Loading...
2002-06-06 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 6, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2002 TYPE II PAUL F. DI PHILLIPS PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL AND ROBYN DI PHILLIPS AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 36 HIDDEN HILLS DRIVE – HIDDEN HILLS SUBDIVISION ZONING YEAR 2002: SR-20 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 FT. BY 36 FT. INGROUND SWIMMING POOL. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS REAR YARD SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES REGULATIONS. TAX MAP NO. 302.17-2-52 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION 179-5-20 PAUL DI PHILLIPS, PRESENT MR. STONE-We will read the application into the record, but before we get even to reading it, I want to read a letter that we all got today from the Zoning Administrator, so that we’re all at least on the same page, and know exactly where we are. This is to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the file, from Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, on the subject of special meetings. “The single applicant special meeting is a concept and practice that is somewhat foreign to this office and I’m sure it has at least peaked an interest in some Board members. As such, I have conferred with Town Counsel in the hopes of getting a bit of advice regarding such a procedure and I would like to offer the following information for your consideration. Situations may arise for Town residents through their actions or failures to perform actions, which may cause them to seek relief from the Town zoning ordinance, but they may not wish to wait for a regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. While this situation is extremely rare, it is precisely the situation at hand. Mr. DiPhillips was issued a Building Permit to construct an in-ground pool on his property. The plans and proposed location for the pool met the requirements and the permit was issued. When the installation began, to the credit of the installer, Mr. DiPhillips was informed that the pool would not fit and that he would probably need to relocate the pool or seek a variance. If only all installers were like this. Mr. DiPhillips requested, long after the deadline for submittal, to be placed on the one of the May ZBA meetings. I informed Mr. DiPhillips that adding his application to one of the established agendas was, unfortunately, not possible. Subsequently, this office was instructed, by the Supervisor,” that’s the Town Supervisor, “to facilitate and organize a special meeting. Legally, the special meeting is allowable. However, such a meeting, with the applicant bearing the costs of the Board salary for the meeting, can create an appearance of impropriety. I am confident that if the Board chooses to proceed with the review of this application that whatever decision is reached will be based on the applicable criteria. All standards apply to this action as to any other. All options are available to the Board, as well.” Having read that, I will call Area Variance No 40- 2002, the applicant Paul F. DiPhillips, 36 Hidden Hills Drive. The applicant proposes construction of an 18 foot by 36 foot in-ground swimming pool and seek six feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures regulations, 179-5-020(C). Before we start, Mr. Abbate, do you have something that you want to do? MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. If it pleases you and the honorable Board members, I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman and Board Members, on occasions, we, as members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, are faced with what may be perceived as conflict of interest. I believe that Area Variance No. 40-2002 may be such a dilemma. I am rather perplexed at the comments on the pre-application meeting notes. There are handwritten notes, presumably written by Mr. DiPhillips, stating “5-17-02 Fees for 5/17/02 letter from C. Brown”. Upon research I have determined that Mr. DiPhillips has provided the funds necessary to pay the stipend of these Board members to review his Area Variance. To add to this dilemma, no other case is on the 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) agenda. As this is a public meeting, I pre-suppose that paying the honorarium or stipends of the ZBA members by the applicant violates no law. Notwithstanding, I submit that this could be perceived as advancing his solicitation. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of fairness to the applicant, members of the community and this Board, I offer the following information to Board members for their deliberation. 1. There may be a perception of impropriety. 2. The question of any potential, and I repeat potential perception of impropriety falls within the scope of ethics. 3. The basic rule of conduct and common sense, at least to me, is that appointed officials of this Board or any other Board, is that we perform our duties in a manner to promote the best interest of the public. 4. In my opinion, conflict of interest rules are aimed primarily at avoiding undue financial gain as a result of one’s official position. 5. However, appearances of conflict, which is addressed in a number of legal cases, I believe cover a broader spectrum of conduct. 6. The objective of this conduct is to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. 7. In this case, Area Variance No. 40-2002, it is my perception that the appearance of conflict will exist when a reasonable person could conclude, from the circumstances, i.e. payments of the stipends of the ZBA Board members, that we, as Board members, may have compromised our ability to protect the public interest to perform our duties has been compromised by financial interests, and as such, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your reading into the record the memorandum from Craig Brown because I notice that in his fourth paragraph he does discuss the appearance, possibly, of conflict. As such, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, I propose, 1. That we table Area Variance 40-2002 so that the applicant make recoup those monies paid to the Town for the stipend of members of this Board, and after and only after regaining those monies, this application be scheduled at a subsequent public hearing, and I thank the Chairman and I thank the Board members. MR. STONE-Okay. Before I, did you move, did you make a motion? MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir, I did. MR. STONE-Okay. Before I seek a second, let me say a couple of things. One, you certainly have the right to recuse yourself if you feel strongly. MR. ABBATE-I will not recuse myself. MR. STONE-That’s okay. I say you have that option. The other thing is, as far as the monies are concerned, they were paid to the Town. We are meeting at the behest of the Town Supervisor. The monies was put in the Town Treasury. We are being paid through the normal manner. Mr. DiPhillips is not handing us each a check. Checks are not being dispersed. Money was paid because the Town Supervisor said this is how he wanted to handle it. I recognize what you’re saying, and I certainly, one, over the years, have been very defensive of impropriety and perception and everything else. In this particular case, while I think you have thought this out very well and made a very good statement, I think this Board, judging by our experience and our efforts over the many years, is a very fair Board, and I think we can look at things without worrying about, supposedly, where the money came from, because the money is coming from the Town of Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-I think you’re absolutely incorrect and your perception is faulted. We’re talking about appearances of conflict, and if we take a reasonable person, any person in the Town of Queensbury, who has discovered that payment to our stipend was paid by the applicant to review his variance, I think this could be perceived as a conflict of interest. MR. STONE-Okay. It was paid, as I understand it, to cover an outlay put out by the Town. Anyway, I will listen to the will of the Board. Would anybody like to second that motion? MR. HIMES-I’d like to speak. MR. STONE-Until we have a second, I mean, I’m out of order until we have a second. MR. HIMES-All right. Then I will second it. