Loading...
1993-01-27 (' "-- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27TH, 1993 INDEX Workshop meeting with Joe Prall from DEC in Warrensburg. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27TH. 1993 '7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY THOHAS PHILO FRED CARVIN MEMBERS ABSENT HARlE PALING CHRIS THOMAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES HARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-This is just like a workshop type of a situation. JOE PRALL MR. PRALL-'fhey Just came in to the office. They've been in the works for years. They just came in to the office a week ago, and I haven't had the opportunity to go all the way through them yet. They've gone through Legal Affairs and all. So I think they're going to be fairly close and fairly accurate. Again, they're not regulations or law, but interpretations thereof, but yet a lot of the answers to the questions are based on existing court precedent that has been established. MR. MARTIN-If you could get us, it would be a real nice thing to have for all our Boards. It would be a real nice thing to have for all our Boards, because we have a seven member ZBA, and a seven member Planning Board and a five member Town Board. MR. TURNER-Yes, they certainly ought to have them. MR. MARTIN-I'd appreciate that. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is really going to be helpful, because I've got this thing. MR. TURNER-That's all I've got. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PRALL-I'm not too sure what kind of format you've got established for tonight, or whatever. I've been asked to come down here and perhaps go over some of these cases that were forwarded up to the office, in regard to variance requests that you have. I'm by no means department attorney or a private attorney, and I generally work with the Regulatory Affairs Department. So our basic function is to more or less oversee and be the Department's experts in regard to Article VIII of the Environmental Conservation Law, which is the State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA, and basically our function is, from time to time, when they ask us to go out to the public, the general public, municipalities or counties or whatever, other agencies, and advise what we interpret SEQRA to be, based on our experience, and some of the guidelines that has been handed down, either through our regional attorneys or through our Legal Affairs, central offices, and I'm not here, by any means, to supplant your counsel and his advice or his opinions 1 ---~ in these matters. In some cases my advice may be limited, as you are working more from a Planning Board/Zoning Board perspective, in dealing with land uses somewhat different from concepts that I am used to, with Regulatory Affairs, in addressing various environmental impacts associated with projects. Yours is more of a development oriented concept. Ours is more of a direct impact, with say. wetlands, things along those lines, maintain a better technical expertise. Do you want to go down through these? MR. MARTIN-Well, I just generally wanted to get a feeling for what the considerations are, leading to a Type I or a Type II classification. See, we're sort of at an odds here. We have a Staff, here. that is essentially new, and I'm also a new Zoning Administrator, and determinations in the past have been situations like that you've had sent up to you have been classified as Type I, and I see them as Type II, and therein do we have the conflict. MR. PRALL-Okay. The way we review SEQRA, or view SEQRA is it's merely a tool for the various agencies, whether municipal, county, or state government. to acquire the necessary information that we need to make the appropriate decisions along the line of a mandate responsibilities. It is a formal process that you must go through when encumbered to do so. The intent is not to see to it that you acquire information that you don't need in making or rendering your decision. So, there is certain misunderstandings as to what all is necessary, and there are times when brief additional information is all that would suffice to meet one's mandated responsibility for rendering a decision under what agency he's working for. Now, in the particular case, and these are issues that relate to preexisting lots, I'm under the assumption that they are prior to some new Ordinance that came into place after these lots existed. We now have dwellings presently on the sites that are being demolished, and being replaced with request for variance of existing setbacks that are, have been put into place after the initial buildings were constructed. The question is whether they're a Type II or whether they're a Type I in this case. Under normal situations, the question would be whether they're a Type I or an unlisted action, because they're not on the Type I list. What makes them, or would make them a candidate for Type I in this case is because if you presume they're not a Type II. and you presume they're an unlisted action, being in a critical environmental area. as I guess that portion of the lake is assigned. it there elevates from an Unlisted Action to a Type I Action. The review process is a little bit more formal, and it can be somewhat more cumbersome, but it does not necessarily mean the decision or the determination of significance is going to be different, whether it's Unlisted or whether it's Type I. The only difference between the Unlisted thresholds and the Type I is, the One's are those type of projects that are more likely to have a significant adverse impact. If that being the case, they would then be more likely to require Environmental Impact Statements, but it's not a mandatory requirement. You may have to prepare a formal Neg Dec on a Type I Action, or the completion of a Short Environmental Assessment Form may suffice for an Unlisted Action. In this particular case, we can eliminate any consideration of Unlisted Action, and look at it from a perspective of, these variance requests here are either Type II or Type I. because they're in a Critical Environmental Area. Generally, if we have an existing structure. and in this case, Single Family dwellings, to my understanding, on preexisting nonconforming lots, I, personally, would review that as a replacement of a facility in kind. The concept of a Single Family dwelling is what we would basically view. and the listing of the replacement of a facility in kind is, I think you've got some of those books up there. If you look at Page 14, and I think if you go to that second paragraph which is 617. 130 ( 1 ), i t basically says, replacement of a one lane, wood frame bridge with two lane steel concrete bridge was held to be a replacement of a facility in kind, okay. What this is basically trying to convey is, the language in 617, when you get into the specific Section in 617.130(1), it never really established were 2 there any thresholds that you exceed, which this no longer applies, and I'm sure there may be. Is a doubling in size or tripling in size a change from generally a facility for a replacement for a facili ty in kind. There's no yardstick in a lot of places of SEQRA. SO there's a lot of grey area and a lot of guesswork going on. We've basically kind of held to some of our project proposals. If the concept remained the same, the structure could change in size, shape. configuration, or whatever else. It's remaining. in most cases here, a single family dwelling. The same concept exists. We don't have a duplex. or a quadraplex, or a motel or something that changed from the initial land use. It would be my opinion that I would safely call it a Type II Action, based on that kind of a concept. If you go on and you look at the question where there's a request. here, for a setback variance in that, again, under that same Section 617. 