Loading...
1994-12-28 ~ -- ------- ". ~ -... '- O~_AGINI\t QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 28, 1994 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 8-94 John A. Brock Mooring Post Marina 1. Area Variance No. 67-1994 John A. Brock Mooring Post Marina L 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 MI!\IUTES. ~ ~I ~ CUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 28, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN THOI'1AS FORD ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER ANTHONY MARESCO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ZBA-LEMERY & REID, JON LAPPER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-On the agenda tonight is the Mooring Post Marina Appeal and Area Variance application. t-IEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 8-94 JOHN A. BROCK-MOORING POST MARINA APPEAL BY JOHN A. BROCK, MOORING POST MARINA FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATING THAT, BASED ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 179-83A, DESTRUCTION, THE PRE-EXISTING STATUS RELATING TO THE AREA NONCONFORMITIES IS LOST, AND THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES REQUIRE AN AREA VARIANCE, AS THEY DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL-1A REGARDING SOME SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. LOCATION: BOX 84, CLEVERDALE ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 IN A WR-1A ZONE AND CEA MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1994 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA JOHN A. BROCK MOORING POST MARINA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS. THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS WOULD REQUIRE RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 11/29/94 TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 LOT SIZE: 1.96 ACRES SECTION 179-16C MR. TURNER-We have a letter from Miller, Mannix and Pratt who represents Mr. Brock. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated December 20th, 1994, to James Martin, Regarding Mooring Post Marina Appeal and Area Variance application, "Dear Jim: We have received your December 19th memorandum and understand that this is your determination that the revised Mooring Post Marina renovation project does not require any Use Variance but does require an Area Variance. Pursuant to this determination, we hereby, A., withdraw our Use Variance application and Environmental Assessment Form submitted on or about November 4th, B., enclose a brief appeal of the determination requiring an Area Variance, and, C., amend our Area Variance application, also submitted on or about November 4th, with the enclosed revised package one and site development data sheet. This revised data takes into account the minor project revisions depicted on the plans dated December 15th, and described in my December 16th transmittal letter. As discussed, we request that our Appeal and Area Variance application be properly noticed for inclusion on the agenda for the ZBA's December 28th meeting. Thank you." Signed, Mark Schachner. Miller, Mannix and Pratt. A letter to the file from Jim Martin, - 1 - --..-- -- -- Department of Community Development, Regarding Clarification of Determination that an Area Variance is required for Mooring Post Marina Building Permit as depicted on plot plan submitted on December 16, 1994, dated December 19, 1994 "This memo is provided to the file to thoroughly explain the determination that an Area Variance is needed for the Mooring Post Marina project depicted on the plan drawn by Frank C. Hardick, P.E. and revised on December 15, 1994. The following determinations are also made in consideration of new and/or more detailed information which has been gained from the ZBA hearing held on November 14, 1994. The following sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code have been reviewed in respect to the above referenced determination. These sections are as follows: Section 179-2, Purpose and Objective; Section 179-7, Definitions and word usage, specific words or phrases reviewed in detail include but are not limited to; Area Regulations; Berth Boat Storage, Commercial; Building Height; Building Line; Expansion; Floor Area; Gross Floor Area- Commercial; In Existence; Marina; Nonconforming Lot; Nonconforming Structure; Nonconforming Use; Parking Area; Privata; Parking Space; Permeability, Percent Of; Permeable; Permitted Use; Principle Building (within Adirondack Park); Principle Use; Quick - Launch Facility; Setback; Storm Drainage System; Structure; Survey Map; Visual; Yard; yard, Front; Yard, Rear; Yard, Side; Section 179-10 Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan Map; Section 179-12 General; interpretation and application of regulations; Section 179-16 Waterfront Residential Zones, WR-1A and WR-3A; Section 179-30.1 Lots Bounded by Two Roads; Section 179-65 Soil Erosion Standards; Section 179-66 off Street Parking and Loading; Section 179-72 Buffer Zones; Section 179-76 General Exception to Minimum Lot Requirements; Section 179-79 