Loading...
2010.06.16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2010 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 2-2010 John Salvador, Jr. 1. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36 Notice of Appeal No. 3-2010 William Threw – Jerry Hunt 11. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-12 Area Variance No. 21-2010 Robert Wing 31. Tax Map No. 279.17-1-60 Area Variance No. 22-2010 Sean P. and Karen L. Flanagan 36. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-7 Area Variance No. 23-2010 Peter Bonhote 40. Tax Map No. 301.17-3-36 Area Variance No. 24-2010 Jack Balfour 47. Tax Map No. 309.9-1-87 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to call the June 16th meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open up the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to help Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members then will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN SALVADOR, JR. OWNER(S): W. STEVEN SEABOYER ZONING: WR LOCATION: 83 ROCKHURST ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING TOWN CODE CHAPTER 147, SECTION 147-14E WAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED AS TO NOT REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION. CROSS REF.: AV 6-2010; SP 8-2010; SP 33- 2006; BOH 1-2005; NOA 6-2007; SP 61-05; AV 81-2005; BP 2008-508; BP 2006-006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION CHAPTER 147, 147-14E JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s appealing a project that occurred, this is the Seaboyer property up at 83 Rockhurst Road. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2010, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: June 16, 2010 “Project Location: 83 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to project at 83 Rockhurst Road. Staff comments: First, Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) ? The application was signed and filed with the Town on April 20, 2010. ? The appellants are not the property owners, immediate neighbors or parties of interest in the subject property. With no specific Zoning Administrator determination referenced in the application and no obvious direct impact on the appellant, it is not clear that this application was either timely or that the appellant is an appropriately aggrieved party. Second, Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing: The appellant claims to be appealing a Zoning Administrator interpretation regarding the omission to refer an application to the Lake George Park Commission yet no such interpretation was provided with the application. Further, pursuant to Town code; 179-14-020 and 179-16-090 omissions are not appealable. As no appealable determination, decision, interpretation or order has been rendered by the Zoning Administrator, there is nothing to appeal and therefore this matter is not properly before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This information was provided to the appellant in a May 4, 2010 letter from Town Counsel. A copy of the same is attached. While the application filed appears to refer to a non-existent Zoning Administrator determination it might be viewed as an attempt to revisit or rehear the Zoning Board of Appeals decision on the Seaboyer variance that was rendered on February 17, 2010. Zoning Board decisions may be appealed through an Article 78 proceeding within 30 days of the decision. The timeframe to challenge the ZBA decision has long passed. Caution is needed so as not to unduly disturb the existing decision on Seaboyer. No timely challenges to that decision were filed. The hearing of this matter appears to be unfounded and inappropriate. Additionally, the appeal claims that the Zoning administrator erred in that “…Chapter 147, Sec 147-14E was wrongly interpreted as to not requiring notice to the Commission.” However, 147-14E states: Withholding of certificate of occupancy. If any building or land development activity is installed or conducted in violation of this chapter, the Stormwater Management Officer may prevent the occupancy of said building or land by withholding the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.” No reference to a requirement for referral to the Lake George Park Commission appears in the section referenced in this application. Copy attached.”” MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Mr. Salvador, do you want to come up, please. I believe that when you requested to appear before our Board, our Board was interested in hearing what you had to say in regards to the process, as to what was going on. We were unsure as to whether you should be heard in regards to our decision because our decision has sort of been bound and finished back in February there, but I don’t believe that that’s what your point was in this regard here. MR. SALVADOR-Not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. th MR. SALVADOR-On Friday the 11 of June, I obtained a copy of the Community Development Department’s Staff Notes. This is what you just read into the record. Presumably, the Board has also received these notes and you have them before you tonight. Before I ask you to address the merits of my appeal, I want to address one of the procedural issues brought forth by the Community Development Staff, respectively the Zoning Administrator. Attached to your copy of Staff Notes is a copy of a letter I received from Town Counsel dated May 4, 2010. Therein you can read where the Town’s Counsel did not agree that the Code reference information I furnished on my application for this Appeal was correct. Without the slightest hint as to what, in the alternative, is correct, the correct reference should have been, I was told that Section 147-14E of the Town Code deals with the matter totally unrelated to a required 10 day notification to the Lake George Park Commission before the issuance of a variance. Within a few days, I responded to the Town Counsel in a four page letter trying to explain my understanding as to the correctness of my reference, being that of 147-14E of the Stormwater Management Ordinance. I ended my four page letter to Ms. Radner with a statement on Page Three which reads, I believe that all technical matters brought forth in your letter of May 4, 2010 can be resolved if it becomes necessary to file a new application for an appeal to the ZBA. Having not received an answer to my inquiry for further clarification, I mentioned this appeal during my public forum time before the Town Board at their regularly scheduled meeting on May th 17. The Town Supervisor assured me I would receive an answer. After waiting more than one th week, and not wanting to wait any longer, I appeared before your Board last month, on the 19, in an effort to have a schedule for my appeal finalized, and of course that’s why we’re here 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) tonight. With the publication of Staff Notes, you will see, as I did on Friday last, for the first time, a copy of what Town Counsel referred to as 147-14, attached, which is titled enforcement penalties for offenses. This is obviously not the same Section 147-14 which I was relying upon in my appeal before you. The Section 147-14, which I made reference to, is titled Variances. It appeared to me that there must be two different Town Codes with the same chapter nomenclature, namely 147. What to do. Late on Friday afternoon last, I decided to check with the Town Clerk’s Office for what must be considered the official record of the Stormwater th Management Ordinance. This is what I found. On the 13 of February, 2009, the Town noticed rd in the Post Star a public hearing to be held on the 23 relating to the adoption of a proposed local law concerning storm sewer system regulations, and amending stormwater management provisions of Town Code. No reference to 147. Amending Stormwater Management provisions of Town Code. The notice makes no mention as to which stormwater management provisions of which Town Code was intended to be amended, amended. Stormwater Management regulations are contained in the Town Zoning Ordinance, for instance, in Chapter 179 Section 179-6-09-080D, reads, and this reads stormwater design criteria shall follow the criteria of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations, or if located in the Lake George Park, shall follow Chapter 147 Stormwater Management local law, and for Town of Queensbury, whichever is more restrictive. Note the importance of the words design criteria, design criteria. I decided to check with the Town Clerk’s Office for the official Chapter 147. Here is a summary of what I rd found. On February 23, the Town Board held a public hearing on Local Law 2-2010. The meeting record shows that the public hearing was held to adopt Chapter 146 of Town Code governing discharges into storm sewer systems, and to amend stormwater management provisions of the Town Code. Again, no mention of Chapter 147. And all of this became effective in March 2009. The local law that was passed, adopted on February 23, 2009, consists of 52 pages of text, having only Page One through Thirteen devoted to Chapter 136. The rest, 39 pages, are devoted to the amendments to Chapter 147, stormwater management. Chapter 146, Section 146-20B, is titled Remedies Not Exclusive, includes a Section 146-20B, for some reason there’s no 20A. It states, existing Chapter 147 of the Queensbury Town Code is deleted. Now we go from amended to deleted, in its entirety, and replaced by the following. Chapter 147 Stormwater Management. The amended Chapter 147, Paragraph Three, speaks to the statutory authority. Essentially it’s unchanged from the previous 147, and includes Environmental Conservation Law Section 43-0112, which is the Lake George Park Commission regulatory laws, the State authorization and mandate for the Lake George Park Commission promulgate stormwater management regulations effective in the Lake George Park. So the statutory authority for the amended regulations is still the Lake George Park law, okay. The amended 147, Section 147-11(5) reads word for word exactly what the deleted Chapter 147 Section 147-14E read. That is, no variance shall be granted by the Town of Queensbury until first providing notice to the Commission a minimum of 10 days in advance. The Commission shall be deemed a party to the proceeding. The basis for my Appeal remains unchanged. The wording of the amended Chapter 147 Section 147-11(5) requires the same 10 day notification to the Lake George Park Commission before granting a variance. In addition, the Commission has been denied party status as a result of non notification. Therefore, technically my Notice of Appeal is in error. I cited a section of a deleted Code. For this reason, I do not feel that there is a legal basis for this Board to hear this Appeal tonight. I would suggest that the Appeal be tabled tonight, pending my rectification of the error pertaining to the Sections of the Stormwater Management Ordinance from which I am seeking an interpretation. A tabling motion will allow the Zoning Administrator to respond in the absence of error. I could re-submit a Notice of Appeal to be heard during your July session. I have 60 days from my May submission date. On the other hand, please consider this. The amended Chapter 147, that’s Section 147-11D(6), exempts activities for which a building permit was issued prior to the effective date of this Chapter. Seaboyer’s building permit was issued in 2008. Seaboyers are exempt from the amended 147. They are then subject to the original 147, and it’s the original 147 that I was referring to. So, one could have summarized, as I did, that the Section of the Zoning Ordinance was being amended to incorporate into Chapter 179, a reference to the new stormwater regulations, sometimes referred to as MS-4 regulations. How this thing got so convoluted is, it’s just unreal. In any case, I feel that one of two things should happen. Either I amend my complaint to recognize what the, to recognize the new Code, okay, or I file a new Notice of Appeal, based on the fact that the Zoning Administrator has, again, misinterpreted the Code whereby the Seaboyer’s are subject to the old regulations, as it states in the Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? And I’m sure all the Board members are thinking the same thing. What is it you’re hoping to accomplish by what you’re pursuing here? I mean, do you want the Park Commission to review this project as it’s been approved? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-First of all, the law, this is State law, okay. This is State law, requires that the Park Commission get 10 days notice. They haven’t been given 10 days notice. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just ask you, Craig, do we normally advise all the affected parties, all the interested parties, when we have a zoning, you know, agenda, is that sent out to the Park Commission? MR. BROWN-Well, for example, with the Adirondack Park Agency, we’re required to provide them with copies of all the variances within the Park that you guys approve. Obviously they don’t care about the ones you deny, but they want to know about the ones you approve, and then they have 30 days to either accept your ruling or overturn it if they choose to. Other agencies, towns, other municipalities we’ll send a copy of our agenda, and that’s our notice to them that we have applications on before our Boards. If they have concerns or questions, they know what the agenda items are. MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as Seaboyers, we basically finished with Seaboyers. Apparently, I think February was the last time that we heard them, and at that time we were dealing with changes to the stormwater plan as originally filed and approved by both our Board and the Planning Board. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Since that time, has that passed on to the APA or did those changes get noted? MR. BROWN-Yes, all those time clocks have run. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-If I might interrupt and add, another reason for the Park Commission to receive notification is, Number One, upon notification, they are automatically legally deemed a party to the action. A party has standing, okay. A party can sue. A party can be represented. A party can speak. They haven’t been heard. Number Two, Regulation 6NYCRR Part 646-4, Section 646-416(g) reads, in the final analysis, no variance shall be effective until approved by the Commission. Now this is State law. MR. GARRAND-It also says that variances issued by municipalities under an approved stormwater regulatory program do not require Commission approval. MR. SALVADOR-That I would like to follow up on. I cannot find anywhere in the law or in the regulations where that is so stated. I will communicate with the Commission. I’d like to see the resolution of the Park Commission, the Commissioner’s resolution effectuating that. Because I can’t find that any place. Okay. MR. GARRAND-That’s what we have in evidence here from Michael White. MR. SALVADOR-I put it in evidence. I put it in evidence. MR. GARRAND-I know. MR. SALVADOR-But the fact remains, they haven’t been noticed. Now what they do with that notice is something that remains to be seen, but we’re dealing with 95 and 97% variances. This is ludicrous. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. Do you guys feel that we should continue this on, give him time to perfect whichever direction he wants to pursue this relative to? I think Cathi Radner gave a pretty clear interpretation, based upon what would have been submitted, that there was nothing submitted that was properly, and I think he explained the changes with the numbers, you know, 147 to 146, and under which guise it would fall under. So, is that something you would like to look at? MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think so. I mean, the bottom line is here, there was no determination made. So in order to have an appeal, you have to have a determination to base your appeal on. If I understand correctly, Mr. Salvador is arguing on behalf of the Park Commission, however the party who is, I guess party to this action, the Park Commission, doesn’t have any concern over this. So, as an outside, unrelated third party arguing for somebody who maybe should have been part of it, there’s just no connection where this is really an appeal, in my opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Should I read in that Park Commission letter to explain the Park Commission’s position in regards to it? Is that something you would want on the record? MR. BROWN-That’s up to you. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. SALVADOR-I think it’s in the record. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, he’s filed it in the record already. I don’t know what you would do at this point, whether you would, you know, appeal to the Park Commission, I guess. That would be what your ultimate hope would be? MR. SALVADOR-No, this is what I intend. If you were to table this tonight, I will, Number One, communicate with the Park Commission. I’d like to know where Mr. White is coming from when he says that we don’t approve variances issued by municipalities that have an approved stormwater management plan. Okay. I can find that nowhere in the law, nowhere in the regulations. Okay. So I’d like to see what effectuates that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would he, at that point, write us a letter in regards to that again, or? MR. BROWN-Yes, I’m not sure what that really has to do with the situation at hand here. Again, there’s no determination, and again, in my opinion, no appeal because there’s no basis to start from, and just so you know, before you get too far, I believe there’s somebody here on behalf of the Seaboyers, if you’re going to get to the hearing. MR. SALVADOR-If I could clarify my thinking on that subject, I believe the Zoning Administrator interpreted the Code as to not requiring a notification. I mean, he’s familiar with the Code. It’s plain and unambiguous language. He must have interpreted that as to not requiring notification, and that’s what I’m appealing. MR. KOSKINAS-Sir, can I ask you a question? MR. SALVADOR-Surely. MR. KOSKINAS-Actually I’d like to ask two. MR. SALVADOR-Fine. MR. KOSKINAS-I did a little research on this myself. I noticed that actually when you presented yourself before this Board last Board last time, I noted your reference and asked you about it, and went and started looking for it, and trying to equate your Appeal with the text on line reference that the Town provides, and I saw that it was in 147-11H(5), the exact text you’re quoting today. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-And it’s very clear to me. It makes sense. What is not clear to me is, doing additional research, when you make an appeal, the remedy to those who make an appeal is that the decision that was made by the Administrator would be overturned. MR. SALVADOR-That’s correct. MR. KOSKINAS-What exactly are you looking for when you make an appeal on this? If a mistake was made, if there was an omission, I don’t see the remedy you’re seeking. MR. SALVADOR-The remedy I’m seeking is notification. Everything about this project has been after the fact. This project has been going on for five, maybe longer, five or six years, and everything has been after the fact. A notification to the Commission after the fact doesn’t change the character of what’s going on. That’s all, notification. They would have to take action on it. It’s their job. MR. KOSKINAS-Well, they don’t have to take action, but they, what they do is notice, is what you’re saying. MR. SALVADOR-Right. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to table this, you guys? What do you want to do? MRS. JENKIN-Well, it seems that there’s no determination being made, but it’s purely an omission. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, and omissions are not appealable. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MRS. JENKIN-No, they’re not. It’s the determination, and if there’s no determination, but it’s just an omission of the fact that they were not notified, then it doesn’t seem to me that there’s any reason for tabling. MR. SALVADOR-Look, somebody has to interpret our Codes. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s true. MR. SALVADOR-And that’s the Zoning Administrator’s responsibility. MRS. JENKIN-But if he didn’t make a determination, that’s what we’re, our responsibility is to uphold or deny. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. My Appeal uses the word interpretation, and that’s a word that’s used in Town law. He has failed to properly interpret the Code. MRS. JENKIN-I think we’re dealing with semantics here, because we work with the determination that the Zoning Administrator makes, and he has a determination, he makes a decision, and then that is what is appealed, but he didn’t make a decision on this. MR. SALVADOR-He makes decisions every day that are unpublished, unwritten, every day in his work he makes a determination. He has to. That’s his job. MRS. JENKIN-Is there some other place that you can go to satisfy this omission? I guess I’m wondering, because this may not be the proper, valid way to do this. MR. SALVADOR-There’s only one appeals board in Town. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to read in Michael White’s letter, because I think that clarifies their position at the present time, you know? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, go ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This letter was dated April 13, 2010, and addressed to Mr. John Salvador, RE: The Seaboyer Site Plan in the Town of Queensbury. “Dear Mr. Salvador: This will acknowledge your letter on the captioned matter which is before the Town of Queensbury Land Use Program. Your letter wrongly quotes 6 NYCRR 646-4.16(g). Variances issued by the municipalities under an approved local stormwater regulatory program do not require Commission approval. Absent any identified Commission jurisdiction over other project components, the LGPC is not an involved agency under SEQRA. The Commission has not received notice of the any variance application from the Town of Queensbury. The substance of your comments about the adequacy of the stormwater control measures are best directed to the appropriate Town boards and offices. Yours truly, Michael P. White Executive Director Lake George Park Commission” So I think he directed it back to the Town. I would assume the ultimate authority would be the APA, right, and the DEC on those? MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-The Town amended its Ordinance, okay. I am not sure that that Ordinance has received Park Commission approval, okay. There was discussion at the hearing about the, I think Mr. Hafner referred to, I don’t have them handy, but the minutes of the public hearing, Mr. Hafner referred to Stu Baker having had discussions with Mike White, and that didn’t seem to be able to resolve anything, but that the Town could go ahead with the adoption of the local law because of the pressure being put on them by the DEC for the adoption of the MS-4 regulations, okay, and it was left, states in the minutes, it was left that they would have discussions in March, and they could amend the regulations to meet the discussions that they would have with the Park Commission in March. I can find nothing in the record that they had the discussions or that the Commission approved these. Remember, we’re talking about new regulations, now. The Town deleted the old regulations. I don’t know how the word deleted compares with repealed, but in any case, there’s a whole new set of regulations, 39 pages. The Park Commission, I cannot find that they have approved that, and therefore Mr. White is saying we don’t approve variances, but they haven’t approved the underlying Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, is it in our interest, in the long term, to wonder what the APA or the Park Commission’s feelings are in regards to the Stormwater Regs, as we now interpret them? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. BROWN-No. The Stormwater Regulations, the 39 pages, were previously probably 38 pages. It’s the same information. There’s some fine tuning that had to take place to be consistent with what the DEC requirements were in conjunction with the Park Commission requirements. So it’s essentially the same document, with some upgrades, I guess, from the DEC. So it’s not a whole, while it’s a new Section, it’s the same information. You might not find in the record where the Lake George Park Commission has approved it. You’re certainly not going to find anything in any record where they have raised any concerns or comments about it either. They were involved in the review process. They did provide comment. They certainly are aware of what our Code is, our Stormwater Code is, and they have no objections to it. Likewise the date of that letter that Mr. Salvador sent to Mr. White is kind of notice to the Park Commission about the Seaboyer application, and to date they have provided no comments on the application to raise any concerns about your decision. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What do you guys want to do? Do you want me to poll you? Okay. I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-I feel that Mr. Salvador can amend his Appeal, but the issue of standing will still remain. MRS. JENKIN-What did you say? MR. GARRAND-That he could amend his Appeal, but the issue of standing will still remain. MR. CLEMENTS-Whether he has standing or not. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian, do you want to go next? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I agree with that also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I didn’t hear the whole Seaboyer thing. I was not here. So I’d like to abstain from it, but I don’t think, I’m going to abstain. That’s what I’m going to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think, just to clarify that he could direct his comments to the appropriate Town Boards and offices. So, I mean, I think you’ve got the Town Board. You’ve got Community Development Department. You’ve got our Board and the Planning Board. I mean, if there’s some biting issue here, but, it would seem to me that with the thorough review that we accomplished, and that was done with both Planning Board and Zoning Board review of the project, it was a compromise situation. It was a situation where it did change from what was originally approved into something else, but I think when the Planning Board, who is the ultimate authority for it, reviewed the project, they signed off on it, and I don’t think they had any question that what we had suggested that we accomplish with them was going to be adequate for this project alone, and I understand where you’re coming from, too. It’s not the perfect situation. It’s not the perfect outcome, but, given the situation, I think you’re looking for making things work to the best that they can be for the site. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Underwood, these are very, very substantial variances, 95 and 97%. Why do we need Codes? If we’re going to grant variances like that, we don’t need Codes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I will continue polling the Board, then. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Well, from the evidence that he’s, that Mr. Salvador has presented, I think, as I understand it, the Commission, because the Commission has not approved the Code, then they haven’t approved, it’s not been approved that the variances do not require Commission approval, in a succinct kind of two sentence word. I think, but again, I’ll reiterate what I said before. I think the reason that you came before us is to, you’re trying to, you’re saying that we are supposed to be deciding whether to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s determination, but in this case, it wasn’t a determination. So I really think that, yes, I think that you have a valid argument here, but I don’t, I really don’t think that this is the proper Board to bring it in front of. I think you have to go and see the Town Board and ferret through all the different approvals that have been made, and make them accountable for what they’ve done, but I don’t think that we can hold the Zoning Administrator responsible for not doing his job, because I don’t think that this is the proper, so I, at this point, would uphold the Zoning Administrator, if we’re getting right down to the subject at hand. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. KOSKINAS-Well, sir, I’m not familiar with the details of the property’s variance, but I did go out there and have a look at it. You seem, sir, to be concerned about it, I want to share my own interpretations with you. It’s a compact area, and relative to, it doesn’t mean the rest of Lake George isn’t, because it is. The LGP has been notified. They’re aware of this issue. You brought it to them. They’ve seen correspondence back and forth. So there’s the potential for them to step in, had they chosen to do it. Further, in an appeal, and these variances have been approved, in an appeal, it’s my understanding that a remedy would be a reversal of a decision made by the Administrator, and that would be the beginning and end of the appeal. That’s what we’d vote on. In this case, I don’t see a determination having been made by the Administrator, and while your concerns, I certainly understand them, and I’m sympathetic to, if we were voting on this Appeal right now, I would have to go in favor of the Administrator, because I don’t see that he made a determination, or do I see a result that would provide you a remedy. MR. SALVADOR-The remedy I seek is notification by this Town to the Lake George Park Commission, that a variance has been considered. That’s all. MR. KOSKINAS-A variance has been considered and approved. MR. SALVADOR-That’s right. That’s a fact. MR. KOSKINAS-And it seems by the correspondence in the file that they’re aware of that. Would you like them to have another letter? MR. SALVADOR-No, notification by the Town. Okay. I don’t represent the Town. The Zoning Administrator has the obligation to do this. That’s clear in the law. It’s clear in the law. MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, sir, but is it the subject of an appeal, that’s what I’m trying to understand. MR. SALVADOR-I believe so. I have laid it out. Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-I don’t agree with you in that respect, sir. MR. SALVADOR-Well, how much clearer do I have to make it? Just tell me what I have to do. I’ll amend my. MR. UNDERWOOD-I can’t let it go on as an argument here. So I just want to finish polling the Board. So go ahead. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I still don’t understand what you want, Mr. Salvador. You want to overturn the variance that we passed? MR. SALVADOR-Not at all. May I repeat? MRS. HUNT-Well, then I think that this is not the venue. I think you should be before the Town Board. I think that, because no specific determination was made by the Zoning Administrator, our attorney says that this Appeal is not valid, and the State of New York, Lake George Park Commission says that the variances issued under local stormwater regulatory programs do not require Commission approval, but they were notified, were they not, of the variances that were passed? MR. BROWN-I believe they’re aware of the variance. MRS. HUNT-So, I would uphold the Zoning Administrator. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. Mr. White said in his letter, Number One, the Commission had not been notified, and, Number Two, there is no evidence on the record that this Town has a Park Commission approved stormwater management ordinance. We revised it in 2009. There’s no indication that that’s been approved, and so, I don’t take issue with Mr. White’s letter, we just haven’t done what we’re supposed to do. Number One, it’s supposed to be approved. We made an attempt to get it approved, but it just fell apart and was supposed to be done at a later date. I don’t know that anything was done. MRS. JENKIN-Who’s responsibility is it to approve it? MR. SALVADOR-The Park Commission. MRS. JENKIN-Well, then you need to go to the Park Commission. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. SALVADOR-It is the obligation of the Town, look, the original 147, okay, is a model ordinance of the Lake George Park Commission. Is that clear? Is that clear that 147, the original one, is their model ordinance. They did an Environmental Impact Statement on it. They had public hearings on it. There was a long debate on it, okay, because there are design parameters in there that have to be met, and those design parameters that have to be met are going to negatively impact a lot of people. That’s why they went through this process. After they did that, okay, and this is with participation from the DEC, the APA, the Health Department, they did all of that, and then they presented to the Town for adoption. Now some towns have not adopted that ordinance, and so the Park Commission enforces those regulations in those towns, but Queensbury and Lake George and Bolton adopted those. Now we take it upon ourselves to amend them by deleting them and putting a new ordinance in place, and I disagree with Mr. Brown that it’s just this, you know, few words here and there. It’s a complete upside down of the whole intent of the regulations. Okay, and that, I cannot find that that’s been approved, and I’d like time to look at that. That’s all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to do this. Do we have any need to open up the public hearing here tonight, Craig, at all? MR. BROWN-A public hearing was advertised. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I think what I’m going to do is this. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Would you like to come up, please. MR. SALVADOR-And before you make any determinations, I would like to say a few words about standing, okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEFANIE BITTER MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter from Bartlett, Pontiff. I’m here on behalf of the Seaboyers. The Seaboyers received notification of this when I was actually reviewing the agenda, in the beginning of June, late May, and obviously they’re quite concerned with whatever the outcome could be of this Appeal. Mr. Salvador claims just now that he’s not interested in opening the variances. However, obviously the variances are the subject of this Appeal tonight. Obviously the Seaboyers are the interested party and have vested rights in those determinations and have moved forward understanding that those determinations are valid and enforceable, since no Article 78 has been proceeded by Mr. Salvador at this point and the 30 days have since expired. Mr. Salvador makes comment to laws and justice. However, as Staff Notes points out, standing is questionable with this Appeal, not to mention if it’s even an appealable item, due to the fact that if anything it was an omission, which is not appealable with the Town of Queensbury. I, again, just repeat that obviously the Lake George Park Commission is aware of this, since Mr. Salvador sent them the letter, and the letter is now part of your record and response indicating that variances of municipalities do not require a Commission permit. The Commission would be just in the position to comment, and we’re speculating as to whether or not they would have any comment, if anything, to this application. So again I just would recommend that you deny his Appeal and move forward, so that the Seaboyers determinations can stand in place, and their vested rights would continue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do we have any correspondence? I didn’t see any in the file. I already looked through. Nothing in the file. Okay. Mr. Salvador, do you want to come back up, please. We’ll let you give a closing statement, and then I think I’m going to poll the Board and we’re going to vote on whether we want to continue this or not. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Brown states in his Staff Notes, and repeating again, it is not clear the applicant was either timely or that the appellant is an appropriately aggrieved party. At your last meeting, we had a short discussion on this subject, and I pointed out to you that Section 267-A Paragraph Four of Town law, on the subject of hearing appeals, the last sentence says such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the Town. Mr. Brown says that the appellants are not property owners, immediate neighbors, or parties of interest in the subject property. Town law does not condition your ability to bring an appeal on being the property owner, on being a party of interest, or an immediate neighbor. By the way, I do live in North Queensbury. I am subject to the same regulations, okay. I have a business that is dependent on water quality. That is very, very interesting to me. In any case, the Town has written their ordinance to preclude the appeal an omission. Now, about eight years ago, we had that privilege in Town Code. We had that privilege to appeal an omission. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) People make mistakes every day. Okay, and there should be an administrative process to correct that. Now what these folks have done in the last eight years in two steps have omitted that word omission out of the Town Code. Okay. That’s why they say you can’t appeal an omission. In any case, is it to be expected that an officer of the Town would either be a property owner, a neighbor, or have an interest in the property? Is it expected that by department of the Town who can bring an appeal before you is going to be likewise situated, or Board or bureau of the Town? They have rights to bring an appeal before you. They’re not likely to be the property owner, likely to be a neighbor or have an interest in the property, but they could be aggrieved, as I am aggrieved. By the Town writing into the Code these restrictions that Mr. Brown mentions, okay, having to be an immediate neighbor, having to have an interest in the property, or having to be the owner of the property, what they have done is they have disenfranchised me, and that’s a violation of the State constitution. We have a bill of rights in our constitution that says the privileges and franchise secured Section One, no member of this State shall be disenfranchised or deprived or any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by law of the land. The law of the land is what the legislature put in and said anyone can appear before this Board who feels aggrieved. Further, we have a Federal constitution. The th 14 Amendment says, in part, no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, and what we’re doing here is a selective kind of enforcement. Some people pass under the wire with unrealistic variances and others are held to the letter of the law and that aggrieves me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. All right. I’m going to make some closing statements here, then I’m going to make a statement as to where I think we should go with this. As far as I’m concerned, when we made our decision with the Seaboyers, I think it would be important for us not to disturb that decision because the time period for any appeal of that has long since passed, and at the same time, I think that we all understood at the time it was an extraordinary appeal to us, requesting the amount of relief that was necessary for them to accomplish their stormwater regulations. All those stormwater regulations have been promulgated by the State, and the various agencies involved, and we recognize the APA EnCon, the Park Commission, our Town Board, and as we know in the Zoning Code, when people come in and appeal to a Zoning Board, you can appeal for any decision that you wish. There’s no limits as to much. It can be one percent or it can be one hundred percent, or it can be two hundred percent for that matter. I think we all recognize the situation in a Waterfront Residential area, in a Critical Environmental Area such as Lake George, and I think it’s important for us, and I think that when we did the process here with the Board, we did a thorough analysis, along with the Planning Board’s recommendations in regards to that. We are trying to work out a situation, and everybody recognizes the fact that Rockhurst area is very small, very compact. There’s not a whole lot, it doesn’t really meet the standards as promulgated under the stormwater regulation code, and at the same time I think we did the best job we could do with what we had. I think that where you’re going here is important and I think it would be important for the Town to, if we have made changes from the Code within Section 179, or 176, whatever it was, that we do send those changes that we made to the appropriate agencies for their perusal. I think that they should be updated, and I think we recognize also that the Zoning Code constantly changes. I mean, we’ve had numerous changes throughout the community this Spring where we’ve changed Light Industrial projects to Heavy Industrial. We have changes constantly being made by the Town Board, and we’re apprised of that situation. We make our decision going forward based upon those changes as they appear before us. Some projects fall under the guise of the old Code. Some fall under the guise of the new Code depending on when they were appropriately started, by the date that they were. So I think what we’re going to do here tonight is just vote on this. We were asked here to make a decision about. I don’t want any more interruptions. MR. SALVADOR-I have asked you to table this. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve asked me to table it, and I think the Board members have spoken, and I think that we fully agree with you that your points are valid. Your points have substance to them, but at the same time, I don’t really think this is the venue for that. I mean, our Board reached a very formative decision based upon our analysis of the project. We were happy with the way that went through. The Planning Board agreed with us, and we would agree with you it’s not a perfect outcome by any means, but at the same time, if your Appeal would be going to the Park Commission, that’s perfectly fine if you want to go. Mr. White said that the Park Commission really didn’t have any purview as far as he was concerned over these. MR. SALVADOR-Providing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. SALVADOR-Providing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Providing he was notified of. MR. SALVADOR-No, providing they approved the new 147. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I’m not going to go there because that’s a matter for the Town Board, the Board of the Town of Queensbury to make that decision, as far as, if you want to appeal to them, I would think that would be appropriate to do that, and I would think that as we make changes, that the appropriate agencies are notified so they understand if we’ve deviated from approved plans that they have previously approved. So at this point in time. MR. SALVADOR-I would like to withdraw my Appeal, Mr. Underwood. I will withdraw my Appeal. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. All right. So then I guess what we’re going to do is, to finsh this off, we have a withdrawal of Appeal No. 2-2010, and that’s Mr. John Salvador, again, that was regarding the Seaboyer property, and I guess that’ll be it for the evening. Nothing more we need to do on that, Craig? All right. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II WILLIAM THREW – JERRY HUNT OWNER(S): ROSEMARY THREW ZONING: LI LOCATION: 369 BIG BAY ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION REGARDING “JUNKYARD USE” ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF.: BP 85-675 WAREHOUSE & OFFICE; BP 89-410 STORAGE SHED; BP 96-720 OFFICE ADDITION; BP 2007-229 C/O; BP 2007-246 SIGN; BP 2007-753 C/O WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 2.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-12 SECTION: 179-16-090 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 3-2010, William Threw – Jerry Hunt, Meeting Date: June 16, 2010 “Project Location: 369 Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to an April 29, 2010 Zoning Administrator determination regarding a Junkyard use. Staff comments: First, Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? ? The application was signed and filed with the Town on May 17, 2010. ? William Threw is listed as an owner of record of the subject property. Jerry Hunt is a prospective tenant. The application appears to be timely and the appellant appears to have standing. Second, Merits of the argument: It is the appellants position that an “…Itinerant vehicle collector is and allowed use in a Light Industrial zone.” It is the Zoning Administrators position that the proposed use is to be considered a Junkyard Use as it involves the dismantling of inoperable vehicles. The definition of a Junkyard is: Any place of storage or deposit, whether in connection with another business or not, where two or more unregistered, old or secondhand motor vehicles, no longer intended or in condition for legal use on the public highways, are held, whether for the purpose of resale of used parts therefrom, for the purpose of reclaiming for use some or all of the material therein, whether metal, glass, fabric or otherwise, for the purpose of disposing of the same or for any other purpose; such term shall include any open lot or area for the dismantling, storage or sale as parts, scrap or salvage of used or wrecked motor vehicles, machinery, scrap metals, wastepaper, rags, used or salvaged building materials or other discarded materials. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) Per the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles an Itinerant Vehicle Collector is considered to be a Junk / Salvage operation. See DMV form attached. Facts: The Town of Queensbury definition of a Junkyard includes the dismantling of inoperable vehicles and selling and or reclaiming parts therefrom. The NYS DMV reference to Itinerant Vehicle Collector describes the use to include non-operable vehicles and the sales of parts and components. The subject property is within a Commercial Light Industrial zone which does not allow for the establishment of a Junkyard.” MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent William Threw, who’s the owner of the property, and Mr. Hunt who is a tenant for the property. I think I began this by my letter of April 16, 2010 when I asked Mr. Brown to make an interpretation as to what he would classify the proposed use by Mr. Hunt on this property. I asked that he re-classify it, or classify it as a recycling center, which is a permitted use within a Light Industrial zone. In that letter, I set forth some facts which I need to amend because of reaction, in part, from Mr. Hunt, knowing the battle that we’re involved with here, and partially because of some circumstances with regard to the business. The two facts that I need to amend is that in my letter I said that all activities would be internal to the building that’s on the site. That is not the case. There will be vehicles parked outside the building. Secondly I said that it was Mr. Hunt’s business to partially dismantle the vehicles. He would take the catalytic converters off of them and aluminum wheels, if there were aluminum wheels on that. He does not do that. He does not dismantle anything from the vehicles at all. He basically just, and I’ll have him speak in a minute, he basically brings the vehicles onto the site with tow trucks that he picks them up one at a time in the area, puts them on a car carrier and takes them to Albany. They’re in his yard one or two days. It is basically a collection site. It is not a site where vehicles are dismantled. It is not a site where fluids are taken out of the cars, or anything of that nature. All he does is pick cars up, collect them if you will, and then send them to Albany. It’s our position that, and he is licensed by the State of New York as an itinerant vehicle collector. There are two parts to that definition, and one of them is simply to be a collector of vehicles. The other is to sell components or parts of the vehicles. He doesn’t do the second part. He is just a collector of vehicles, and I don’t think that that definition is harmful in any way to what we are talking about being a recycling center. Those facts probably render moot Mr. Brown’s determination, because I think they weighed into his determination. I could withdraw this request or this Appeal, file a new request for an interpretation, and then if we disagreed with him, file an appeal to that. Although I’m willing, on the record, to state that I would like to proceed with the facts as I’ve set them and presume, although he would have to make a determination, I think we all heard the argument in the last hour, he has to make a determination before I can appeal it. If his determination is not any different, I would like to proceed this evening. The vehicles will not, some vehicles will be outside, but there will be no dismantling on site. MR. BROWN-Yes, I guess for the record and for time’s sake, I would stipulate that my decision would and will be the same. The beginning of the definition of a junkyard talks about place for storage. So if they’re there, whether they’re dismantled or not, my decision would be the same. MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t think he was going to change it. MR. BROWN-Have you got any pictures up for us here? MR. BROWN-No, Keith, he took pictures and then he lost them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just a question for you. It would be nice to resolve this, but at the same time, I drove down there today and, you know, how many cars have you got on site right now, in total? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Hunt? JERRY HUNT MR. HUNT-Probably about eight to ten. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s about what I saw there today, and it looked like you were either unloading one or taking one away, one or the other, when I was there. MR. HUNT-It’s a constant rotating (lost word). MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s important for us and for the Board that, you know, we look at what the regs are. We’ve been here before with Mr. Granger’s property, you know, and his is entirely different, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not the same thing. I would just make the 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) commentary about what was there. I didn’t see any cars that I would say would have been collectible items, you know, any exotic cars or anything (lost word), nor did I view any, you know, recent model cars. They seem to be all pretty much well used vehicles there that I could see parked in the back, and as far as, you know, what the use of those vehicles was, whether they were staying there for a day, a week, a month, a year, I don’t think we’re in a position to make that determination. I think that we should look at it, as has been suggested, based upon what the Code book says, and I think that, you know, we recognize that we have junkyards scattered throughout that end of Town and on the other end of Town also. We just made an accommodation at the Town Board level for the expansion of one of those junkyards over on the east end of Town, and at the same time, it’s important for us to remember what the Code book is there for. If you have a junkyard, it’s there. It’s an approved business. That’s one thing, but if you’re just going to suddenly morph your business into something else, and I would like it clarified at this point, Bill Threw’s business I know over the years was primarily excavation, trucking and things like for many, many years, and, going down there today, I could see there’s heavy vehicle permits on the building for rebuilding heavy equipment and trucks, it looks like to me, but I didn’t see anything, and I don’t think we have anything in the Code book as far as the Town goes, as far as any kind of itinerant vehicle storage or anything like that on the books. I know you had your own business over at your home, and I think it’s. MR. HUNT-This is fairly new registration is what it is. This came out in ’08 with New York State, as far as what they classified me as. There was no classification for a guy like myself. New York State said this is the closest thing we have to what you are. So that’s what they gave me as a license. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now as far as what you’re doing, I mean, I assume you’re just going around picking up cars that people don’t want anymore. MR. HUNT-It’s basically like a transfer station. I get cars from everybody from towing companies to junkyards to garages to the individual public in their driveway, and they come back to the property. They get on another truck, and they head south. That’s basically like a. MR. UNDERWOOD-They are going to a legitimate junkyard somewhere for scraping? MR. HUNT-They go to all kinds of different things, wholesalers, used car lots, I deal with everybody from All Star Chevrolet to Maltbie’s to you name it, they deal with me. MR. UNDERWOOD-So how long have you been doing this so far? MR. HUNT-Two years. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. HUNT-I was a Teamster for 15 years in Albany in the trucking industry. MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, I had a question, too, if I could. MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. MR. CLEMENTS-We’ve got this official business certificate, a copy of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-My question is, this is, the address on this is 69 Connecticut Avenue. Okay. st MR. HUNT-Correct. I just moved to Bill’s on May 1, and the reason being is the property over there was commercial, which was 69 Connecticut Avenue. I worked with Craig and Dave on that to move out of there because of the zoning there with the, because of the cars, and they, I was thought that it would be okay in an industrial zone, but apparently it has to be heavy industry. Bill is light. MR. CLEMENTS-So the rest of my question, is this facility identification number is 7108894. MR. HUNT-That’s correct. That’s my New York State number. MR. CLEMENTS-That is, but that refers to 69 Connecticut Avenue. MR. O'CONNOR-That address has to be changed if it hasn’t been. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. HUNT-It is in the process. New York State sent me a temporary thing on the wall. I’m waiting for the official one to come. It’s all in the process as far as an address change. My license is still. MR. CLEMENTS-To 369 Big Bay Road? MR. HUNT-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. HUNT-No matter where I go, they have to know. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me give you a couple of points which I think makes this a permissible use. A permissible use on Special Use Permit, it’s not something that’s carte blanche. He would have to go to the Planning Board and go through the rigors of a Site Plan, or the equivalent of a Site Plan, for a Special Use Permit if you determine that, yes, this is a permitted use. We’ve been around this barn, I think two times prior to this. I did one of them, and that was for Don Daniels on Newcomb Street, and it was a tow service that was between Richardson and Newcomb Street, and the issue there was that he was bringing in vehicles, towing them in there, and they were staying for probably a week to a month, month and a half, and the question was, is that, then, a junkyard? I think finally when we got all said and done, it was determined that no, it was not a junk yard. It was auto sales and service, even though they were stored there on a temporary basis. I think Brian Granger came in, subsequent to that, and talked about his business, which was a repossession business, which, again, collects cars from different sites, brought them to his property, they were there for some period of time, and then they were disposed of. In neither of those cases, nor in this case, is there any dismantling, any salvaging, any junking of the vehicles. So I don’t know if you distinguish this business from those two businesses. I don’t think you really can. It has the same fact pattern. Somebody is out there simply collecting cars for a purpose, bringing them to a site, and then taking them off that site. In this instance, the period on the site is a lot less than either of those two other activities. Much less than the towing, and I believe significantly less than the repossession business, but I have a couple of problems, and the first is, if you look at the response letter that th we had of April 29 from Mr. Brown, he doesn’t use the definition of your Zoning Ordinance for the definition of a junkyard. If you take a look at, I have it on Page 21 of the current Ordinance, and a junkyard is defined as any open lot or area for the dismantling, storage, or sale of motor vehicles, as parts, scrap or salvage, or more than two junk vehicles, machinery, scrap metal, waste paper, rags, used, salvage, building materials or other discarded materials. Somehow or other, this has morphed into the definition of this letter, which says any place of storage or deposit. That’s a different definition, and it’s not the controlling definition, because the Zoning Ordinance was adopted long after the Junkyard Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, I believe, th was adopted in May of 2009, May 4, and there’s a provision in the Zoning Ordinance, it’s Section 179-1-030, and it say compliance required, more restrictive provisions to prevail. No land use or development, disturbance or activity shall be undertaken or maintained except in conformity with all provisions contained in this Chapter, where this Chapter is more restrictive than covenants or agreements between parties or other plans or other rules or regulations or ordinances or the Adirondack Park Agency Act, the provisions of this Chapter shall control. So, this definition is the definition that you need to be looking at for a junkyard in the Town of Queensbury, not the definition of the old Junkyard Ordinance, and I don’t think I’m wrong as to which was adopted in what order, and I don’t know, Craig, if you know when the Junkyard Ordinance was adopted, but I don’t think it was after May 4, 2009. MR. KUHL-Could I just ask a question? Craig, if he were putting his units in that oval thing he’s got, would this be null and void? MR. BROWN-No. MR. KUHL-Because I mean in this we talk about an open lot. MR. BROWN-Or area, yes. MR. KUHL-Okay, but also, Mike, in your definition was storage and sale, and there was some other words in between those two words, and, I mean, that’s effectively what he’s doing, if he’s storing it for a day, a week, an hour or a year, he’s still storing it as a whole and then selling it. MR. O'CONNOR-In the other two cases where they did the same activity for a long period of time, that was deemed not to be storage. MR. KUHL-Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. O'CONNOR-In fact, there’ something in the record, and I think Brian Granger has that, where the Board member said that’s not storage, and that was with his repossession business. I think you’ve got to use commonsense interpretation. Are they brought to the property for the purposes of storage, or are they brought to the property for the purposes of transporting them off the property? MR. KUHL-I