Loading...
2007-12-26(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 26, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 59-2007 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 1. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-63 and 64 Notice of Appeal No. 11-2007 Robert & Victoria Glandon 2. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Area Variance No. 81-2005 Steve & Debbie Seaboyer 2. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36 Area Variance No. 71-2007 Lloyd Jones 3. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-52 Area Variance No. 72-2007 Patrick Burke 10. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-8 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 26, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT JOYCE HUNT CHARLES MC NULTY RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROY URRICO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We have several cases to hear this evening, and a number of motions to make, and I can assure you, the public will be invited to speak on each appeals, even though the appeal may be tabled, because in all of these appeals, the public hearing is still open. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/MILLER & ASSOCIATES/NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. ZONING: PO LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GURNEY LANE & WEST. MT. ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2- STORY OFFICE (85,340 SQ. FT.) OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.90 AC.; 16.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-63 AND 64 SECTION: 179-4-040 MR. ABBATE-Let’s see, Jim, we have correspondence on Area Variance No. 59-2007, in rd which Counsel has requested it to be tabled until the 23 of January. This is Schermerhorn. Do you mind reading it into the record? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Do we want to do our acceptance of that Planning Board resolution, or are you going to do that later? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m going to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Dear Chairman Abbate: At last evening’s Planning Board meeting, th the SEQR review was scheduled for January 17, therefore since the ZBA cannot act until the SEQR Review is completed, I hereby request that the application be thrd rescheduled from your December 26 meeting until January 23.” MR. ABBATE-Great. Thank you. Counsel for Area Variance No. 59-2007, which is Schermerhorn, has asked, in a letter, that this Board table 59-2007 until January the 23, 2008 hearing date. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled until the January 23, 2008 hearing date. th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a vote, seven yes, zero no, Area Variance No. 59-2007 is tabled to 23 January 2008. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 11-2007 SEQRA TYPE: N/A ROBERT & VICTORIA GLANDON OWNER(S): RICHARD SALOMON ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 67 KNOX ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION OF OCTOBER 23, 2007 REGARDING SITE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AT 67 KNOX ROAD. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-271 SFD; BP 2004-539 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2006-273 DEMO SFD; BP 2005-945 DEMO WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-14 SECTION: 179-4-020; 179-16-050 MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Secretary, I believe we also have something concerning Mr. Glandon, if not, I can handle it. Do you have any correspondence from Glandon? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have the letter that was submitted to us. “I would like to ask if it is at all possible for a change for date for the hearing of our appeal. Sue just sent through the agenda and I see we are set for Dec. 26. My wife and I will be in Indianapolis with our 6 grandchildren for the holiday so getting back for that date would th be impossible. Is it possible to switch the date….Perhaps to your meetings on the 12 or th 19 or later? Any flexibility would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Bob and Vicki Glandon 63 Knox” MR. ABBATE-Mr. Glandon has requested tabling to be heard on January the 16, 2008. I move a motion to table it to honor his request. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 11-2007 ROBERT & VICTORIA GLANDON, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 67 Knox Road. Tabled to January 16, 2008. th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a vote seven yes, zero no, it’s Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, Appeal No. 11-2007, is tabled to January 16, 2008. AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2005 STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER MR. ABBATE- Now, Mr. Secretary, we have another one. Counsel for Mr. Seaboyer has requested an extension. Would you be kind enough to read that into the record for me, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-“As you are aware, our firm represents Steve and Debbie Seaboyer with regard to their development of their property located at 83 Rockhurst Road. On January 17, 2007, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a one year extension for the following Area Variances”, and I’m not going to read those in, since we’ve covered them before. “As you are aware, the Seaboyers have been trying to obtain a review of their Site Plan Review application by the Planning Board. However, they have been denied due to the Zoning Administrator’s assertion that the application is incomplete. We have since been directed to go back to the Town Board, specifically, by the Zoning Board of Appeals’ determination of October 24, 2007. Due to the additional action that must be taken, we will not be able to act on these variances by January 17, 2008. As a result, if you kindly again extend these variances for a one-year period of time, we would appreciate it. In addition, because these variances will expire before your January meeting will be held, we would also appreciate it if you could hear these in December. If you need anything further in order to act upon this request, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” MR. ABBATE-Okay. As the Board members heard, Counsel for Seaboyer, Area Variance No. 81-2005, has requested a one-year extension until January 18, 2008. So I’ll move a motion to honor Counsel’s request. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2005 STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) Extended to January 16, 2009. th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-In a vote of five yes, two no, Area Variance No. 81-2005 is tabled to January 16, 2009. MR. BROWN-Tabled or extended? MR. ABBATE-Extended. I’m sorry, thank you. Extended to January 16, 2009. Now there’s a resolution that I have. I hope all of the Board members have received information concerning the fact that the Planning Board has requested to be Lead Agency for SEQRA. Did all of you receive a copy of that, or information concerning that, I hope? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that was just handed to us. Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, they have. Okay. So I’m going to move a resolution. MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HONORS THE REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BE LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Okay. In a vote seven yes, zero no, in a resolution, this Board acknowledges and grants the Lead Agency to the Planning Board for the SEQRA. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2007 SEQRA: II LLOYD JONES AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): LLOYD JONES ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT WIDTH/SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO./SKETCH PLAN; BP 91-583 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 4.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-52 SECTION: 179-4-030 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2007, Lloyd Jones, Meeting Date: December 26, 2007 “Project Location: West side of Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.21 acre parcel into two lots. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the double lot width for new lots fronting on arterial / collector roads that do not share a driveway. In the SFR-1A zoning district the double lot width requirement is 300 feet per §179-19-020. The proposed lot width for lot 1 is approximately 249 ft. An actual, accurate lot width calculation should be provided prior to final approval. Additionally, accurate lot width calculations should be provided for lots 2 and 3 to insure a 150 ft width. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop the property in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be ample area available for a compliant, two lot subdivision. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for approximately 50 feet of relief from the 300 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate (16%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sketch Plan Subdivision Review 12/18/07 ( no decision rendered ). Staff comments: The purpose of §179-19-020 is to discourage direct access onto collector roads. With lot one having two driveways while being proposed as undersized for a lot to have even a single driveway, consideration may be given to limiting the drives on lot one to a single driveway. Perhaps a question more suited for the Planning Board during Subdivision review, but, what are the line of sight distances for the proposed shared driveway, especially to the north toward the crest in the road? ZBA should seek a recommendation from the Planning Board per Chapter 277 of NYS Town Law. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-My only question would be, are they asking for two lots or three lots? MR. BROWN-A total of three. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a total of three, including the house that’s there? MR. BROWN-That’s the one lot and then two more lots that he wants. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. MR. ABBATE-Good evening, sir. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you proceed, I’m going to recuse myself from this case. MR. ABBATE-All right. Yes, Mr. McNulty, thank you very much. Okay. Would you be kind enough, sir. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name is Tom Hutchins. I’m here for Van Dusen and Steves on behalf of Lloyd Jones for this application. Mr. Jones proposes to, well, we’re in the process of a subdivision application before the Planning Board, and in order for that proposed subdivision to be compliant, we are requesting a variance from the 300 foot lot width requirement, which is created due to the doubling of the lot width within this zone on the collector road, or arterial road. The subdivision that’s laid out, we’ve laid it out with three lots. There would be one shared drive for Lots Number Two and Three, and both of those are over the 150 foot width, whereby we have the shared driveway requirement. Where we’re requesting the variance is for Lot One, which contains the existing house. We have 249 feet of lot width. So we’re requesting 51 feet of relief from the 300 foot requirement because we cannot share a driveway with that lot. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. You know our procedures here? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you know if there’s anything else you want to add, you don’t understand something, just stop us and we’ll be happy to explain it to you, okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Or if you think of something, perhaps, during the hearing, which may help your case, let us know, that’s not a problem. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Jim, do you want to start out with a comment on this, if you wish. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My only comment would be, you know, I think if we look at the house that’s already on the lot there, you know, you’ve got the driveway that loops in, it’s got the in and out on it, and, you know, it’s been there for a long period of time. In a sense it’s pre-existing. I don’t know if it would make sense to make the people take it out at this point in time. When you think of it, I think it’s probably more than likely that when people come in, they probably always turn in that wider driveway to the north there, and sometimes they exit, when they’ve got to go underneath that porch way thing there, and I notice now like it’s not even plowed out. So it appears they’re only using the one side of it. So I don’t really know how much traffic gets generated by the house on site as it exists, you know. So for them to have to take that driveway out, I guess you could, but it’s kind of like an old fashioned farmhouse. I think that was probably like where the wagons used to drop people off underneath the porch there. That’s just what I’m guessing, just trying to explain that situation. That’s all I’m going to comment on now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Jenkin? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I looked at this, too, and I thought that in order to be more, if you agree with what’s required, I feel that that small driveway, they don’t obviously use it. It should be probably taken out and then you’d have a lot more width along the road. It would be much more compliant with this double driveway. The double driveway, I thought, because you have a turnaround in there, and I stopped and watched the traffic, there’s continual traffic along that road now. It really is, and it is on the crest of a hill, but if there’s a turnaround, and people are coming straight out, I think that it would be a safe thing to do. So, at this time, I don’t see a huge problem with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. You make the comment in the Staff Notes relative to ample area available for a compliant two lot subdivision. Don’t you require the 300 feet? MR. BROWN-Well, I think, yes and no. If they’re both going to have separate driveways, yes, but if they wanted to share a driveway, I mean, there’s a way to do two lots without requiring any variances. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but they have to share a driveway. MR. BROWN-They’d have to share a driveway, but no variance. MR. BRYANT-Based on where the driveway is placed now, that would be pretty hard to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re talking about the new driveway that’s going to be created for the new two lots to the south? Is that specifically what we’re looking at? I mean, we’re aware of the driveways that are currently on site, but if you’re going to create those two new building lots, you’re going to have a shared driveway for those two lots? MR. BROWN-That’s the plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the plan that I see, yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MRS. HUNT-The variance is for Lot One? MR. BROWN-The variance is for Lot One. MRS. HUNT-Two and Three are okay sharing that. MR. BROWN-Yes, but the only other question in the notes for Lot Two and Three is the lot width. The lines, the street lines and the side lines aren’t perpendicular. They’re pretty darn close. So is it 150? It might be 149.99, but there’s no confirmation as to exactly what the lot widths are. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m ready to make my comment, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re ready. Yes, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Because there are limited feasible alternatives, even the two lot compliant subdivision thing, your garage is facing the wrong way. You’d have to re-vamp that. I mean, I think the possibilities are limited. So I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Brian, please. MR. CLEMENTS-I had actually the same question that Mrs. Hunt had and you answered it, and I also would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other question I was going to ask was how do the lot widths compare, you know, like when you go down the road there, all the new housing that’s been done there, did you guys do, when Hayes brothers did across the road there. MR. HUTCHINS-I wasn’t involved with it, and I think I can answer your question, with an aerial, of our lot in orange and there are four lots across the street within the length of where we were proposing Three. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would be in favor. I think that the 50 feet of relief from the 300 foot requirement is moderate, and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. The public hearing, now, is going to be open for Area Variance No. 71-2007, and do we have anyone in the public who would like to address that? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TONY FUSCO MR. FUSCO-Hi. My name is Tony Fusco. I live at 62 . I’m just south of this land. I don’t see a problem with the way it’s going to be situated. The only thing I’m concerned with is there’s a natural border between my property and his land, and if it was only going to be one lot, I’m sure somebody could put a house in the middle of it, but now if they’re looking for two, it’s going to kind of push it to the property, which, again, I don’t have a problem with. There’s just a natural border of maple trees that go down through the property, and it really sets off my landscape and my house nice, and gives me the privacy that I’ve been enjoying for the last seven years, and I’m just concerned that, getting a house in there of any size to keep up with the equal of the houses that are there, it might go to the 20 foot offset, side sets, and it might kind of crowd those trees into a fact where they might be cutting them down, and in the springtime, there’s a actual watershed that comes down from the back where the bike path is, and it comes down and actually runs through that tree row, comes down along the bottom of my driveway across and goes into my pond, which I’ve been dealing with it, it’s fine. I just don’t want it to be changed where it’s going to come up where my house is and come across my front lawn. I’ve been dealing with it at the end of my driveway and it’s fine, but my concern is if a house goes too close to that tree line, and it actually gets taken away or the grade of it gets changed at all, there might be some watershed that’s going to be coming my way, but the trees, I’d love to see if that could stay, within the parameter of what that lot looks like. I don’t see anybody cutting them down, but I just would like to have that as a concern. Okay. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir, and thank you very much. MR. FUSCO-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Is there anyone else that would like to address Area Variance No. 71- 2007? All right. I see no other folks here. Now would you like to address any of the questions before I continue, from the Board, or perhaps your neighbor? MR. HUTCHINS-I’d have to look at where we’re showing the lots, and you are directly to the south with the pond? MR. FUSCO-I’m at 62. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Well, we are proposing some cutting of the tree line near the front of that lot, and none to the rear of the lot. We are proposing moving that tree line 20 to 30 feet further south, certainly not to the property line. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the dashed line on there the setback line? MR. HUTCHINS-The dashed line is the building setback, yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Now, let me continue on. The Board members basically told me what their position is, but I’d like to confirm it, and do someone else, a volunteer who would like? MRS. JENKIN-I have a question? MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-Because of the request, is it possible to move the house a little bit farther north and avoid, less tree cutting? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Part of the problem is at this point in the subdivision, we show houses conceptually, because it’s rare that, in this type of subdivision, which is a single owner splitting into three lots, that we have the type of house that’s going to be constructed. So, yes, it’s possible that we could move the house further to the north, but I’m hesitant to. MRS. JENKIN-Because you’ve got room. MR. HUTCHINS-We have room to move somewhat. Of course, when you move things, the grading changes, and you create problems that you don’t always see looking at a flat sheet. MRS. JENKIN-Right. That’s true. MR. HUTCHINS-But, I mean, we could, what would you be looking to do, to keep that cut line away from the property line? MRS. JENKIN-Right. You said you were going to cut 30 feet into it? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, 20 to 30 feet. I’m just looking at it. I mean, we could keep 10 feet from the property line. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, no cutting within 10 feet of that line. Is that? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, and try to protect that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are these going to be spec houses, or are they going to be lots sold, or is there any plan as to what shape this is going to come out? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s my understanding that they’re going to be lots sold. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Because, I mean, once you sell a lot, I mean, people can whack the whole. MRS. JENKIN-Can you put a stipulation on that they need to? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. ABBATE-Well, you can have any kind of condition, when it comes to the motion, Joan, to answer your question. Yes, to answer your question, whoever moves the motion. MRS. JENKIN-That they have to keep away, at least 20 feet from the lot line. MR. ABBATE-Whoever moves the motion can make any sort of reasonable stipulation that they wish. MR. HUTCHINS-And this, of course, does have to go back before the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-I understand that, I understand. Okay. All right. Any other questions before I start? Okay. Let’s start with Mr. Clements. Do you have a position, basically, on Area Variance No. 71-2007? MR. CLEMENTS-I do, and I have a, I mean, I’m listening to Joan here, too. Maybe I have a comment. The one that you’re looking for the variance for is Lot One because it’s not 300 feet. Is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-And Lots Two and Three are 150 each? You’re going to put a driveway in there. So the amount that you’re looking for is 51 feet? MR. ABBATE-I think it’s 51. Is it 51? I think that’s what it said, 51, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-What I’m thinking is, like Joan said, if you ask for a, instead of 51 feet, if you ask for 61 feet, those lines could all be moved over a little bit and that tree line could be left there. MR. HUTCHINS-So you’re suggesting we ask for more relief than we’re asking for? MR. CLEMENTS-Well, your neighbor to the south would like the tree line left there. I think that I would be in favor of something like that. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. That’s just my feeling. MR. ABBATE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just ask a question, because maybe it’ll clarify it better. Mr. Fusco, can you come up? Do you know what your lot width is on your property? I mean, yours is wider than these lots, right, by quite a bit. MR. FUSCO-Yes, I think it’s 2.1 acres. MR. UNDERWOOD-You must be like 250 feet or so, like 100 feet wider. MR. FUSCO-Boy, off the top of my head, I don’t know. It’s 200 and. MR. HUTCHINS-This is 550. You’re around 2. MR. FUSCO-Yes, I think it was two and change, by four. MR. ABBATE-What we could do is this, if you wish, before we come to any kind of a vote, prior to reaching the vote, you may wish to ask this Board to table so you can consult with your client if you wish. Nobody’s putting any pressure on you this evening, believe me. Trust me. If you need more time, after listening to what we a have to say, you can have as much time as you wish. I’ll be happy to table it if you wish. MR. UNDERWOOD-Let me just throw out some ideas, because, you know, one of the suggestions from Staff was that you could do a two lot subdivision here. The house that you’ve got there now, another really big lot similar to it. I mean, that property as it exists now, the total on it’s what like five acres or something like that. MR. HUTCHINS-4.21. MR. UNDERWOOD-4.21. MR. FUSCO-The whole lots, from my house down, are all at least two acres or bigger. The other side of the road is smaller. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-The difference is on that west side of the road there, the lots that I see, you know, when you drive down there, they’re wider lots than what’s been done on the other side there, and when you think about it, you know, this is trying to cram an awful lot in there, if you’re dropping down to 150 foot wide lots. Sure, it’s nice because you get to sell two more pieces of property, but at the same time, you know, there’s a question in my mind as to whether we really need to do this here. I mean, it is one acre zoning down there, you know, that’s what it is. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’re 1.4 and 1.3. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So you’re over what you need to be, but as far as lot widths, you know, at least on one side of the road there so far you’ve sort of kept in the ballpark of the 300 foot mark on that arterial road, collector road there, you know. I’m not going to decide yet anyway. MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s see what other Board members have to say. No. Go ahead, Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I’ve considered that also, with the two lot subdivision, but the problem’s still going to be the placement of the driveways. You still don’t make the 300 feet, unless you have a shared driveway between the two lots, which is an impossibility. So, I mean, you know, going from three lots to two lots really doesn’t help. We’re still stuck with the same problem. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll continue then and go from there. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-It seems to me that some of this would be the Planning Board with the site review. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MRS. HUNT-And I have to agree with what was said about, we’re going to need a variance whether we have two lots or one lot so. MR. ABBATE-All right. Okay. No one else? All right. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 71-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And we’ve now reached that point where I ask for a motion. MR. HUTCHINS-I would add a couple of comments. MR. ABBATE-By all means, please do. MR. HUTCHINS-With regard to the three lot versus two lot, if we were pushed to a two lot situation, we’re still going to be back here because I’m very confident that the owner is not going to agree to share a driveway like across the front or on the side. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-So we’ll be here asking for the same thing, whether it’s a two or a three. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And I’m comfortable to committing to not cutting within 10 feet of that boundary line. MR. ABBATE-All right. So we have a compromise by the applicant, okay, of 10 feet. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 71-2007? Would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. JENKIN-I could make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Would you mind, please. Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2007 LLOYD JONES, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) West side of Country Club Road. The applicant proposes a subdivision of 4.21 acre parcel into three lots. The applicant requests relief from the double lot width for new lots fronting on arterial collector roads that do not share a driveway. In the Single Family Residential 1A zoning district, the double lot width requirement is 300 feet per Section 179-19-020. The proposed lot width for Lot One is approximately 249 feet, an actual accurate lot width calculation should be provided prior to final approval. Additionally, accurate lot width calculations should be provided for Lots Two and Three to ensure 150 foot width. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be permitted to develop the property in the preferred configuration. The feasible alternatives appear to be ample area available for a compliant two lot subdivision. The request for 51.33 feet of relief from the 300 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. There were no letters of support. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. I feel that it’s quite important to leave as much of the tree line as possible, just for a good neighbor. So, I would move the acceptance of this variance with the condition that no trees be cut within 10 feet of the property line. th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: MRS. JENKIN-I feel that it’s quite important to leave as much of the tree line as possible, just for a good neighbor. You said 10 feet to start with. So I would move the acceptance of this variance with the condition that you keep 15 to 20 feet. MR. ABBATE-I think he compromised at 10 feet, did you not? MR. HUTCHINS-I had agreed to 10. MRS. JENKIN-Well, you started out with 10. MR. HUTCHINS-Of course I’m agreeing to something, the owner’s not here. Well, I started out with zero feet. MRS. JENKIN-Of the tree line, cutting the tree line? MR. HUTCHINS-Cutting to near the property line. Normally it’s expected one can cut up to the property line. I’m comfortable saying 10 feet we won’t cut to. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-I just, I’m making commitments on behalf of other people. MRS. JENKIN-All right. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 71-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 71-2007 is approved with conditions. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II PATRICK BURKE OWNER(S): PATRICIA MC GRAW/THOMAS MC GRAW ZONING: SFR-20 LOCATION: 21 WILSON STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 440 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-585; BP 7936 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-8 SECTION: 179-4-020 PATRICK BURKE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2007, Patrick Burke, Meeting Date: December 26, 2007 “Project Location: 21 Wilson Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 440 sf garage addition. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) Relief Required: Applicant requests 8.3 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum total side setback requirement of the SFR-20 zoning district. While the applicant meets the individual 15 foot minimum side setback requirement, the proposed total side setback distance is only 31.7 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be ample area available for a compliant, one car garage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 8.3 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate (21%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: A letter of support from the southerly neighbor was submitted with the application materials. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-585 two car garage addition pending Staff comments: Consideration may be given to clarification of the garage in question. The proposed plans depict an unusual 12 wide garage door, yet the floor plan offers a 20 foot wide addition. Is the plan for a one car or two car garage? If a one car garage is proposed a smaller footprint would require less relief. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-And I see a gentleman at the table. Sir, would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are. MR. BURKE-Patrick Burke, builder for the owner. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you understand our procedures this evening? MR. BURKE-Pretty much. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll explain it to you. All I’m going to ask you to do is explain to the Board why you feel justified that we should approve your request. It’s as simple as that, and any time during the, you do that first, and then anytime during the hearing, if there’s something else you may wish to add to your case, to help your case, just let us know and add it, and if you have any questions on any of our procedures or we’re going to ask you if you want to respond to a comment that was made by the ZBA, feel free to do so. Fair enough? MR. BURKE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Are you ready? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Let’s go. MR. BURKE-All right. These people that are living here, Tom and Patricia McGraw, they are an elderly couple, probably coming on their 70’s, and they want, a car and a half garage is really what they really are calling for, which, you know, up to 20 foot would be considered a car and a half garage. The reason for a 12 foot garage door is because they don’t even have two cars themselves, and the husband is in a wheelchair, so the reason to keep it a little bit wider is to eventually be putting in maybe a handicap ramp or something, not to mention that the chimney on the side of this house bumps out two feet. So we really only have 18 foot of wide usable space to use, if the handicap ramp came into play, eventually, which it probably is going to. That’s their ultimate goal. MR. ABBATE-Before we start, make sure, the Zoning Administrator had a rather interesting question, clarification of the garage in question. So I need clarification, too. Is this your home MR. BURKE-No. MR. ABBATE-So this is for a client that you’re working for? MR. BURKE-A client, yes. MR. ABBATE-So did I hear you right when you said that they were disabled? MR. BURKE-No. The husband is, he’s in a wheelchair. MR. ABBATE-He’s in a wheelchair? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And what does that have to do with the size of the garage? MR. BURKE-Well, we just wanted to keep it as big as they could. So that he could get in and out easily. MR. ABBATE-All right. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Is there anything else that you’d like to tell us at this point? MR. BURKE-I guess I could add as we go, if I see something, but the neighbor next door did write up a letter, to the right hand side if you will, that they were happy to see this happen. They do have a garage right just about on the property line to the right side of the house, and a lot of the other ones in the area do have them past what are now the setbacks. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to ask the Secretary to read that letter of support into the record. MR. BURKE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Go ahead, Jim, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-It says, “Dear Town Board Members: We, Roseann and George Anthis, residing at 19 Wilson Street, have no objection to Thomas and Patricia McGraw, 21 Wilson Street, building a new 1 ½ car garage on their property next to our property. We would like to see them get the necessary variance. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Roseann and George Anthis” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Would you like to add anything else at this point? MR. BURKE-No thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to ask Board members if they have any comments. Would anyone like to volunteer? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Will there be egress from the house to the garage? MR. BURKE-There will be. There’s an existing window on that side of the house that’s going to be cut out, and a garage entry door put in there. MR. ABBATE-Chuck, did you have anything you wanted to say? MR. MC NULTY-Are you looking for comments? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m looking for comments only, not positions, ladies and gentlemen, just comments at this time, please. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think I have any questions or comments at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Will this be on the same level as the house? MR. BURKE-There’ll be a couple of steps up into the house from the garage level. MRS. JENKIN-So if he’s in a wheelchair, then, how are you going to manage that? Will it be a ramp? MR. BURKE-There will eventually probably be. He’s in a wheelchair, but he can get up and kind of just hobble a little. He’s got a ramp, right now, around the back side of the house into the porch in the back side, and they don’t want to go through the winters anymore. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So is that the purpose of them have, doors, there’s doors in the back, too, isn’t there? MR. BURKE-To the house, you mean? MRS. JENKIN-No, to the garage. MR. BURKE-Yes. There’s a door going out the back. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, and then there’s a ramp in the back. MR. BURKE-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-That would make it easy. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Are you polling the Board? MR. ABBATE-We’re not looking for a position. We’re just looking for comments. MR. BRYANT-I have no comments. MR. ABBATE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-No, I think I made my comments. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m fine. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to move on then. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 72-2007, and do we have anyone in the audience who would like to address that? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. Then I’ll continue on. Now we’re going to reach a point where I’m going to ask the Board members for comments, please, and Board 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) members know what their responsibilities are. I’ve said it over and over again. There’s no reason to go over it once more. I’m going to ask Board members for their position, basically, on 72-2007. Do I have a volunteer who’d like to start? MRS. HUNT-I’d like to start. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, would you be kind enough to start, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think that 8.3 feet of relief from a 40 foot requirement is a moderate, to say the least, and I understand the reasoning for the extra wide garage for someone who’s handicapped and needs a ramp, and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else who’d like to go next. Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mrs. Hunt. This is even less than moderate request for relief here. I can definitely see a need for a garage in this neighborhood. It’s not an outlandish request by any stretch of the imagination. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Chuck, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is another one of those quandaries that we get in the zoning action. Because most of the justification we’re hearing is for the current residents, and yet this variance will go with the property, not just for the current residents, but, having said that, I think looking at this and the other houses in the neighborhood, I think the proposal would produce results that would be in keeping with the general neighborhood. It’s kind of a semi-crowded older development, and I think this would be typical. So, even ignoring the justification for handicap access and so on, I think it’s probably a reasonable request and certainly not extreme on the amount asked for. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to basically disagree. A feasible alternative is not to build a garage or to build a compliant garage, especially since half the back yard has got a concrete pool and deck patio. There’s ample room on the lot to build a garage without infringing on the neighbor’s property. So I’m going to be opposed to it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s see. Jim, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really have a problem with it. I don’t think it’s out of character with what’s in the neighborhood. As has been described, it’s pretty tight. Those are smaller lots. In this day and age I’m sure we would be a little more concerned about creating a whole new subdivision that was that tightly fit together, but in this instance here, I mean, you’ve got a driveway that’s already there. It’s already impermeable area. Everybody likes a garage that actually is functional, and most people, you could build it compliant, a smaller garage and require less setback relief, but 8.3 feet of relief isn’t that much relief. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mrs. Jenkin, please. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I agree that I think the benefit to the applicant is a huge one. The extra space for the car is absolutely necessary. I think the effect on the neighborhood is a positive one because it will fit very, very well with the neighborhood, and I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree with the majority. Quite frankly I think it’s not only a reasonable request, and I believe also I think Mr. McNulty said it’s not out of character. I certainly agree with that, and I also agree with the majority in that one of the reasons folks come before us is because we are a safety valve for situations such as this, and I certainly will support the appeal. Now I’m going to move on. The public hearing is going to be closed for Area Variance No. 72-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. ABBATE-And the Board members know what the responsibilities are, and I’m going to ask for a volunteer from the Board members to move, one way or the other, Area Variance No. 72-2007. Do we have a volunteer. MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please, Mrs. Hunt. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2007 PATRICK BURKE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 21 Wilson Street. The applicant proposes a 440 square foot garage addition. The applicant requests 8.3 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum total side setback requirement of the SFR-20 zoning district. Whether the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? I think the applicant has shown us that this would be the only means feasible to them. Would there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. It’s not out of character, and I think it’s generally in keeping with the neighborhood. The request is not substantial, 8.3 feet of the 40 foot requirement is not substantial. I don’t think it will have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and it’s self-created only because they wish to put in a garage at this time. th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-In a vote, six yes, one no, Area Variance No. 72-2007 is approved. Good luck. MR. BURKE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, I have one other piece of work we have to do here, folks. This has to do with minutes of the meetings. We have two to approve. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 21, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a six yes, zero no vote, the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing of November 21, 2007 is approved. November 28, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a six yes, zero no vote, the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes for November 28, 2007 are approved. Now, I promised a member of the public that he may have five minutes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Tonight, unannounced, you voted to extend the Seaboyer variance a year. Does the public have any input in this affair? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may comment. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I mean, before you vote. MR. ABBATE-Not really, and I’ll tell you why. Under normal circumstances, we would certainly open up the public hearing, but on an extension, not really, and as you know, Mr. Salvador, that there is no constitutional requirement demanding that the members of the public attend a hearing, a court hearing, or a quasi-judicial board. In view of the fact that there is no constitutional demand that the public attend a court or a quasi-judicial board, there is no constitutional guarantee for the public to speak. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I won’t get into that. I won’t get into that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, John. MR. SALVADOR-But I could, okay. In any case, the Seaboyer project was brought to a halt by the Town Board. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-And they did that by withdrawing the permits that they had granted. Based on the fact that there was gross misrepresentation. Okay. The Seaboyer application did not conform to the restrictions of a subdivision plat, that’s on record at the present time at the County. Okay. Now I don’t know where your variance was involved. I can’t remember, without checking the record, but it could very well be, because they’re small lots and it’s a tight area, particularly between the building and the road. This is where they were having trouble. In any case, before any of you had voted on that, you should have been aware of the circumstances of the project, been very familiar with it. I think it’s grossly unfair that a vote was taken without you being aware of why the project has been delayed so long. That’s all I have to say. MR. ABBATE-Explain it to me. What is it that we were not aware of? MR. SALVADOR-Well, the file’s got to be that thick on this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it goes back to 2005. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, a long time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-And as I say, there was a lot of controversy about the wastewater system, where they were going to locate it. I’m not sure that the Planning Board had any input, nor will they at this time. I think the Planning Board is in on Seaboyer now. MR. BROWN-They will be. MR. SALVADOR-The Planning Board is in on Seaboyer. It could turn out to be an entirely different project, and I really feel that if anything the variance should have lapsed and they should have been made to apply for a new variance based on the outcome of the Planning Board’s approval. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any anticipation of that sewer district that was going to be created up there? I mean, that’s going to have to be part of the new decision making process. MR. SALVADOR-We would hope. We would hope, but that’s a Town Board affair. MR. ABBATE-Well, see, actually, by voting on it, it really didn’t do any harm, and I’ll tell you why, because it still has to be approved, it still has to go through the Planning Board and the Town Board? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) MR. BROWN-Yes. If this Board voted, and they did, to extend the variances for a year, that’s a done deal. You’ve extended the variances. The project isn’t approved finally until the Site Plan’s done, but the variances are extended. MR. SALVADOR-But now what happens is the applicant goes before these two Boards. We got the variance, we still have the variance, okay. MR. ABBATE-What variance are you talking about? MR. SALVADOR-The one you extended, whatever it is. MR. ABBATE-Well, we extended it, but we didn’t vote on it. We didn’t vote on that. We just extended it. MR. BROWN-You previously approved it. MR. ABBATE-We previously approved it, yes. MR. BROWN-You previously approved it, and then tonight you just voted to extend that approval. MR. ABBATE-To extend that approval. Correct, yes, I agree. MR. BROWN-So you did vote on it. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MRS. HUNT-If the project changes, then that’s a moot point, right? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Right. Well, that’s a good point. If indeed the project changes, as you suspect, then our approval is moot. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Good. Let me continue. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-All right. The Glandon application here, you didn’t open a public hearing. This is my file on Glandon, okay, previous application that was before the Town Board, okay. A very difficult site, a very controversial application. Took a long time to get it through, and there were conditions. By the way, I’m sorry, I don’t know what your. MR. BROWN-Just to clarify. Because I think Glandon was the subject of a septic variance request before the Town Board. This appeal is based on a decision that I made on the neighboring property. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. BROWN-It doesn’t have anything to do with the Glandon property. MR. SALVADOR-I’m sorry. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. The Glandon is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. No further comment. MR. ABBATE-No problem. MR. SALVADOR-The Schermerhorn project. I’m delivering to you tonight a copy of a letter that I have prepared. I gave Mr. Brown his copy this evening. I’d just like to read it quickly to you, and it’s addressed to Craig Brown. This letter is addressed to Craig th Brown, and copies are to you, Board. On December 24, I obtained a copy of your letter th of August 17 directed to Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. A copy is attached for your ready reference. You will recall that you used this communication to unsuccessfully challenge the timeliness of Notice of Appeal No. 9-2007. Quote, the original determination relative to the necessary review process for the project in question was issued on August 17, 2007, end of quote. One of the significant determinations you 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/26/07) th did make on August 17 dealt with the order of Board review for this out of sewer district project. Quote, as a result of that meeting, I determined that an Area Variance would be necessary for the project prior to a Site Plan Review approval and ultimate building permit issuance. To the best of my knowledge, the above quoted determination was never questioned by the applicant and the 60 day Statute of Limitations has run. Since th your determination of August 17 as to the order of Board review was so emphatic, why is the Planning Board moving forward, absent an Area Variance being issued first by the ZBA? Your earliest response will be greatly appreciated. MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to request the Board members not comment on that, rd please. We have opportunity, we’ll be hearing the case on the 23 of January. MR. SALVADOR-I’m not asking you to comment on that. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, John. I appreciate that. This will be taken into consideration, and I’m not going to ask the Zoning Administrator to comment, unless he really wants to. MR. BROWN-I don’t have a problem commenting on it, if it’ll save me writing another letter to John. It’s a purely procedural matter. The Planning Board has to do a SEQRA review before the Zoning Board can act. The Planning Board is not going to issue a Site Plan Review decision until after the Zoning Board makes a decision on the variance. So the only thing that the Planning Board’s doing now is a SEQRA determination. Once they do the SEQRA determination, that gets forwarded to the Zoning Board. Then the Zoning Board deals with the variance. Then they go back to the Planning Board for Site Plan. So it’s completely in the correct order. It’s only SEQRA right now. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. That sort of response would be helpful. That’s good. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right, folks. Nothing else going? This hearing is closed, guys. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 18