13D. in this case (2), and in the booklet on Page 14, it would be the third paragraph down, it covers all variances for relief from setback and lot line requirements, including front line, side, back, width, and depth, an interpretation in the handbook, again, of Number (2), and the Type II's action. So, from that perspective, I construe that even variance requests are of a Type II nature. pursuant to the regulation and the interpretation under the handbook situation. In some of these examples here. I think there's further requests, and this I'm not clear, because I don't think I've discussed it with the Planning Department before. required lot width is 150 feet, as per Section 179-16C. Proposed lot width, I assume in this particular instance, is only 90 feet, and the applicant is seeking relief of 60 feet. I'm assuming this is a nonconforming lot prior to that Section 190-16C, and they're seeking relief from that requirement. Again, I'm not a legal attorney, but in this particular case, the lot was prior to the regulation, or the Ordinance that was passed making 150, I'm assuming it may be a grandfathered situation, pursuant to the regulations, but again, I don't know what your Section is of your Ordinance or whatever else, so that something, you know, would have to be interpreted on your part, but if you had something in existence prior to the new Ordinance generally my assumption is, from what I've seen in the past is. it is generally grandfathered at that time. MR. MARTIN-Again, that's true in the Ordinance for those areas outside of the APA jurisdiction or a Critical Environmental Area. That's just the way it's set up. The Town through just recent amendment did reinstate that type of a grandfathering clause, and that's why, in this case, being in a Critical Environmental Area, that's one of the variances that needs to be sought by the applicant. It's not a grandfathered situation, so therefore, the relief is needed. MR. PRALL-Okay. MR. MARTIN-But that's just a particular, that's a local decision that was made as the grandfathering clause was structured. That's simply how it was structured in this case. MR. PRALL-Okay. I don't know if any of this has made sense to you or if there's any pertinent questions at this point you might have. MR. TURNER-Yes. I've got a question. You say, in reference to the 617.130(1). Replacement, Replacement in Kind, in the book here on Page 14, they're talking about taking down a house, putting up a replacement in kind. How far does kind go? MR. PRALL-Again, that's one of those yardsticks that doesn't exist in the regulations. MR. TURNER-All right. Lets say up around the lake they've got a seasonal camp that's 600, 700. 800 feet. and they propose to tear that camp down, build a 3500 square foot house. That doesn't require SEQRA? 3 MR. PRALL-Okay. I'd take the position that if it fits. you know, based on the interpretation, I'd say it's a replacement of a facility in kind. MR. TURNER-Yes. but you're going almost three times. MR. PRALL-I appreciate you're going three times. Now, I'm not sure where it's creating a problem here. MR. TURNER-You've got more stormwater runoff. MR. PHILO-Sewage. MR. PRALL-That doesn't mean you don't have to address those things or shouldn't address those things. All the question is is whether SEQRA applies or not, okay. Lets assume that SEQRA doesn't apply. Lets say we all agree and it's a Type II Action. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't look at those other considerations, stormwater runoff and that other stuff, in making a determination for your variance. If you've got other considerations such as hardship, whether they've met that test, I assume. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's anything that burdens you to even entertain your variance request, is there? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, setbacks. MR. TURNER-Setbacks, yes. MR. PRALL-I was always under the impression, and again, I have no basis to even know one way or the other. I was always under the impression that, merely because somebody requested a variance request. that it didn't have to be necessarily entertained. It was the prerogative of the Board. Again, I can't give you any legal precedent. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's correct. MR. DUSEK-Well. as a matter of law, if a variance request is made. the Board has to consider it, and not only do they have to consider it, but also have to balance the given criteria set forth in the law. If they either, One, refuse to look at it, or, Two. deny it on the basis of criteria that does not exist in the law, the person can actually. in court, force them to either, One, to decide the case or, Secondly. to change their decision if they did it wrong. So they operate in a very narrow confine. They actually are forced into making a weighing test and then they can be judicially reviewed to make sure they did that correctly. MR. PRALL-Under an Article 78. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. PRALL-Which everybody is held to. The question I would ask you. the criteria for granting a variance, or meeting the variance, hardship would be one of them? MR. DUSEK-Well, that's in the case of a ~ variance. MR. MARTIN-For a use. MR. TURNER-No, no. a use variance. MR. MARTIN-It would be practical difficulty in the case of an area variance. MR. PRALL-What about in regard to the, is that setback? MR. MARTIN-Right. In other words. there's a practical difficulty in that the lot is preexisting. as you say. It's only 50 foot wide. There's a practical difficulty that lies in a reasonably 4 sized house, will violate the setback, and there's a practical difficulty that was not created by the applicant. It's there as a matter of, the lot was created prior to his purchase, or something like that. MR. PRALL-Prior to his purchase. but he purchased into the hardship? MR. TURNER-Yes. He brought it on himself. MR. MARTIN-Right, or the lot was created, and he subdivided it in, say, 1965, and zoning caJl\e along and cre,ated thisinew lat:qir lot size. It wasn't his fault, and so there s a pract cal a1I~ culty there. MR. PRALL-So, that's one criteria, and that's an important, is establishing a hardship situation. The other thing, I assume there would have to be, obviously, if an Ordinance was passed. the Town Board presumed that there was, and again I'm guessing, there was potential impact to the Critical Environmental Area along the lake area, and in reviewing a project, we generally review them site specific and project specific. In other words, just because there's another request for basically the same thing, the house was a different shape, the stormwater runoff is perhaps of a different or lesser magnitude, site specific and project specific. So what you do in one case is not necessarily a hard and fast rule. meaning it applies to the next case. That's generally how we review them. So, I would assume that there would be some kind of criteria in the Ordinance that it would have to meet along the lines of the intent of why that was passed, such as preventing stormwater runoff, or degradation of the immediate shoreline, or the water quality. Things along those lines. So, if we just eliminated the SEQRA Review. Lets pretend that it's a Type II Action that doesn't exist anymore, it would still be incumbent to review those aspects or cri teria for meeting or granting of a variance. So, maybe you don't go through a SEQRA Review, but you may wind up at the same appropriate end result, in the decision making process. Type II, if it's a question that's being argued considerably wi thin the Department as this increasing in size or changing in shape or configuration, and I think what we come down to is defining what the action is. MR. MARTIN-It strikes me as. an example you cited that's in the book. here, a widening of a bridge from a one lane to a two lane. You could, more traffic, more capacity. MR. PRALL-I wished they'd have taken it, they stopped short. They should have taken it one step further and explained why it was being widened. We're taking the interpretation, the action, to service, lets say a house on the other