Loading...
07-26-2017 Z[3 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2017 INDEX Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2017 Chris Carte (Cont'd Pg. 12) 1. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-5 Area Variance Z-AV-46-2017 Robert Bolen, IV 1. Tax Map No. 266.1-2-22 Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017 Frank & Isobel Munoff 5. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-32 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING I Z[3 JULY 26, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everybody. I'd like to bring the meeting to order of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for this evening, July 26th. For those of you who haven't been here in the past there is an agenda on the back table. There's also a sheet that kind of explains what we do but I'll give you a rundown. So first we handle housekeeping. Then we handle tonight's matters. We only have New Business. We have an Appeal case in front of us at the end of the meeting. So we'll call the applicants or the appellants up to the table. We'll have Roy read the application or the letters into the record. The Board will ask questions if necessary. We will open a public hearing when a public hearing is scheduled, and every one of these items on the agenda this evening has a public hearing scheduled. We'll poll the Board and decide where we're leaning, and then ask the applicant what they want us to do accordingly. So it's actually a pretty straightforward process. So we don't have any housekeeping this evening, which is just great. So we'll start right off with Chris Carte, 1067 State Route 9, Sign Variance Number SV-7-2017. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CHRIS CARTE ZONING CI LOCATION 1067 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN STRUCTURE FOR THE WOOD CARTE TOO AT 27 SQ. FT. EXISTING SIGN DOES NOT MEET 15 FT. SETBACK REQUIREMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR SUCH SIGN. CROSS REF P-SP-25-2017; Z-AV-24-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2017 LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-5 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MRS. MOORE-He's not here. MR. JACKOSKI-He's not here. MRS. MOORE-1 apologize. MR. JACKOSKI-Really? All right. We'll hold off on Chris. We'll go to the Bolens. How about that? Robert Bolen and his wife at 224 Pickle Hill Road. Area Variance Number Z-AV-46- 2017, a Type 11 SEAR. There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-46-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT BOLEN, IV OWNER(S) ROBERT BOLEN, IV ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 224 PICKLE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-STORY 900 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ONTO EXISTING 1,008 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-5A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.92 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-22 SECTION 179-3-040 ROBERT & CARLY BOLEN, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Z[3 Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-46-2017, Robert Bolen, IV, Meeting Date: July 26, 2017 "Project Location: 224 Pickle Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2-story 900 sq. ft. residential addition onto existing 1,008 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-5A zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Rural Residential (RR- 5A) zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements RR-5A zone The proposed addition is to be located 64.5 ft. from the south property line and 97.8 ft. from the north property line where 100 ft. is required. The setback on the east property line is to be 61.8 ft. where the setback requirement is 75 ft. 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. The addition is an existing open area used as a portion of the driveway. 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 size of the lot in the RR-5A zone where new construction may be subject to a variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for 35.5 ft. on the south, 2.2 ft. on the north and 13.2 ft. on the east. 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 impact to 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. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 900 sq. ft. addition to the east side of the home. The survey shows the addition over the exiting driveway area. The floor plans show garage and at the lower level and main level interior arrangement. The elevations are included showing all sides of the addition." MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. BOLEN-Good evening. My name is Robert Bolen. MRS. BOLEN-And I'm Carly Bolen. MR. JACKOSKI-So I think quite frankly we'll just have Board members ask questions, if that's okay with you. MR. BOLEN-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions at this time on this application? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. It says you don't know where the septic tank is. Right? But with this expansion, is there a need for more? 13 Z[3 MR. BOLEN-When we bought the house we took out a bedroom to add a dining room. It's a small house. So what we're doing is adding that bedroom back. So according to what we've been told now it's turning back into a three bedroom. It should be adequate. I think down the road it's probably something that we're going to replace and upgrade anyway because I don't know who did it. MR. HENKEL-What's the year of the original? MR. BOLEN-78. It hasn't bothered us, two people. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this particular application? I do have someone. So if you could give up the table for just a second. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL DAVIDSON Good evening. I'm Paul Davidson. I'm the property owner to the east of the Bolens, and I'd like to support their application for the variance. It's nice to see them investing money in the property there, and they're in a situation where the lot was small when the house was put on it and there's really no answer except to give them a little bit of a break on the setbacks. So thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir, I appreciate your time. Is there anyone else here who'd like to address the Board? Okay. If the Bolens could come back to the table. Is there any written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and no additional public comment, I'm going to poll the Board just to see where they're leaning on this. I'll start with Jim Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that the action required on this one here is a result of the five acre zoning, and obviously when you're on a .92 acre lot there's no way you're ever going to meet a request, and I think the five acre zoning came in long after this lot was created. So I don't think it's a self-created problem that you've got here, and I don't think you're having any impact on anybody, including yourself or your near neighbor who's already signed off that he doesn't think it's a big deal either. So good luck with it. MR. BOLEN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it meets the minimum requirements and again, as Jim said, with the five acre. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I think it's a great plan and a lot of thought apparently went into this in how you used the square footage. You're only going to 1900 square feet. So I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I believe it satisfies the test. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think it'll improve the looks of the dwelling and I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, he's only encroaching like 1.9 feet on the existing home of relief. So it's a good request. No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. r41 Z[3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert Bolen, IV. Applicant proposes construction of a 2-story 900 sq. ft. residential addition onto existing 1,008 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-5A zoning district. The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Rural Residential (RR- 5A) zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements RR-5A zone The proposed addition is to be located 64.5 ft. from the south property line and 97.8 from the north property line where a 100 ft. and is required. The setback on the east property line is to be 61.8 ft. where the setback requirement is 75 ft. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 26, 2017; 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 because the applicant will improve the looks of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not possible at this particular time. 3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, really isn't considering the size of the lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty, although it seems self-created, really was not. It was created when the house was built before the current zoning regulations. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-46-2017 ROBERT BOLEN, IV, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. MR. BOLEN-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, so the Carte application didn't show up? MRS. MOORE-You're going to hold off? Yes, I left him a message and I texted him. So I'm hoping, and I tried to call the building and they're closed. 5 Z[3 MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll go on to Old Business, then. Possibly the last item for this evening's agenda. It is the Appeal of Frank & Isobel Munoff on the Hal & Lyn Halliday property at 2599 State Route 9L. It is Notice of Appeal Number Z-NOA-2-2017. This is a carryover from last Wednesday's meeting on July 19th. If the Munoff's could come to the table for us we'd appreciate that. OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL Z-NOA-2-2017 SEQRA TYPE N/A FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF, APPELLANT OWNER(S) HAROLD AND LYN HALLIDAY, PROPERTY OWNER ZONING WR LOCATION 2599 STATE ROUTE 9L, PROPERTY OWNER: HAROLD & LYN HALLIDAY APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT (OUR FILE NUMBER: AST 148-2017 HAROLD HALLIDAY ISSUED ON APRIL 13, 2017) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,600 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BUILDING. CROSS REF NOA 1-2017 MUNOFF RE: HALLIDAY PARCEL: SUP 1-2017; SP 2-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-32 SECTION N/A FRANK MUNOFF, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And I believe the way we left this was we were going to determine the status of the building permit as it relates to its signature with counsel, and I have an update for the Board at this time. Unfortunately, in order to seek legal counsel, special legal counsel, on this matter because of the potential conflict of interest that the Town legal counsel had when they recused themselves„ and the applicant, sorry, the property owner's legal counsel being that conflict, we need a special resolution from our Board to request the Town Board to hire a new law firm in order to get legal counsel. So unfortunately we had to convene in order to do that kind of a motion to request special legal counsel to get an opinion on the matter at hand. Since that time, I should also notify the Board, that the Halliday family, I believe that's correct, Mr. Halliday went in and actually signed the building permit application. So at this point I think the signed application part is a non-issue. I mean, I can't imagine any court at this point would tell us that we have to accept the Appeal based on that when the property owner has actually filed it. So it would bring us back to the original merits of the original Appeal as to whether or not procedurally and administratively our Staff did something inappropriate or not in keeping with the process and procedure that would warrant the granting of the Appeal. So having said all that, Mr. Munoff, I think I've gotten across to everybody what's going on. Ron, you weren't here, but Michelle was. So that's good. I think what I'd like to do at this time, unless Mr. Munoff would like to add anything at this time, and you can certainly feel free to. MR. MUNOFF-Yes. I would like to know, One, when Mr. Halliday came here and printed his signature. Two, was it done over the phone? Listen, my intelligence is insulted with the help that Mr. Halliday has had from members of the Queensbury government here. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Munoff, I'm going to stop you right now. If you're insinuating that I or anyone on this Board has. MR. MUNOFF-No, not at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Well you said the government. MR. MUNOFF-Excuse me. This application, I think I deserve the right to know how this got signed, other than Mr. Halliday was in Town. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I will find that out for you. MR. MUNOFF-I think that's an ethical question. MR. JACKOSKI-I have no problem doing that. I will find that out for you. MR. MUNOFF-Thank you. Thank you. It didn't surprise me that it was going to be signed, that I was going to come here, and I know I'm fighting City Hall, and if you did consult a lawyer, I would really appreciate if someone on this Board would consult a lawyer about the Codes that are not being followed and haven't been followed from the beginning. I know it's an old, old thing and I keep raising it up and raising it up, but to me the truth really does mean something, ladies and gentlemen. The truth means something. Why do you start an application with a lie? Why do you start? Just tell me. I don't care if you've got 10 people living there. Put the number of bathrooms you have and the number of residents you have in your building, write it down and be honest and fair. That's all I'm saying, and as of right now Mr. Halliday, sometimes Z[3 it says single family, sometimes it says two family. Sometimes it says 1.62 acres. Sometimes it says 1.66 acres. It's a joke the way this thing has all been gone through without Mr. Halliday's help. He has lawyers. He has architects. I have no one, and I'm going to tell you something, it has not been a fair process on both sides. That's all I have to say. There's not much I can say. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time I'm going to turn to Mr. Brown and try to get an answer to the questions that you posed to the Board, questions regarding Mr. Brown or Staff because certainly Staff is more involved in the day to day running's of the front window than Mr. Brown. Can someone there help me understand how the application got signed? MR. BROWN-Yes. Actually, as fate would have it, I happened to be at the Building Code window when Mr. Halliday came in on Monday, I think, the 24tH MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Halliday actually showed up here in the Town of Queensbury building and actually was at the window and you actually watched him sign the application? MR. BROWN-That's correct. MR. MUNOFF-He couldn't have watched it being signed because it wasn't signed. MR. BROWN-Monday of this week he came in and signed the application. MR. MUNOFF-I don't think that's what you're asking. That isn't what I was asking. MR. JACKOSKI-What are you asking? MR. MUNOFF-I was asking about the original application that was not signed. MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you about that, Mr. Munoff. I don't think at this point anybody even has a recollection of when, who dropped it off. MR. MUNOFF-I think it was done over the phone with help. I think I have a right to ask that question. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately I don't think it has anything to do with the ruling that this Board has got to make. Whether the application was done over the phone, what part are you saying was done over the phone? MR. MUNOFF-My question was, did Mr. Halliday come and fill that out, or did Mr. Halliday have help with this application. I don't think that's an unfair question. I really don't. MS. HEMINGWAY-Do you want me to answer it? I'm Staff in Building and Codes and Zoning. I personally received Mr. Halliday's application on April 7, 2017. We were talking and I was putting information into the computer. I saw his name printed on the bottom. I neglected, by mistake, to get the actual signature. It's just a clerical error. I own the error. I did it, but I took his application in and it went through processing as usual, and I received his fee for his application and it continued on its review as I normally conduct business day to day. MR. MUNOFF-I appreciate your answer. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Sue, do you believe that Mr. Halliday's intent was to actually formally file for a building permit? MS. HEMINGWAY-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-And he did pay his fee? MS. HEMINGWAY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And he did go upstairs and then you got a receipt from upstairs that he paid? MS. HEMINGWAY-That's correct. Our computers are connected. We know right away immediately when payment is made. The Clerk's Office computer is connected to our software program and it comes up paid in full. MR. MUNOFF-I believe you. And thank you. .7 Z[3 MS. H E M I N GWAY-An d I've worked for the Town for 31 years. MR. MUNOFF-No, I believe you, but I deserve an answer and I got it and I appreciate it. MS. HEMINGWAY-And he signed it on July 24th, 2017 on Monday, with an actual signature. His handwritten print is April 7th, 2017. MR. MUNOFF-May I say one more thing? So that gets me back to the point that I do not think this accessory building is legal. I was not appealing the Special Use Permit. An accessory building has to meet certain criteria, and