Nonconforming Uses and Structures; Section 179-80 Discontinuance; Section 179-83 Destruction; Section 179-104 Zoning Permits; Section 179-105 Criteria for Zoning Permits; Expiration; Section 179-110 Stop Work Orders. The level of use of this particular facility as a marina is gauged by the number of boats stored within the number of berths on land or within buildings. The project involves construction of boat storage buildings, no replacement of docks or berths is proposed. A historical review of this parcel indicates that marina related uses and boat storage occurred at this site on an ongoing basis from the early part of this century through to the present. Ownership changed hands recently in the early 1970's and again in the mid 1980's. Zoning Law came into effect in the Town in the late 1950's and was amended in 1967, 1982, and 1988. The 1967 Zoning Ordinance zoned this area residential. That is the first known time that the marina use became a nonconforming use. The record of the hearing of November 14, 1994 has testimony from the owner of the marina during this period. This individual states that up to 191 boats were stored on the site of this marina on a regular basis. Written documentation to support the boat storage level of 191 has been submitted in the form of a signed affidavit from Mr. Henderson, owner of the facility from the early part of this century through 1973. Additionally, a copy of Mr. Henderson's note card used during the hearing of November 14th was also submitted. This card is useful in that it represents a written breakdown of the storage level at the site. The current owner indicates that upon completion of the project boat storage will not exceed the pre-existing level. Therefore, it is assumed that not more than 191 boats will be stored at this site should the project receive the necessary approvals and is built. In addition to the level of boat storage, consideration has also been given to expansion of the structures which will contain the commercial boat storage use. In terms of square footage of the building footprint, the old buildings to be removed with this project total 22,764 sq. ft. This figure represents the total square footage minus the overhang of each building. The footprint of the two new buildings would total 21,828 sq. ft. in size. This represents a reduction of 936 sq. ft. in the square footage of the building footprint. The basis for these footprints are taken from the plot plan and letter submitted on - 2 - --~ --/ "'-' December 16, 1994 with the stamp and signature of Frank C. Hardick, P.E. The revised plot plan also indicates that new buildings will be 34.5 ft. in height from the established grade. Based on testimony given during the hearing on November 14, 1994 this represents an increase of approximately 5 - 6 feet over the height of the old buildings. In consideration of the above referenced sections of the Town Zoning Code and the information received to date it is determined that the project as described above requires an area variance from the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals. Section 179-83A was referenced in consideration of the need for an Area Variance. The buildings indicated as #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and part of #1 are to be removed to make room for the new buildings A and B. Under this scenario, the pre-existing status of the area nonconformities associated with the old buildings is lost. In order to maintain the pre-existing status, the old buildings would have had to been destroyed by one of the events listed in Section 179-83A. This is not the case. Therefore, the pre-existing status relating to the area nonconformities is lost. The new buildings under the configuration proposed on the plot plat revised on December 15, 1994 are in violation of the following area requirements of the Town Zoning Code: 1. Section 179-16C. Lot, yard, and height regulations, The plot plan revised December 15, 1994 would violate the requirements for front yard setback along Mason Road (Cross reference to section 179-30.1); rear yard setback along the northern property boundary; and permeability." MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Schachner. MR. SCHACHNER-Good evening, Mr. Turner and Members of the Board. I'm here on behalf of John Brock and the Mooring Post. Mark Schachner from Miller, Mannix and Pratt. Basically, it's our understanding that the only matters noticed to be heard tonight were two, namely our appeal of Jim Martin's December 19th determination that the application requires an Area Variance, and our Area Variance application. It's also our understanding that, yesterday and today, people that I guess I'll classify as opponents of the project, filed two additional appeals from Jim Martin's determination. The appeal that was filed yesterday is 31 words long, counting the entire description. The appeal that was filed today is 34 words long. These are appeals of his determination issued on December 19th and his clarification issued on December 21st. We think it's very unfortunate that people felt compelled