side of the creek, is the same. The only difference is, the structure is now being brought up to say, more modern engineering techniques, or in line with local ordinances. MR. MARTIN-And that's often times the case, as we see with these houses on the lake. These small seasonal camps often times have substandard septic systems where the new camp, or the new single family dwelling, year round dwelling is going to put in a modern, up to date septic system, and from that standpoint, can be considered a plus or a positive impact. MR. PRALL-Yes, and what I'd say, in this case, that is a positive, but lets take it one step further, and lets say there's a potential for detriment, because now we've got more gallons on a per daily basis going into that specific area or a loft, and there's a concern that we might have a discharge into the lake, or eventually the system might fail or whatever, and there is that potential where the water quality, or we might have effluent in the lake, or whatever. If that's a concern, that can be addressed without necessarily having to go through a review process, but requiring 5 that the applicants provide certain information for engineering reports to address those kinds of issues. The need for requiring an impact statement would be totally useless, in my opinion, if all you need is that bit of information. If you're familiar with Short Environmental Assessment Forms and the Full Environmental Assessment Forms, I've seen information come in with Full Environmental Assessment Forms, to be in binders, perhaps that were, the Full Environmental Assessment Form with attachments would be of the magnitude of this depth, the reason being is to provide the Department of whoever was reviewing the project sufficient information to try and avoid having to prepare an environmental impact statement. If the applicant himself, on his own or in preapplication meeting with the Department, identified that there were certain problem areas that were outstanding, that needed to be considered, and as a result of perhaps doing, some kind of engineering report or providing additional soils service recommendations for on-site erosion controls during construction. things along this line, would suffice to eliminate those concerns. So, whoever was reviewing the project would say, this is not going to have a significant impact, as versus, this may have a significant impact. thereby triggering the impact statement. So, again, the only need or importance in a Type I is to see, are we going to have to get to the point of having an environmental impact statement on this particular project proposal. Last, that's one of the last things you necessarily want to do, if you can, by some other mechanism. get that information into the record, to suffice with meeting your needs in making your decision. MR. DUSEK-I may be able to help a little bit here. There's something I see occurring, and it's entirely proper because this is exactly what this section of the law leads to. Ted, you probably best crystallized it, and. Joe, I saw you also put it into very good terms. You're both taking a look at that clause and you're saying, it's Type II Action, meaning that you don't have to go through the SEQRA Review any further than that, making that determination, if it's a replacement of a facility in kind, and Joe and Jim have very much so indicated, yes. that's a replacement of a facility in kind. Ted is sitting over there saying, gee. I see a big expansion here. I see this more. Both of you gentlemen are correct in your opinions, and believe it or not, under the law as I understand it, both of you could be right in the court of law. Now, that may seem like a funny statement to make, but I'll explain the rest of it. and that is that I think what has to be done, here, is that the Board, as a Board. has to sit and go over these issues and talk about them and decide whether or not this is something worthy of a SEQRA Review. or whether it is a replacement of a facility in kind, and I'll tell you why I say that, it's because of that very case that Joe has pointed out, which was involving the bridge, where the court took a look at what the, in that instance I think it was, it was DEC that got sued. took a look at the bridge situation. It had been determined by DEC that there was, it was a Type II Action and no review was necessary under SEQRA after that, but it had been determined only after the bridge had been completely evaluated, in terms of what it was going to be. If you'll bear with me. I'd just like to give you some of the things that the court looked at. It said. the court must consider whether the respondents. this being DEC, and in this case you, under these applications, decision to classify the bridge project as a replacement in kind was reached after it took a hard look. So that's the first thing you're going to be required. The court's looking over what you did today, they're going to say, did you take a hard look at it? And what the court said here, it appears from the record that the DEC and the County appropriately considered the impact of the new bridge upon the surrounding environment, and they have fulfilled their obligation under SEQRA. The record shows that the County Civil Engineer and the DEC environmental analyst were well aware of the rustic nature of the existing bridge, and approved design which satisfied modern engineering and safety standards, but which was the minimum replacement feasible to safely accommodate fire trucks, snow plows, buses. The new bridge is not 6 substantially different in size, although it does incorporate modern construction materials. In other words, they looked at all these things. When they evaluated this and sat down, they said, well, okay, here's what the new bridge is, here's what it's made out of, here's what it's impacts are going to be, here's what the old bridge is, here's what it's doing. They did this evaluation, just like you should do this evaluation on the house, and then they said, okay, we conclude that it's a replacement in kind because it is so similar and the chances of an impact are very minimal. Therefore. we don't have to go through SEQRA any further. So they actually did that analysis. and that's what you're required to do in this pa:c.ti,c;ula.r case istac¡:.uallv take a t:10Qk.at this. That's why, when Ted s 100Klng a 11.., I 1::an see Jiat. he uas conðerns. Well, his judgement call is just as legitimate as anybody else's, and the rest of you folks can do the same thing. You could take a look at it, and ultimately you're going to vote on it, and your vote is going to rule whether or not it is a Type II or not a Type II, or you may come to a unanimous conclusion, after discussing it, but when you do that, you discuss the issue, you create a record, and you come to, you've discussed it among yourselves, ultimately the majority, as it's commonly the rule under the government we work in, wins. and that's your decision. If it's a decision that it's a Type I. then you would conduct a SEQRA Review. If it's a decision that it's a Type II, because you feel there's no significant impacts, then you would go with that. So, I think in that particular instance, where you're looking at an expansion of a facility, that's the analysis the Board should engage in among yourselves, and I think these gentlemen have provided you, certainly, with some of the considerations that you would want to make, in terms of whether or not it is, and this case, also, likewise provides with a very good analysis. In the case of, there's another instance, though, in the case of setbacks, in my opinion, there's really no analysis to make there. because the law says that it is a Type II if all they're looking for is a setback from the side lines, from the lake, whatever it may be. It's already answered that question for you. A setback is a setback, and it's my opinion that if you were to do anything different there, if you, after you've taken a look at it and you've said, okay, this is