Loading...
1995-05-24 r o Ii I GIN "-"l OUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 22-1995 Christine Vamvalis Area Variance No. 18-1995 Marie Huntington Area Variance No. 12-1995 Dorothy Hodgkins 1. 3. 6. 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 1995 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY WILLIAM GREEN THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER ANTHONY MARESCO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1995 TYPE II RR-3A CHRISTINE VAMVALIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 92 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A POTTING/STORAGE SHED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE, AND SEEKS RELIEF OF SIX (6) FEET FROM THE THIRTY FOOT REAR SETBCK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-15, RURAL RESIDENTIAL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-11.32 LOT SIZE: 0.71 ACRES SECTION 179-15 CHRISTINE VAMVALIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-1995, Christine Vamvalis, Meeting Date: May 24, 1995 "APPLICANT: Christine Vamvalis PROJECT LOCATION: 92 Country Club Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a potting and storage shed addition to an existing garage. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-15, Rural Residential, requires a thirty-foot rear setback. Applicant proposes a setback of twenty-four feet, so seeks relief of six feet. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW 1. Benefit to applicant: Applicant would have the desired accessory use without creating a detached structure. Electrical service could be provided to the potting shed, via the existing garage service. 2. Feasible alternatives: A conforming detached structure could be constructed, but would not be as desirable from a practical or visual standpoint. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief sought is 20% of the requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: This proposed project would have no effect on the neighborhood or community. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This is a matter of personal preference running into setback requirements. PARCEL HISTORY: The existing 2620 square foot house was constructed in 1987. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff does not have a problem with this proposal, believing that the attached structure is preferable to a detached one, that there would be no adverse impact on any neighbors accruing from this project. SEQR: Type II, no further action." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of May, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a potting/storage shed addition to an existing garage. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Thomas - 1 - --- Haley, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you would care to add to your application? MS. VAMVALIS-No. I think everything is there. MR. CARVIN-Does anyone on the Board have a question for the appl ica nt? MR. FORD-The proposed storage shed, storage of what do you anticipate? MS. VAMVALIS-Lawn furniture, basically. Right now, I take my lawn furniture to (lost words). Because of the exercise room, stairs are going out the back of the garage, but I'm using this whole wall as storage. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to be running water into this potting shed? M<:' ::.:> . VAMVALIS-No. MR. THOMAS-Anything? Just electric for outlets? MS. VAMVALIS-Yes. The hose is right there close. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this is only going to be a one story shed w'ith,; I'guess, '¢l'exy glass, is it? MS. 0AMVALIS~Plexy glass what? MR. CAR'VIN":'Is there gOi ng to be a plexy glass, like,' greenhouse type of thi~g, or is it going to be a solid? MS. VAMYAI,..IS-No. It'll be a solid wood structure~ yes. I MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? looks like a sink. I would assume, a sink. What's that? It MS. VAMVALIS-It's a potting sink. MR. FORD-A potting sink, no wate1-? MS. VAMVALIS-No. I've got a hose right there, right on to the right, my hose outlet is there. MR. FORD-I thought it looked like a sink, but you already said you didn't'have water in there. MS. VAMVALIS-I don't have faucets in there. faucets. I don't need MR. CARVIN-Anything else? hearing. Okay. I will open up the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-I would like to put one thing in the record, that the notice was sent to the Glens Falls Country Club, and it was returned "Attempted Not Known Delivered", and they being the closest neighb01- to the rear, didn't have notification, because they are not known to be delivered 'mail to, just for the record. In case the Co~ntry Club comes screaming, we didn't know anything about it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Are there any additional questions of the applicant? All right, then I would ask for a motion. - 2 - "--' -- MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1995 CHRISTINE VAMVALIS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Grant the applicant six feet of relief from the 30 foot required in the RR-3 zone. The applicant has shown that there is not an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The applicant has shown that the location chosen is the only feasible location for the potting and storage shed. Even though the applicant is asking for a 20 percent intrusion into the rear yard, I do not believe this is substantial in this particular situation. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There is no opposition from the neighbors, and this addition will barely be visible from the road. Even though the difficulty was self-created, I believe it is better than a freestanding building. I believe this is the minimum variance necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community. As stated before, this is more desirable than a freestanding storage shed. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A MARIE HUNTINGTON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PALMER DRIVE, OFF CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 840 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 840 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY HOUSE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL AND FROM THE 75-FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-79, WHICH STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT OR REBUILDING SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE EXISTING DWELLING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 144-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16C EUGENE COONS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-1995, Marie Huntington, Meeting Date: May 24, 1995 "APPLICANT: Marie Huntington PROJECT LOCATION: Palmer Drive PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct an 840 square foot second-floor addition to an existing 840 square foot one-story house. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-16C requires a minimum side setback of 20 feet, and a total of 50 feet side setbacks. The cantilevered section of the addition would be 8 feet from the property line on the south side, and 13'6" on the north side, for a total of 21'6" in side setbacks. Relief needed: 12 feet on south side 16'6" on north side 28'6" from 50' total Section 179-79 states that no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of fifty percent of the gro.s flQor, area of the existing dwelling, immediately prior to t~e first enlargement or rebuilding. Applicant proposes to double the size of the existing building, which has been the subject of prior additions. Section 179-60 requires a 75-foot shoreline setback. The proposed ad~ition would range from approximately 61 to 71 feet from the shoreline. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW 1. Benefit to applicant: The applicant would have a significant increase in living space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Due to the size of the parcel, there are no alternatives expect to go upward with an addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It may seem that a substantial amount of relief is being requested. However, side setback relief is needed only because the upper level - 3 - '-/ overhangs the lower level by approximately 4 feet each side on a portion of the project, otherwise this would not need relief. The 100 percent expansion may seem substantial, but is taking no more land area, and will still result in a modest 1680 square feet of living space. The shoreline setback is not a great amount of relief, especially since the house is separated from the shoreline portion by a road. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: It does not appear that there would be adverse impacts on the neighborhood resulting from this project. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?: The small size (840 s.f.) of the existing house is the problem. This is just 40 feet larger than the minimum dwelling size required by the Ordinance. PARCEL HISTORY: According to the Town Assessor's office, the lot size is .27 acres and the house was originally built in 1940. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Unlisted. The Short Form EAF must be reviewed." MR. FORD-I have some additional questions on a decimal was left out, here, but it says parcel, 9400 acres. corrections. Maybe on mine, area of MR. THOMAS-I think that's probably 9400 square feet. I think they just made it backwards on the application, because the acreage is on the other one. MR. FORD-Okay. So it's .21 acres. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 0.21 acres, and 9,400 square feet. MR. FORD-That's what I assumed. clarify that. I just thought we ought to MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of May, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 940 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 840 sq. ft. one story house. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson. MS. CIPPERLY-To clarify that, both numbers should be 840. MR. FORD-Because it says 940, also, on the application. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, I know. I rechecked them and rechecked them, and it's existing house is 840, and the addition is 840, but it's just a coincidence. MR. CARVIN-And that includes the overhang? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, because covering the whole house. they're just bringing up, Is that correct? they're not MS. CIPPERLY-Right. The addition doesn't cover that back dining room. MR. FORD-So we're looking at 1680, rather than 1780? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. FORD-Total square feet of living space. MR. CARVIN-And I would change accordingly, then. assume everything else would probably It says the SEQRA has to be reviewed? MS. CIPPERLY-The Short Form. MR. CARVIN-I Short Form? don't see a Short Form attached. Do you have a I have a Short Form on the other one, but we didn't - 4 - ---- -- have to address that one, right? I don't have a Short Form. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I'll have to go get one. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, pending the Short Form, is the applicant here? Would you come to the microphone. Are you Mr. Coons? MR. COONS-I'm Mr. Coons. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add to your application? MR. COONS-Clost word) we moved there. We needed the living space, because there's Clost word). That would be the only other thing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant at I just have one note here, driveway a problem. driveway on the side? this point? Is there a MR. COONS-Yes. I guess (lost word) the south side. the eight foot. That's in MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's in the eight foot. really won't interfere with your parking? So this overhang MR. COONS-No. There's a sidewalk right there anyway. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and there's no garage or anything? MR. COONS-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's all L have. Any additional questions? Then I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions? MR. THOMAS-Just a comment, that as the applicant has said in his application, this is the only way to go is up, on that piece of property. I mean, it's so small, and I think by going up, it'll enhance the property. The only draw back I see is that one tree on the south side there may have to go. MR. COONS-No, just some limbs. MR. THOMAS-Just a few limbs. MR. COONS-That tree is a beautiful maple tree. MR. THOMAS-That is a very nice maple tree. MR. COONS-I mean, if we have to, if you want it. MR. THOMAS-No, I don't want it. MR. COONS-I don't want to take big trees down unless we have to. MR. FORD-I support the upward expansion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just want to clarify for the record, this is going to be an extension. You're not going to be tearing down and building up from the ground. It's just going to be on top? MR. COONS-No, no, just the roof. - 5 - ~' MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have a problem with it. questions, then I would ask for a motion. No other MR. MARTIN-Fred, we'd have to consider the SEQRA, as soon as the form arrives. MR. CARVIN-Well, if any of you gentlemen want to make a motion, you can write it while we wait. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1995 MARIE HUNTINGTON, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing to construct an 840 square foot second floor addition to an existing 840 square foot one story house. According to Section 179-16C, it requires a minimum side setback of 20 feet and a total of 50 feet side setbacks, because the cantilevered section of the addition will be eight feet from the property line on the south side, and 13.6 feet on the north side, for a total of 21.6 feet in side setbacks. The applicant will need relief of 12 feet on the south side, 16.6 feet on the north side and 28.6 feet from the total of 50. Section 179-79 states that no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the gross floor area of the existing dwelling, and the applicant has proposed to double the size of the existing building which has been the subject of prior additions. Section 179-60 requires a 75 foot shoreline setback. The proposed addition will range from approximately 61 to 71 feet from the shoreline. The benefit to the applicant is that the applicant will have a significant increase in living space. There does not appear to be any other feasible alternative due to the size of the parcel, except to go up with an addition. Is the relief substantial? It may seem that the relief being sought is substantial. However, side setback relief is only needed because the upper level overhangs the lower level by approximately four feet on each side, and the 100 percent expansion may seem substantial, but it is taking no more land area and still will result in a modest 1680 square feet of living space. The shoreline setback is not a great amount of relief, especially since the house is separated from the shoreline by a portion of the road, and the applicant will be building upon an existing structure. By the granting of this variance, there will not be any adverse impact on the neighborhood resulting from this project. This difficulty is not self-created because of the small size of the existing home, which is just 40 feet larger than the minimum dwelling size required by the Ordinance. The Short Form EAF is attached and has been reviewed, indicating a negative declaration. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 TYPE II WR-1A DOROTHY HODGKINS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE TO REPLACE A NONCONFORMING, PRE- EXISTING HOUSE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW HOUSE UTILIZING AND EXPANDING ON THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-60. NEW STRUCTURE WILL NT BE ANY CLOSER TO THE SHORELINE THAN THE HOUSE BEING REPLACED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 3/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-60 - 6 - ~, -' WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I think, if you would read the tabli~g motion. MR. THOMAS-The meeting date was April 19, 1995, Variance file No. 12-1995, "~PJION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 DOROTHY HODGKINS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Through May 31st, based upon a 1etter from Mrs. Hodgkins, dated April 14th, pending confirmation of a dat~ in May from Mr. Rehm. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvi n NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford" MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I think that that was just a reiteration of the tabling. I have the date of March the 22nd. MR. THOMAS-Yes. There is one of March 22nd. same thing. It says the exact MS. CIPPERLY-Didn't March 22nd table it for 60 days, I think, and the second one tabled it until the end of May. MR. CARVIN-Right, May. I think the March the 22nd, according to the minutes, I've got, to allow the applicant an opportunity to present other feasible methods which would result in a more minimum variance being necessa'"y. This wòuld be tabled up to 60 days. ' MR. THOMAS-The meeting date was March 22, 1995, Variance File No. 12-1995 "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 DOROTHY B. HODGKINS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To allow the applicant an opportunity to present methods which would result in a more minimum necessary. That will be tabled for up to 60 days. other feasible variance being Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE" MR. CARVIN-Okay, and my understanding, do we have all the proper documentation for Agent now? I guess Mr. Rehm is representing the Hodgkins. Is that correct? MR. REHM-Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is a letter in the file from Mrs. Hodgkins to that effect. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Green, as the newest member of this Board, are you comfortable, having read all the minutes, that you would be able to render a decision, if asked, on this pa~ticular case? MR. I've make it. GREEN-I think ,so. I've reviewed them a number of times. been out to the site a couple of times. I think I could a vote on it one way or the o£her~ I feel comfortable with , , MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm sure Mr. Rehm realizes that we only have four members here this evening, which I can't do anything about. - 7 - We have tried to get additional members. I guess the easiest way for me to explain it is that everybody's got to line up in the same direction, and if we come to a no decision, that that, in effect, is the same as a denial. Does everybody understand this? MR. REHM-I understand that, Mr. Carvin. I've been involved with this situation a number of times. MR. CARVIN-I know you have. MR. REHM-This particular case, as you know, has a long history which is not uncomplicated. There are very important issues to the applicant, monetary issues, issues of family, issues of the use of their property. I've discussed with Mrs. Hodgkins the fact that there are only four members here tonight, and the effect of that, and having read virtually everything that's been said, reduced to writing, in this file, based upon that, I hope the Board would understand our position and I would be very reluctant to proceed this evening, and I would request that the Board table this until the next meeting. Hopefully, there would be a larger contingent of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals present at that time. As you know, we have submitted alternative plans and,those plans deserve presentation to you and explanation and we have not had a long period of time to review them. I'm aware of that, but it just seems to me that, since this matter has been going on for approximately a year and a half, in fairness to Mrs. Hodgkins, in fairness to the Board, in fairness to everyone, it would be in the interest I think, of reasonable procedure, to table it for some period of time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Certainly the Board is sensitive to this issue, and that's why I'm leaving it, basically, in your hands. As I said, I'm willing to move ahead with four members, if you are, but if your decision is to table it, then I think we should allow them the opportunity, and I can't promise you that next month we'll have any more than four members. I can only hope that that's going to be a better situation, but I know one of our gentlemen is down ill, and the other two are involved with their employment. MR. REHM-It's so difficult. You're up to speed, and getting me up to speed on this was no small task, and I'm all primed to go ahead