBERGER-I have my own septic system. MR. HENKEL-You have your own septic. That would be the only problem with this being such a tight property. What happens when you have a septic problem? How are they going to get back there with a truck? MS.ARBERGE R-There will bean area. We've already thought about this. Right there. MR. HENKEL-That would be my problem with a truck or a bulldozer getting back there,because you've only got five feet on one side. MS.ARBERGER-Yes. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none,a public hearing has been advertised. So at this p articular time I'm going to open the public hearing,see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address this particular project. So if you guys would give up the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RUTH FULLING MRS. FULLING-My name is Ruth Fulling. I reside just north of that garage proposed at 24 Pine Street and I have no objections to her putting that garage on that property line. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.HENKEL-So you have no objection to a bulldozer coming through your yard into the back? MRS. FULLING-We have a gate between us. So it should be no problem. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else? So is there anything written,Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes,there's one letter. "My neighbor,Cindy Arberger,lives at 26 Pine St. and is requesting "permission"to put up a garage of a temporary device. I have no issues with this"garage"being erected. In my opinion it is not constrictive of any"view"or bothersome to me. Any further questions or concerns don't hesitate to contact me. Jodie Grenier-Waite 23 Pine St." MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is the only realistically available location for the garage. These subdivision dates back to 1933. So there's not much we can do to change the relationship with that to the rest of the world. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. CIPPERLY-Pretty much the same. We heard from the neighbors. They have no objections. This is the best spot. It's already paved. It's a great place for a garage. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I have to agree. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I've already stated my concerns,and if that's all good with them,I have no problem with it as is. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. The request is actually kind of minor and considering the tightness of the neighborhood,it's not really out of line. So at this particular time, I'm going to ask Dick if he's make a motion here. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cynthia Arberger. Applicant proposes a 312 sq. ft. detached garage. The existing home of 1,002 sq. ft. with porch/deck areas to remain with no changes. The existing shed is also to remain. Garage will be placed to align with the existing driveway area. The garage is to be It ft.in height and 12 ft.x 26 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of a detached garage. The parcel is 0.23 ac and is located in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 NR dimensional,Section 179-5-020-garage The proposed 312 sq. ft. detached garage is to be located 2 ft. from the property line where a 10 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on November 30,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. It's a small lot and there's already a driveway there. 2. Feasible alternatives are really impossible. This is the best spot if you're going to build a garage. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's already on the lot. The neighbors have no objections. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty,like it or not,is self-created because that's their property. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2022 CYNTHIA ARBERGER, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 30th Day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MS.ARBERGER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 61-2022,Nancy Nicholson, 382 Luzerne Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 NANCY NICHOLSON AGENT(S) TERRY BROWN OWNER(S) NANCY NICHOLSON ZONING MDR LOCATION 382 LUZERNE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 576 SQ.FT.SECOND GARAGE ON AN EXISTING 2.1 ACRE PARCEL. THERE ARE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY WITH RESTRICTIONS. THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS TO BE CLOSEST TO THE HOUSE ON THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA FOR BETTER ACCESS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. THE 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) GARAGE IS TO BE 14 FT. IN HEIGHT NOT INSULATED. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,103 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN WITH EXISTING BUILDINGS. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-39.1 SECTION 179-5-020 NANCY NICHOLSON,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2022, Nancy Nicholson, Meeting Date: November 30, 2022 "Project Location: 3S2 Luzerne Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 576 sq. ft. second garage on an existing 2.1 acre parcel. There are existing buildings on the property with restrictions. The proposed garage is to be closest to the house on the existing driveway area for better access during inclement weather. The garage to be 14 ft. in height not insulated. The existing home of 1,103 sq. ft. is to remain with existing buildings. Relief is requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. The parcel is 2.1 ac and is located in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020-garage The applicant proposes a second garage so that it is located closer to the house for herself and aging parent to have safer access. 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 to no 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 may be limited due to orientation of the existing home, the location of the existing garage and the proposed location of the new garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is for a second garage. 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 maybe considered to have minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered to be self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a second garage to assist with access to a garage closer to the house. The applicant has indicated they need a safer means to get to their vehicles as the existing garage presents a problem in the winter when the ground freezes over with ice. The plans show the location of the new garage and the construction of the garage. The applicant was granted a survey waiver with no additional information required." MR. MC CABE-Would you like to add anything? It's pretty straightforward. MS. NICHOLSON-My dad's S9. He's got neuropathy in his legs. It's a long distance to the single car. It was a pole barn to begin with. My family built it for him when he was sick in the hospital back in 1990 I think it was, and we kind of converted it, added siding to it to make it a single car garage,but mostly it's for a lawnmower in the summertime and things like that. So I'd like a two car garage built closer to the house. We get snow and then it melts because it's in the bright sunshine and it freezes over at night and it's constant all winter long. So mostly for safety reasons for my dad. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You also need to state your name. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MS. NICHOLSON-Nancy Nicholson, and this is my brother-in-law, Terry Brown. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-Did you think about connecting that to the house and that would make it a safer garage,if you could walk right from the house into the garage? MS.NICHOLSON-Well,right now my dad is kind of very set in his ways. He built the entranceway there, a little entranceway, and I know he really likes things the way they are, so it's going to still be a couple of feet off of that,a foot or two off of that. TERRY BROWN MR. BROWN-The new garage will be 16 feet off the existing structure whereas the little small entryway on the side of the house probably sticks out eight feet and probably is up to six feet wide. MR.HENKEL-You don't want to connect those? Wouldn't that be a better idea? MR.BROWN-Well,like she said,in order to do it,it wouldn't be done in the near future because he would not be in favor. Even though it would be better. MR.HENKEL-I think that would be a better project,but whatever. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.BROWN-There's going to be a door on the garage that lines right up with the entranceway to it. MS. NICHOLSON-It's only going to be a couple of feet versus one hundred feet or something like that. MR.HENKEL-Your family has had that property from way back. MS. NICHOLSON-Yes,we have. It goes along with the neighborhood well. I mean, our neighbors have been there a long time. MR.BROWN-And I own the five acres just to the west of it. MR.HENKEL-Your son was a teacher? MR.BROWN-Yes. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none,a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to provide information on this particular application? Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Normally a second garage for me would be immediately not considered,but I think in this situation,it probably warrants it. I think the existing garage is really more or less a shed,even though it's big enough to be a garage. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-It's two acres of land. This family's owned this property for many, many years and I understand what they're trying to do and it makes sense to me. I'd be fully on board. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a defined need. I think there's no problem with it. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-The same. It seems like a real commonsense approach. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I would agree. MR.MC CABE-And like Roy I would normally reject this application. A second garage on only two acres is a bit much, but in this particular situation it seems like it makes sense and it's certainly not out of character for the neighborhood. So given that,Jim,I wonder if you could make us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Nancy Nicholson. Applicant proposes a 576 sq.ft.second garage on an existing 2.1 acre parcel. There are existing buildings on the property with restrictions. The proposed garage is to be closest to the house on the existing driveway area for better access during inclement weather. The garage to be 14 ft. in height not insulated. The existing home of 1,103 sq. ft. is to remain with existing buildings. Relief is requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. The parcel is 2.1 ac and is located in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020-garage The applicant proposes a second garage so that it is located closer to the house for herself and aging parent to have safer access. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on November 30,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. Almost everybody else has a garage in the area and this will increase the safety margins for the family that lives there. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but they're not reasonable at this point. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Even though it's a second garage,the original garage is more of a shed. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want a second garage. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2022 NANCY NICHOLSON, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 30th Day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.BROWN-I have one question. If in the future,like her father's old now. If she wanted to,like in five or ten years, when her father's passed away, if she wanted to attach it to the house, would there be any problem with doing that like you suggested? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR.BROWN-I agree with you it's probably the right thing to do,but he wouldn't be in favor right now. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So the next application is AV 62-2022,David&Penny Kovacs,20 Fox Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.62-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID&z PENNY KOVACS OWNER(S) DAVID &z PENNY KOVACS ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 20 FOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 315 SQ.FT.DECK TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,500 SQ. FT. REMAINS AND NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT'S HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2006 AND THE AS-BUILT SURVEY WAS PROVIDED. THE LOT IS LOCATED IN AN APPROVED 1970 SUBDIVISION(SUB 1-1970). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-52 SECTION 179-4-080 DAVID&PENNY KOVACS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 62-2022, David&Penny Kovacs, Meeting Date: November 30,2022 "Project Location: 20 Fox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 315 sq. ft. deck to an existing home. The existing home of 2,500 sq. ft. remains and no changes are proposed. The applicant's home was constructed in 2006 and the as-built survey was provided. The lot is located in an approved 1970 subdivision(SUB 1-1970). Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to construct a deck on the rear of the home. The parcel is 0AS ac in the MDR zone. Section 179-4-OSO deck The 315 sq.ft. deck is to be located S.3S ft.from the rear property line where a 30 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. Minor to no 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 existing house location where the house does not meet the required setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is 21.62 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated that a deck had been constructed previously that deteriorated and has been removed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicants propose a 315 sq.ft. deck to the rear of the house. The plans show the location of the deck. The applicant was not aware of the setbacks when built and has all materials for the new deck stacked. The as-built indicates the setbacks were not identified in 2006 as being an issue. The applicant was granted a survey waiver with no additional requirements." 