the setback, it's Type II, if you were to say it's a Type I, I think you could be legally challenged on that basis. MR. TURNER-We don't entertain an application that's anything but a Type II on setbacks, in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. DUSEK-On this expansion of the house, though, I think it's up to the Board to really discuss it. MR. TURNER-It's the expansion of the house on a small, small lot. You're going for, maybe 7, 800 square feet to 3500 square feet. You've got stormwater, like I said. MR. PRALL-Okay. Correct me if you disagree. Like I've said, there's really no yardstick in there that tells you when double or when you triple or whatever, but the point is, it is has grown. If you take a hard look at the situation of what you're dealing with, and the project proposal on that specific site. lets say we start off in the middle of the yardstick that doesn't exist. We're starting off on new ground and trying to decide which way you want to go with it. It's not necessarily a knee jerk reaction to a Type II Action, but again, based on, you know, as he so aptly put it, if certain things exist there, you may not want to go in the Type II column. but move over to the other side, and you have to have latitude to do that. There's no question about that. The question I would say is. and I'd caution, and again, your advice on it, not necessarily to get tripped up on SEQRA on trying to get an end result, or fit the SEQRA process in there if it's not necessary, if it doesn't meet the criteria. MR. DUSEK-Absolutely. I would agree with that. 7 '-- MR. PRALL-In the first place, don't get hung up in a big elaborate process. you don't need it. MR. MARTIN-See, and I think that's what's been happening. I think that's what's been happening. I think it's been, it's just been an abused process, to a degree. There's been, if you were to research the history of every SEQRA Review that's been referred to the Planning Board in a Critical Environmental on Lake George, we have never had a positive declaration, not once, in any of these cases. MR. PRALL-We've been advised never to go to, again, maybe it's off the cuff, and in what context, we've been kind of advised to require a Pos Dec on a project that you're going to deny. If it's a major project, I've got to go to a public hearing, I don't know how I'd explain we've got significant adverse impacts without a Pos Dec. I don't know, but that's something I don't have to worry about. but that was basically some of the guidance we were given. Don't get hung up on the SEQRA process if you're only coming in with a recommendation for denial. MR. DUSEK-I think, as Joe mentioned, and I agree. that you don't have to get hung up on the SEQRA process. However, it is worthy of its own evaluation in the first instance, and I think if you just take a look at it, take the hard look that's required, and say to yourselves, do we a have to do a full scale review over this. or don't we. and you debate it among yourselves, based upon the structure and everything else, keeping in mind. of course, that if that person were to come in here. your threshold I guess, if you will, is this. If that person were to come in and say to you, I'm tearing down this building and I'm putting up the exact same thing, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that it's not a Type II. MR. TURNER-Yes. There's no argument there. MR. DUSEK-But the minute they start to move away from it, it now becomes a question, and it's an important question for you to consider, because your very own Ordinance has said that if you come in with more than a 50 percent expansion, you need a variance. MR. TURNER-Right, and that's what I'm hung up on, in kind. MR. DUSEK-Well, and that's what you're going to consider as a Board, is whether or not that still is in kind, and you know it's going to be your call as a Board again. Nobody, you know, Jim can give you an opinion, Joe can give you an opinion. I can give you an opinion, for that matter, as to whether I think it's a Type II or not, and I won't do that. I'll leave it up to you, but it's ultimately going to be your judgement call. You're going to be the one's that are held to task for that, nobody else. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, will that mean, then, that the Planning Board won't know what type action it is until it comes before our Board and we say it's Type II or Type I? MR. MARTIN-That was my next question. As a matter of procedure, the Department has always been. the Staff has always been classifying these, and the Boards have just been taking that at it's value and going on under that classification. MR. DUSEK-There's absolutely no problem with that, except that the thought should always remain in mind that, in the end, if these folks feel that they want to change that classification, that's well within their prerogative. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's why we're here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-They're the ultimate deciders. I mean, they're the Board that's going to get sued if something goes wrong. 8 MRS. EGGLESTON-So take each case individually, and before each one discuss it amongst ourselves, and get? MR. DUSEK-If it's a close call. I mean, some of these, like I say. I think there was one I saw on your agenda that was all setbacks, that, I don't think there's a call to be made there. That's easy. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, if it's the same. MR. DUSEK-This one you may want to talk about a little bit, and I don't think you have to change any procedures internally, though. àawe~~ll Y<i'A ¡iIAyC'lI~ts\.Iä.~1:e1:s~ ~~~t itf\.haecrtloPI 'a b~8g~tfo&hrliH~k ~o~§fi could even put in parenthesis the other possibilities, if it gets drawn to the Board's attention, that they can take a closer look at it, but these folks, when they review their papers will pick that up anyway, I'm sure. They obviously didn't this time. or we wouldn't be here. MR. PRALL-Does the Planning Board regularly have a consultant evaluate this stuff. MR. DUSEK-It all works through their Planning Department. MR. MARTIN-The Staff, yes, not unless we. get into a real maj or project, or with an EIS or that type of thing. MR. DUSEK-By the way, I'll just mention this, too, this court case. it's a great little case. It came out of Albany County, and another thing that the court points out. It says, they're talking, of course. here again about DEC, but just substitute your name for DEC, it could be applying to you. It says, in reviewing the DEC and the County's determination, it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among the alternatives. but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA procedurally and substantively. The court must consider whether DEC. could be the Zoning Board, has identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, and took a hard look at the concerns, and made a reasonable. or they say a reasonable elaboration, but it's a reasonable determination, that the concerns, or for their determination that it is a Type II. So that's what the courts are going to look at. If they came in and looked over your shoulder, they'd be saying, did you look at this thing? What was the talk about here? And the determination would be, well, it's this, it's that, it's this, so therefore we feel it's a Type I, or your reason, determination could be, well, we looked at it and we know, based on the area, based on the lot size, based on all this, we feel it could still be a Type II, but here again, that's going to be your call, based upon what you think of the impacts. Obviously your experts here, in terms of the Planning Department, are going to be able to help you out, and their opinion is certainly given weight by a court of law as well. So you can listen to their opinion and use that as part of the basis of your determination. Yet the determination itself still has to be your own. MR. PRALL-Generally what we've experienced, and I don't know what your experience might have been, but we've experienced is, if we did take a hard look at it, on our applications and project review, we took a hard look at it, went to a reasonable elaboration, a thought process that got us from Step One, to Two, to Three, and so on down the line. The Board never decided whether it was necessarily right or wrong, but merely we went through the process and followed the step by step process and came to a conclusion. We didn't second guess whether you were right or wrong. MR. DUSEK-That's exactly correct, and generally the courts won't try to second-guess you, because they'r~ going to defer to your expertise and your closeness to the issue. The important thing is. though. to realize that it is your call. 9 MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have any questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know. I think that's helped a lot. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I think it's cleared up a lot. MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. DUSEK-I think we were very fortunate that we had this case. It's an excellent case. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, like I said before, you go from that little dinky camp, the 3500 square foot house, maybe one toilet in the camp. maybe no shower, no tub, kitchen. very limited facilities. You go to a house with a humongous kitchen, two or three bathrooms, great roof cover. great land cover on a Ii ttle tiny lot that's right on the lake. MR. CARR MR. CARR-The one thing that I've found, in filling out, some of your applications are a little bit mi sleading, because you're talking 800 to 3500, but you aren't considering the other two buildings that are being removed. You are considering deck area and two story, actually, as far as roof area, it isn't as great a difference. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that is a good point. He's saying, like in his particular case, he went from a small seasonal camp with a detached garage, to a larger house with an attached garage. MR. CARR-It had an attached shed on the property. MR. TURNER-Is that the one in Cleverdale? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I believe so. By our definition, we have to view that as one structure, as one single family dwelling, and with the attached garage, that's still part of the dwelling. So the numbers are a little bit skewed, and I believe the original structure was a single family, or at best a one and a half story. Now he's taking it to a full two story house. So the second floor is really pumping up the numbers, but the actual footprint or the actual impermeable area is not as bad of a situation as the percentage of floor space increase indicates. MR. DUSEK-And that's one of the things that you can look at, in terms of whether you feel that it should be a Type II, or further action, because for instance, I guess an excellent example that if the existing building and the two other out buildings equal the sum total of the new building, I think that's worthy of consideration on your part, as to whether or not you feel it's necessary to go through an environmental assessment on it. MR. PHILO-Are these buildings hooked together? MR. MARTIN-Right now, as it stands today. they are not. He has a seasonal camp, a detached garage, and a detached storage shed. He's tearing down the garage and the shed, and the house, and he's building a brand new house with an attached garage. The way the Ordinance reads is if the garage is attached. it's considered part of the structure. So, when we go to tally the size of the structure, the garage is included in the square footage, as is the second floor. but if you were to look at the impermeable area, it is an increase, but it doesn't skew it as much as when you just calculate the entire square footage, which includes. now, an attached garage and a full second story. MR. PHILO-This shed you mentioned, was that attached too? MR. MARTIN-No, not as it stands today. It's detached from the 10 garage. It's detached from the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would certainly streamline the process a little bit. wouldn't it? Without having people come here and then say. well, we've got to send it to SEQRA and then wait for it to come back and shift the people back and forth. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't want to misconstrue my motivation. interested in an accurate substantive determination. That is That is a secondary consideration or a side benefit to be I'm not going to deny that. MR. DUSEK-The other thing, I think, in this whole process, to consider in the back of your minds is, in addition to, as I indicated, weighing it yourselves, also you should, I think, place a part of it is consider what it is that SEQRA's going to do for you, if you do require it to go to a Type I. It's going to require the completion of a certain form which you're familiar with, the Long EAF, and that form is going to provide you with certain information. Also, if that is not enough information, then you could request more information to help make your decision, because that's the whole idea, in fact, behind that form, is to get you to a point where you have enough information to make a decision. Now, on the other hand, if you look at the situation, and you see that you have the opportunity to declare it in kind, and you feel you have adequate information at this point, I think that can also bear as consideration. I'm true. sure. MR. MARTIN-Or if in your normal considerations of the variance you're going to request certain types of information, like Joe indicated, then how much is SEQRA supplying you with, I've heard this Board ask for septic questions and runoff questions and things like that on Type II Actions. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. Jim, will you be looking at it from that same point of view when you do your, whether you decide it's One or Two, are you going to look at just, like, a residential house to a residential house or a camp to a camp, or are you going to look at the size of the expansion and take that into your consideration as well, or are you only going to look at like and kind? MR. MARTIN-I always have, but in this case, I feel that the in kind has more weight, but we discussed this a lot among the three of us. MRS. EGGLESTON-But how big of an expansion does it have to be? How big of a change. in your mind, would it have to be for you to make it a Type I? MR. MARTIN-I don't know that I can answer that. I really don't. MR. PHILO-I think it's going to have to be just like this man said over here. You have to review each one. Right? MR. MARTIN-And maybe it should come down to, like Paul said, we maybe just simply list these as Type I or Type II. and the night of the meeting, we discuss it with the Board. Maybe we can have some recommendations, but also throw it out to the Board for your consideration. MR. PRALL-I think what we've seen, again, like I said, initially was, it's a tool for the reviewing agent to utilize, to reach the decision it has to make, and that yardstick is a big barrier between community and community. I've seen a one lot subdevelopment be pos dec'd in one community, and a 100 subdevelopment be neg dec'd in another. It's not, in my opinion, necessarily inconsistent because, again, there are community goals, 11 cumulative impact, there are all sorts of other aspects of the review. MR. DUSEK-Okay. I think, in answer to Joyce's question too, it's difficult. I think, for Jim to say, you know, double, for instance, would necessarily be the case, because maybe on this particular lot double or triple the size wouldn't definitely, in his mind, trigger a Type I, but in another instance, where you're not on the lake, but maybe in a Critical Environmental Area, where you have more land, do you know what I'm saying? There's a lot of variables there that I think come into play, and that's the thing that has to be balanced out. You can't say that he's wrong. On the other hand, if you folks go differently, you can't say that you're wrong either. It's a judgement call. MR. PRALL-I could review the same project that you're reviewing, with the same concept, and I might come up with a different answer. MR. TURNER-A different answer, yes. It's a judgement call. MR. PHILO-I 1 ike what Joyce said. I'd just 1 ike to see people treated fair. and without a lot of mess over it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just want to get away from the idea, though, that in every case where there's an expansion over 50 percent, it's an automatic Type I, and that's, I think, what's been happening. These are just, Type I. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, you know, since I came on this Board. that's the way it's been, and we've never had a class or anything on it, and you've got to admit, it's kind of hard to read, from what little literature we have. We don't even have much literature on it. This is the first book. I did scrounge this thing up from Cornell University yesterday, but it basically says the same thing, except it lists, it has a list of Type I and Type II Actions. MR. MARTIN-Well, we're going to be making more of an effort, as a Staff, and we've been hearing this from the Planning Board, too, of funneling you with information that we receive, you know, we get monthly magazines, updates, court case type information, and keep you up to date too, and give you a perspective, or a pool of information to draw from yourself. MRS. EGGLESTON-But really, the hardest part to take is the part I was talking to you about the other night when were together, about the people in the past been treated one way. Now we're going to do maybe a neighbor to one of those a different way, and somehow, if we could come to a consistency. so that everybody's playing by the same rules, instead of, I know things change, but people don't understand that out in the, you know, in the neighbors and things, they see, well, gee, the guy down the street did this. and he didn't have to go through that process, why do I. but it's good to simplify things. I don't disagree with that. MR. DUSEK-Well, the only other question I would add there is that two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's true, but they don't look at it that way, Paul. MR. DUSEK-But I think you, as a Board, have to. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know. MR. DUSEK-I would encourage you that even if you did something one way in the past, if you, at some point in time, and I mean after careful deliberation and consideration, that you feel that it should be changed. don't hesitate to change. because remember that when you do that, when we talk about these things and it goes into the record, that is very strong, and it's a reasonable conclusion. 12 Obviously. if you come to something that's irrational, somebody's going to knock you down for it, but if you've done it one way in the past, but then you have a reasonable determination to try to make a change, I wouldn't hesitate making a change for one moment if you felt that you were doing the right thing. Don't stay with the past just because. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because the way somebody had done it or told you to do it. MR. DUSEK-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I do agree with that. MR. TURNER-But there again, it's based on individual case. MR. PRALL-Right. We have situations, I've had them in the past, on specific projects. When we receive an application, we're governed, also, under the Uniform Procedures Act. which is the time frame to accomplish the review, and I assume you've got some type of time frame? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PRALL-So, once I receive an application, or Regulatory Affairs, the office receives an application, it's stamped in and we've got 15 days to make a determination whether the application is complete. In order to have a complete application, we would also have to have a determination of significance for SEQRA, and that's tough, because all of a sudden, it comes in the mail. It gets stamped in, it goes to the office manager, and if he's out or he's busy for a few days, or a week or two, and then it's going to get assigned to an analyst. An analyst is working on a deadline with the time frame, has got a neg dec or pos dec the project. On one application. based on various information, I rescinded a neg dec three times before we issued a permit. So, I mean, again. early in the review process, you've got to make this determination of significance, but you've got to remember that it's early, and a lot of information can come in in the course of a review, that may push you in one direction or another. and change your mind from time to time, and it's very appropriate to change your mind, as new information is found, and if appropriate, you may want to say. hey, all of a sudden something new has been identified, and we're going to have to back away and perhaps rescind a neg dec if we've issued one, and revisit the situation. MRS. EGGLESTON-It sounds pretty good. Just make our meetings longer, though, when we've got those on there, so remember that agenda so we're not here until one o'clock in the morning. MR. TURNER-Basically what you're saying is, you're going to identify the type. and then we're going to review it, whether it needs SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-Right, or if you agree with it. MR. TURNER-Right up front first, before we even get into the application. MR. MARTIN-Right, if you agree w~th it, yes. MR. TURNER-And if we don't agree with it, we'll send you packing, right? Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-But we can change your decisions? MR. MARTIN-Yes, you're the Board, like Paul said. problem with that. I have no MRS. EGGLESTON-No. 13 MR. DUSEK-I think, though, working together you'll get a feel for each other. Like for instance the one that's up before you now, once you decide which way you think it'll go, that'll obviously give them guidance, in terms of how they think you might react to future ones. It'll get down to a routine. I'm sure, in no time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. We don't want to make them jump through any more hoops then they've got to, but I mean, still and all, we want to protect, we're here for the people. but we're also here to protect the Town. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And there may be those instances. too, where we'll just advertise it as Type I or Type II, and when you see that on your agenda, that'll be an indication. We wrestled with it, and we couldn't come to a consensus. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering about the advertisement. Then if it was changed after, so you'd do something with the ad that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Just an and/or. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It sounds good. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any further questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. PRALL-I think one thing you want to keep in the back of your mind, going through the SEQRA Review process. Don't necessarily be afraid of it. I think somewhere on the full EAF it states that the document or the review process is understood that the people may not be expert environmental analysts for conducting the review. So, I mean, it's basically like everything else. You give it your best shot, and follow the process as you feel it is appropriate, based on the record you have before you and the information and the application you have. MRS. EGGLESTON-It sounds good. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? Okay. MR. DUSEK-The only thing I'd like to add, Ted, on that is once you make your determination, I would just encourage the Board, hopefully you're not going to have that many of these anyway, but whenever you do have one, when you make your final determination, you come to a consensus among the Board, an actual resolution should be made along the nature of, you know, I move that this is a Type II because, and explain a little bit as to why you think it's a Type II, so we have a record upon which you've made that decision. MR. MARTIN-Even in those cases where the Staff has initially classified it and they agree with it? MR. DUSEK-If it's a real, you know, like anything with a setback, I don't think that deserves a whole lot of discussion, because the law is clear, and you guys all know that. MR. TURNER-We don't even discuss it. We just take the application and review it. MR. DUSEK-I would never be troubled with those. The only ones I 14 would be a little troubled with is the replacement of structures in kind. You may just want to state on the record why it is a Type II. MR. TURNER-And that's basically what we've wrestled with. The structure's on a small site, and you say, in kind, in kind, you know. MR. HARTIN-The same determination for, thought was. MR. DUSEK-I think it would be helpful. and like I say, I can't believe there's that many of these. but. sort of statement if we did classify from Staf f, our initial it as Type II, what our MR. MARTIN-Well. we get quite a few on the lake. tendency toward those. There is that MR. TURNER-Again, to what he said, the in kind to me means what was there before, maybe just a little bit bigger, but not three and four times bigger. MR. PRALL-That's not necessarily, you're entitled to your concept of it. MR. TURNER-When you've got, say. just like this one here. You've got a lot 60 foot wide, and 201.8 feet long, right? MR. PRALL-But the point he made is a good one, the documentation of what you did, pursuant to SEQRA, because I'm delegated by the Commissioner to act on his behalf on the issuing of permits. So, when I have an analyst who recommends that a permit be issued, he has to provide me certain written documentation as to what he actually did, and why, if it's a Type II, it's justified as a Type II, and specifically citing the specific Section. MR. MARTIN-See, the way I view it, although it is so much larger, but in my mind, that's why it's here for a variance proceeding. It has crossed the point at which the Ordinance, as it's been adopted. it's crossed that threshold in the adopted Ordinance, and therefore that size is a matter of variance, and not so much an environmental issue. MR. DUSEK-Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, though, you can turn that right around. MR. PRALL-You can go both ways. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. DUSEK-You can say that because it is triggering something under the Ordinance, that must mean that the Town Fathers originally when they adopted the Ordinance thought that this was a pretty important step, so maybe it's important enough to consider for a Type I under SEQRA, too. I mean, you know, so you can play that both ways, that argument, and here again, it's going to be your hot potato in the end. MR. TURNER-That's why we got into a confrontation over it, because I thought differently. I thought along the lines that you're just speaking about. versus what he's saying. MR. CARR-If you go to the Town Septic Ordinance, three bedrooms are three bedrooms, whether they're 2,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet, and size makes absolutely no, no consideration. The general public is the one that. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but that's probably predicated on the standard size lot in that zone. not necessarily a small lot like that. 15 MR. CARR-But that was, when that was created in 1877, that was the standard size lot. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it was only used in the summer. Now they're going from summer use to year round use, and they're going from the magnitude of one to three and four times bigger. MR. CARR-Actually, this place was heated up until '91 when they took the furnace out. So, it wasn't strictly summer. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I mean it isn't used as a full, year round residence. and that's what we're saying. You're going from a very minimal use to a maximum use, and you're putting a building on there that's maxing out the lot. MR. MARTIN-See, but again, in all these comments I'm hearing, there's not an environmental, that's a variance, those are variance related statements, and those are statements that should be made, but again, I don't hear anything in there that's an environmental. MR. DUSEK-This is the kind of discussion, dialogue that's starting to happen here that will occur, obviously between the Boards. MR. MARTIN-Those are all excellent points, and if maximum relief is being requested or there is a more minimum size that may be appropriate, those are all variance type statements. I mean, that's not. to me, an environmental. MR. CARR-One of the things that I have noticed is, and I think it comes to the stir over the open meeting law and everything. It used to be you could sit down and get together. because actually on this lot we have, like, three different plans drawn up, based on the people's needs and what some of the considerations are. doing minimal, as far as regrading of the lot, because any regrading of a small lot like that is going to effect the neighbor's lot. So, we have to put something on there that's going to more or less stay with the established grades, and a lot of this used to be worked out with workshop type of things where you could bat the thing back and forth and then make a formal application. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know that the Board would be so opposed to doing that, if you wanted a workshop. MR. TURNER-It's not that we're opposed to doing it, but when you have three and four meetings a month, you just don't have time to do it, and that's been our problem. Two meetings a month at least, sometimes three. sometimes four, and you try to schedule anything ahead of time. you don't know what's coming, because you do it on a month by month basis, and you've got a filing date that you have to meet, and you don't know what's coming next month until they're filed. So that just messes everything up. MR. DUSEK-I've got one more statement, and I promise I won't say anymore, but it just came to mind, just to pass this on to you. this has been a problem in some cases I've read, and that is, the one thing you do have to be careful of, in all of this evaluation of SEQRA and variances. I'm sure sometimes the variances, part of it will address certain issues that you're concerned about. I have seen situations where projects that received negative decs and then in the variance for another later part of the project, they try to use the tools then available to them to condition the project. They get sued on that issue and the court will say, well, you didn't think it was an issue when you gave it the negative dec, so why is it an issue here, and that's the one thing you do kind of have to be careful of, what I'm saying, I guess, is when you weigh this, don't think, well, I don't have to worry about SEQRA, because I'll address it later in the variance or later in the subdivision or site plan, because that could backfire on you. If it really is an environmental issue, you should address it up front. If it's not. however. fine, but. 16 MR. PRALL-That's one thing that's been hammered into our head, no SEQRA conditions on a permit unless you have an Impact Statement associated with it. MR. DUSEK-Or if you issued a negative dec with specific conditions. MR. PRALL-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anymore thoughts? PAMELA WHITING MRS. WHITING-There is that Section of the Ordinance that says that the Zoning Board can refer an application to the Planning Board for environmental review, and I'm wondering if maybe we called those, originally, SEQRA Reviews. You still have the right to do that. I think on some of them, if there's still a question, I think I'd rather see you do something like that, instead