I've gone everywhere from the Attorney General to Adirondack, APA and they all say the same thing, yes, those are the Codes, yes, they must be met. We can't make Queensbury enforce them. You all know the rules for an accessory building. You all know the rules. Just think about this. You have a 1.66, .62, whatever it is, you have a three family house and hopefully tonight maybe Mr. Halliday will admit I have a three family house, and I have nothing against, Mr. Halliday's tenants are great tenants. The Hallidays are fine, but I want the truth to be known. You have 1.62 acres. You have a three family house, and you're going to build a 3600 square foot building on it. There's no, that's never been done in Queensbury. Never been done. I know people that are trying to get accessory buildings and what they have to go through. So all I'm saying, there's been a channel here. There's been help here. It's really going to set a precedent, and I expect the building will get up eventually with the help that Mr. Halliday has, but I'm going to make it known how it got up. That I will tell you. That's all I can say. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Mr. Munoff, may I ask, I think you alluded to the fact that you've spoken with the APA and the AG. MR. MUNOFF-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And each of those offices opined that the Town of Queensbury is not enforcing their Code? MR. MUNOFF-About each unit representing, yes, yes, about the number of units in a house being each unit, it's in your Codes. I read it here the last time, and as far as misrepresentation on the application, I mean if you read the Queensbury Code it says that, and it's all falling on deaf ears, any of the Codes that I bring up. The building can't be bigger than the primary use. The primary use is a residence. You can't build, under your Codes, you can't build a 3600 square foot building bigger than the residence. You've got to have five acres, I believe it's five acres, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Brown will correct me. It's got to be five acres before you can have a building over 1100 square feet. I mean, you can go on and on with your Codes. MR. JACKOSKI-The Code isn't the law. The Code is a generic guideline for easy submission of an application to be approved rapidly. Where if there is an opportunity for the building to be larger or smaller or whatever the deal is against the Code, then Mr. Brown issues his letter of denial and it comes in front of this Board and this Board has the power to grant that relief. MR. MUNOFF-And I understand that, but under your Codes he would need a variance to build a building that big. I wouldn't have any problems if he went for a variance, but at the same time, with a building of this size it has to meet the criteria of your Codes, and the fact that it was done back in April, and with the meetings I had with Mr. Brown, this is what concerns me. It was a sneak attack. I asked him what was the next move, and he said the next move was we were going to wait to see what Mr. Halliday does after the decision with the Lake George Park Commission. Well after the decision of the Lake George Park Commission it was within two days. I know there's rebar there. I know the footings are all done, and Mr. Brown said let me go look in my records, and he came out of his office and he told my wife and I, and I apologize for her not being here. She's on vacation. He came out and he said, no, his application was not contingent upon the Lake George Park Commission approval. It was not. So that concerned me. Last meeting, last week Mr. Brown said just the opposite. So now I'm very confused. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Brown, from what I recall, communicated to us that it was not contingent. MR. MUNOFF-No, not at the last meeting. I can even check your notes. I think he said it was contingent. MR. JACKOSKI-Does anybody here remember if it was contingent? Because I left here believing that it was not contingent and that they could go ahead at their own risk and expense and do whatever they want to do. 8 Z[3 MR. MUNOFF-Then why was it stopped? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't believe it was stopped. I believe Mr. Halliday volunteered to stop it. Number Two, I do believe you said that the Park Commission decided. They had a decision and within two days of the decision. It was not a decision. MR. MUNOFF-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-It was a Notice of Intent to possibly deny and that gives, that opens up a whole process for the property owner. So there was not a decision. MR. MUNOFF-And the reason he did that is because he already had the April application. Listen, in his back pocket, which I knew nothing about, and I feel that was very unfair advantage to me. Sitting down, talking to Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown and Mr. Halliday knowing we've got this April accessory building and I have to go spend six hours going through the files to find it. I just think that's a very unfair advantage and I think if you're going to be a public servant and you're going to serve the people, I think you should be equitable on both sides. That's all I have to say. MR. JACKOSKI-So Mr. Munoff has said that's all he has to say. Mr. Brown, could I confirm with you, please, that an accessory structure cannot be larger, I think those were the words of Mr. Munoff, than the primary structure? MR. BROWN-That's correct, but that's not what we're talking about with this particular application. MR. JACKOSKI-I know what we're talking about the building permit being issued. It starts in that field. MR. BROWN-Well, I guess we're, and we've been over this. I'm a little frustrated because we've been through it about a dozen times, but the approval that was issued, none of which is on appeal tonight, so I'm hesitant to go into much detail because it's not a topic for this Board to talk about tonight, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's ask the Board. So the point is that the Appeal in front of us is the issuance of a building permit itself based on the Planning Board's approvals, and whether Mr. Brown should have authorized and released whatever it is he does in the process to have the building permit issued. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to clarify that it's not the issuance of the building permit. It's Mr. Brown's portion of that that we're passing judgment on. MR. JACKOSKI-Right because you cannot appeal Dave Hatin's actions. MR. MC CABE-That's right. All we can do is say whether Mr. Brown did what he was supposed to do, which he doesn't, as I understood it, he doesn't issue the building permit. He just is a check mark in the process, and so that's all we're doing is we're verifying that Mr. Brown was indeed to authorized to check mark that particular portion or his portion of the process of issuing a building permit. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. I mean, that's the intent of what the Appellant is trying to accomplish. So at this time I'm going to poll the Board. Knowing that we have a signed application in front of us. I'll start with you, Mike. MR. MC CABE-So I'll start, and so there's been a lot of rhetoric here, and mostly it's been chasing a tail, but, you know, the fact of the matter is that the whole thing here was set up by the Planning Board by issuing a Special Use Permit and under that permit Mr. Brown or the Zoning Administrator looked at the permit, looked at the application to put the building and it met that criteria. So therefore I support the Zoning Administrator's decision. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the primary issue here, and I think where Mr. Munoff is coming from is the issuance of the Special Use Permit and my understanding of the Special Use Permit is that when one is granted there's no notification of the nearest neighbors affected by a Special Use Permit. 9 Z[3 MR. JACKOSKI-That's not true. MR. BROWN-No, that's not true. MR. JACKOSKI-There's a public hearing. MR. BROWN-Yes, there's a public hearing for the issuance of a Special Use Permit, and not to interrupt the poll of the Board but there's a public hearing for the Special Use Permit application, but there's no public notification ever for any building permit. So there's no notice for the building permit part of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-But there is, and I know we're polling the Board and I apologize, but there is, you can come into the Town on a regular basis and get the listing of what building permits have been issued. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that the issue at hand here is whether Craig has done something wrong, and I think Craig has followed regular procedures, as Mike pointed out. At the same time, though, I think that what needs to be clarified here is that, you know, we get into these situations I think because it almost appears like sleight of hand because you know building permits get issued without anybody knowing it in the near neighborhood, and I think that in the past we've dealt with several other issues that have come up, and I think that because people are not notified of major actions, you know, whether it's multiple buildings going up or anything like that, I think that it would make more sense that people, if we see something on the radar screen that appears that's going to be sticking in somebody's craw, I think under normal circumstances I think building permits are issued and I don't think there's any issues, but occasionally we run into situations where it happens, and in this case here I think with this Special Use Permit we got into a situation because of the marina use which was overturned by both the Park Agency and the Park Commission, and at the same time I think that MR. JACKOSKI-It wasn't overturned. They've only issued a notice of intent to possibly deny. They haven't overturned, they haven't done that yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-No I'm just saying on the other site. MR. JACKOSKI-We need to focus on this application in front of us not the whole process and procedure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. At this point in time I don't feel that Craig is responsible, or has been irresponsible in his duties, and I think that because we're still pending the outcome of what this whole thing is going to be when the Lake George Park Commission meets on the 21St I think that we'll have a better idea whether it's going to come back to this Board at that point. So at this point I would support Craig. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Based on the testimony I've heard, I believe Mr. Brown used his due diligence in following through on the process based on the Planning Board decision. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with that. Mr. Brown did nothing wrong. I understand Mr. Munoff's problem but Mr. Brown did nothing wrong? MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 don't think this has a simple answer. I support Craig. I think his role in the process was correctly handled, but I also think that in lieu of actual advice from legal counsel here, I'm not sure if the Appeal refers to Craig or the actual building permit. Now I think that seems to be what the issue is and where is the actual issuance? Is it when the applicant signs for it, pays for it? At what point is it issued? When it gets agreed upon, you know, to give the person a building permit? I think there's enough gray area there to warrant having legal counsel weigh in on this and in lieu of that I'm going to rule in favor of the Appellant. 10 Z[3 MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I feel that the procedures were followed, and based on the procedures that I support the Zoning Administrator in his decision. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point, after polling the Board, and I still know that the public hearing is open, I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the audience who'd like to address this Board at this time, and before I do that, Roy, is there any written comment on this? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So there is no written comment. MR. MUNOFF-May I politely say something in regards to this? I am not appealing Mr. Brown's letter. I think you're missing the point. I'm appealing the accessory building being, I'm not appealing Mr. Brown's actions. I know that Mr. Hatin does the building permits. I'm appealing this application for an accessory structure building that does not meet the Code and the criteria for the Town of Queensbury. The Special Use Permit, yes, that was a marina. Now he doesn't want a marina. He wants a storage area, and I'm appealing an accessory building 3600 square feet does not meet the Town Code. That's what I'm appealing. I'm not appealing Mr. Brown. I'm not appealing what he did. He has to do it because it was signed, and I'm sort of embarrassed that you think I'm just appealing Mr. Brown. I'm appealing the application for an accessory building on 1.62 acres of land. You can't do it in the Town of Queensbury. MR. JACKOSKI-That is an appeal that was heard by this Board in June. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-May I think. MR. JACKOSKI-It was in May, and the Board on that appeal denied the appeal and supported the actions of Craig Brown. Correct? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. MUNOFF-Special Use Permit. I'm not arguing with that. There's no Special Use Permit on this application. MR. JACKOSKI-I cannot change whether you have standing or not. MR. MUNOFF-No, I understand that. MR. JACKOSKI-I cannot change the timelines. In fact, I believe while you continue to suggest that people in the Town of Queensbury have helped Mr. Halliday, I honestly believe that this particular Appeal that is sitting in front of us was written in the way that it was presented Staff actually helped get you in front of us, to be quite honest. So I know you say that there's a lot of help going on and one sided, but quite honestly I'm looking at this thing thinking I can see what you're intent was and I think Staff understood what your intent was and they helped get it in front of us. MR. MUNOFF-A Special Use Permit doesn't exist anymore. You do not have that with this building. And now he doesn't want a marina anymore. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Munoff do you understand I can't allow this Board to rule on anything that's not in front of me. What's in front of me is your letter and your Appeal with your wife regarding the issuance of the building permit. MR. MUNOFF-And the Town Codes don't have to be followed. MR. JACKOSKI-I didn't say that. MR. MUNOFF-Okay. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So I did leave the public hearing open. I don't know if anybody in the public would like to speak. I would like to go to a vote, but it's up to the property owner if you'd like to speak or not. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Property owner. I"'I Z[3 MR. JACKOSKI-Sure, please come forward. JIM SCHOONOVER MR. SCHOONOVER-Jim Schoonover. I own the property directly across from Hal. I also own the land between Frank and Hal. So Frank cannot even see the building. MR. JACKOSKI-I did look, Mr. Schoonover. I think, especially in the wintertime, you will be able to see it. I really do think you can. MR. SCHOONOVER-You can hardly see his lights at night. MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate that. I understand what you're saying and I know where the Munoff home is located and I know where the Hallidays have cleared the property and I drive by it every single day. So I don't know that it's necessarily accurate that they won't be able to see it at all. I do think that they're going to be able to see it. I agree it's not. MR. SCHOONOVER-In the wintertime they may be able to see a building there. MR. JACKOSKI-It's not going to be the North Queensbury Firehouse sitting right out on the road. I get that. I understand. MR. SCHOONOVER-Okay. Just so you know. I do own the land between Frank and Hal. So he does not own the property next door to him. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate it. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? JIM LETTIS MR. LETTIS-My name's Jim Lettis. I live at 2586 Ridge, directly across from Castaway Marina storage building, their proposed building, which I have no problem with. Two doors down on the same side are the Hallidays. Now I have a great view of both their front yard and backyard, and I don't have any problem with their proposed building. I don't see why anybody else would. You probably won't even be able to see it. That's all. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate it. Thank you. I do have someone else. NICHOLE GILLIS MRS. GILLIS-So, Nichole Gillis, 2428 Ridge Road. I did have just a couple of questions, if I may, regarding the Appeal. I understand that Mr. Halliday has now signed the building permit. I had a question last time, last week, that there were some areas left blank or as well as the Appeal was for misrepresentation as well that there was misinformation. Has that been now corrected? Or the blanks, have they been filled in from the setbacks? MR. JACKOSKI-So again, fortunately for you, if you look at the full application, you will see the survey is part of it, but the Planning Board approved, and all of that detail is on that document. So administratively if something didn't get filled in in a column here, it is part of the package. MRS. GILLIS-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So it is there. I mean, I think you can see it. So I don't think there's any misrepresentation, but I can't tell you if