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add? MR. KOVAC-No, I'm David and my wife Penny Kovacs. We built this house in 2006, as I stated in the letter. At the time we were living in New Jersey and it was quite some time before we were able to move into the house. So we would come up on weekends and we would contract with people that we needed to do the work,mainly putting in a fence and then building this deck. The fella that built the deck assured us that he would seek all the permits,whatever was necessary. Of course we came up on weekends while the house was,looking it over, and there was a deck on the house and not knowing the requirement of a permit at the time,we had never built a house before. This was our first stab at this. So this is basically what happened. This Adirondack Fence installed, they installed the fence. We have a dog that was somewhat of a wild child. So out of respect for our neighbors we didn't want him going all over the neighborhood and we had the deck built by him also. We've taken the deck down. It was never to our liking and even our current builder who would built the deck if approved, even laughed when he saw it. He thought maybe this guy bought the materials at a closeout, but anyway, that's where we're at. The deck is gone. All we have is just a makeshift staircase to get down right now. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So the deck's going to be what size? That's the existing deck that was there before is a 12 by 25? Is that what? MR.KOVACS-No,the deck that was there was less than 10 feet square,10 by 10 approximately. MRS. KOVACS-And we're building the new deck going out the length of the house. It's not going back further to the property line. MR.HENKEL-And what's the size again? MR.KOVACS-Three hundred and fifteen square feet. It actually projects out 12 and a half feet according to the plans that were supplied,and the overall gain is going to be in the length rather than the projection outward from the house. MR.HENKEL-Okay,so you saying it's supposed to be 14.6 wide by 25? MR.KOVACS-It'll be 25 feet long but 12 and a half feet out from the house. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'd like to open the public hearing and seek input from the audience. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one letter. "In regards to the below request for a variance to build a larger deck in their backyard, we approve. We have no objections as their neighbor. sharing a property line, to the request below. We support their request to build their deck." And that's Peter and Lorraine Lewin, 12 Fox Road" 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 Bob. MR.KEENAN-I have no problems. It sounds like it will be in the footprint of the old deck. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I guess it is the way it is. The house got put there in 2006. Somebody built a small deck on the back and you're actually just enlarging on that footprint somewhat,and it's not far to the back and the neighbors to the back haven't taken the opportunity to object to it,I have no objections to this. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The new replacement will be much more to your liking so I'm all for it. MR. MC CABE John? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt it's a tough lot, especially the way the house was built that close to the property line in the back,and if the neighbors in the back don't have any problem with it,I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the application. It's actually a pretty easy request here. So given that, I'm going to make a motion that we approve. I'm going to point out that the Draft provided by Staff has a slight error. It says that the application was received from Nancy Nicholson. It was actually received from David&Penny Kovacs. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David&z Penny Kovacs. Applicant proposes construction of a 315 sq. ft. deck to an existing home. The existing home of 2,500 sq.ft.remains and no changes are proposed. The applicant's home was constructed in 2006 and the as-built survey was provided. The lot is located in an approved 1970 subdivision (SUB 1-1970). Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to construct a deck on the rear of the home. The parcel is 0AS ac in the MDR zone. Section 179-4-OSO deck The 315 sq.ft. deck is to be located S.3S ft.from the rear property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on November 30,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the new deck will certainly be an improvement upon the old deck that was there. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not really possible. They won't meet the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because essentially,it's replacing a deck that was there. There's not much that's new. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because it's a replacement deck. 5. The alleged difficulty I guess is considered self-created because we could just have no deck at all. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2022 DAVID &z PENNY KOVACS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 30th Day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.KOVACS-I have a question. Being this is our first time around,we've never gone through this process. This will be the first house we've ever built. MR. MC CABE-Well it wasn't a hard project. MR.KOVACS-No,it wasn't,and I appreciate your consideration,but what's the next step? I mean,can I go ahead and notify my builder? MR. MC CABE-You'll talk to Laura there and she'll explain everything. MR.KOVACS-Great. MRS. MOORE-So we'll chat tomorrow. MR.KOVACS-Okay. Wonderful. MRS.KOVACS-Thankyou. MR.KOVACS-Thankyou,gentlemen. MR. MC CABE-So to the two students,our Ward here is one of three Wards that's concerned with Area uses in the community. Just for your information,everybody that comes here is looking to break the law. So they aren't pure of heart, but the configurers of the law realized that they couldn't create a law that would fit every situation, and so they allow for us to make variances depending on how it fits the neighborhood. So we've got a couple of things we have to take care of tonight. So first of all. MOTION TO APPOINT ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2023, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 30th day of November 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt MOTION TO APPOINT JIM UNDERWOOD FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2023, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mr. Urrico: Duly adopted this 30th day of November 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt MR.MC CABE-So just for the new people,our Board appoints the Vice Chairman and the Secretary. The Town Board appoints me. So I don't get to appoint myself. So I think the only one of us that has to be appointed again is Dick because you're taking somebody's place. So in early January you'll get a letter from the Town Clerk saying you've got to come in and sign your oath. You've got to do that before our first meeting. So then also Laura has a couple of words to say here. MRS. MOORE-So it's not much. I have a training set up December 15`h with Mark Schachner to go over some Zoning Board items, two items, and one is the precedence issue and then another is in regards to motions when they're made in regards to what is considered a denial ultimately,and then I have two items that the Planning Board asked for. So Mark's going to go over those on December 15`h from 5:00 p.m. to 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2022) 6:30 p.m. So you're invited to attend. I'll put a reminder notice in your packets that you can come sit in on December 15`h from 5:00 p.m.to 6:30 p.m.,and I know John said he might be there. MR.HENKEL-I'll try. MR. MC CABE-So with that I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30TH 2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 30`h day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 18