of, like, maybe bringing in an engineer to review the project because then the applicant's going to have to pay for that. So it might be better on something that you thought was really a significant impact, rather than hiring an engineer, and then that cost goes straight to the applicant. MR. TURNER-Any comment to that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Usually, like in the case of the Ruecker variance that you just finished up on, that, you simply referred that on to the Planning Board, and then the Planning Board looked at it, questioned the applicant, and there were some engineering issues came up in the context of the Planning Board's review, and at that point, the Town Engineer was asked to look at it, to satisfy the Planning Board's concerns during the SEQRA Review, but not until that point, and that's pretty much as she described. That's the course of events that was followed on that. So we do have access to that engineering review, but the Planning Board will certain request it if they, you just referred it over to the Planning Board. You had no idea about any engineering or anything on that. MR. TURNER-No. MR. MARTIN-And the Planning Board's the one who had some questions about it, and the applicant's engineer submitted some information to Tom Yarmowich. He reviewed it, they resolved it. and they went on through their SEQRA Review, and then it was referred back to you for a variance. I think that's the first time we've done that, that engineering review was brought in during a variance proceeding or a SEQRA Review. MRS. WHITING-No. On the Schiebel application you did that. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's good, though. That's a good process. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We got permission from the applicant to incur the engineering costs, and the information was sent over to Tom Yarmowich, he reviewed it, and they came to a resolution. MRS. EGGLESTON-It sounds good to me. MR. MARTIN-I thank you for coming down. Joe, from Warrensburg. MR. PHILO-Do you work right in Warrensburg? MR. PRALL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Thanks for coming down. Thanks, Joe. MRS. EGGLESTON-So the three we sent to SEQRA last meeting will still go through that process? 17 MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because that's already in the works. MR. MARTIN-Mr. Dittus' application was reviewed last night by the Planning Board, because they were able to do that as they'd seen it before, they've been there, but the other two were tabled until they had a chance to make a site visit, but they should still be back before you for your February meeting, because they'll be on the Planning Board meeting the night before your Zoning Board meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thanks, Paul. MRS. EGGLESTON-On things that we've tabled in the past, we're wondering what's happened to them. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Hermance. MR. TURNER-Hermance didn't bring in the information requested? MRS. EGGLESTON-Or the deed hasn't changed? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. That's what he was supposed to bring in, was the deed. I have called these people, both himself and Mr. Bulger several times on this. They understand everything. They haven't brought it in. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that one's still tabled. MR. TURNER-I thought Bulger was coming in January? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes, he was, but he didn't. MR. TURNER-He didn't? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. MR. CARVIN-And I think these are fairly, DEBARON? MR. MARTIN-That's got into a problem. The engineer on the job, hired by the applicant, apparently is in some sort of contractual dispute with the owner of the property. He's been in the office, today as a matter of fact, trying to withdraw his work that he did, but it's a matter of public record, and I talked to Paul and we're not able to do that, but that's been a problem for them, and I think that's effecting their ability to deal with any requests from the Town or anything, and then the application's essentially dead in the water on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's another project that's been going on for two years, I think. HR. MARTIN-I don't know. It's an internal dispute among the development team, so to speak, and I don't know what and if it's going to resolve. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, that never did come before us, Rossi. MR. MARTIN-I talked to you, Joyce. about that. Essentially, the agreement. as much as nobody may like it, has some standing. I talked to Paul about this. The only way there could ever be a problem is if the individual is found to be in violation of that agreement, and as I indicated to you, if we see storage of the pool 18 business equipment in the garage, that type of thing, then that constitutes a violation, but. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, the Gestapo's going to have to send over their top men to find out, because he never opens the doors and the windows are painted black. MR. MARTIN-Well, we've got a person by the name of Joyce Eggleston on the case. That's our top lady. MR. PHILO-Well. have they got a CO for that building yet? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-And it's finished. I don't understand that part of it. MR. TURNER-Why can't you, you can't inspect it? MR. PHILO-Why can't you go over and inspect the place? MR. MARTIN-My understanding is the BUilding Inspector has no authori ty to go on someone' s property unless they request an inspection or something like that, and they have not requested an inspection, and as you know, Tom, a building permit can go a year, and can be extended for another year, and you can only go over for an inspection at the request of the applicant, and if you go on his property, it's essentially trespassing. MR. TURNER-How long can he maintain that building without a CO? MR. MARTIN-It understanding. another year. can technically be under construction, is my for a year, and then it can be renewed again for MRS. EGGLESTON-But he only had the right to keep one commercial vehicle on his property. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-He is in violation, because he has two dump trucks, he has a backhoe and a flat bed trailer, at all times. MR. MARTIN-Well, as I told you on the phone that time, we need pictures, with dates and times that they were sighted. MRS. EGGLESTON-Go over there and look! It's there all the time. It never moves. It's been there all winter. It never moves. You can drive by any time and see it. MR. MARTIN-All right, well. then, I'll send Dave by. problem going by, it's just that any time he's ever there's only been one vehicle there. He has no been by, MRS. EGGLESTON-You've got to go on both roads. The property is on a point. You've got to go on both roads. Part of it's down the garage, and part of it's up on. MR. MARTIN-All right. I'll have him go by again. I feel there is a violation there. It's just a matter of catching it. MR. PHILO-You know, Jimmy, I think this Bob Parisi didn't handle that right to start with. MR. MARTIN-You'll never catch me doing anything like that. MR. PHILO-No. I'm very happy with what you've done. You people have given us a lot of guidance, and I've said it to many people. 19 You've changed that Department around, but as far as that case, I feel sorry for Joyce, and I went over there and I looked at it myself, and the guy's really made a mess out of that place. I agree with her. but I know there's nothing you can do. You can't go on somebody else's property without some kind of violation. MR. MARTIN-I'll have Dave stay on top of it. I mean, he's over that, you know, Dave's out morning and afternoon every day, at various points. It's no trouble for him to make regular trips by there and make sure everything's in compliance. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 20