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, speak. MR. HIMES-All right. To say that I sympathize with what Chuck has said, and I’d put that into the record by seconding the motion, but similarly, although I feel that myself I can act honestly, I don’t know what other people are going to think of me. Now, in addition to the conflict or improprieties, I’d like to say that I’m concerned about the possible effect on the procedures that we have established, and that we’ve tried to follow or that Staff has tried to follow since I’ve been associated with the Board, and the possibility, perhaps unforeseen, unplanned, perhaps there would be some way to avoid the impact of this change in the future, so that the, you know how things start small and they tend to get bigger, that this could set an example that certainly, among many practitioners that represent people before us, could then, I think, feel that, well, what standard is there that needs to be followed in connection with special meetings, and there are none, that I know of. So I feel, in addition to what Chuck has said, that the procedural impact, to me, is very important, and I think that another reason why I would not support continuing the meeting. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) PAUL DI PHILLIPS MR. DI PHILLIPS-Can I ask a question? MR. STONE-Not yet. Just wait a second, I’ll get to you. I’ll let you speak. The one thing, listening to what you said, Norm, it seems to me that we could draft, propose a statement to put in the minutes that this would be the only time that we’re going to be a party. That’s something we could do to put the Town on notice. It’s a way, we could write a letter, but we could also do it as a body. MR. HIMES-Well, I thank you, and I appreciate that, but what I’m thinking about is, in connection with the technical or let’s say counselors that I think might be able to override that. In other words, they might say, this was done. That’s all the evidence that’s needed. How do you stand in the way of it not being repeated? In spite of the fact that we may say you’re making an exception. What it boils down to is that some, no matter what we say, there has been no mistake here, except maybe in one judgment, there has been no mistake that allowed this to come to place, and therefore, it is a precedent, and I think, I don’t think there’s anything we can do, in terms of file memos or what not that can prevent this from happening again and again, or at least attempts to have it happening again and again, and perhaps by doing what Chuck has suggested, we are doing a service to the Town, and so forth, also to the Town Supervisor, and all of us here. So, thank you very much for the time. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have anything to say? MR. FRANK-I’d like to interject. MR. STONE-Let the Board speak first. MR. FRANK-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just say the same thing. I think it sets a precedent that we don’t want to get into. If we allow this as a precedent setting evident, that we would be held to the task, what’s to prevent anyone from coming and saying, well, I have a big subdivision that I really want to get going this year, and I don’t want to have to wait until next month either. I only missed the deadline by two days or something, but I think that, I don’t think that there’s any doubt that our judgment regarding this whole thing would be fair to the applicant, but I don’t know if it’s in our long term interests. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re concerned with procedure rather than? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-Not that Mr. Abbate’s wrong, but you’re concerned, as Norm is, with procedure? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. STONE-What might happen. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think we’ve often been asked to have an extra meeting, and when I had the request given to me orally over the phone, I said, sure, I can probably do it that night, and I was assuming we were probably going to have a full agenda, but, when I got Dennis’ letter, I said, what is this? A single thing, it seems a little bit over the top. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got, I think, a little different view. I can understand the argument about the appearance of conflict of interest, but, frankly, I think we all have a conflict of interest on everything because we’re residents of the Town. Any action we take effects ourselves as well as it does everybody else. So, I don’t think you can say you can’t do something if there’s a possible perception of conflict of interest, because you can find a conflict of interest almost everywhere. It’s a matter of degree. Second. MR. ABBATE-Let me rebut that for a second, because there are numerous legal cases. MR. STONE-Well, let him finish. MR. ABBATE-I thought you were finished. I’m sorry. MR. MC NULTY-And I know there are some legal standards, but I’m expressing my personal opinion, partly based on some experience working with the State on public involvement, and working with different parties that have conflicts. I think you have to use some judgment on this conflict of interest thing because if you’re saying somebody thinks there’s a conflict of interest, then I’m going to recuse myself and be out of it all the time. I understand the concern about, let’s not do this every month and fill in every week with a meeting so that we can do a special favor for somebody. I don’t expect that’s going to happen. It took the Supervisor requesting this. I don’t think the Supervisor is going to be coming back and asking for special meeting all the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) time. It’s a case that the Supervisor took into consideration whatever factors came before him and, in his judgment, felt that this was a case that required special attention. I think to some degree, we should defer to the Supervisor and his judgment in this case, figuring that that’s what he’s there for. He’s the Supervisor of the Town. MR. ABBATE-Wait a minute. We should defer to the Supervisor on areas dealing with appearances of conflict? Is that what you’re saying? MR. MC NULTY-What I am saying is whether or not there should be a special meeting to handle one issue. This was