to take a week to write one sentence a piece about the two topics that are stated on these people's appeals, but notwithstanding that, I also think, after conferring with Mr. Brock, and also after discussing this matter with others, it's my impression that your counsel and your staff, and perhaps yourselves might feel reluctant to issue any decision on our Area Variance issues until we've decided at least one of these appeals, namely the one that was filed that seeks a determi nation from you that a Use liar ia nce is required. Mr . Martin's December 19th memorandum and his December 21st clarification memorandum find that we do not require a Use Variance. It's our position that, Number One, we'd like to proceed with this process as quickly as possible, but, Number Two, we'd also like to do it in the most efficient manner possible, and also one that compl ies not onl y ~..¡i th OU)" cancer ns about legalities, but also with concerns by your counsel and your staff, and I guess our position is that if you feel that it would be more appropriate, let me back up a step. When we were here last, and this project has obviously been through several legal wrinkles, somebody made a statement, and I don't remember if it was myself or someone else, that it would be nice to get all the issues on the table at one meeting, that we could deal with all at the same time, and get everything wrapped up together. We generally agree with that. If the Use Variance issue is one that, well, not if. The Use Va)'iance is now one that has been placed before ')lOU, al though it was not placed before you in time to be heard tonight. We think that's unfortunate. We're not the - 3 - ~ ~ ones that placed it before you. Now that that issue is before you, if you feel it would be more appropriate to determine that issue before you move on to our Area Variance application, we would request that this matter be, yet again, adjourned, if it's possible to have another special meeting to conduct all this business. If you, for some reason, are not going to entertain the Use Variance issue, or if you feel that that does not impede your ability to make your decision on the Area Variance, then that's another story altogether, but it's my understanding from your counsel that you may feel hesitant to make that decision. MR. TURNER-You're correct, at least that's ffiZ position. My position is to hear everything all at once. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess QUL position is that, in a perfect world, we would never disagree with that, and even in the imperfect world in which we sit we're not going to disagree with that right now, if you could possibly accommodate our request for a special meeting, perhaps next Wednesday night. We feel very badly that the opponents seem to have delayed this just for the sake of delay. It couldn't possibly take anybody a week to write two sentences that are represented in these two documents, and we feel badly that it seems to us that they're driving the ship, but that's not your fault, and that's not ~"fault. The laws that govern this do allow for a certain amount of manipulation, quite honestly. We think it's unfortunate that that's the game that's being played, but it's certainly not your fault and it's certainly not our fault. By the same token, we understand your hesitancy, and I guess I'd be inclined to suggest that we just reconvene a week from now, with all these issues on the table, and we can go through them one by one. MR. TURNER-Okay. What would be the earliest we could get this in the paper? MS. CIPPERLY-I'd have to talk to the Post Star tomorrow morning. If I can get it in for Friday or Saturday at the latest, then you could have it Wednesday, if we can have members here Wednesday. MR. MARTIN-I think we missed the deadline for night, because I recall when we advertised for had to have it by Wednesday. next Wednesday this meeting we MS. CIPPERLY-The deadline, technically, was today at noon. That's why I say I would have to call and see if there's. MR. MARTIN-Well, there's a couple of days processing time at the Post Star's end, for publishing and so on. MR. CARVIN-I didn't know if it was because they didn't publish Sunday. MR. MARTIN-No. That's their typical. delay. If we get it in today, I published is Saturday. I think there's a two day think the earliest it's MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Turner, I have to confess. I'm completely mystified about this issue, and the reason is because, on behalf of numerous applicants as well as other municipalities, I deal with the Post Star Legal Advertising people on a regular basis, and although Mr. Martin is quite correct in that they actually do send out, and you can get this if you want from them, it's a document that says, if you want to put a Legal Ad in, here are the number of days in advance we need it. I have found the Post Star to be extremely accommodating in situations when you say to them, look, we didn't know this until now. We'd like you to put something in. The bottom line is, they're the local paper. Then you have to pay for these things and they get money from it, and I would be shocked, if the Planning Staff is willing to make the effort to make the phone call tomorrow morning, I would be - 4 - ..J '- shocked if they were not able to succeed in placing the advertisement on a timely basis, based on m.:z. expeì- ience, and on behalf of the applicant, I would be happy to help in any way, if that's appropriate. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's position? MR. CARVIN-I think m.:z. position is that this Board is called out, as is the general public. This is the second or third special t It costs the Town considerable time and effort to do mee i ng . . this, and if we're in a Catch-22 situation, where each side is going to be appealing, and we never seem to get off Square One, my feeling is, we'll put it to our regular meeting and put it at the end. Why call a special meeting, if we're just going to be playing these legal banterings back and forth, and I'm not taking anything away from either side, as far as rights and privileges, but, I mean, if we are indeed, as it appears, locked in a Catch- 22 situation, L am not in favor of a special meeting, I mean, because it's not going anywhere. MR. SCHACHNER-But you're penalizing that the applicant has no control grossly unfair. the applicant for something over, and I think that's MR. CARVIN-Well, it still can be scheduled at a regular time. I mean, we're not penalizing anybody. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You're penalizing an applicant. MR. CARVIN-The special meeting, to come out for 10 and then we have to have another special meeting meeting, it's penalizing everybody, in the room, and the applicant, and everybody. or 15 minutes, on the special in the Board, MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct, and perhaps you should focus the attention on the source of the problem. MR. CARVIN-So, I guess what 1:JJl saying is that if we have a Catch-22 situation, and until we get over this Catch-22 situation, I'm not in favor of having special meetings every 10 minutes. I don't know what our legal counsel says on that, but that's ~ position. MR. LAPPER-It's the Board's decision whether or not to hold a special meeting. MR. KARPELES-I have no objection to a special meeting. MR. MENTER-I think I would prefer to schedule it as soon as possible. MR. MARESCO-I have no objection to a special meeting. MR. FORD-Lets get on with it. MR. THOMAS-Lets get this over with. MR. TURNER-I don't know what else they can appeal, but it seems like they've covered all the bases by now. MR. MENTER-Well, until we say something else. MR. TURNER-No, we haven't? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Mr. Turner, in fact, I would anticipate, just for the Board's information, I wouldn't be surprised at all if, in fact, they appealed something else, but if that happens, I can tell you that, on behalf of the applicant, I will sit here a week from tonight and I will implore you to continue and to proceed regardless of what else is put before you, because I will - 5 - '-' -- certainly have run out of patience, and I will hope by then you will have, too, and I very much apologize for any role we've played in this, but again, this is not something that the applicant has caused. MR. TURNER'-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if there are other appealable areas, this thing is just going to keep dragging on. MR. THOMAS-Yes, how do we stop it? We can't. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. I mean, it's a Catch-22. So why do we have to keep coming out, and I'm not opposed to coming out for a special meeting. Don't get me wrong. I'll come out in the worst weather for a special meeting, but if we are indeed locked in an unresolvable situation that is going to be constantly appealed, then lets move it down the line. I mean, that's my feeling on it, only because we're just playing games here. To come out next week and all of a sudden, one side or the other side appeals, and it's their legal prerogative. I'm not taking anything away from the legal prerogatives, but it just keeps pushing down and further and further into the line. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let me just add one comment, if I could, Mr. Tu,-ner. They may come up with God knows how many appealable issues, and you're right, Sir, we can't control that and you can't control that, but I will say this. I'm not aware of any others they can come up with. Let me back up a step. The one they came up with yesterday is one that I understand might make you reluctant to proceed, mainly the issue of the Use Variance need. That one is on the table now, and that one's not one that can be put back on. I mean, it's already on the table. Anything else that comes up, 1 would submit, should not, could not, and hopeful will. not preclude you from proceeding a week from tonight. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to ask our counsel, is it possible to structure an opinion from this Board, and not necessarily the Administrator, that can be appealed one time? I mean, is there a solution to this problem? MR. LAPPER-Well, the simple legal issue is that there's a 60 day Statute of Limitations on the Zoning Administrator's determination, so that anybody can file an appeal within a 60 day period up to the end of that period. However, right now what's before the Board is, there are two parts to Jim's opinion, essentially. The Use Variance issue and the Area Variance issue, and both have been appealed. So I'm assuming that everything that's going to be before the Board is before the Board, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't try to concoct something else. MR. MENTER-Well, also a decision by this Board does not need to be heard for an appeal. It can be considered, but not necessarily heard, if that's the pleasure of the Board. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm sorry, just for my benefit, I didn't understand that. MR. MENTER-What I was saying is that a decision by the Board may be appealed, but does not necessarily need to be, that appeal does not need to be heard by the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-A decision by the Board itself you're referring to? MR. MENTER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. - 6 - ...-/ '--- i"1R. MENTER-Yes. decision. I'm separating that from the Administrator's MR. SCHACHNER-I understand. Mr. Carvin, for what it's nobody in this room is more frustrated with this than Mr. and myself. worth, Brock MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? As soon as they can get it noticed, we'll know tomorrow morning. MR. MARTIN-Well, what I might suggest, Ted, is that we maybe agree on two nights, one as a preferred night, like, lets say next Wednesday, and then if that's not. available, due to advertising, establish a fall back position now, so I don't have to poll everybody tomorrow over the phone. We'll certainly try for next Wednesday. MR. SCHACHNER-If you're not married to Wednesdays, you can surely make it for Thursday, although I'm confident you could make it for Wednesday. I mean, legal notice wise. MS. CIPPERLY-What's Thursday's date, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-The fifth. MR. TURNER-The room's available Wednesday. Thursday? Is it available MR. MARTIN-Next Thursday is the fifth, right? It's typically available on the first two Thursdays, any Thursday in the month and the first two Wednesdays, because your regular meetings are the third and fourth Wednesdays. I think, as far as I know, the Clerk's Office has a calendar on this room, but as far as ! know it's available. MR. TURNER-All right. We have six members who can attend next Wednesday and six who can attend next Thursday. MR. MARTIN-So next Wednesday or Thursday. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. I know Thursday, for sure, will be okay, but we'll try for Wednesday. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Providing we don't have a conflict with availability of the room, also. i"1R. TURNER-Yes. MR. FORD-Stated preference, however, for Wednesday. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. MIKE O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I ask for authority to issue a subpoena under your name, and can I obtain that permission at this time? MR. CARVIN-Lets move this motion first. MR. TURNER-Lets move this motion first. MR. o ' CONNOF~"" I'm sorry. MOTION TO POSTPONE THE MATTER OF JOHN A. BROCK - MOORING POST MARINA., Introduced by Theodo)"e TUnle)" who moved for its adoption, - 7 - --------------- -- --- seconded by Fred Carvin: Until January the 4th or 5th, depending on the advertising. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1994, by the following I.lot.e: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner ~.wES: NONE MR. TURNER-So the either or. Okay. meeting is adjourned until Mr. O'Connor. those two dates, MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, this Boa)-d is a quasi-judicial Board. It is not one that has, in the past, operated with all of the formalities of that function. Part of that function is that you have the right to subpoena witnessès or parties have the right to subpoena witnesses. It's my intention to subpoena a surveyor as to some of the measurements that have been submitted to this Board, with plan C, are still part of Plan C, although there has been a reduction in the proposed building of plan C. The areas of the buildings that were shown to demolished, or be removed, have not been modified. I would ask for that authorization. MR. TURNER-Your response first. MR. SCHACHNER-Very simply, Mr. Chairman, I think that if the Attorney for the opponents wants to subpoena somebody, he's p)"obably aware of what his own autho)" i ty and pO~'-Je)" is under Ne~'-J York state Law are in that respect. I don't think it's appropriate, necessary, or proper for him to be seeking to get some subpoena issued in the name of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think, basically, it's more a legal mumbo jumbo that he's trying to wrap the ZBA into, that's not necessary. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think if my interpretation of the moves from this point is we've got to determine whether a Use or Area Variance is appropriate. That's Number One. Then I suspect we'll have to schedule the hearings at another point on those two particular issues. Is that a fair assessment? MR. SCHACHNER-We sure hope not. MR. TURNER-That's not their request. Their request is they make a determination. MR. CARVIN-Well, we have an Area Variance submitted, at this point, but we do not have a Use Variance. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-We have an appeal of the Use Variance. So if, and I'm kind of jumping forward in the story, here. If the determination comes down that a Use Variance is required, would there not be a delay because we do not have a Use variance application at this point? MR. LAPPER-That's correct. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARVIN-So, the Area Variance without the Use Variance, for al intents and purposes, doesn't make any difference, but we can hear the Area Variance with no problem, but we would normally have to delay any Use Variance. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-If the decision was that both the Use and the Area Variance were required, you could hear the Area Variance, because - 8 - -.-/ '-- that's been submitted, but you couldn't hear the Use Variance. Correct. MR. CARVIN-And at that point, I think that any arguments would probably be more appropriate. not even off Square One yet. So I'm not quite the reasoning for the subpoena. subpoenas or any So, I mean, we're sure I understand MR. O'CONNOR-MY comment to that would be that I think it's critical to the issue of, at least how L perceive the Board as Judging whether or not a Use Variance is necessary. Is there an actual expansion in the building footprint of what is proposed as opposed to what has been removed. It's still our position that, although they've downsized it a second time, that it is still larger than what is there, even if you measure only the footpr i nt . MS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask why you can't have this person come, why you can't subpoena them, or can you? MR. O'CONNOR-He apparently did the work for Mr., what L am looking for, he has actual field measurements of the building that he did in 1971 or 1973, for either Mr. Henderson or Mr. Poland. He has updated some of that work recently. So he's not clear, even though there is a map filed in the County Clerk's Office. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry for interrupting, but I'm going to have to take some sort of objection or exception to this statement by Mr. O'Connor, because we don't know who he's talking about, and he's now, essentially, trying to influence you by stati ng his, opi nions about somethi ng that we all agree is not before you tonight. I don't think it's appropriate. I can make an argument for us. He's making arguments for clients. I don't think it's appropriate. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to finish my statement. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, you have adjourned this meeting. MR. TURNER-I haven't adjourned it yet, John. I haven't adjourned it. MR. SALVADOR-Didn't you vote to adjourn this meeting? MR. TURNER-No. No, sir, not to adjourn. No, sir. MR. MENTER-We made a motion. MR. O'CONNOR-The person I'm speaking of is Thomas McCormack from the firm of Coulter & McCormack. He is the Land Surveyor whose maps you have had submitted to you in part for part of this application, from '71, '73. I want to utilize his information, because he actually has a field book from which he can do calculations, and which he has already done calculations. He did them for me, and was about to release them for me, when Mr. Schachner told him not to release the information to me. MR. SCHACHNER-Now, for example, I have never discussed this with Mr. McCormack. Not once. So there's an outright falsehood by Mr. O'Connor. I have never discussed this situation with Mr. McCormack, not once in my life, and, therefore, I apologize for getting upset, but this proves my point. He's making statements which L can now tell you f)"om ffiL o~<.Jn first hand knowledge aì"e completely falsehoods. I have never discussed this case with Mr. McCormack, not once. On that basis, I renew my objection, and I explained to the Zoning Board of Appeals that if that statement is a falsehood, then who knows what else is he's saying is a - 9 - ~ .---.: --= '--' - falsehood, and I don't think it's appropriate to hear this argument tonight here. If he wants to subpoena somebody, he's got the power to do it as an Attorney admitted in the State of New York, and if he keeps up with the falsehoods, maybe that status will change as well. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to apologize on record, if I might. We seem to be able to run off whenever we want. I was in Mr. McCormack's office when he was having a conversation with somebody on behalf of the applicant. I apologize if I assumed that it was Mr. Schachner, but it's cute if we say that Mr. McCormack has not been directed by the applicant not to release that information, simply because it was not Mr. Schachner who passed that message on. I think that can become clear when Mr. McCormack appears. For some reason, they don't want to have Mr. McCormack appear. I don't know why. It should be a calculation that's made by on-ground field measurements, and I think that that should influence your thinking on this application, if the applicant has information that it's not willing to make available to the Board. I don't know what that information is. MR. CARVIN-At this point, I think Mr. Martin has given us some sets of figures that, if Jim is confident in his figures, I think we can move ahead. MR. MARTIN-Well, what ~ position was, and I specifically noted it in the memo, that I have a plan before me that's got the stamp and signature of a professional engineer licensed in the State of New York on it, and, typically, when plans are reviewed, it's the liability of that engineer that those figures are accurate and correct. . MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. MARTIN-And we do that not only on this application, but any application submitted for site plan, subdivision, what have you. So, that's as far as I'm taking it. If there's reasons to go beyond that, there's all sorts of avenues to pursue that, by the people involved in this proceeding. So, that's why I specifically made note of that in my memo. JOHI\! BROCK MR. BROCK-May I make a statement? There was a question about the measurements of the buildings. I asked Mr. McCormack to measure up one of his own maps. I submitted that. I don't remember the exact date, like the 1st of December, 2nd of December. I submitted a copy of that map to the Town with Mr. McCormack's signature of his own measurements on that map. The Town has a copy of that map, and Mr. McCormack marked it up, put the dimensions on it. He scaled it, marked it up, and put the dimensions on it himself and signed it. It's his map, his scaling, and his measw"ements. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's enough for me. Okay. Mr. O'Connor, I guess the Board is comfortable with the numbers that have been presented to the Board by the various parties, and we're going to go with that. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would exercise my right, and that's to be sure that Mr. Hardick is here, next time we do meet. I don't want to get into delay on delay, but I'm going to exercise the rights that we have. It's the same thing if they submit everything on a Friday afternoon, and then expect us to respond to it immediately and drop other things. This is not a good time of the year to respond to things on an immediate type basis. I tell people, and I don't mean to be facetious, but I don't run a drive-through law practice. I have an agenda that, thankfully, is full. - 10 - -~ ~ '- MR. TURNER-Okay. There's no public hearing at this point. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-I just wondered if there was any opportunity to respond to the Attorney for the applicant's comments about the fact that many of us appear to be blocking or impeding the progress of this matter? MR. TURNER-Not at this point. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. The motion's been made and seconded. We voted on it. The meeting will be as scheduled, January the 4th or the 5th, 7:30 in this room. On the Roberts application, did I include the relief? I didn't, did I? I don't think I did. I think I just mentioned the Section. MR. THOMAS--I almost thought you did do it. MR. TURNER-Well, let me give you, the relief we're granting on the lot that's on the west side is 1.73 acres, it's 178.54 feet of relief, and the lot on the east side, the relief granted is 102.46 feet. So if that isn't in there, I'd like you to put it in there. Okay. Does anybody want to do any minutes? CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 19, 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19. 1994, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE November 16, 1994: Page 21, second Karpeles down, septic tank goes far enough so that it would hit the? sib "barn"; MQTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16. 1994 Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for seconded by Fred Carvin: AS CORRECTED, its adoption, Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: ¡\lONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford November 30, 1994: Page 12, first Mr. Menter, sib my inclination would be to, second line of that paragraph, there is a problem with the mechanism for this type of transfer. I'm not sure exactly, etc.; Page 17, first Karpeles up from the bottom, I think our primary concern, sib concern"s" are, permeability, setbacks, and area; MOT¡ON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30. 1994 Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for seconded by Fred Carvin: AS CORRECTED, its adoption, - 11 - -... .-.,..r Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1994, by the following \lote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman -/2-