there was misrepresentation or not because I'm not a surveyor or an attorney, but the intent of the application is consistent with what we've seen coming before us in the past, and I've only been on this Board for five or six years and I know some folks here have been on for, can I say decades? MRS. GILLIS-Okay, so I just wanted to circle back around and ask that. And then the other question I did have is that obviously we're awaiting this decision from the Lake George Park Commission in August. Would you be able to tell me then what would happen with this accessory building permit if Mr. Halliday was unsuccessful in that decision from the Lake George Park Commission? MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you what they would do. MRS. GILLIS-No, I mean the Board. What would be made of this accessory building permit, because it was spoke of that he would then need a variance. This accessory building permit Z[3 that he has done in April, would that then also again still be valid if the decision is declined by the Lake George Park Commission? MR. JACKOSKI-If the Zoning Administrator makes a determination that there is a change of use as it relates to the structure and the property, then he would act accordingly and then if it was appropriate it would come in front of this Board. MRS. GILLIS-Okay. I guess that's my question is what would be acting accordingly? Would Mr. Halliday need to fill out a new application for the building? MR. JACKOSKI-Staff would guide them on that. Yes. MRS. GILLIS-Okay, and then it would be a variance process from there. MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you for sure because I don't know what he's going to use the building for and I don't know yet until we see what the intent of the applicant is. MRS. GILLIS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Though I'm pretty confident that I can tell you that if he doesn't get the approvals from all the appropriate authorities and he ends up using the building in a way that is not in keeping with the zone or the intended use that enforcement will move forward accordingly. Is that fair to say, Craig? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MRS. GILLIS-Thank you. Thanks for your time. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Seeing no one else, I am going to close the public hearing and I am going to seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION TO: Disapprove Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017, Frank and Isobel Munoff regarding property owned by Harold and Lyn Halliday at 2599 State Route 9L, Tax Map No. 240.5-1-32; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank and Isobel Munoff. Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the issuance of a building permit for the above-referenced matter. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 and on Wednesday, July 26, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the applicable criteria of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of the NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. The Appeal was filed within the required 60-day time-frame. 2. The Appealing Party is aggrieved and were found to have standing. 3. The merits of the argument as provided by the appellant with responses from the Zoning Administrator have been considered. It is our finding that the positions offered by the appellant are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision at hand. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY APPEAL Z-NOA-2-2017, FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico 13 Z[3 MR. JACKOSKI-Hopefully anticlimactic. So thank you all for attending. So, Staff, do we have the Carte family here? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not have the Carte family here. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing the Carte family is not here and it is 7:43, I'll seek a motion for adjournment. MR. BROWN-Do you want to table this to a date? MR. JACKOSKI-I assume they abandoned their application. MRS. MOORE-1 doubt it. I don't think so. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to table? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris Carte for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to utilize existing a freestanding sign structure for The Wood Carte Too at 27 sq. ft. Existing sign does not meet the 15 ft. setback requirement. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback for such sign. The applicant requests relief from the minimum front yard setback for such sign. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant proposes to maintain the sign frame and install a new panel where the frame is 8.8 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2017 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Until the September meeting with a submission deadline of August 15tH Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-You can move it to August. You have sufficient room, but that's up to you. MR. JACKOSKI-With a submission deadline in August. MR. HENKEL-I'll say no because he didn't give us any information. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion for adjournment, please. MRS. MOORE-1 have just one more item before you do that. In regards to the Fulmer application, you will need to re-open the public hearing for that. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. We know that. MRS. MOORE-You do need to do it by motion, correct? MR. BROWN-1 think the next time it comes back,just make sure we do that. That's all. MR. JACKOSKI-So can I have a motion for adjournment? MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Seconded by John. Thank you, John. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 26, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: Z[3A AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We're done. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 15