something, it’s a permissible thing to happen, as Craig has pointed out in his memo. It’s a legal action that can be taken. The Supervisor, in his judgment, felt it was important to do it this time. I don’t know why, but that’s within his judgment to request the meeting. As far as conflict or effect on decisions, especially after listening to some of the things people have said, I think there’s as much of a danger of it going the other way as it being in favor of the applicant, and I think as somebody else has said, I’m confident this Board, if it acts on this request, will act fairly, and act like it would if it were considering this application in a regular meeting, but there can be, our decisions can be influenced either way, if we’re not careful about it. The point about returning money, we’re already here. We’re meeting. The Town is going to have to pay us. So the cost has already been incurred. MR. ABBATE-By the applicant. MR. MC NULTY-And has been pointed out, the applicant is not paying the Zoning Board. The applicant is reimbursing the Town for extra expenses it incurred. MR. ABBATE-Well, I wonder what the Post Star would say about that. MR. MC NULTY-I’m done. MR. ABBATE-Well, you’ve told me what you’ve based your opinion on, let me tell you what I based my opinion on. I based my opinion on research and 16 legal cases, which dealt specifically with appearances of conflict, and this particular case this evening falls well within the framework of an applicant furnishing money to the Town, which in turn will pay the stipend of the Zoning Board of Appeals members to listen to his request for an Area Variance. So my statement is based on legal research. Now I also might want to add that the last paragraph, for some reason Craig Brown thought it might be appropriate to mention the applicant bearing the cost of the Board’s salary for the meeting can create an appearance of impropriety, and that’s what I’m just focusing in on, an appearance of impropriety. MR. STONE-Okay. Bruce, you had something you wanted to say. MR. FRANK-Yes. I mean, I think it’s only fair to say that, you know, everybody has an opinion on this, and I think it’s good that you’re addressing your opinions. If you didn’t say anything at all, then it may look pretty bad. I think you’re discussing this is a good thing, whether you feel one way or the other, for the simple fact that it’s been brought out. It’s in the open, and if you hadn’t said anything, I think it would have looked improper. So if there is any appearance of impropriety or any kind of misconduct, again, it wasn’t like this was hush hush. I mean, this was advertised. Town Counsel reviewed this. This isn’t unheard of. I understand how everybody feels, one way or the other, but I think it was a good thing that you discussed it anyway. I think that’s the most important thing. MR. ABBATE-It isn’t unheard of, but it’s somewhat foreign to this office. MR. HIMES-If I might say that could add to the troubles and complexities we’ve had two or maybe three of us have commented, indicating a negative position in connection with proceeding. Now, in the event that this application was denied, we’d have the impropriety just kind of reversed, in that we have made up our minds, to some extent, as expressed, and seconded by me. I would feel that maybe I shouldn’t participate in this application process because before hearing anything, supposedly, or thinking about it, I’ve indicated a reason why we shouldn’t even be listening to it. MR. FRANK-Isn’t that two separate issues, what you’re considering, and the meeting itself? MR. STONE-Roy, go ahead. Then I’ve got something I want to say. MR. URRICO-Everybody else has spoken. So I think it’s my turn. Procedurally, I agree. This might create problems in the future. It seems to me the problem lies within the cost, and I guess why is the applicant being asked to pay the cost of this meeting? We don’t ask any other applicants to pay for the meeting that night. There are five people on the agenda next week. We don’t ask them to divide up the cost of the meeting. So why, in this particular case, is Mr. DiPhillips being asked to incur the cost? If that cost was not incurred, and we had this special meeting, there would be no conflict. MR. STONE-Correct. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MR. FRANK-That’s a good point. MR. URRICO-I guess the resolution here would be to recommend to the Town that they refund his money and proceed with the meeting. MR. ABBATE-Well, my motion has already been seconded, and the motion was. MR. STONE-It’s on the table. MR. ABBATE-It’s on the table. It’s been seconded, and we have to vote on it, and my motion was to table Area Variance 40-2002 so that the applicant may recoup these monies paid to the Town for the stipend of members of the Board, and after and only after regaining these monies, this application can be scheduled at a subsequent public hearing, and I would feel much more comfortable with that. MR. STONE-Okay. The only thing that that does, I think as Chuck said, we are here, and we have opened the meeting, and if we vote, we’re going to have taken action in the meeting, and under the rules of the Town, I think as Roy just said, we should be paid. Because we have come. We’ve had an official meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I would suggest that we recuse ourselves, all of us, from voting. MR. STONE-That’s what I was about to suggest, Chuck. If enough people recuse themselves. MR. ABBATE-I will officially recuse myself from this meeting. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Can I jump in just for a second? MR. ABBATE-I’ve already recused myself. I’m not going to listen anymore. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. DI PHILLIPS-I just want to mention something. I’m very, first of all, I appreciate everybody coming in, on a night when this wasn’t a scheduled meeting, okay. Secondly, I understand the dynamics and I’ve got a little better handle on, the issue tends to be more of a procedural thing, lying somewhere between the Department, the Town, the Supervisor, and the Board, but where this all, I just want to let you know where this came from. Following proper procedures, a resident in the Town of Queensbury was issued a building permit based on the setbacks that were given. As the people showed up to actually physically put a pool in a yard, the guy said, you’ve got to move it. You have an issue here, a safety concern. The neighbors, when we checked to see if the setbacks had been changed, because they told me when I originally applied that in Hidden Hills you can be grandfathered and use the old setbacks. That does not apply to the rear setback for a pool. I came up, went through, and I was told that. So I said, well, then I will need to get a variance because I need to move the pool back, as it turns out, three feet. Now, at that point, as a resident, any resident in the Town of Queensbury would have a couple of issues, decisions to make. Do we just go ahead and say, ah, or, do we follow what’s right and say, I need a variance. The problem with the variance procedure, as I see it as a resident is, if you have a building permit and you are in the middle of a procedure, be it a structure or a pool or anything along that line, and some extenuating circumstances come up, you then have to