tonight, but I think you realize the dangers associated with that, and whether they exist or not, you know, I want to do the best that I can do for my client. MR. CARVIN-Well, I would have to concur with you, I mean, in all fairness. I think that just having four members here, I would certainly be more comfortable if I had fifth member, for example, or even a full Board, but, as I said, I apologize that we don't have the other members, but unfortunately, we do have a quorum. So, if that is your decision to table it, then I don't have a problem. Do you gentlemen have a problem with tabling it? MR. FORD-Sense of fair play would indicate that would be appropriate. MR. CARVIN-But I also realize that the longer we procrastinate on this thing, if I can use that term ever so lightly, the more impact it has on your construction season. MR. REHM-Yes, it does. There's no question about it, but I spoke with the builder a while ago and asked him what the building schedule would be if this were approved tonight, and it's two to three months. So if it's put off for another month, that two or three month period would not get us into, hopefully, into the winter. MR. CARVIN-All right, then, if you are in concurrence, what I would like to do is move to table this. - 8 - ""- ---' MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read this letter? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think what we'll do is, well, do you want to read that in, or do you want to wait until we get it? MR. THOMAS-We could read it in now, get it out of the way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. Why don't we do that? We'll read your letter that we received on May the 22nd into the record, and then r think we'll move for a tabling. If that's okay with you. Okay. Chris, why don't you read that letter into the record. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated May 22, 1995, addressed to the Town of Queensbury, Attention: Susan H. Cipperly, Assistant Planner, regarding Dorothy Hodgkins Variance Application. "Dear Susan: I am pleased that Dorothy Hodgkins was able to deliver multiple copies of the site plan, floor plan, and elevation drawings associated with her current variance application for property at Cleverdale. As I mentioned to you, I was away on Friday attending my youngest son's college graduation and, thus, did not have an opportunity to review the drawings until this morning. Dorothy Hodgkins, her son, John, and I have spent substantial effort over the past month attempting to devise a plan for the construction of a new home on the Hodgkins' parcel that would accomplish the following: 1. provide reasonable living space for the Hodgkins family; 2. conform to the existing contours of the land; 3. necessitate the removal of a minimum of trees and other vegetation; 4. avoid any substantial additional visual impact from neighboring properties; 5. locate the new home further back from the lake than originally proposed; and 6. utilize the existing foundation. It is my belief that the revised plans that you now have accomplishes each of the above in a manner that is reasonable and consistent with the interests of the community, the neighbors, and the applicant and also represents a reasonable utilization of the parcel in question given its existing limitations. While the plan does extend the home approximately seven feet further to the north beyond the north side of the existing foundation, the building will be situated no closer than 25 feet from the lake shore. The plot plan which was recently submitted to you shows a lake shore setback of 25 feet which includes overhang for eaves. The Coulter & McCormack survey map dated March 7, 1995, depicts the northeast corner of the foundation as being 28.4 feet from the lake shore, however, that measurment should not be confused with the plot plan measurement which is at a point seven feet further north and which measurement takes into account the eaves overhang. The prior design which was the subject of the earlier variance approval included a screened-in porch and deck that extended to about 17 feet from the lake shore. As you know, the Hodgkins family has invested approximately $20,000 in the existing footings and foundation, together with the necessary excavation. The new plan utilizes that foundation with a small extension to the north. It would not be feasible to move the house further back (to the east) toward the road because of the existing slope encountered at the rear of the proposed dwelling and also because of the location of the existing sew~ge disposal system in the relatively flat area between the road and the beginning of the slope toward the lake. You will note from an inspection of the property that a very substantial grade differential exists in the area at the rear of the existing foundation. While it might be possible to move the house a short distance further to the east, it is believed that that could only be practically accomplished by substantially raising the existing foundation to reduce the grade differential. The cost of doing that would be very substantial and even if it could be accomplished without substantial impact to the existing sewage disposal system, the end result would be a house elevated from its proposed location and more visible from the lake, the road, and the neighboring properties. The movement of the house to the north or northeast would achieve the same negative results and - 9 - ,--' would require the removal of additional trees and substantial further site disturbance. We hope that the new plan will be acceptable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It is the result of a genuine effort to balance all appropriate interests and design a project that results in a minimum of negative impact on the neighbors and the community. I would be more than happy to provide you with any additional information that you feel may be appropriate or required. Very truly yours, Walter O. Rehm, III" Also in this file is an envelope addressed to Mr. James M. Martin, and it's stamped "Confidential", and it is sealed. MR. CARVIN-Any indication who it's from? MR. THOMAS-There is one name on here, other than Mr. Martin's, and that's the name of Hodgkins. MR. CARVIN-Well, why don't you pass it forward to Mr. Martin, because it is marked "Confidential", and we don't necessarily know it has anything to do with the Hodgkins. MR. MARTIN-I have not seen it. DOROTHY HODGKINS MRS. HODGKINS-It doesn't have anything to do with that. regarding the garage. It's MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then having done that little bit of housekeeping, what I would, if that's okay with the Hodgkins, then I would move for tabling of this particular application. I will table it for 60 days, but we will schedule it at the first opportunity in June, but I'm going to give you a 60 day window, here. MR. REHM-I appreciate that very much, because my 35th wedding anniversary is coming up in just a couple of weeks, and we're going to be away for a short period of time, and as much as I like Mrs. Hodgkins, I don't want to deal with my wife. MR. CARVIN-I have a number of graduations coming up, so I can sympathize with you. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1995 DOROTHY HODGKINS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled until no later than the last meeting of the month of July, and we'll make every effort, unless other complications arise, to schedule it in June. This will allow the applicant the opportunity to present and review the developed feasible alternatives which were referred to in the tabling motion of March 22, 1995. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles MR. REHM-Thank you very much. MR. CARVIN-Okay, gentlemen. concludes the formal portion discuss these proposals? The next order of business, that of the meeting. Do you want to MR. MARTIN-Yes, at your convenience. We handed out, last week in - 10 - '- -.-/ your packets, proposed changes to the Waterfront Residential zoning. We're going to be bringing forth to the Town Board, as a Staff, and we're getting the input of the Planning Board and Zoning Board, prior to doing that, so we have like a coordinated text to take up to the Town Board, and this generally outlines, the handout I just gave you, like I said at the beginning of the meeting, has generally removed the habitable space definition from consideration. That was thought to be, just really overkill, maybe, or too complex of an issue at this time to deal with, and the main changes were, we want to lower the building height from 35 to 28 feet, for principal structures, and to 16 feet for accessory structures, and also a floor area ratio requirement will be inserted that will allow for a maximum of 10 percent of building square footage to lot area, and accessory structures would be included in that building square footage. So, in other words, if you have a lot with a shed, a house and a garage on it, the three of those structures would be used in computing that ratio, and would go toward the 10 percent of the building. MR. CARVIN-Whether they "liveable" or not. MR. MARTIN-Right. If it's a tool shed or. MR. CARVIN-If it's a cottage. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay, and the other change, to clarify, shorelines will have two parcels, by definition, Just about, or two front yards, one is the lakeshore side and the other one would be the side with the road. So they would be subject to a front yard setback, and the shoreline setback super cedes on the lakeside, obviously, but the side toward the road would be considered a front yard. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and what are you proposing to be the front yard, then, what is it, 30? MR. MARTIN-It's 30 feet. That would remain unchanged. I think it's there. Yes, 30 feet, and the fifth change would be the addition of a guest cottage definition, and you have that there, it's on the last page. Accessory structure used for occasional occupancy by guests of the residence of the principal dwelling. The guest cottage may not be used for rent or hire, and cannot be sold separately from the principal dwelling. A guest cottage must be smaller than the piincipßI dwelling and~ay not include kitchen or cooking facilities. MS. CIPPERLY-It's also been added to the list of accessory uses. So there wouldn't be a question whether somebody has the right to have one. MR. MARTIN-And those would be the five changes. MR. CARVIN-This would be a definition? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's a definition. Yes, that would be a definition in our Definitions Section of the Code. MR. FORD-Could I get some elaboration on "may not include kitchen or cooking facilities"? MR. MARTIN-It would not be there would be no permanent cooking facilities. a fixed kitchen. In other words, stove or anything like that, and MR. FORD~Refrigerator? MS. CIPPERLY-That's what our intent was, was to limit it to bedrooms, a bathroom, and a living room type of thing. If somebody had a coffeemaker, maybe that's not a big deal, but I - 11 - --- think the refrigerators and stoves and, it just gets too hard to. MR. FORD-See, what I'm trying to get at is, when a room starts to look like a kitchen, at what point do we say, that's a kitchen? Is it when we have a refrigerator there, or a stove or a microwave? MR. MARTIN-The traditional interpretation has been a stove, a fixed stove. MR. FORD-I remember that. MS. CIPPERLY-But then if and a microwave, what is somebody has a refrigerator and it? a sink MR. MARTIN-Or a gas grill. MS. CIPPERLY-So we were trying to eliminate that completely. If you have wording you'd like to suggest, having been through this yourself, feel free, because it was, some of this was taken out of the APA Regulations, and they don't specify whether you can have cooking facilities or not. MR. MARTIN-They allow a full service second dwelling, APA does. You can have a kitchen, living area, bathroom, the whole thing. MS. CIPPERLY-Their main focus seemed to be on the fact that you couldn't rent it out. MR. FORD-Are we differentiating between kitchen "or" cooking facilities? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say, they're one in the same. Maybe if you dropped the word "kitchen", and just said "cooking facilities", which is a much. MS. CIPPERLY-Then what do you do about a refrigerator? Is that a cooking facility? MR. CARVIN-A refrigerator isn't, no. MR. MARTIN-Well, the thing i was thinking was that maybe you put this in the positive, and you say, shall include, or may include bedroom and bathroom, okay, and living area, and shall not include any cooking facilities, including mobile appliances, you know, i.e. microwave, but the only thing is, then I put on my enforcement hat, and as a practical matter, I've got to be beating down doors and looking for microwaves. MR. FORD-Jim, appliances"? what about, "and may not include kitchen MR. MARTIN-That would be fine, kitchen appliances or cooking facilities? MR. FORD-No, kitchen appliances, or you're going to expand it. MR. MARTIN-Or, yes, kitchen appliances. MS. CIPPERLY-That would be fine. MR. MARTIN-That would be fine. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that would include your coffeemaker. MR. GREEN-How appliances"? about "generally accepted major kitchen MR. CARVIN~Now you're getting a little bit tight. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We're trying to split hairs, here. - 12 - --- -' MR. CARVIN-I don't think we're going to, I mean, if they have a coffee pot there, I mean, certainly that is not going to be a major problem, but on the other hand, when it starts expanding, and they've got, you know, a dining area. MS. CIPPERLY-What !:i§. were t.rying to address, really, was the, what you've just been through, is it a second principal. MR. CARVIN-Yes. My bigger concern is the sizing. I just. would hate to have, is there a size limitation on these things? MR. MARTIN-Well, we said, in the definit.ion, smaller than the principal dwelling, but if you want to get more specific than that, sure. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I just would hate to leave the door open here and have all of these folks, all of a sudden, now declaring, you know, guest cottages. MS. CIPPERLY-This is also included in your total square footage, total building square footage. MR. MARTIN-Again, remember, the overall thing, if you've got a 20,000 square foot lot, hey, you've got 2,000 square feet for garage, shed, guest cottage, house, whatever, and that's it. MR. FORD-And your guest cottage would be smaller than your main structure. MR. MARTIN-Right. Bear that in mind. I mean, that's the overall limitation. MR. CARVIN-So the first test is the total square footage. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I mean, if you've got a 15,000 square foot lot, you've got 1500 square feet to. MR. CARVIN-Play with it, any way you want. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because we start trying to state sizes for guest cot.tages, we're going to be here all night. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, I'm just saying, when do we grant relief when the guy comes in and says, well, that's why I'm here, because I only have a 1500 square foot camp, but I want to have a 500 or 600 square foot cottage? I mean, that's going to be the trigger. So he's got a 500 square foot, you know, lets say he's got a 1500 square foot house, and he wants to build a 500 square foot cottage, or maybe he wants t.o build a 1,000 foot cottage. Do you know what I'm saying? I mean, in other words, that's why they're going to be applying for the variances. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. THOMAS-Yes, he'd have a tough time proving it, though. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. MR. MARTIN-I think, at that point, you have to fall back on your variance considerations, you know, is it det.rimental to the neighborhood? Is this maximum relief? MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-We're hoping that this guidance than having each individual want to be five feet from the line square foot house and it puts you playing God on each one, and I think and balances here. would give a lot more person come in and, they and have a three thousand in a position of sort of there's some sort of checks - 13 - ~ MR. MARTIN-But I think it's more in keeping with the stated purpose of the zone, which, I don't think people pay enough attention to in zoning district, whether it be the public, a Zoning Administrator, a Zoning Board, an applicant, you know, a stated purpose should weigh heavily in considerations of ~ developments in a zoning district, and the purpose of Waterfront Residential zones is to protect the ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River, while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline and lands in proximity to it, and all the changes we're suggesting are with that in mind. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think you've got it pretty much in a nutshell here, Jim. I really do. MR. MARTIN-Well, the opportunity is not closed here. I mean, we're talking about it now, but we're still, we're going to the Planning Board tomorrow night, and we're probably still, I would say, a week or so away from or two weeks from going to the Town Board, you know, with it for a formal public hearing setting and all that. So there's still time, if something should come up in your mind that you want to address. MS. CIPPERLY-One thing I would like you to look at is the section that addresses nonconforming lots, Section C. MR. MARTIN-It's on Page 3 of the Handout that I just gave you tonight. MS. CIPPERLY-The first section is "Conforming Lots", and instead of having that 20 foot on one side, total of 50 thing, we changed it to 25 foot setbacks, and then on lots that are smaller than that, you can see we had a graduated, like, lot width. Up to 60 feet would have 15 foot setbacks on the side, and between that and the 149, you'd have the 20 foot setback. We were just trying to do it proportionately. MR. MARTIN-Because the other thing that weighed heavily in our thinking was, you have there on the second page of the Handout that we gave out tonight, a brief analysis of the lots that we're encountering on our lakeshore areas in town. For example, Lake George, Cleverdale, most densely settled peninsula, typical lot along Cleverdale Road has width of 60 feet, depth ranges from 80 to 225 feet. Rockhurst, width ranges from 35 to 120 feet, smallest lot size is .06 acres, largest is .77, lot size is generally less than .25 acres for the entire peninsula, with the larger lots on the north end. Assembly Point, typically 100 feet shoreline, lots less than .5 acres, there's less than six, 1 acre lots in the entire peninsula. So, I mean, with those kind of numbers coming in, it makes little sense to have. MR. CARVIN-Yes, sure, 20 foot setback, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-And then there's places like Sunnyside that, whatever they do, they're not going to fit, because the average lot width is 40 feet wide by 125, and you just don't have. MR. FORD-So are you recommending a modification in these side setbacks, other than what we have printed here? MS. CIPPERLY-No. I just wanted you to look at those, because it is change. All it says right now, even for these real small lots, you're automatic variance material, because you can't meet the setbacks for the one acre lots, or the one acre widths associated with it. MR. MARTIN-Like if you have a 60 foot wide lot, and your side setbacks have to be 50 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Or if you have a 40 foot wide lot, that's even - 14 - '- --/ tougher, but we're trying to reduce the number of people that have to. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm playing a little bit of Devil's Advocate, here. Is if we have a big lot against a little lot, where the little lot only has a 15, and the big lot has a 20, could that be used as a criteria for the big lot to move that extra five feet? MS. CIPPERLY-The they're putting. big lot has a lot more area to put whatever Why do they have to put it? MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm just trying to think, not that I'm looking for trouble here, but. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, that's one made against ourselves, too, now, that they have to meet setbacks. of our Devil's Advocate arguments we but it's not fair to anybody right these 50 foot setbacks and 20 foot MR. CARVIN-I guess the only thing that I can, coming up with a solution, is that that's why you corne for a variance, right? I mean, if you think that you've got a legitimate argument to make it 15 feet, because of other considerations, well, fine, then it would be this Board. See, I'm trying to get it off our desk, but I guess some of the stuff is still, what I don't want to do is create a whole slew of these. MR. MARTIN-There's a balancing act to be applied here. ecologically sensitive area, but yet you have the applications of development on these lots. I mean, you somebody to live in a 10 foot wide house. It is an practical can't ask MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing we compared it to was two of the other residential zones in town. Single Family R~sidential, say if you had a half acre lot, your side setbacks, what those would be. So we're trying to make it. MR. MARTIN-There is a sliding scale already in existence in the other zoning districts. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, I think it's going to behoove this Board, because of, you know, we're just going to have to take a tighter look at some of these things, because this thing is expanded. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it's going to put the Board in a better position, in that there's now further guidance and there's further justification for whatever decision you do make, whether it be approval or denial. I mean, the more guidance you're given out of that Ordinance, the better position you're in as a Board member to consider the variance. MS. CIPPERLY-We also tried to stream line the setback sections. The old one has all these little astericks down at the bottom that just k~pt going on and on, and we've taken that out and put it into separate paragraphs, so it's more clear and more obvious that it's there, instead of coming back in and saying, you know. MR. CARVIN-Jim, I mean, we've got to do something with this thing. I mean, it's so poor at this point. MR. MARTIN-Like, somebody came in for a determination from me on UR-l0. Take out your UR-l0 section, 179-17. I'll give you an example of the types of things that you're faced with as a Zoning Administrator. It's Page 17961, Letter A. Look at Maximum Density, there, under UR-10. Read that paragraph, and I'll pose a question to you. If someone came to you, and you were the Zoning Administrator, and they had a duplex that constituted the principal building on the lot, after you read that section, what size lot would they need, as a minimum size? - 15 - F) ---- MR. CARVIN-Well, I think what you're driving at is 10,000 square feet. MR. MARTIN-Now, okay, that's correct. Now proper Ordinance construction would say to you that, that's a density question I'm faced with. I've looked in the Density section for that district. I'll call the person on the phone and tell them they need a 10,000 square foot lot for a duplex. Now, go to the next page and the chart. Look under Area, and read the fine print. You want to know how a wrong determination's arrived at and we get in these problems? You've got six phone calls, three people waiting in your office, and somebody's on the phone wanting to know what their designation is for a lot size in UR-l0. Oops, I forgot to read the small print that says 20,000 square feet for dup le:o< . MR. FORD-I don't mean to be nitpicking or getting too technical, but where we look at the lot width, we might want to consider up to 60 feet for that first one, and then greater than 60 feet to 149 feet. In other words, we're only dealing with 12 inches there, but we encountered this 60 and a half foot wide lot. They're not 61. So they don't fall into that, you see. MR. MARTIN-That's a good point. See, I like comments like that. MS. CIPPERLY-And if you take it home and read it, and you have anymore, be sure to give us a call or call up, you know, write them down. MR. THOMAS-I've got one to kick around, when you haven't got three people on the phone and six people waiting in your office. The minimum percent of lot to be permeable is 65 percent, okay, and you're saying that the new Ordinance may read 10 percent. That leaves you 25 percent we're kicking around. Is there any thought of raising that 10 to 15 percent? MR. CARVIN-I think in the lake areas, the more minimum we are the better we're going to, because that's a. MR. THOMAS-The better we're going to be, but, you know, you're still looking at a 25 percent between the permeable and the buildable. That's a quarter of the lot. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think if I'm reading the direction that the community, and I may be all wet on this, but I think the community is trying to really slow the growth out at the lake areas MR. MARTIN-My concern is from the health and safety and welfare standpoint and community benefit that you typically base your zoning on, is that the effect of stormwater runoff and things like that on the lake is now proven. So you've got to try and minimize that. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So I think more stringent guidelines are called for. MR. MARTIN-Well, Chris' point, I think, is well taken. We'd have to do some analysis, because the only difference between the 10 percent building requirement and the ratio and the percentage in the permeable area is driveway and sidewalk. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the other thing is the buildable area includes two stories. Permeability applies to, you could have a two story hou.se. MR. MARTIN-That has the same impervious area as a one story. MR. THOMAS-But would there be consideration to raise that 65 to maybe 70? - 16 - ',- ../ MR. MARTIN-I think you could. MR. THOMAS-Seventy percent permeable, and a ten percent building area, and that would still leave you twenty percent. MR. MARTIN-What I'd like to do is just do a little analysis of typical driveway or sidewalk needs. MR. CARVIN-Well, the other thing, too, if you're going to look into permeability, and this was brought up at a couple of meetings, where we have uncovered or unroofed decks where we have slats where the water can actually drain below, you know what I'm saying? In other words, the ground underneath the deck is actually permeable, but certainly that changes if you have a covered deck and the water runs off to the side. MR. MARTIN-Generally, either case is considered impervious. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I think that there is a legitimate argument for an open deck with ground underneath it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You see a lot of decks with cement under them, you know, like the second story. MR. CARVIN-Well, then that becomes impervious. I mean, you've got to use, but if it's not cement, if it's just open ground, that water will soak in there. I mean, it's no different than a back yard. MS. CIPPERLY-You'll also notice we left open decks out of the building square footage total definition because decks are not included in the building definition but covered porches are. MR. MARTIN-You could put covered porches in there. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Combined area of all buildings on a lot, including all floors of residential structures~ covered porches. MR. CARVIN-And I think you can put covered deck and a covered porch thing. a covered deck. are, essentially, I think a the same MS. CIPPERLY-As long as it's not covered. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, if it's not covered, then it's open. MS. CIPPERLY-We didn't want to include it in that building square footage thing, because in the definition of building, it says, covered structures. So, we're just trying to be consistent. So if you have a covered porch, yes, it's part of that total square footage, but if you have a deck, it's not. MR. CARVIN-Somebody said, I think Bolton has a permeability law that looks, have you looked into that one? Bolton, I think, has got a law regarding decks and things like that. MR. MARTIN-I think we do have it. at it. I don't know if we've looked MR. CARVIN-I think they have kind of a separate classification or category. MR. MARTIN--We can look into that. I think we do have a copy of their Code. All right. So, you're basically, then, in agreement with those proposals? MR. CARVIN-Yes, I think this looks good, especially the lowering of the principal building heights. 1'-1R. MARTIN-Yes. By definition, accessory structures at 16 feet, - 17 - '-. you're essentially taking away the second story. There's no real feasible way to have any sort of, even any pitch roof. It's virtually impossible. MR. THOMAS-Another thing too, Jim, it's really nitpicky, but it's when you print a number that's a decimal, is to put a zero to the left of the decimal, like one tenth, print it 0.10, and that way, somebody won't read it and say, well, geez, it says 10 right here, or it says 1. It's 0.1. That way there, I noticed it in one place, here, and I had to read it twice. MR. MARTIN-Zoning Ordinances should be written very, those types of things should be employed all throughout. Any time you refer to a number, actually, it should be written out and then in parenthesis, a numerical symbol. MR. CARVIN-Are you moving along the same lines, as far as a garage, in other words, for the general garage situations? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm working on that in the next several days, in time for our next meeting. MR. CARVIN-All right, because I think you're on the right track, here. I don't see why some of this can't be applied on a general. MR. MARTIN-What that is it'll group we have. Board and Zoning Town Board. I saw was a course of events for something like come out of that little Adhoc group, or informal We'll present it, then, formally to the Planning Board as a whole, and then it'll go on to the MR. CARVIN-Yes. is great, Jim. overdue. I think that's a good path. Yes. I think this I think that this is sorely needed and long MR. MARTIN-Sue did a lot of work in looking over the existing lot sizes we're dealing with throughout all of our Waterfront areas in Town, and this is not just some thrown together thing, here. MR. FORD-Thank you for addressing it. frustration for all of us. It's been a source of MR. MARTIN-Well, it would help if you would, by resolution or through a letter that maybe Fred could be authorized to write, as Chairman, supporting this and writing that on to the Town Board. That would assist in its passage and the speed of the passage. MR. FORD-When is it going to go, Jim, to the Town Board? MR. MARTIN-Well, as soon as I get done with the Planning Board, tomorrow night, we'll take into consideration their comments, and we'll have a final draft of it. It will be submitted to Paul for a legal review, and then it's sent on to the Town Board. MR. CARVIN-How soon would you need some kind of response, Jim? MR. MARTIN-I would say by the end of next week. MR. FORD-Could we thoughts are on might have some the privilege of wait and have Fred review, knowing what ~ it, after the Planning Board's review? They recommended changes, and he would not have had looking at that. MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. CARVIN-What I would ask YOU to do in the next day or so is to maybe get a cover letter out to the missing Board members, in other words, with these proposed changes, and then what I will ~ to do is contact them and, you know, get a straw poll. I - 18 - ------~ -- - -..../ think, has anybody got any questions? MR. FORD-No, except that I recommended changes were after Planning Board. wanted you to look at what the tomorrow night's meeting with the MR. CARVIN-Yes, and what I'll try to do is address a letter, I'll get a copy out to everybody, or if you have comments, funnel them through me. MR. THOMAS-I imagine the Planning Board will want to see what we said, too. MR. MARTIN-I'll be there tomorrow night. MR. THOMAS-Well you know, basically, what we've said. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I can carry that over. MR. CARVIN-I mean, we've made some additions 0)- comments, think it's a good program. I like it. I like it a lot. give us another test to use, which we really can use. but I It'll MR. THOMAS-Yes, something really concrete. MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying it's the panesia here, and you've removed all, like, you get up on Rockhurst, some of those lots are so small that even the 10 percent would not even remotely qualify for a dwelling unit. So, I mean, there's still obvious needs for relief, but there's a lot of lots that this'll give you some guidance on also. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You stated that there's one lot up there that's .06, how big is that, 100 by? MR. MARTIN-Well, no, that's not even 10 percent of an acre. I mean, that's probably like 6,000 square feet. That's urban. I mean, Rockhurst is urban. I mean, that's a city lot. MR. THOMAS-That's 60 by 100. Yes, it is. There's a subdivision down in Saratoga right now that's got 65 one hundred foot lots. MR. MARTIN-When I worked in the City of Glens Falls, on their Zoning Ordinance, that's the common lot size in the City. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but back then the houses were smaller, they were narrow. MR. MARTIN-Like you drive up and down Coolidge Avenue or Lincoln Avenue in the City, those are 60 by 100, basically. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, Jim, thank you. What I'll do is I'll keep in contact with you and we'll get a follow up on that to you. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I'll write the three members not present, and enclose the changes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, give them the new, because I can try to photocopy and get it out, but if you can do that tomorrow, or whatever. Okay. Any other business before the Board? t1R. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I would move for adjourment, if there is no other business. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, - 19 - ---: ...,. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 20 -