fall into the regular permit and appearance procedure and in the case of a hardship, there is no default where you’d have an opportunity to move forward. Now what’s happen to me is, as a result of this, something has come up whether I should pay the Board or not. Personally, I’d rather not have to pay the Board. However, if I have a function at my house or at my business, and I ask the Town or the Sheriff’s to come there, and I have to pay them. They aren’t paid by the Town. It’s not a scheduled thing. If I want somebody there on my dime, I have the ability to pay that. So I looked at it that way. That this is, you know, if I’m going to ask them to come in for a separate meeting, that’s not something you’d normally do, I would pay that myself. Here’s the problem with what’s going back and forth, and I understand it’s something you don’t want to open up. Believe me, I can imagine some attorneys or some sharp people who might make your lives miserable, but I have an issue where now once with a guy with a backhoe in my back yard, and I asked him to stop because I’ve got to move my pool three feet. He did it, but I had to pay him. I had to already pay for the pool. It’s only fair, I’ve already paid for not only the pool and the installation, and the pool has sat in my driveway now for five weeks. If everybody recuses themselves tonight, my pool still sits there and the backhoe’s in my back yard again, and I’m going to ask this guy to leave and come back, and they’re scheduled out for the whole summer. So I’m going to incur additional hardship. So, whereas I’m sensitive where you probably ought to have a procedure that’s pretty well defined, so that you don’t run into this, I incurring additional costs already by bringing this crew back now for the second time, and I risk the chance of telling him to go away. Just summing this up, I think you need to have procedures to harness the growth in Queensbury. I think what you guys do is a very difficult job, because everybody, it’s like a wedding reception. Everybody wants to sit at the bride and groom’s table and there’s not enough space. However, you also have an opportunity here to send a message to the residents and constituents of Queensbury that in the case of hardship which has been proven not only with the Town Board, or the Town offices, but the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) Supervisor, that there’s a unique situation here that needs to be addressed, and I think the outcome of this should be the Post Star should say, you know what, here’s a situation where they used a good head and warm heart, and everybody won. So, that’s all that I wanted to say, and I wanted to ask a question. At what point, during parliamentary procedure, do you vote on the seconded motion or not? MR. STONE-We will vote on it right now, because there is a motion, I mean, we’ve never had this before, so we’re all winging it, all right. So let’s keep that in mind, and I’m liable to making a lot of mistakes, because we haven’t done this before, but the point is, Mr. Abbate recused himself. If each one of us individually, and it’s a very individual thing, the point that Mr. Abbate made, the motion that’s on the floor, and you certainly should come back when we vote on the motion. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-If each of us takes it personally, that we’re concerned about this appearance of impropriety, appearance of whatever you want to talk about, if three of us, I’m using “us” collectively, withdraws, there is no meeting. We need four people to have a meeting. One of our members is not here tonight, for whatever reason he has. If three people were to recuse themselves, then I would have to call the meeting off. You would agree, Bruce? MR. FRANK-I think you have to have four for a quorum. MR. STONE-You’ve got to have four. First of all, you need two things. You need four to have a meeting, and you need four votes, even if there’s only four people here, to approve a variance. So, that’s the concern we have. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, could I make a point before you vote? I understand where all of you are coming from. If one of the concerns, also, is the procedural thing, I think that you should all go on the record, if you choose to, individually, sending a message to the Town Supervisor that you didn’t appreciate being put in the position that you feel uncomfortable about things, and here’s your chance to speak on the record. That’s why I don’t want you to recuse yourselves. MR. ABBATE-Bruce, you don’t think my statement was strong enough? I can make it stronger if you want it. MR. FRANK-Mr. Abbate, I meant all of the Board members. MR. STONE-That’s what I said earlier. MR. FRANK-And so if you do make that message to the Town Supervisor, maybe he’ll get the point that, don’t do this to us too often, because we’re not comfortable with it. MR. STONE-No. Don’t do it to us ever again. MR. ABBATE-Ever again. MR. URRICO-I’m uncomfortable with making an example of Mr. DiPhillips, in this instance. I understand the concerns, and I understand the consideration of impropriety, but I also feel that the Town has reviewed this. They say we’re legal. I’m comfortable with that. I’m comfortable with also sending a message that this shouldn’t happen again, but I’m also, I’m more uncomfortable by sending Mr. DiPhillips away without a decision tonight. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-I think, for one, we’ve already gone a ways towards hearing the application, which is not a good thing. It’s already appears to have effected one person’s thinking, and I sympathize with the applicant and the position. I wanted to say, in connection with what Bruce has said, for the record, that I have, on at least five occasions in the last couple of years, called attention, particularly with things that are administered, from the Coding standpoint, after something is done, such as, well, we have a number of cases, where our procedures, in addition to what the applicant has pointed out to, I think he is on target, we have some definite shortcomings in our procedures, and I’m sure there are a lot of reasons why that’s the case, and it’s not because people aren’t working hard enough down in Staff. We know they are, but here is perhaps another example, but I want to re-direct it that we definitely have had several in the past year, year and a half, which I felt the poor applicant shouldn’t even have been here if we’d done our job, not us the Board, but I mean the Town. In other words, they put in a foundation, check it then. Don’t wait until the house is on and stuff like that. MR. STONE-You’re talking a procedure, building procedures? MR. HIMES-Yes. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-So, on the other hand, the aspect of whether or not this meeting should take place, my thoughts are unchanged. I feel that it shouldn’t, for Chuck’s reason and my own, on the basis of the procedural aspects of it, because there is no explaining it away now. That’s my opinion. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-What I’d like to do, well, before we vote, because I don’t want this to be colored by whatever the vote is, I would like each of us, and we have, but I would like us to re-do it in a very special section of the minutes, a statement of how you feel, as concisely, that you’re either uncomfortable or you’re uncomfortable but, whatever, just like we would if we were looking at an application. Let me start at the end. Norm, I know you’ve said it, but say it again, and we’ll go down the line. MR. HIMES-That’s fine. If I can, I’ll refer to the letter. MR. STONE-Sure, that’s a motion that’s on the floor. MR. HIMES-That Chuck wrote in, and I still support that. Additionally, I added the fact that I am nearly as concerned, from the standpoint of the act’s impact on our procedures, and what is going to happen or could happen or likely is going to happen in my opinion in the future because of this action tonight, and it is not, to some extent, we’re not involved in the decision as to whether or not the meeting should have been scheduled, but we are involved in whether or not the meeting is going to take place. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Okay. My concern is with the precedent that this could set for future meetings, where an applicant is in a bind, and that these kinds of meetings have to be given a lot of thought beforehand, and mainly centered around how we’re paid or how we’re perceived to be paid, and the Town asking the applicant to bear the cost of the Board’s salary for this meeting has created this appearance of impropriety, and that no other meetings are referred to in this manner. I believe we are paid by the Town, we should continue to be paid by the Town, and all application fees presumably cover that payment, normal application fees, and anything above and beyond that brings on the appearance of impropriety, and I think that has to be addressed in the future. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’ll try to put this in one paragraph. I believe that this Area Variance, not Mr. DiPhillips, but the Area Variance 40-2002 does indeed present a dilemma. This is a public meeting, and I started out by saying I predispose that paying the honorarium or stipend of the ZBA members, by the applicant violates no law and apparently I was right, because the Town Attorney agreed with that. However, notwithstanding all of that, I also am quite concerned, and I submit, that this could be perceived as advancing his solicitation. This could be perceived, not that Mr. DiPhillips is advancing his solicitation, but this could be perceived by the reporter from the Post Star as advancing his solicitation. We talk about, or I talk about, not impropriety per se, but a perception of impropriety. That’s where I am concerned. This Board, unlike any other Board in Town, is a quasi-judicial Board, and as such, we have rather unique responsibilities, and one of our major responsibilities is to wipe clean the fact that no one could ever question the integrity of any of the members of this Board, and I submit that this Area Variance No. 40-2002 could be perceived by the average person, this could be perceived by a reasonable person, that we have acted in an unlawful manner in that our proceeds, and the check that we are going to be receiving, in spite of the fact that it is issued by the Town, nonetheless, was provided by the applicant who asked us to review his Area Variance. In this case, it’s my perception that the appearance of conflict will exist, and unless we stop, immediately, you want a strong message to the Town Board, we stop immediately having any applicant provide monies to the Town which, in turn, circumvents everything else and comes to the Board members eventually, that this never happen again in the future, and that is why I said, Mr. DiPhillips, that if we were to table this and you were to recoup those monies, and then come back to us, you know what, I would have no problems with this. MR. STONE-Don’t go there. MR. ABBATE-Period. MR. STONE-I don’t know if you were referring to the application. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MR. ABBATE-No. I’m talking about appearance of impropriety, no not the application. Do you want me to rephrase it. MR. STONE-No, that’s fine. You made it clear. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t think there was any doubt that Mr. DiPhillips was acting in good faith when he came to the Town, based on the fact that he was going to be exceeding what was reasonable for his setbacks in his back yard there, but at the same time I think that Dennis’ letter to us, and, you know, the confusion that that creates does create that perception that we’re, you know, where’s the money coming from, that end of it, which could be misconstrued that way. I don’t think that there’s any doubt that the Board is capable of rendering a decision in regards to your project that’s reasonable, and I’m sure that we will at some point in time, but I don’t know if that’s going to happen this evening. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts. I’ll try to keep them brief. I think we’ve got a Catch-22, as far as reimbursing or not reimbursing the Town for the cost of the special meeting. The point’s been made very clear, the problem with an applicant reimbursing the Town for the cost of a meeting. To proceed the other way, to hold this meeting and not have the applicant reimburse the Town for the extra expense incurred by having the special meeting then puts the Town in the place of spending Town money for a specific person, which is also a conflict. One answer, then becomes don’t hold the special meeting, but I think there should be a way for the Town, whether it’s the Zoning Board of Appeals or Planning Board or some other Town procedure, for somebody like the Town Supervisor to be able to step in, when he sees that there’s a unique situation, have him evaluate the circumstances and make a decision that something a little bit out of the ordinary needs to be done to rectify a situation, and I’m not comfortable second guessing the Town Supervisor on his decision all the time. I don’t think he should do it frequently, but if occasionally he does it, and he feels something’s important to have attention now rather than later, I think he’s doing his job. As far as the appearance of impropriety, should we consider this application and should we approve it? I think we’ve solved that tonight. I think we’ve made more than enough fuss about it that I don’t think there’d be any doubt that if we approved this application, that it would be done because Mr. DiPhillips provided our stipend for tonight, but I guess the bottom line for me is I understand the conflicts, but I’ll stand by what I said before, I think you can’t jump every time someone hollers conflict. At times I think you’ve got to explain or stand up and say, hey, I feel I can be fair in this situation and I’m going to proceed, and that’s where I’m at. I think I can be fair. I think I can put everything aside and consider this application on its merits, and I’d be inclined to proceed. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have to challenge that. We owe no allegiance to the Town Supervisor or any other elected official. Our allegiance is to a reasonable person under reasonable circumstances, to the people of the Town of Queensbury and to no elected official. MR. STONE-We serve at the pleasure of the Town Board. MR. ABBATE-And I stay with my statement. MR. STONE-All right, but we do serve at the pleasure of the Town Board. We are appointed by the Town Board. MR. ABBATE-Does that mean we are subservient? MR. STONE-I didn’t say subservient. I said we serve at their pleasure. Let me just say that I agree with everything that I’ve heard tonight. I mean, there’s no question that, gentlemen, we are ethical and moral individuals. We have stated our position very clearly. We are conflicted. There is no question that we would prefer not to be in this position. There’s no question about that. Norm, your concern for the future doesn’t bother me, and I’ll tell you why it doesn’t bother me, because it’s in our hands. We can say no any time somebody wants to try to do this again. We just, if necessary, we come in and we say, we’re not going to have it, period, and we walk out. We have that right. So I don’t think it’s ever going to happen again, and that’s why I asked us to put it on the record. I think we will present this, I will personally present this to the Town Supervisor at the Town Board and say that we really resent having been put in this situation, but I do think it is in our own hands to say it will not happen again, we don’t have to meet. I’m concerned with impropriety. I’m concerned with the appearance, and certainly I have personally talked about that on many, many occasions both on this Board and as a candidate for public office. I have made it very clear that I don’t think we should be here. This particular case somehow doesn’t bother me as much. I mean, I recognize what you’re saying, Mr. Abbate, and I applaud you for doing it and putting us on notice. I think, I’m confident in my own ability to separate the fact that this is a special meeting, with everything that’s attached to it, and the application that we may or may not hear. I mean, I don’t think that’s a problem. Fortunately, and I don’t want to talk about the application at all. I could make comments about it, but I just think that we have put ourselves on notice extremely well, and we will continue to push that forward. Having said that, I would call for a vote on the motion. Would you please read the motion. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’ll be happy to, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2002 PAUL F. DI PHILLIPS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 36 Hidden Hills Drive. So that the applicant may recoup those monies paid to the Town for the stipend of members of this Board, and after and only after regaining those monies, this application be scheduled at a subsequent regular public hearing. Duly adopted this 6 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Is that your understanding of the motion that you seconded, Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-A subsequent regular. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. I’ll be happy to include that, at a subsequent regular hearing. Thank you, Norm. MR. STONE-Regular meeting. MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Can I just ask something? MR. STONE-No, no. I think this is something we’re going to have to do. I mean, it’s in our hands. We appreciate what you’ve done, and it’s not your fault that you’ve put us in this situation. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Can I ask a question? MR. STONE-You can ask a question. MR. ABBATE-I think he’s out of order. We’re in the process of voting now. He’s out of order. MR. DI PHILLIPS-The only question I wanted to ask is, are you saying, now, when you vote, that in order for that motion to pass, how many people have to vote yes or no? MR. STONE-Four people have to vote yes. I don’t know. I’m going to make a decision, let me state ahead of time, I guess. I hadn’t really thought about it. Normally, on an application, we are bound by law that we must have four vote to pass it, and as Mr. Abbate has pointed out, in some previous readings that he’s done, if we don’t have four votes on a variance, it’s a no vote. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-We haven’t actually gotten into that situation, but since it would be three, three, I would say we’d have to have a majority vote of those voting. So, having said that, Maria, would you call the role. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Can I? MR. STONE-No, I think we’ve got to go. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Can I? MR. ABBATE-Wait a second. MR. STONE-No, we’re voting, sir. MR. ABBATE-No, we’re voting. You’re out of order. You are out of order. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MR. STONE-No, no. I’ll tell him he’s out of order. MR. ABBATE-Then tell him. MR. STONE-Please. We’re doing this because we have been put in a situation, and we feel that we have to vote on this. MR. DI PHILLIPS-I can’t withdraw my application? MR. STONE-You can withdraw your application. MR. DI PHILLIPS-At what point can I do that? MR. STONE-Right now. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Okay. I’m just wondering if that’s. MR. STONE-You can withdraw your application at any time, and then you would have to go into the regular procedure. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Isn’t that going to happen anyway. If three guys say no, isn’t that what’s going to happen anyway? MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s not going to put any prejudice on it. It’ll still be July. MR. FRANK-Mr. DiPhillips, if you withdraw your application now, I think you’re going to hold yourself up even worse. You may go on to the July agenda. MR. STONE-It’ll definitely be July. MR. FRANK-So if you withdraw, I don’t think it’s in your best interest to withdraw. I don’t want to tell you what to do, but. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Okay. That’s all I was asking. I’m not trying to. MR. STONE-If this vote goes that we’re going to, the motion, then that it’s going to be July anyway. Well, it might be the last meeting of the month, but I don’t know. Staff’s going to have to determine that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I interject? Could we modify the original thing that he read, that we table this until the next meeting of the Board, the next official meeting, which would be next week? I mean, is there any reason we can’t do that? MR. STONE-The only reason that we can’t do that is that we’ve got seven items on the agenda. MR. HIMES-We’re doing the same thing, in some respects. I think we’re giving precedence to something for whatever reason. MR. STONE-Well, if this hadn’t happened, Norm, he would certainly be on the agenda for a June meeting, either the two regular meetings or the special meeting, which came about only because there were more applications than we could handle in two meetings. So I don’t want to say this special meeting is like next week’s special meeting. They’re different specials. We call it, in other words, we’re scheduled for one meeting a month, technically, the third Wednesday of the month. If there’s more than we can handle in that, we do it on the fourth Wednesday, but because there’s even more, we’re doing a special meeting next week, but that special is not this special. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Can we continue with the voting here? MR. STONE-Let’s continue with the vote. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Yes. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-No. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-So it’s three, three. MR. ABBATE-Which is a negative vote by law. MR. STONE-Well, it’s a negative vote on an application, well, it’s a negative vote on anything. MR. ABBATE-It’s a negative vote. MR. STONE-I could say that because the motion wasn’t passed, there is no motion, and we hear the application. MR. ABBATE-No, Mr. Chairman. I have legal precedence which I have presented to you. MR. STONE-That is on a variance, sir. MR. ABBATE-What do you think this is? MR. STONE-We’re not voting on a variance. MR. ABBATE-We’re voting on the application. MR. STONE-We’re voting on whether to hear the application. It’s very different. We haven’t touched the application. MR. ABBATE-You want to vote on the application, let’s proceed. MR. HIMES-It’s recorded. We have a three and three vote. MR. STONE-Three to three. Therefore, I’m saying that the motion did not pass. MR. ABBATE-That’s fair. I don’t take it personal. MR. STONE-Would you agree? MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t pass. MR. STONE-Okay. Would you read the application, sir? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, sir. “Is the amount of relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance? The five feet of relief should pose no substantial relief as to the Code. MR. STONE-Before you go further, I would like to get clarification on that. Is it six, five or three? The applicant stated it was three tonight. Your notes say six, and his notes say five. MR. ABBATE-I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. At this point, I am going to recuse myself from any further discussion. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-And I think I will, too. MR. STONE-What is the number, do you know? You mentioned three. MR. DI PHILLIPS-The guys are there tonight starting to do some prep work, and they re-measured, and it looks as if it’s only going to be three foot, maybe three foot four inches based on they moved stairs. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, if we get to a motion, we’ll figure it out then. Go ahead. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2002, Paul F. DiPhillips, Meeting Date: June 6, 2002 “Project Location: 36 Hidden Hills Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 18-foot by 36-foot in-ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures regulations; § 179-5-020 C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to install the desired pool in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (30%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, as the applicant claims his neighbors have no objections to his application. Additionally, both next-door neighbors have pools. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to a lack of complaint locations for a pool due to the septic system and a deck, part of which surrounds a tree. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 88-497: 07/07/88; 28’ x 36’ single family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant applied for a variance when the contractor informed him a proper placement of the pool would result in an encroachment on the 20 foot minimum rear setback required for pools. The pool would not be out of character with the neighborhood (both next-door neighbors have pools), and the applicant claims the neighbors have no objections to this application. It should be noted, a site visit found a shed too close to the side property line. The applicant stated he wasn’t aware of the setback requirement for sheds less than 120 sq. ft. The applicant further stated the shed would be relocated to the southeast corner of the parcel at least 5 feet from the rear and side property lines. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. DiPhillips, it your turn. Tell us anything more you want us to know. State your name. MR. DI PHILLIPS-My name is Paul DiPhillips. Basically I’m here looking for a variance for the pool, and I think I made a statement earlier. It’s unfortunate that I kind of got caught in the center of what seems to be proper procedures and the whole process. I just want to say, again, though, that there is an opportunity here to send a message to the residents in the Town, the small guys like myself, that the process isn’t futile, that if you follow the process under certain circumstances, you know, that it does work. Other than that, the shed, I did want to mention on the shed, I was unaware of that, but it is being moved to the back, and it will be within the setbacks, being used as a pumphouse for the pool, and that’s basically it. MR. STONE-If we get to a motion, we will put that in the motion, just so that you do that. I have a question. You state that, in Staff notes, that both neighbors to left and right have pools. It appeared to me that the neighbor in the back is fairly close. Do they have any objections, do you know? Have they written anything? MR. DI PHILLIPS-No, not that I’m aware of. There’s a forever wild area in the back. MR. STONE-Yes, I noticed that. How deep is that? MR. DI PHILLIPS-I’d have to guess. It appears it’s about maybe 15 feet in the center, and it widens out to 20 feet on the edges. MR. STONE-And that’s by covenant? By deeds, right? MR. DI PHILLIPS-I’m not sure of that. MR. STONE-Bruce, do you, I assume it is. Usually those things are, since that was one development, wasn’t it? MR. FRANK-I know of some. I don’t know if that is one. MR. STONE-I mean, it’s certainly not a Town requirement. MR. FRANK-No. MR. DI PHILLIPS-No. MR. FRANK-A lot of times it’s a subdivision requirement. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MR. STONE-Yes. As I say, I was a little concerned that it was fairly close to the back line when you consider that neighbor isn’t that far away, but we’ll see if there’s anything when we get to the public hearing. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-The size of the pool, is there any chance that it could be made smaller? MR. DI PHILLIPS-Well, I imagine it could have been at some point. It’s kind of there and paid for, and I own it. So, you know, not anticipating that the setback problem didn’t really rear it’s head until we were already in the procedure. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-You’re going to be putting a fence around the pool of some sort. What kind of fence will be in the rear? MR. DI PHILLIPS-Well, that’s a great question. We’ve had similar discussions to what’s gone on tonight. It appears as if it’ll be some type of black buff vinyl fence, to tie in with both neighbors’ fences, because there is a wood fence on one side, and then there’s a cream color vinyl fence. So the feeling is, from a landscaper, that if I use a black vinyl kind of like, they call it a Charleston look. Anyway, it’s like an iron gate but black vinyl, that that’ll tie the two in on the front, so that they go together aesthetically. MR. STONE-But you will meet the legal requirements for fences? MR. DI PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Part of what I was thinking, there’s a drop off in the back, so that the property behind is lower, and a six foot stockade fence would be presenting a pretty formidable wall for the back yard of the neighbor behind him, but if it’s more of a see-through fence, I think you could mitigate some of that. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Yes. I mean, I like it open. I mean, it’s nice. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DI PHILLIPS-It really is. So that is the plan, but it would be within the height requirements certainly, and would be, you know, hopefully appealing to the eye. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-So there are no letters from any of your neighbors who? So we have to take your word for it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anything else? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-For the record, I just want to say I’m looking at this as if it were being presented to us under regular circumstances, and that being the case, going down the test, I see the benefit to the applicant, to install the desired pool in the preferred location. It’s something that many residents like to have on their property, and I can see the benefit. The feasible alternatives at this time seem to be limited. There could have been a smaller pool ordered, perhaps to fit in there, but I understand what took place. As far as relief being substantial relative to the Ordinance, I don’t, I think we’re talking about five feet, right? MR. DI PHILLIPS-At the maximum, yes. MR. URRICO-I don’t see that as being excessive. I think that’s a little bit more than minimal, but well within our range, and I think we’ve approved pools with more setback. Effects on the neighborhood or community, since nobody’s come out for or against, I’m going to take that to mean there is no problem with it, especially since two of the neighbors already have pools there. I don’t think they’re going to object, and is this difficulty self-created? Probably it is because the pool was ordered prior to seeking the relief, but on balance, I’m in favor of the application? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would basically agree with what Roy’s said. I think that the amount of relief requested, had this been a normal application before us, in a normal meeting, I wouldn’t have had any problem with it. I think it’s reasonable that people have a pool that size, rather than a narrower one. I am still a little bit concerned with whatever kind of coercement was used on your part, as far as, you know, pushing this thing through as a special meeting, and I still think that’s absolutely wrong what you did, and I guess I would go along with it, reluctantly. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Looking at the application on it’s merits, I have no problem with it. I think, as has been pointed out, it’s a relatively minor variance. There’s reason for it. I’m not as concerned about coercement or whatever. Again, I think I’ll rely on the Town Supervisor’s judgment. It may be correct or incorrect, but I think that’s his prerogative, and I am pleased that if you had to pick an event, you picked one where the applicant stopped work when he realized he was going to need a variance instead of going ahead and doing it and coming in for an after the fact request later on. I think that, in itself, deserves some credit, but on the merits of it, I think it’s reasonable, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Well, I agree with my fellow Board members. This is the kind of application that if you had come in without question being attached to it, that it would certainly be something we would agree to. The neighbors have pools. You’re going to have a pool which is not going to be out of line with where they are. You were given a building permit on the basis of the information that you provided, and to your credit and to the builder’s credit, you did say, hey, we better check, and you did, and you haven’t put spade one in the ground, from what I could see. I mean, nothing has been disturbed except your driveway, for a period of time. I think, as Mr. Urrico pointed out, going down the list, I think the test comes in favor of the applicant. I think this is a reasonable request, albeit not made in a reasonable fashion, but nevertheless a reasonable request. Having said that, I would ask for a motion to approve this with two things, and I’m thinking about it. I would like a reference to the situation in the motion, as positively as we can make it. I would also like the record to reflect that the shed will be moved to a compliant location, and that the fencing will be open fencing to the highest degree possible. Can you live with that condition? MR. DI PHILLIPS-Yes, that’s the plan. MR. STONE-Okay. We’re going to put it in the motion. MR. FRANK-Mr. Urrico, before you make your motion, you ought to make it clear what relief you’re granting him. MR. STONE-Yes, five feet maximum. I think that’s what the applicant said. Now, you better make sure you don’t go over. I mean, you’re sure five feet is enough? MR. FRANK-Because your application was for six. MR. DI PHILLIPS-I changed it to six only because I’d rather be on the short side of it than be over and have to ask for a variance. So, originally I only needed five feet. I asked for six to cover my bets, in case the guy puts it in the wrong spot. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I didn’t hear any objection to even the six feet from anybody. So for your benefit we’ll make it six. MR. DI PHILLIPS-Okay. MR. STONE-Roy? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2002 PAUL F. DI PHILLIPS, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 36 Hidden Hills Drive. The applicant proposes construction of an 18 foot by 36 foot in-ground swimming pool. The applicant requests six feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures regulation of 179-50-020(C). The benefit to the applicant would be to be permitted to install the desired pool in this location. The feasible alternative seem to be somewhat limited at this point. The six foot relief from the twenty foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, but in this case I think it’s mitigated somewhat by pools on two sides. The effect on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as being minimal as a result of this action, again referring to other pools nearby, and this difficulty may be attributed to a lack of compliant locations for a pool, due to a septic system and the deck, part of which surrounds a tree. I’d like to also condition this motion on two things. One, that a shed that is also within the side setback, five feet from the side setback, be moved to a compliant location, 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/6/02) and that, two, that notation be made that this procedure, this application, was being reviewed under circumstances which the Board considers less than desirable, especially since the applicant was asked to bear the cost of the salaries of the Board members and Staff at this meeting by the Town Supervisor. Duly adopted this 6 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go, sir. I would ask, Maria, that you get these minutes to us by next week so that we can approve them, so that I can bring them to the Town Board as quickly as possible. I’d like to present the minutes, along with a note that we do not enjoy being put in this situation, and don’t ever want it to happen again, and I would ask them to read, I won’t read the whole minutes into the public hearing, but I will at least make them aware of our displeasure. Having said that, this meeting is concluded. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 15