mean, if this gentleman had six or eight or ten, I think there’s eight or ten cars there, if he had eight dealer plates, he’d put them on, he’d be legal. MR. HUNT-Right, or if I was a wholesale operation, it would be the same thing. MR. O’CONNOR-We’re going to have the same problem with auto sales and that. I looked at that. I don’t know that, but the second point is, there is no definition in the Ordinance for a recycling center. I looked for it and I didn’t find one. So I think you, if you determine that this is a recycling of these vehicles, which I think it is, then it’s a permitted use, and we have to go from here to the Planning Board and do a Site Plan or a Special Use Permit, but there’s no definition in this Ordinance of recycling center. So, I don’t know what else you would call it. The other point I would make is the word storage. This is not storage of vehicles. Storage is placement for purpose of keeping. That’s the commonsense definition. They’re not brought to this property for the purpose of keeping them there. They’re brought there for the purpose of collection and for shipment to Albany, and I really don’t think you can distinguish this set of facts, even though we’ve amended them here tonight, from those of the Don Daniels determination that was made by this Board, and I think the Brian Granger determination that was made by this Board. So, I tried to find, in the back, on the permitted uses, under commercial light industrial, and the closest I come to what I can determine is this recycling center. There’s also, and I don’t know if Brian is going to bring this up or not, there’s an e-mail that was dated back in November of 2008. The Ordinance has changed, but it talks about his business at that time as not being a junkyard, and this was an e-mail from Craig Brown to Mr. Granger. So how we changed from 2008 to 2010, I’m not sure. When we get to Site Plan, I presume they’re going to talk about whether there’s any potential of impact on groundwater, surface water, do we have adequate stormwater drainage, is screening appropriate or not appropriate. We’re going to look at all the site conditions that you would for a business. This is an industrial zone. This has been used as an industrial property for as long as I can remember. I think, it’s in fact, made up of parcels that were purchased after they did the Northway, the small piece that was Patty DePalo’s property next door, I think. It was a sand and gravel pit by the Town of Queensbury on one corner of the property for the Highway Department. It’s not something new. It’s been there long before houses were built along that road, long before the development of residences along that road. That’s our pitch. MRS. JENKIN-So you actually have two businesses on that property then, the repair of the heavy vehicles and. MR. HUNT-The truck repair station next door and then the other building is me. MRS. JENKIN-And then, okay. MR. HUNT-So he’s licensed to do heavy duty truck repair on everything from bull dozers to tractor trailers. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. HUNT-He does all that to the left, and then on the right is me. The building is shaped like a (lost words). We’re talking a space the size of (lost words). MRS. JENKIN-You’re registered as separate businesses then, too. MR. HUNT-Correct, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Jerry, why don’t you explain for the record exactly how you operate. MR. HUNT-Well, the problem is, when people think cars, they think contamination, tires, public. I don’t deal with any, no customers come to my shop, at all. There’s no public person can come to my garage and say, you know the car in the back, we’ll take that one. It can’t happen. I’m not a dealer. There’s no way that there’s people coming in and out at all. The only people who are on the property are me and the guys with me. The guys come in, wholesalers. They’re job is to go around, find cars for the used dealers. I know you were there. The cars that are there now in your eyes maybe aren’t. In the used car market right now, thanks to cash for clunkers, those cars that are there, even smashed, to a wholesaler who’s desperate, those cars are, you know, they’re a saving grace. Some of them are garbage. There’s no question. They belong to a 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) recycler. Some of those cars are salvageable. The auto auction right now in Clifton Park, there is no cars. Fuccillo has lease turn ins. Used cars, even with 180,000 miles on them, are going for ridiculous money at the auction right now. Guys like me getting them out of somebody’s driveway that need a brake job, maybe a head gasket, windshield, something simple when people are out of work, don’t have a job, can’t afford the insurance, they don’t know what to do with the vehicle. They call me. We come get them. I put them in the proper market, in which I think they’re best suited to go in, some of them are garbage. Some of them are for wholesalers to sell to dealers or used car lots. Some of them go to the auction. Some guys buy them, strip all the pieces they want out of them, put another car together and then get rid of what’s left over. We don’t drain any fluids. We don’t touch anything with gas or antifreeze or oil. I don’t even, I could put a waste oil burner in there, but it isn’t worth it. I don’t want any kind of thing with DEC or having to have any kind of contaminants of any kind. We basically need a parking lot for 10 cars, like a transfer station, if you will, almost like a UPS or a FedEx. We pick the products up, it comes to the yard. It gets off one truck, it goes on another truck within two days and goes somewhere else. MRS. JENKIN-So you pay the owner up front and then you sell it afterwards? MR. HUNT-That’s correct. I, every car I pick up, I have to have, as an itinerant vehicle collector, we have a log book which is numbered by page through New York State. It has to say what vehicle it is, year, make, model, VIN number, what I paid for it, who I sold it to, the paperwork all has to be 100% complete with every aspect of this deal, and anybody that knows me, that’s been by the business, I mean, you were there today or yesterday. MR. UNDERWOOD-Today. MR. HUNT-Every vehicle is lined up in rows. They’re all straight. They’re all facing out. I don’t have any heavy equipment where we’re picking up vehicles with forklifts or bulldozers or anything. We don’t move anything with any kind of heavy equipment. Everything is done with a tow truck. The vehicle is always on the ground. They’re never on their side, upside down. We don’t stack them and put them on the truck. Everything stays to where it doesn’t get damaged in the process of the transportation. MRS. JENKIN-So what do you anticipate your expansion of your business will be in the future? MR. HUNT-The longer I go, the more trucks I buy, the faster they leave the yard. I just purchased two more last week. I’m in the process of, the more vehicles I accumulate, tow truck wise, the faster they leave. I’m in the process, right now, of buying another four car trailer. I don’t want cars in the yard, and the reason being is, because the longer they sit there, the more they depreciate, the more the value goes down, depending upon which market they’re in. I like to buy the car and get rid of it the next day, and if I make $10 or $100, that’s what I made on that vehicle. I do things on volume, and that’s why I’ve gone from a guy with a pickup truck to a guy with four tow trucks, because I’m very aggressive and efficient and I like to just make, I don’t mind if I make a little as long as I make something. I make my money on volume. MRS. JENKIN-And that’s why you’ve changed your location? MR. HUNT-The reason I changed the location is because the property on Connecticut Avenue was Earl Manley’s body shop for years and years and years. The property is cut in like four sections. There’s a little convenience store in the back. The outside of the garage is residential. So there was no room to put the cars. When I put all the cars on the commercial part, it was like a madhouse, you couldn’t get in and out of the building. We had a complaint with another junkyard, which is who has started all of this. They don’t like me because I take care of people in their driveway and they won’t. So they called and complained, and that’s what started this whole rigmarole. I’ve had everybody from the Sheriff’s Department to New York State DMV come in, they look through my books. They look at my property. They look at the cars in the yard, they run VIN numbers, they look at all my tow trucks, all my safety records, my maintenance records, I always come out 100% legitimate. Always. I won’t, you know, I was grown up in business. My father used to run Potter’s Express on Dix Avenue for many years. I know all about keeping things right, clean, neat and organized, and I’m in this to make money. I’m not going to lie to you. I like my job. I was a Teamster for 15 years. There is no money in trucking anymore, there just isn’t. There is no truck company in Glens Falls anymore because the economy won’t allow for it. This job that I found now, this business, it fits me like a glove. I love every day going here, and basically the only catch I have is I have cars. If I was doing this with a flower shop and I had the flowers outside, nobody would care, but they’re cars, okay, it’s that simple. Nobody likes cars, but that’s the business I’m in, and you were there today. Did you see anything upside down or any loose pieces or? Everything was in rows, in line, straight, organized, ready to be shipped out, and that’s the way it always is, for a year and a half on Connecticut Avenue, every car that was along that garage, everything was face up, in order, in 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) rows, nothing outside. Wintertime, everything plowed, everything salted, clean, always a clean appearance. Bill’s property in the front there, I’ve been working on cleaning it up. I’d like to clean the rest of it up, if you guys give me the okay to stay there, and really make the place a go of it, you know, and that’s my intentions. I want to create jobs and be on Big Bay Road moving cars. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think everybody is pretty clear at this point. Before we ask any more questions, I think what I’d like to do is open up the public hearing, because I think we should hear from the public. Because, in other words, obviously somebody’s been rattled here a little bit. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, just before I finish here, though, so we have it all concise, I do find, I did copy, apparently, the Junkyard Ordinance. That was adopted on August 26, 1983. So it is superseded as to the provisions and definition by the Ordinance that was adopted, the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted in May of 2009. I also want to read in part of this e-mail from Craig Brown to Mr. Granger, and I think this is the pertinent thing. This is an itinerant auto collection business, and that’s what he is licensed for, and what Mr. Granger was involved with was an auto repossession, and what Mr. Brown’s interpretation was at that time is, as I understand the operations of an auto repossession business, both the office and storage components are necessary for a convenient fluid operation. Again, it appears as though the Light Industrial zone is the most acceptable zoning district for such a use, and the placement of the vehicles on this property is simply an accessory part of running the business of collecting them. You’ve got to put them together so you can put them on a trailer and take more than one vehicle to where you’re taking it. It’s not the principle, storage is not the business here. The other point, and we looked up the definitions under the DMV, and again, it says an itinerant vehicle collector acquires vehicles that cannot be operated and can sell vehicles. That’s the part of that type of trade that we do. There’s a second part that says and vehicle parts to dismantlers and scrap processors. We don’t sell parts. So I’d give up the table. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I just add a little before the public hearing, too? MR. UNDERWOOD-Most certainly. MR. BROWN-I think Mr. Hunt touched on the very important distinction that we need to make here. When you’re talking about junkyards, you’re talking about vehicles that are unregistered and not worthy to be used on the road. That’s different from the other two cases that Mr. O’Connor referenced, the Daniels case and Mr. Granger’s case. In both cases, those were either vehicles that had been towed to Mr. Daniels’ shop for repair. Neither one of those uses were considered junkyard uses in any of the determinations that were made, but that’s what Mr. Hunt has here. We’re talking about unregistered vehicles, and that’s a distinction we want to make here. The Code, and you’ll find a letter there in the handouts that I gave you earlier this evening, there’s a letter from Dave Hatin to Mr. Threw, and Dave is the one who enforces the junkyard section of the Code. Mr. Hatin’s letter says you’re a junkyard. You need to get a license as a junkyard. So it’s clear that the person charged with enforcing the junkyard section has classified this as a junkyard, regardless of which definition you use, both definitions talk about the storage or deposit of vehicles, unregistered, junk vehicles for sale or dismantling or salvaging. So, both definitions, in essence, capture the actions that are being offered here. So it’s a junkyard. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’re wrong, Craig, because if you look at the Statute, repossessed vehicles have to give up their registration within 24 hours of entry to the yard. They then sit there as unregistered vehicles for a longer period of time than the vehicles that Mr. Hunt has. That’s Statute. MR. BROWN-Well, that may be, I mean, but that’s not the position that the Town took. They didn’t call either one of those uses junkyard uses. They’re probably still roadworthy vehicles, whether by statute they have to give up their registration or not. They’re still roadworthy vehicles. MR. O'CONNOR-But some of these are, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what we’re going to do here is I’m going to open the public hearing, because I would like to hear from the other side, their side of their story. So I’m going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak, raise your hand, please. Do you want to come up, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) DOUGLAS ZAHER MR. ZAHER-My name is Douglas Zaher. I live on 159 Big Bay Road, Queensbury, New York. I travel past this property probably three or four times a day. I’m retired. I see these vehicles come in. They’re just, okay. You can say they’re not there for a day, but they’re leaking fluids. I’ve got pictures here. They’re totaled up vehicles. They’re leaking gasoline, fluids, tranny fluid, all of these toxic to the environment. This is a junkyard. I’m sorry if they’re there for an hour, a day, a week. There’s a vehicle out front, a pickup truck, a green Chevy truck. That thing’s been sitting there for months, gentlemen. It’s not in and out in a day. MR. HUNT-You’ve got the shop, that’s the truck garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Please let people speak, okay. We can’t have a sideline going on. MR. HUNT-Sorry about that. MR. ZAHER-Regardless, these vehicles are leaking fluids into the ground there, okay. This is a classic picture of a junkyard. A junkyard wants to get rid of its vehicles in an hour or a day, too, but they don’t. Sometimes they sit there longer. No matter how long these vehicles are sitting there, it’s a junkyard. I don’t like the looks of it. You put a fence up. You can see through the fence. You put trailers there to block the view. It’s still a junkyard. Putting a dress on a pig doesn’t change a pig from being a pig, okay. This kind of business is not zoned to be in this area. It’s too close to the Hudson River, and he wants to expand and bring more vehicles in? The more vehicles you have there, the more fluids you have leaking in there. Tranny fluid, oil. Look at the oil in the Gulf. Nobody wants oil on their ground. Nobody wants oil in their water. These vehicles are garbage. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Somebody from this side of the room, raise your hand, please. Do you want to come up, sir. STEVE CHAGNON MR. CHAGNON-Hi. My name is Steve Chagnon, and I live at 11 Palmer Drive. I’ve lived there longer than any of those guys have ever been there. I’ve been there since 1941, in fact, I think I was there before that, because I believe that that was probably, my mom was conceived there, and the big concern I have is the aquifer. We’ve had that well there since the late 20’s, and the thing is the water is fantastic. I have it tested just about every year. Everybody’s happy with it, but that’s a shallow well, and the water that, all the water that lands, if you could put up a Google, a map of the area, you’ll see that it’s like a big peninsula, and this road goes right down it, and where Bill Threw’s place is is up at the head of that peninsula. All the water that lands up there comes down through this peninsula and it goes out into the, it flows out in to the river, and that’s the aquifer that my well is in, that everybody that lives on Palmer Drive and a lot of other people’s wells are in. As this other gentleman pointed out, the vehicles that are going in there, even if the guy that’s operating this says they’re nice and dry and there’s nothing wrong with them, I don’t believe that’s going to happen with every vehicle, and the point that I want to make is that anything that does leak down there, he can say, oops, sorry, it’s in the ground. Well, that goes down into my drinking water, and I have a real concern about that. I mean, if there’s any way that I could get some kind of reasonable assurance that my drinking water and the water that I have to use in my house, and all the other people on Palmer Drive, because everybody on Palmer Drive has a well, and the whole thing is that, as soon as he contaminates that, we’re done, and, you know, if you look, you can see that, yes, that’s where Bill Threw’s place is, right up there, and my place is, Palmer Drive goes right up along there, right in there, and the water comes down and it flows out into the river. Water flows out, and any contaminates that go in there are coming our way. We’re downstream, and there’s no way in heck that they can stop it. My family’s been there since the late 20’s, and I’d like to keep it so that my family can continue to stay in there, way past my time, and I don’t see how, I don’t care what this man says, if they get permission to put in whatever he wants to define it as, maybe his is okay, but who’s he going to sell that to? Maybe his business goes sour, and he sells out to somebody, well there’s a variance there for a junkyard. They put it in, we’re dead, and how many people are going to have to get cancer and get sick, like Love Canal, before somebody will kind of catch on and say, yes, there’s something there that’s making, you know, that’s messing up the aquifer. Do we want to have something like we’re seeing down in the Gulf of Mexico now? And say, oops, you’re going to have to stop it? No, I don’t think that allowing this type of operation up there is a good idea at all. The thing is when he’s talking about cars coming in and going out, he’s giving you some kind of impression that it’s just a quick transfer, and I don’t, you know, he said, if you were going to give him any kind of permission to use that at all, one, I’d say that he has to keep it inside a building, because those cars sit outside. If they’re sitting outside on a rainy day, whatever’s on those cars is going to go in the ground, and like Mike was telling me, he said, 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) well, what about your car. I’ve got one car, and my car stays pretty clean, but even if it didn’t, the thing, it’s only one car. They’ll circulate, according to this guy, he’s going to be circulating through more cars in one week than my car would even put in that area in a month. I couldn’t keep up with it. So, you know, it’s not just, you know, he’s talking about 10 cars sitting there for two day, well, if it’s 10 cars for two days, then that means that it would be 15 cycles or 150 cars in 30 days. I’ve got one car. I can’t dump that much, if I dump my car out every day, I can’t keep up with them. So the thing is, as I say, my big concern is about an aquifer. If you were going to grant him permission, I would say, one, that I would request that he put up a bond that would allow us to get Town plumbing for the whole road, all the residents on Palmer Drive, because that’s the only fair way to do it. We’re wiped out if he starts doing his stuff in it and it’s not exactly the way he’s describing it now, which is he’s only going to give you, you know as well as I do, the ideal picture. The reality is it’s going to be something entirely different which nobody knows about. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’re going to have to cut you off, because we’ve got a five minute limit. Thank you. MR. CHAGNON-Sure. Okay. Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Somebody from this side of the room over here. Anybody else? Brian? BRIAN GRANGER MR. GRANGER-Brian Granger, 20 Newcomb Street and 63 Wincoma Lane. For over three years and $17,000 in legal fees, I fought with a determination. I was determined auto use, and under the Code, the Queensbury Code, auto use is defined as fixing, repairing, selling or body work, and I asked over and over again, what is my business that’s considered auto use, and the only answer I got from Mr. Brown was, I’ve made my determination. I went through three years and $17,000 in legal fees, and the net result was this e-mail that wanted to move my business to the Light Industrial zone. The Light Industrial zone, Mr. Brown put in there two components, office and storage of automobiles, the end result was. I have a piece of property on Newcomb Street that’s in the mixed use zone, and under the mixed use zone was parking area, parking facility, and a parking facility was defined as any parcel lot, used in whole or in part, for parking or storing three or more vehicles. Exactly what I do. Now, under the new Code repossession business is defined to go in the Light Industrial area. Mr. Hunt’s business is the same thing. He has a vehicle there for a few days, which really isn’t storage, the same as mine, because that’s not the component of my business. He’s not dismantling. He’s getting pushed into a category that doesn’t fit him, the junkyard. He’s not a junkyard. He’s not dismantling the cars. My fear is that if I sell my property on Newcomb Street and I come to the Light Industrial zone, am I going to be told I can’t do this because I’m a junk dealer now, because I have cars that are not registered? For three years I couldn’t get an answer. I’ve got a stack of paperwork back and forth between the Town and two lawyers they had to go at least this high, and the net result is, I’m on Newcomb Street with no complaints for the time being until the property sells and I’ll look to move to a Light Industrial zone, and I do 10 times the amount of cars that Jerry does. Keep things neat, clean and low profile, just like Jerry does, and that’s the biggest question and concern I have, is for three years I asked what am I doing that’s auto use so I can either apply for a Use Variance or stop doing it, and I got no answer from Mr. Brown, I got no answer from the two Town Attorneys. I got no answer from two different attorneys that were representing the Town, would never answer my question, and now Mr. Hunt is in the same predicament that I am. He’s trying to run a business in the Town of Queensbury. He’s keeping things neat, clean and low profile. He’s not a junk dealer, and Mr. Brown’s trying to shove him in that category. He’s not doing what a junk dealer does, and that’s dismantle the car and sell the parts. The cars are whole, whether they’re eventually for junk or they’re not. When Mr. Daniels had Essential Towing on his property on Richardson Street, or Newcomb Street, it was a Newcomb Street address, excuse me, they were towing in cars that were determined to be totaled. That went to a junk dealer afterward, but he wasn’t considered a junkyard because he wasn’t selling the parts off the cars, they were kept in whole. If Mr. Hunt’s not dismantling the cars, he’s not a junk dealer. If he’s selling them as a whole car, but it comes, the net result is where do you want this business in the Town, and where do you want my business in the Town? I’ve been classified in the Light Industrial zone, which after the mixed use zone changed to Main Street, I agreed with Mr. Brown that the next category would be a Light Industrial zone and that if I looked for another piece of property in the Town, I would go to a Light Industrial zone. I agreed with him on that. Also in the Light Industrial zone is bus storage, heavy machinery, heavy machinery sales, service and storage, including backhoes, bulldozers, excavating, logging operations, that’s all under the Light Industrial code, and I don’t see where Mr. Hunt should be shoved into a junkyard when he doesn’t sell parts or pieces off the cars. The cars are kept intact and whole, whether they’re eventually going to a wholesaler or they’re going to a junk dealer, that’s, the junk dealer is the one that’s selling the parts off the car. That’s where this is very aggravating to me to 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) watch this over again because it’s the same thing that I went through for three years. You’re getting pushed into a category that you don’t belong to. That’s all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to comment? Do you want to come up, ma’am? MARGARET FOOTE MRS. FOOTE-My name is Margaret Foote. Could you call up my property at 84 Eagan Road? I didn’t get a notice on this, so I was confused when one of the neighbors brought us down a notice, and I have a feeling that this is only talking about the front of Bill’s property. MR. BROWN-Just the highlighted parcel. MRS. FOOTE-Okay. If that’s the case, then I think there’s some confusion in the neighborhood. On the back of Bill’s property is where there is some type of dismantling going on. It’s been going on since I’ve lived there. So I think there’s confusion with the neighbors on what this is about. I didn’t know that junkyards weren’t allowed in this area. This has been going on in the back of Bill’s property for a long time. I just assumed it was legal. So I think, if you’re not doing the dismantling in the back, then I think there’s some confusion. I think you’ve probably either not known that there’s been dismantling in the back, or you’ve overlooked it. MR. BROWN-I’m not dealing with that issue at all. The letter that I referenced from Dave Hatin has been dealing with the issue for several years. MRS. FOOTE-But that’s in the back, not in the front. MR. BROWN-That’s on a separate parcel. MRS. FOOTE-So what we’re talking about right now is just bringing cars into the front building and then moving them out. It has nothing to do with this dismantling that’s going on. MR. BROWN-On the back property. MRS. FOOTE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Not that I’m aware of. MRS. FOOTE-Okay, because that back property borders mine, and that’s been going on for a long time. MR. BROWN-Right. MRS. FOOTE-And if that’s disallowed, then the Town zoning does need to do something about that. MR. BROWN-That is disallowed and the Town is doing, there’s been an ongoing enforcement action. MRS. FOOTE-Well, they were, I could hear them today. That’s all. MR. BROWN-All right. I understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we get a clarification, Craig, then, the letter that we got tonight, I’m going to read this into the record, the letter from Dave Hatin. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is in regards to the storage of those vehicles out by the Quonset hut in the front right now? MR. BROWN-Well, my understanding is that letter is a combination of the ongoing activities in the back property that Mrs. Foote referenced and the potential for the additional use from Mr. Hunt on the front property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ve got melding of two issues here. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. BROWN-Two separate properties, owned by the same parties, lots of activities going on, and the potential for another activity. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think it’s important for us, then, to be, we need to be clear as to what we’re doing here, and that is we’ve been asked to look at the storage of those vehicles out towards the front of the property by the road on Big Bay Road. MR. BROWN-The highlighted property is a separate parcel with the Quonset hut building on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and that’s actually, you enter that before you get to Bill Threw’s. You come in through the back, at least that’s the way I drove in to look at it, yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, I’m not sure where the driveway is there, but, right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ve got a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. CLEMENTS-Just quickly. There’s also some kind of a lumbering thing going on back there. Is that behind this parcel right here, or in the back of this parcel right here? BILL THREW MR. THREW-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there anybody else from the public that wishes to speak on the matter? Why don’t you guys come back up, then, so you can answer the questions. th MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, are you talking about a letter of April 19 from Dave Hatin? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we just had that handed to us this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have the photos that are with that? MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we do not. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I have the photos with that, none of which are what is the subject of this Appeal that we have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and that’s why I think our Board needs to, it needs to be made clear to us. MRS. JENKIN-And what is that property that you’re talking in the back? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, this is Bill Threw’s property that is behind the Quonset hut, as I understand it, it is the storage of a building that was brought to the site. MR. THREW-I have a building permit, five years ago, to put it up. MR. O'CONNOR-He wants to put the building up. Here’s the pictures. As you can see it has nothing to do, and the vehicles that are pictured in this are vehicles that are at the truck shop next door. MR. HUNT-The truck shop next door. That’s not me. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not what Mr. Hunt is doing. MR. HUNT-We’re talking an area the size of this room, that’s three-quarters of the way fenced in. MRS. JENKIN-Now, Mr. Hunt, where you are going to put your operation will be at the front of the property? MR. HUNT-That’s correct, yes. There’s a. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MRS. JENKIN-Is that the cleared area that’s, there’s a cleared area that’s been flattened. MR. HUNT-Yes. The building, if you’re looking at the property from the road, there’s a truck shop to your left which has a circular driveway that goes in. All the stuff that’s out front, that all belongs to the truck shop. The building that is shaped like an airplane hanger, there’s a big red fence, and then behind there there’s an area probably three quarters the size of this room with 10 cars in it. That’s me. I’m not in the big blacktop parking lot where the wood is. I’m not on the other side where all the bulldozers and backhoes and construction equipment is. I’m in a little area behind the fence. MR. KUHL-So you don’t own that panel truck that says We Buy Junk Cars? MR. HUNT-That’s me. Yes. MR. KUHL-So you do buy junk cars. MR. HUNT-If I can get my hands on them. MR. KUHL-I see. Why don’t you just buy cars? MR. HUNT-Because then you’ve got to have a wholesaler license, which that’s the next mission. MR. KUHL-So you’re admitting you have junk. MR. HUNT-Some junk, yes. MRS. JENKIN-So these truck are your trucks on the (lost word)? MR. HUNT-No. MRS. JENKIN-Because they’re the ones at the back. MR. HUNT-No, that’s the other property. MRS. JENKIN-All right. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Question. What could be done to mitigate the environmental impact of fluids leaking which they invariably do from vehicles on site? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Garrand, let me answer that question if I can. Isn’t that a part of, and this was, I was going to respond to those comments. That’s something that the Planning Board is going to consider and probably make us put in some type of oil and water separator with drainage, maybe make us put in hard surface where we put the cars. I don’t think it really has any impact, or shouldn’t have any impact, on whether you think that this is a permitted use in that zone or not. It’s not before you. I can tell you that they’re going to make us go through that exercise and prove that it’s not going to be an impact on the groundwater, and that’s a fair comment by the neighbors, and a fair concern by the neighbors that we should address when we do the Site Plan or we do the Special Use Permit. MRS. JENKIN-So this is a Special Use Permit or Site Plan Review because it’s a new business being put in there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. My understanding, any business that goes into a Light Industrial/Commercial zone requires Site Plan or Special Use Permit, and it’s on the, I said recycling center, and it’s on there as a permitted use with Special Use Permit. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So I’m not trying to cut you short, but if you want to, we can address it. We’ve already talked about we expect that we will have to put hard surface any place where we keep the cars, even if they’re there for one day, two days, and it will have to have some type of protection so that there is no drainage, or it doesn’t go. The other comment I’d make, and maybe I, if I haven’t answered your question. MR. GARRAND-No, I just asked that for Mr. Chagnon’s benefit. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The other, this is not a variance, whoever mentioned that. We’re not asking for a variance. We are saying that we are not required to get a variance by our interpretation of the existing ordinance. So it’s not a question of somebody else utilizing the 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) permission that we get. We will have to go and prove to the Planning Board all the elements that you do for Site Plan, which I imagine is going to require screening, is going to containment of any potential spill, and everything else that comes along with this type of business. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have somebody from the public that wanted to add their three minutes? Why don’t you let this guy come up here, because he may want to add some commentary here. CHRIS HADSELL MR. HADSELL-Chris Hadsell. I live at 26 Eagan Road. I’d like to step up to the map for a minute. How can a building, this big warehouse here, be on two different pieces of property? Shouldn’t it all be one piece of property? Let’s be realistic, and when was this picture taken. Is that fence there now? No. This is before the fence was there. Now they’ve moved all these trucks out of here and put them over here behind this building. Be realistic. A junkyard is a junkyard. The Town has been after Mr. Threw to clean up that property for years. I’ve been down there since ’96 and they started then. Let’s get it done. Clean it up. GARY MADISON MR. MADISON-Hi. I’m Gary Madison. I live on 3 Sperry Road, and I don’t know if anybody reutilizes it or not, but when you’re bringing junk cars in, whether they’re rather new or rather old, and they’ve been in an accident, parts fall off, and who’s going to pick up these parts that are falling along the side of our road? Because I’ve been there 13 years, and for three years I walked down that road, and from Threw’s down through past Softco, where Softco used to be, you look down where that bank, there’s mattresses, tires, glass, tin cans, bottles, where the truckers pull in and then they throw their junk out the window, and for three years I’ve been trying to get somebody to pick it up and finally the people that live on that road picked it up. Now who’s going to pick up the pieces that are falling off of his car? I don’t want to see it. I’ve seen enough of it. Are you going to come down and pick it all up? I don’t think so. Do you want to go to your house and have it picked up off of your yard? That’s all I’ve got to say. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other gentleman in the back. CHARLES KILB MR. KILB-I’m Charles Kilb. I live about a mile down the road on 105 Big Bay Road. I’ve been there six years. We bought the house with the idea that we’re in a beautiful residential area with all the business on the other end, the main business being Stewarts and Curtis. We could take care of them. What we’ve got now is a junkyard, no matter how you define it, no matter who lives there, who does what to it, and thank God I’m not a neighbor who lives there, but I’ll tell you, you’re killing property values. Everybody knows we’re in a lousy recession. Everybody knows a lot of people bought, newer people bought houses paid a big, fat price for it, including me. This is going to knock your property values down, which means I’m going to get an appraisal, get my house reappraised, and I’m going to pay less taxes to you people. You keep bringing in this kind of crap as a business, this stinks, it really does. You’re not being fair to the residents. I understand the business has been there for years. They’re on one end. Keep the businesses clean. Don’t bring in this crap here. We ought to, more residences on the street and more taxes coming out of the residents than you’re getting out of these businesses, believe me. This is not right, and I don’t want to tell people l live on a street with a junkyard. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. Do you guys want to come back up? MR. CHAGNON-The other observation that I’ve made on this is the traffic on the road, which they’ve already talked about the debris that gets deposited on the road, particularly right up on this end of the road. There’s more debris deposited along the shoulder of the road and stuff, all kinds of junk, like this gentleman mentioned, and tonight when we were coming over here, I almost got run off the road with a truck, one of those flat bed tow truck type of things, it had a great big, I don’t know, it looked like a green trailer or something that was half on the truck and half hanging over the road, and I almost got run off the road from it. The road is not very big, and the traffic that’s going to be increased with truck traffic which is, whatever they’ve got on the back of that truck, God only knows. That’s just a hazard to navigation for the rest of the people that live there. Once you get below Eagan Road, that’s a very nice, very, very nice residential area, and a lot of us live on the river. We enjoy that, other people live around, and it’s a very nice area. We don’t, this stuff here, we don’t merit this. It’s bad enough that Bill Threw is there and Bill keeps doing his stuff around there, and it’s just, when you go down there, you went down today, you noticed it right up the end of the road, it looks like, it’s trash. You go down the other end of the road, it looks real nice, and as the gentleman says, you know, our property values get effected by this, more importantly, as Mike said, you guys don’t do it, but I’m looking 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) at the environmental impact, because the river’s there to get polluted and of course I’ll say it again, our well water is there to get polluted, and that’s it. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Okay. Do you guys want to come up. MR. ZAHER-I’d like to add to what I said earlier, that I have pictures of this junk that is sitting on this property. These are cars that people didn’t want. They’re smashed up, as I said before, they’re leaking fluids. This is a junkyard by the definition under the law of a junkyard. If you’d like to see pictures of the products he’s bringing in there, or that stay there, I have pictures there, and I’m glad to show them to you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Do you guys want to come back up? All right. Before you give your final statements here, I’m going to read this letter into the record, because I think it’s appropriate to have some commentary from the Building and Code Enforcement Department of the Town of Queensbury, and this letter was dated April 19, 2010 to Bill Threw on Big Bay Road. “Dear Bill: This Department has once again received a complaint from a gentleman named Doug regarding the appearance of your property and the large amount of junk and unregistered vehicles on your property. Pictures taken from neighboring properties on 4/15/2010 attached to this letter show more than one unregistered vehicle and more than one junk vehicle on the property, as well as several discarded junk items on and about the property. As you are well aware from our last court appearance during the Summer of 2004, you are not allowed to store more than one junk vehicle or one unregistered vehicle on the property. Any discarded junk or debris on the property is considered a violation of the Town Junkyard th Ordinance. I’m attaching the pictures that were taken on April 15, and if you have any questions, I can certainly meet you on the property to go over these issues. As I suggested to you in 2005, and I suggest again, you can apply to the Town Board for a junkyard license and go through the necessary approvals to obtain a junkyard permit from the Town of Queensbury in order to continue. If you fail to apply for these approvals, then you would leave me no choice but to cite you for the violations and issue a court summons. I will look for these violations to be corrected over the next 30 days, otherwise a court summons will be issued if we do not hear back from you that you wish to pursue a Town Junkyard license through the Town Board.” And that’s signed Sincerely, Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, have you circulated the pictures that were with that? MR. UNDERWOOD-They haven’t been passed down to us yet. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask each Board member to look at those because that letter is really not germane to the application here. Take a look at the pictures. That’s building equipment that’s out behind the site that we’re talking about, and it’s also trucks that are parked in front of the truck repair or vehicles that are parked in front of the truck repair portion of this property, not that which is going to be part of the operation that we’re saying is not a junkyard. The other comment I would make, which is always mystifying. He’s telling us to apply to the Town Board for a junkyard permit. If it was that simple, we would, but junkyards are not permitted in this zone, and that’s an April 2010 letter. So the letter is incorrect as to, or is unrelated to this property, unrelated to the question before the Board at this moment, and totally incorrect. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, for the sake of clarity here, I think that we have somewhat clouded the issue as to the applicant who is here this evening with his, you know, 10, 8 to 10 cars that he has on site there now. I’m not sure, at this point, if I want to proceed with this this evening, Craig, because I think it’s important for us, you’ve made the distinction, you know, in regards to his property specifically, but I think for some of the Board members that may have visited the site, they may have seen all the other stuff around, and I would have to agree with the people on Eagan Road and places down that way. They’ve put up with all this stuff for years and years and years from Bill Threw. It seems like the Town never really has put their foot down and really done anything in regards to cleaning up the site down there. I think that there’s a whole bunch of secondary and tertiary issues in regards to this that have an effect on our decision going forward, for what we’re going to do for you, and I think if we look at the situation in a broad sense down there, I don’t think any of us are happy with the situation, and I think we’d have to agree with the neighbors, because Bill Threw’s is the last place on there, it’s the closest to residential areas down on the Hudson River that the subject is germane to the issue. It’s not in the middle of an industrial area where you wouldn’t see it or have the effect that it does have because of where it is located. Over the years, this area could have been done. It could have been cleaned up. It could have been run in a more efficient manner, and I don’t think that has been the case through the years. It seems to me that Dave Hatin and the Town have had an issue with this for many, many years. This isn’t the first new issue coming up here, and I don’t want to cloud your position either, or Brian Granger’s position either, because every single one that comes before us is a unique situation in my book. I don’t look at it based upon what I did for somebody else, because I think each one is slightly different, you know, you’ve got to 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) look at it, it is what it is, but I think for us tonight as a Board, we were asked, the applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination regarding junkyard use on the parcel, and it’s one of those issues you’ve got to decide in your own mind, is this a junkyard or is this not a junkyard, and you’ve got to make that decision. It’s a Light Industrial zone. It’s not a Heavy Industrial zone where junkyard use is allowed. So for anybody to come in here and park used vehicles, unregistered motor vehicles, I don’t care if they’re repos or if they’re junkers or crashed cars or what they are, it’s not an allowed use in a Light Industrial area, and I think the best way to rectify this matter would be for Bill Threw to come in on his own, the trucking guys who run the trucking company, and you to come in and go to the Town Board, but I mean, I think the issue really is going to be germane to the Planning Board because they’re going to be the ultimate ones that decide whether it’s an allowed use. It’s not an allowed use as it has been presented to us, as far as I’m concerned, in my book. MR. O'CONNOR-We have not presented anything with regard to Bill Threw’s construction operation on that and we’re not asking you to make a ruling with regard to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, but I’m just saying, in the context of, it is what it is. It’s been a mess down there for years. I don’t think that this issue here, from what I saw today, is going to add that much more negativity to it, but at the same time, if we’re looking to make the situation better all around, let’s do what’s best in all regards, for all the parties involved. Okay. It’s not just about you. It’s not just about Bill Threw. It’s not just about the neighborhood either, but in other words, it’s a matter of accommodation. So I don’t know what your suggestion would be. MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess, with regard to the Dave Hatin letter, I only supplied that to you to show you that his position is that the keeping of unregistered vehicles or junk vehicles is considered a junkyard. So, with respect to what’s happening on the other parcel, as far as I’m concerned, you can completely disregard that. It has nothing to do with my determination. That’s an enforcement issue that’s being going on with Dave Hatin for a number of years. You mentioned, you know, the Town may not be doing anything about it. Believe me, as I’m sure Mr. Threw can tell you, he’s seen Dave on his property probably more times than he cares to. It’s an ongoing enforcement issue. It’s a matter of, you know, cooperation and participation on both sides to get the problem fixed. My issue is with the proposed use that Mr. Hunt has here and by their testimony and the evidence, the information that’s been given to us in letters, they want to store or deposit or keep unregistered, unroadworthy vehicles on the property for whatever period of time, and by definition of the Town Code, whether it’s the Zoning Code or the Junkyard Ordinance, that use is defined as a junkyard, and in this zone a junkyard is not allowed. That’s the only thing we have to deal with tonight is this proposed use. Regardless, forget what Mr. Threw is doing on the rest of his property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to, I want to ask Board members, at this point, what your feelings are. So I’ll start with you, John. MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Chairman, if you’d let me, I’ve been taking notes and I’ve done a little research on this. If I could direct a couple of questions to Mr. Hunt and his counsel, maybe we can clear in our own minds. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. KOSKINAS-I’ve made a few notes. I’d like to read them to you, and either of you gentlemen can either confirm them, that I’m accurate in what I’m saying, or correct me, and I think you’ll help us all. Counsel, you mentioned that your client removes catalytic converters. Did you say that? MR. O'CONNOR-He has in the past. He understands that he cannot on this site. There will be no dismantling. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. New York State Motor Vehicle Regulation Part 81 identifies itinerant vehicle collectors as a regulated junk and salvage business. That’s what your certificate is for, sir? MR. HUNT-Yes. That’s what they told me I am, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-That requires registration applicants to have a permanent place of business conforming to Section 136 of the General Municipal Law. MR. HUNT-Correct. I’ve got to have a locked box and all my records in one box locked in an office. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. KOSKINAS-Section 136 of the New York General Municipal Law defines a junkyard as any place for two or more unregistered vehicles no longer intended for the highway, and my understanding of the DMV code, as I read it, was that an itinerant collector dealt only in vehicles that were no longer going to be registered on the road, vehicles that would never see the highway again. Is that right? MR. HUNT-Partially, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-What part’s wrong? MR. HUNT-Because of the way that they wrote , they crammed itinerant vehicle into the junkyard deal, two years ago, in 2008. It also says in there that I can sell to wholesalers, used car lots, anyone who is registered with New York State or DMV to sell vehicles, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a salvage vehicle. MR. KOSKINAS-Right, but a vehicle that’s never going to be registered again, is how I read it. Is that not accurate? MR. HUNT-Not if it goes to a wholesaler or to a used car guy it’s not, for the auction in Clifton Park. MR. KOSKINAS-Section 136 also requires that any operator obtain a license or certificate of approval from the municipality and a certificate from the Zoning Board that the location is not restricted against such use. MR. HUNT-That’s why we’re here now. MR. KOSKINAS-I understand that. Town Code Chapter 102, Paragraph 102-3, Operation and License requirements, no person shall operate a junkyard on property having less than five acres of land. Do you have five acres of land? MR. HUNT-That’s for a dismantler. That’s if you’re selling parts to the public, and it clearly states that under the dismantler, what they segregate in. I don’t want any part of selling parts. I don’t want any part of dismantling vehicles. MR. BROWN-That’s the Town Code you’re reading from? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, sir. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-It’s 102-3. MR. HUNT-You have to understand, I don’t want to be a junkyard. I don’t want to crush cars. I don’t want to be an Eastside, a mobile car crusher. I want to be the guy who buys the car and sells the car whole. It’s a little niche, almost like the guy who does little tiny things on furniture. I’m not the big junkyard. I’m not the Jerry Brown’s. I’m not the guy who takes the car in and completely strips it down, has people coming in and out doing things. I’m the guy who buys the car and sells the car. MR. KOSKINAS-I understood that. I just wanted to get my thinking. MR. HUNT-And that’s what it is, as long as it’s not to the public. MR. KOSKINAS-I also noted that in the repo business, vehicles have an inherent value. Typically they’re highly valued. That’s why they’re repossessed. They’re going to be sold, used by somebody, and an itinerant collector, by State definition, refers to vehicles that won’t be used on the road again. Is that right? MR. HUNT-Sometimes. MR. O'CONNOR-Sometimes. Itinerant is allowed to sell them to people that will re-sell the vehicle for use. MR. KOSKINAS-On the road? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. So some of them will have a value over and above the salvage value. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. In my mind, I think I see these things falling along your request. You don’t want to be considered as being defined by any of these references. Is that what I heard you say? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Okay. You have different authorities and different licenses, and different definitions. The State’s definition of itinerant vehicle collector is not the same as the Town’s definition of Junkyard. In order to operate in the little niche that he talked about, we need to be licensed by the State of New York. The category that we fall into with the State of New York, and we use part of it, is the itinerant collector. That’s a different regulation for a different purpose. The question is, is the picking up of individual vehicles, bringing them to the site, and transporting them off to another site, as whole as they come in, without dismantlement, is that operation of a junkyard, and our position is it is not. Our position is there’s been two other rulings by this Board on similar type things that should be considered for this particular property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. Well, first, decisions we’ve made in the past do not necessarily influence the way we make decisions. Each decision is made individually, and I do have some questions. The Town Code says a junk vehicle is any unregistered motor vehicle no longer in condition for legal use. Now you do have some like that. MR. HUNT-Yes. MRS. HUNT-And a junkyard is an open area for dismantling, storage, or sale of motor vehicles or parts, and so on, and so I would have to agree with the Zoning Administrator’s determination on this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-There are two issues here. To separate them, I guess I would say that probably the junkyard is out of the back, and the front part is different from that. I’m looking at the Zoning Administrator’s position that the proposed use is to be considered a junkyard use as it involves the dismantling of inoperable vehicles, and then it goes on to define the definition of a junkyard. From what has been said here tonight, it does not involve the dismantling of vehicles. I’m going to have to agree with the appellant, however, and see it more as a recycling center as the attorney O’Connor mentioned here, but I do think that there are some other issues here that out to be taken care of out in back. So I guess my position would be I would agree with the appellant, just for that part. MR. BROWN-If I could just clarify, if you recall, at the beginning of the appellant’s testimony, they stated that, in their original letter to me, they said we take cars apart, we sell the parts, and then they, tonight, told you that they don’t do that any longer. So my original determination was based on their letter describing their use. MR. CLEMENTS-Understood. MR. BROWN-So when I said your use is a junkyard because you take cars apart, that’s because that’s what they told me they did. Tonight they said we don’t take them apart. All we want to do is store them there. I agreed that it’s still a junkyard whether you take them apart or not, because you store them. MR. CLEMENTS-I understand. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. From all the comments that have been made and the arguments that you’ve made for it tonight, I feel that actually the decision to move your business there, you’ve really opened a can of worms, and you’re a part of a larger problem. MR. HUNT-I didn’t realize there was a different industry. I’m not like (lost words) all these rules. MRS. JENKIN-You’re becoming a part of a larger program, and so we have to look at the actual definition of a junkyard in your case as well, even though there’s other things going on that don’t have anything to do with you, and you will have a different business. The other thing that I did want to say before I give my final was you had mentioned in the letter that Dave Hatin said that he needed to apply for permits, but the thing is, he doesn’t say that he would get a permit. He said he needs to apply. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’ll get the permits, or that a permit 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) would be issued. So that was just my comment on that part. I feel that, looking at the 2009 definition of a junkyard, it says it’s an open lot which you have, or area, for the storage, for the dismantling, but it says storage or sale, and you are storing vehicles and you’re also selling, selling to, you’re taking them away and you’re selling them. You’re buying them from the owners and you’re selling them to someone else, and that is part of the definition of a junkyard. So I would uphold the Zoning Administrator’s determination, as being actually a junkyard in this area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, Mr. Hunt, I guess you chose to go on Mr. Threw’s property. If he would have gone on Brian Granger’s property, right, first your lawyer said you take out catalytic converters. Your letter to the Town said you dismantle. So I guess what you’re saying is you do but you don’t, and I’ve got to ask you that question. If he would be on Brian Granger’s property now, would this issue be here? MR. BROWN-It would. Regardless of where Mr. Hunt proposes his use, his use, by definition of the Code, is considered a junkyard. It fits in the Heavy Industrial zone. It doesn’t fit in any other zone. MR. KUHL-Unfortunately the points of law are such, and your lawyer talked about catalytic converters, and I realize that you hook them, store them and get rid of, and, you know, what you do and what you don’t do, it appears that you said that you did one thing and now you’re saying another. I think you’re stuck with being a junkyard now. I think you are, and that’s, you know, the other thing, if I may say something as an aside, what would be the process to get a new categorization of a reclamation center? Because you still would have to protect the public, and that’s the groundwater and all that stuff. So just getting the, you know, it’s not for you. MRS. JENKIN-Change the Code again. MR. KUHL-Yes. In addition to the Code, because this gentleman, if he just does the pick up part, then maybe there should be something that says reclamation center, and maybe that reclamation center would have to have certain specifications to satisfy the public, which is no more than right, but the way you have it now, and, Mike, what you talk about converters, you know, you’re saying you’re a junkyard. So I’d have to go against the appellant. MR. GARRAND-I think when this definition of Junkyard was written into the Code, I think they left it ambiguous for a reason. They’ve got this so that they can consider somebody a junkyard nine ways from Sunday here. They’ve got storage, for the purpose of re-sale of used parts, for the purpose of reclaiming some of the material. It’s way too ambiguous. It would be nice if the Code had another category for this type of entity, but it doesn’t. It’s almost forcing us to classify this as a junkyard, which, looking at this parcel, I don’t think it’s a junkyard. Looking at it from the definition of what we consider a junkyard in the Code, they left this wide open as storage or deposit. I mean, it’s just so wide open it has to be considered a junkyard in terms of the way this Code is written. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve dealt with this issue with Brian Granger’s property, and there was no, as far as I’m concerned, there was no chance that the Town was going to accommodate Brian. Once you dug your heels in and made your statement, and you’re perfectly adept at doing that. I mean, that’s your job as the Zoning Administrator to do that, but at the same time, if there’s not going to be accommodation for people to, you know, run a business regardless of what is, whether it’s new cars, junker cars, crashed cars. I mean, if we wanted to go down behind any of the dealers in Town, I’m sure we could find junk cars on the property and cite them today for having unregistered motor vehicles that are never going to go on the road again. We need to dial this in, and we need to accommodate people for whatever reason. These are legitimate business people in Town. They’re earning a living, working hard at it, and every time we throw up these road blocks and we just put a fence around them and we don’t give them any place to go, that’s not the right way to do it either. At the same time, the people who live down in that part of Town have put up with this garbage for years, and years, and years from people, not just from these people, but from the junkyards and everywhere else. It’s always a matter of everybody looks at it from their own perspective only, and that’s the problem with the issue. Because we don’t resolve, we don’t solve the problem. We just make road blocks to progress for people, and that means, and we also put up roadblocks to happiness for people who live in a residential neighborhood who are greatly affected by what happens. So, I would have to agree at this point in time. You’re storing cars down there. Some of them are junkers, some of them are salvageable. It’s classified as Rich said because we have this broad painted picture, we can throw anybody into the junkyard pile and just say, to hell with you, go away, find somewhere else to go. We need to create some place for these people to do their businesses. I think that when we did Granger’s, we tried to legitimately deal with it in a progressive manner that was 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) open-minded. We got the neighbors to agree that it was okay in that instance there. In this instance here, we’ve got a lot of other issues clouding what we’re trying to do here tonight with this guy who’s trying to run his business. You decided you were going to go down there, and that was your choice. I don’t know for how long, but there’s got to be some place in Town where we can accommodate businesses and make the distinction between an actual junkyard, dismantling and all those things. You don’t need to add anything. I think we all understand the picture. MR. HUNT-Well, I just want to say. MR. UNDERWOOD-At this point in time, I would rather see the Town Board come to grips with the issue and iron out what they’re going to do about it, because you just can’t simply just say, no, see you later guys, find somewhere else to go, because it’s not that simple. These guys are trying to run a business. They just can’t stop and stop making money and then continue their business without going belly up. So I don’t know what your suggestion would be at this point. Would you agree with me that the Town Board needs to deal with this issue? MR. BROWN-Not this specific issue, but the issue in general of maybe having more descriptive uses in the Code and less broad brush uses, sure. It’s impossible, not to get too far off track, but it’s impossible to have an exhaustive list of every single use that’s allowed. There are some broad brush tactics to allow people to fit in places, but it also captures other people at the same time. So I think you kind of have to deal with it at some point tonight, or not tonight, but this Board has to deal with it, because it’s an Appeal before this Board, but in the big picture, should and could the Town Board look at adding uses to the Zoning Code? Sure. That’s an option available to the applicant. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because, you know, my take on it is that the Light Industrial areas of Town, there might be some of them that it would be an allowable use. They could be, you know, secondary to a junkyard in the heavy industrialized areas, or since that’s the classification we now use here, but we have longstanding use. We have short term use, and, you know, we don’t have anything on the books like you said. It’s just, it can be anything. MR. O'CONNOR-How would you distinguish this from a recycling center? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we want to go there as a recycling center. I’m thinking this more in the sense of it’s an itinerant use, in other words, you’re picking them up. You’re towing them down. You’re getting rid of them. They’re not sitting there. If a vehicle’s going to be there for weeks, months, years, it’s a junkyard, in my book, and I don’t know how long you’ve had those cars. I mean, you can be up front with this. How long have some of those cars been there, since you towed them in? MR. HUNT-On average they’re there between two and three days. Like I said, I don’t want them sitting there because that’s my money. That’s my money that’s tied up in those cars. So the longer they sit, the less money I have. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I would think in the situation you could do the same thing we did with Grangers. You could put a fence up. You could put that privacy panels and the fencing and the anchor fence or something like that so people aren’t going to be messing around with the cars. You deal with it that way, but it’s something that’s going to have to be designed properly and done properly by the Planning Board. It’s not our purview to write the Code or to make the decision making process going forward on that, but we should do something for these people. MR. HUNT-Could I just say one thing? You guys kind of said, well you chose Bill Threw’s property, and the reason being is, is under the advisement, when I talked to Craig, when I was, I had 30 days is what Craig gave me to move out of 69 Connecticut Avenue. The only property available, in an industrial zone at all, in the Town of Queensbury, is the building Bill has. So that is the reason I chose that building, under the advisement of Craig and Dave said you have to move to an industrial zone and then things would be fine. That’s why I’m there, not because I like sought Bill out to get that particular property. That was the only property, within 30 days, that was available. That’s why I’m at Bill’s, and when I talked to Craig, he informed me that we were having problems with the new property before I moved in. That’s why we went to this next step before I get in there and get comfortable and start dumping money into landscaping and fencing and things to make the place right, out of my pocket, am I going to be allowed there, and, you know, I mean, it’s, just one last quick thing here, it’s kind of like the lesser of two evils. Do you take the junkyard or do you take me? The junkyard is they pick the car up, the car goes to the junkyard where the ground is already contaminated and it leaks for God knows how long until they parts the thing to death and then a crusher comes in, makes a mess out of it and crushes on their yard, or you have me who picks the car up and within two days it’s gone, whether it goes to a wholesaler, to a recycler, it’s out of town, gone, disposed of, one way or the 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) other. There is no sitting, rotting, there is no partsing out. There is no nothing, it’s in and it’s out, or it’s sit and rot in a junkyard. MR. UNDERWOOD-How do we place it on a Town Board agenda as like an open forum or something to discuss it? I mean, I don’t know, I mean, if we’re looking to resolve the problem going forward. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that’s an avenue open to the applicants to approach the Town Board, the law makers, and have them change a law and allow the Board maybe this type of use in a Light Industrial zone, create a use and define it. That might be a way for them to do it. They could come to the Zoning Board with a Use Variance application. Probably a difficult lift, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-How many other ones do we currently have in Town? This isn’t the only one? MR. BROWN-This is the only one I’m aware of in Town. MR. HUNT-I’m the only legal one. I’ll put it to you like that, because I don’t want to do anything underhanded. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, you drive around the back streets down that end of Town, there’s a lot of tow trucks and garages and, you know, cars. MR. HUNT-There’s a lot of guys that do it illegal. The problem is, the worse the economy gets, there is a lot of money in the car business, and with people out of work, there’s getting to be hundreds of guys like me, not one or two. So I’m kind of like the first of my kind in Queensbury. There’s going to be more of me, lots of them, believe me. MRS. JENKIN-Well, maybe it might be a good solution to find another piece of property MR. O'CONNOR-Where in Queensbury? MR. HUNT-That’s the problem. MR. O'CONNOR-There isn’t another piece of property. You’re telling him to go out of the Town of Queensbury. MRS. JENKIN-He may have to. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, well that’s a funny attitude, but Mr. Kuhl, I just want to be sure that you understand that there is no dismantling. We recognize the fact, and he’s decided that he would get out of that part of it. There would be no, I know it’s not going to change your opinion, but I don’t mean to have you say that he’s saying yes and no. He said yes when we started this process. When we got the response from Craig and we looked at the regulations and the rules that we were going to ask for an interpretation, we told him and he agreed, you can’t dismantle. If you dismantle, you’re going to lose your Appeal. MR. HUNT-Two reasons. One, I want to stay on Big Bay Road. They changed what a catalytic converter is now considered by the Federal government a hazardous material. So, if it’s cut off a vehicle, you have to have special permit to move it. I can’t afford the permits. So that’s a non- issue now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what we’re going to do, then, is get this over and done with here. I’m going to make a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2010 WILLIAM THREW – JERRY HUNT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 369 Big Bay Road. The appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator determination regarding junkyard use on the property, and since the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that this is junkyard use on this parcel. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to need either a yes or a no from you at this point in time, and I don’t need any kind of explanation as to why yes or no, just yes or no. MRS. JENKIN-So are we upholding the Zoning Administrator or the appellant? MR. UNDERWOOD-The appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator, so are you upholding the appellant’s appeal or not? MRS. JENKIN-No. AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas NOES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood MR. UNDERWOOD-So it looks like the appellant has lost the Appeal. So I would say your next recourse would be to go to the Town Board and either in a workshop forum or something try and resolve this. I mean, I think it’s an important issue that does need to be resolved. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it works. MR. HUNT-No, I understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think it’s a resolvable issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we get a recommendation from this Board that the Town Board consider a classification for this type of operation? MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, can do that by motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Let’s just do it on the record. MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEELS THAT, IN REGARDS TO THIS APPLICATION, NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2010 WILLIAM THREW – JERRY HUNT, AND IN SIMILAR APPLICATIONS SUCH AS MR. GRANGER’S, WITH THE REPOSSESSION BUSINESS, WHERE TOWING AND ITINERANT STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND THEN MOVING OFF SITE IMMEDIATELY WITH NO DISMANTLING OCCURRING, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE TOWN AND WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE BUSINESSES SOMEWHERE IN TOWN, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE PREFERRED, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT WING AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): ROBERT WING ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 159 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 91-454 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2004-779 NEW BLDG; BP 2004-782 SIGN; SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010; SP MOD 41-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 19.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-60 SECTION: 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2010, Robert Wing, Meeting Date: June 16, 2010 “Project Location: 159 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) 3 lot subdivision. Relief requested from lot area and lot width requirements as well as setback requirements. In addition, relief requested from road frontage requirements. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting the following relief: ? Lot 1 1. Lot size – Request for 2.34 acres of relief from the 3.0 acre minimum lot size requirement per §179-3-040. 2. Lot width – Request for 256 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement per §179-3-040. 3. Road frontage – Request for 250 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040. 4. Side setbacks – Request for 41 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum side yard setback per §179-3-040. ? Lot 2 1.Lot size – Request for 1.14 acres of relief from the 3.0 acre minimum lot size requirement per §179-3-040. 2.Road frontage – Request for 100 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040. ? Lot 3 1. Road frontage – Request for 217.9 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this area variance request. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce the number of lots proposed in order to reduce the number of variances requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. For Lot 1, the request for 2.34 acres or 78% relief from the 3 acre minimum lot size requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 256 feet or 64% relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement per §179- 3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 250 feet or 63% relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Finally for Lot 1, the request for 41 feet or 55% relief from the 75 foot minimum side yard setback per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. For Lot 2, the request for 1.14 acres or 38% relief from the 3 acre minimum lot size requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 100 feet or 25% relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. For Lot 3, the request for 218 feet or 55% relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty could be considered self created. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 52-03 Nursery on 19.9 ac. parcel Approved 11/25/03 SP 41-2010 Nursery Site Plan Modification Pending 6/22/10 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to create 3 lots from an existing 19.9 acre parcel that fronts on both Sunnyside Road and East Road. For Lot 1, the applicant proposes to create a 0.66 acre parcel that has an existing single family residence fronting on Sunnyside Road. For Lot 2, the applicant proposes to subdivide an additional 1.86 acres to create a residential lot fronting on East Road. For Lot 3, the existing Nursery business will remain on the resulting 17.38 acre lot which has current access off of Sunnyside Road. The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application dated June 15, 2010 (see attached). SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. GARRAND-“MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2010 FOR ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One - The Planning Board based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that th cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010” MR. UNDERWOOD-Matt, do you want to fill us in? MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, representing Robert Wing. Real briefly, this is property on the north side of Sunnyside Road, and bordering on the east side of East Road. That is his current landscape corporation, Volt Landscaping. The house that is on Lot One that is the proposal with the most significant variances requested, has been in existence. We’re not asking for any new structures. It has been there since the 30’s, I believe, and it was consistent, and is consistent, with the size of the lots, as you can see on the location map of all the properties along that area, East Road and around Lake Sunnyside and that area. They’re all about a third of an acre and we’re asking for about six-tenths of an acre. Again, we know that it’s now in a three acre zone, but there’s not going to be any physical changes. It is an existing house. The people that are renting that house, ever since Mr. Wing purchased the property from McDermott’s, have been renting the house. They wish to acquire and purchase the house. So the whole reason behind the subdivision is to let them actually purchase what they’ve been occupying for years, and then since he was going through the exercise of creating that lot that currently exists in that configuration and has been used in that configuration for years, he said this would be an opportune time to obviously create another lot along East Road, and that’s nothing that he intends to build on or sell. It’s just something that he has in the bank, if he ever needs to sell the lot, as the economy ebbs and flows, he has the ability to influx some cash to his business if he needs to sell the lot, but there is no intention to sell that at this time, or build on it at this time, but again, that being a 1.86 acre lot with most of the lots in that area are right around a half an acre is definitely substantially within character of the neighborhood. Last night, we were at the Planning Board and obtained the modification to the Site Plan which was the original Site Plan for the landscape corporation in 2003, specifically to reduce the area associated with the landscape company. That’s why we needed a modification to the approved Site Plan. So they issued that to us, went through the Short Form in SEQRA, and passed a Negative Dec on that. Instead of re-affirming the old one, they went through a new one, and then for the subdivision they went through the Long Form and issued a Negative Declaration on that SEQRA so that we could get in front of this Board for the variance and as you already read into the record, they had no foreseen problems with the variance, and I will not talk anymore and leave it up to any questions from the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make the comment, I think everybody’s driven along Sunnyside many times, and most of the lots are smaller than what’s being created here. I was around on the Board back when the whole thing got done the first time, in 2003. I think Roy Urrico was, too, and I think everybody recognized that that house out front was sort of a, you know, tag on to the operations at the time, so it’s understandable why they could let that one go. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. STEVES-The one thing I did want to bring up that I forgot to mention is, I also mentioned at the Planning Board, the shared driveway, or the driveway that is being used by the corner lot that is not part of this process, we have, and on the plans you can see where we show that to be shifted over and centered on the property line. So it will remain a shared driveway. We’re not asking for any new curb cuts. So if anything with this application, nothing physically changes the site except conforming the driveway to the standards of the Code, by sharing the driveway with those two lots, and it’s going to be used in exactly the conformance it’s been used. Nothing’s going to change. MRS. JENKIN-Where are you putting the new driveway? MR. STEVES-There is an existing crushed stone driveway that enters off Sunnyside Road just east of East Drive for the two parcels, and they’re going to relocate that and center it right on the property line, so that it is truly a shared driveway by the standards of the Town Code. MRS. JENKIN-It would be shared with the two existing homes? MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Another ones, you see how it’s kind of a wide entrance driveway? MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. STEVES-And it’s going to be shifted over and centered on the narrower driveway that branches off right on the property line, and we suggested that to Mr. Wing, just because of the fact that it just helps clean it up a little bit, and if anybody’s ever been over to that property, since he’s purchased the property, back when people remember, I know I did when it was the garage, and it was also the motorcycle track out back there. He’s done an impeccable job if anybody’s been over there. Very meticulous about his grounds, and I can only believe it’s going to stay that way. He’s been in operation there since 2003, and he’s done nothing but improve the area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions? Everybody pretty clear as to what’s going on? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence in there, Ron? I don’t think there was, was there? MR. KUHL-No, no there wasn’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want any discussion or? MRS. JENKIN-Well, I guess I have a comment to make. It is zoned three acres, and I think it’s important to try to come as closely as you can to this, and dividing it into three parcels is not absolutely essential. If you divided it into two, you still would have a nonconforming lot. It would be still two and a half acres. If you put the second one that you’re planning, that you’re not even planning to build on, but you still are creating an extra lot that is nonconforming, that seems to me that it’s not the purpose of what the Zoning Code is about. We’re trying to protect rather than increase density, and we’re trying to reduce density. So I just feel that it’s an extremely large request. MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree with the intent of the Code. I disagree with the fact that making that a three acre lot and conforming does not change the characteristic of that neighborhood one iota. I could make it a conforming lot, and is it going to change the usage of that lot, where somebody is going to enter their driveway on a 400 foot lot on East Road when every other lot on East Road may be 110 foot wide at the widest, no? A 400 foot lot in that area, I can make it a 400 foot lot and “L” it up along East Road to use up more of the frontage or the area behind his lot, and it’s going to serve zero purpose. MRS. JENKIN-That may be, but the thing is, the argument that, well all the other homes have small properties and they’re all small homes, that doesn’t justify that that’s absolutely right. MR. STEVES-I disagree, but I understand your position. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron, do you want to give any commentary? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. KUHL-No, I mean, I looked at it, and I could argue the same thing about three acres, and, I mean, even if you were to take the Lot Number Two and made it all part of Lot Number One, it’s, the frontages along Sunnyside are all small pieces of land. I don’t think it affects anything. So, no, I have no problem with this subdivision. I really don’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I visited the property, also, I noticed there’s a gate at the entrance road to the landscape business off East Road. MR. STEVES-Yes, as an emergency access that was required during Site Plan. MR. KOSKINAS-So it’s not a traffic use? MR. STEVES-No, both his entrances are gated. MR. KOSKINAS-I thought this second lot, Lot Two, is rather attractive. I don’t have any other questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problems with it. I think it’s a good design and I certainly don’t think it’s going to be a detriment to the nearby properties. It’s going to be an enhancement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I went over this, the first time I looked at this, I was looking for ways of reconfiguring this, making it better. I thought this landscaping company would be better served going off of East Road until you go down East Road and then you think about getting a dump truck or something down there, or any equipment, or anything. East Road is pretty quiet. I also think it’s closer to the Sunnyside. Keep as much as you can away from Sunnyside is my philosophy on this, but adverse impacts, I can’t think of any. I tried, but I can’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I can’t see any adverse impacts either. I didn’t try to, but as I look at this at three acre, you could make five lots out of this if you wanted to, and, you know, I think that it’s nice to have the nursery back there. So I would say it’s a good plan, and I would agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just comment on Joan’s comment on the lot that nothing’s going to be built on for the present time there, but that’s 300 feet of frontage on East Road there, which is a lot, and as far as even if you built a big house there, it’s not going to create any grand amount of traffic generation or anything like that. The other house that’s already there on Sunnyside, everybody’s already familiar, you drive by it all the time. No one would know that it’s not on a tiny lot anyway, other than it’s a semantic change, as far as I’m concerned, and the business needs to have its frontage on Sunnyside Road for adequate ingress and egress of traffic out of there. It makes more sense to keep it the way it is. So I don’t have any problems with it. It’s going to preserve the greater whole of the lot, and I’m sure if at some point in the future the business got sold or something, and somebody wanted to do a housing subdivision in there, they’d only be left with what it is on the three acre. So we’d deal with it at that point in time. So it’s not any big deal. So does somebody want to take this one? MR. KUHL-I’ll take it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2010 ROBERT WING, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 159 Sunnyside Road. Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision. Relief requested from lot area and lot width requirements as well as setback requirements. In addition, relief requested from road frontage requirements. Relief requested for Lot Number 1 is lot size request for 2.34 acres of relief from the 3.0 minimum lot size per 179-3-040. Lot width request for 256 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width per 179-3-040. Road frontage request for 250 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirements per 179-3-040. Side setbacks request for 41 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum side yard setback per 179-3-040. For Lot Number 2, the size request for 1.14 acres of relief from the 3.0 minimum lot size requirements per 179-3- 040. Road frontage request for 100 feet of relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage per 179-3-040. For Lot Number 3, road frontage request for 217.9 feet of relief from the 400 foot 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) minimum road frontage relief per 179-3-040. The criteria for considering the Area Variance is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts will be created. Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. He could reduce the number, but we agree that it’s the right size for what it is. Three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. For Number 1, the request for 2.34 acres or 78% of the 3 acre minimum lot size requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 256 feet or 64% relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement per 179-3- 040 may be considered moderate to severe. The request for 250 feet or 63% relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. Finally for Lot 1, the request for 41 feet or 55% relief from the 75 foot minimum side yard setback per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. For Lot Number 2, the request for 1.14 acres or 38% relief from the 3.0 minimum lot size requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 100 feet or 25% relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per 179- 3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. For Number 3, the request for 218 feet or 55% relief from the 400 foot minimum road frontage requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts. With that, I recommend that we approve Area Variance No. 21-2010. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mrs. Jenkin MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II SEAN P. AND KAREN L. FLANAGAN AGENT(S): MELISSA D. LESCAULT, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING: WR LOCATION: 150 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF DOCK WITH PITCHED ROOF TO A DOCK WITH A 700 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SP 36-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 9, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-7 SECTION: 179-5-060A7 MELISSA LESCAULT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2010, Sean P. and Karen L. Flanagan, Meeting Date: June 16, 2010 “Project Location: 150 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes conversion of a pre-existing non-conforming dock with boathouse to a dock with a 700 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief requested from the side setback requirements for proposed sundeck. Relief Required: The applicant requests 6.7 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per §179-5-060A7 for the proposed sundeck. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be created as a result of the granting of this area variance request. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the project proposing a change to 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) the superstructure and not the dock itself, the existing dock location along the northern property line appears to preclude the applicant from any other method other than the request for an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6.7 feet or 33.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per §179-5-060(7) may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this area variance request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 36-2010 Sundeck Pending 6/22/10 Staff comments: The applicant has obtained a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning minimum dock setback requirements per §179-5-060. Please see handout. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MRS. JENKIN-There was a motion from the Planning Board, “MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2010 FOR SEAN & KAREN FLANAGAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One - The Planning Board based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mrs. Lescault. MR. CLEMENTS-Just one other thing you might want to add is this thing from Keith about the relief sought, change. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. CLEMENTS-Do you want me to read it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. This is to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner, dated June 16, 2010, Flanagan Updated Relief Request, “It has come to the attention of the Staff that the relief sought by the applicant concerning the proposed sundeck associated with this application was initially measured incorrectly. The actual relief sought is 8 feet 3 inches or 41.25% from the north side setback requirement of 20 feet as per §179-5-060A7 and not 6 feet 7 inches as previously measured by the applicant’s surveyor. Thank you. Keith Oborne Town of Queensbury” MS. LESCAULT-Good evening, Melissa Lescault, I’m an attorney with McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum. I’m here on behalf of Sean and Karen Flanagan. Also present is Frank DeNardo of 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) Elite Docks. Basically this project is currently a lawfully nonconforming dock that has a pitched roof. It’s nonconforming because it doesn’t meet the 20 foot setback from the neighboring northern property line. What the applicant is proposing is to remove that pitched roof and replace it with a sundeck. The sundeck will be set back from the property line by 11 feet 9 inches. So the relief sought is eight feet three inches. Unfortunately when the application was submitted, there was some confusion with respect to where that measurement was, but as of yesterday, we contacted Craig Brown, as well as Keith and discussed that and rectified the application before it went before the Planning Board last night. So I just wanted to make sure that that’s clarified. I know that our application, basically, was read in to the record, so I’m not going to bore you again with everything that you basically have already gone through. However, the written submission that I just gave you has changed those setback figures, and there’s a couple of different additional factors that I would like to point out to the Board if you would just bear with me for a few minutes. With respect to the Area, the balancing test, the first one as to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character, additional information that I had submitted is Subsection B, which talks about the extended neighborhood as well. What we did is we actually FOILed the Lake George Park Commission’s docks permits with respect to the west side of Assembly Point, and pursuant to the information that was provided to us, 27 of the parcels along that side of the shoreline, out of the 27, actually only 26% of those parcels are actually conforming to the side setbacks. So 74% are nonconforming. So I just wanted to point that out to the Board, with respect to the characteristics of the neighborhood. Another factor that I wanted to mention to you which was not read into the record earlier, is with respect to the requested Area Variance, if it is substantial, and I just wanted to correct Subsection B, obviously that we’re seeking the 8.3 foot variance, which is 40%, not what was originally read into the record, and then I also included another Subsection D, which talks about how the Lake George Park Commission considers this particular application, and even though I know that the Town of Queensbury has their own ordinance and opinion with respect to this, I did want to make sure that the Board knows that the Lake George Park Commission has waived, not jurisdiction, but they’ve waived having a variance that would be necessary for this type of a project. They basically said if you have a pitched roof and you change that to a sundeck, you don’t need a variance for it. So I put their ruling, and I submitted that as well as part of this written submission. With respect to whether there would be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? The only other additional comment I’d like to say is that this Area Variance request would not require any additional municipal services. Obviously we wouldn’t need any additional fire protection or water safety or anything of that nature. Just an additional factor, but that basically is it with respect to our presentation. If you have any comments or questions with respect to the dock details and dimensions, feel free, and also if you could also just look at the dock dimensions from the latest revised submission, as opposed to the one that was submitted for my written submission that chart, because we’ve changed the figures on this one to make sure that it’s accurate. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just add the comment that the APA just finally promulgated the regulations for boathouses in the Park, and they’re going to allow up to 1200 feet on them, 1200 square feet up on the decks and 15 feet high is what they’re going to do. So this is 700. So it’s pretty much smaller than what, it’s still subject to Town Codes and it’s not going to affect our Code change because it’s still going to be the jurisdiction of the communities that have their own adopted Code. So it wouldn’t affect this. So the setbacks are currently what remains on the crib dock that’s there. You’re just going to put an upper deck and a party place up there, and it’s still going to have the same setbacks from the property line as currently exists? MS. LESCAULT-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So no real change as far as I’m concerned. MR. CLEMENTS-Actually it’s just a little bit smaller. MS. LESCAULT-Yes, actually the square footage is now conforming, and I know it’s not really that relevant, but when you look at the existing pitched roof, when Craig and I discussed where you would measure where that setback line is, we’ve actually calculated to where the beam is. So you can see it in the pictures as to where the beam is, and that actually sits back 10 feet. So, we’re improving the property line setback to 11 feet 9 inches. MR. KOSKINAS-Are you, it says in the text, in the handout you just gave us, that in order to make the least disturbance to the lake, the applicant wishes to keep the original dock system and construct the sundeck. Are you building on the existing cribs, or are you replacing? MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-How did it get smaller? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MS. LESCAULT-The reason, when we originally submitted this application, the surface dock was basically destroyed in the wintertime. So Frank had to actually repair it, and he reduced the interior portion, so just to enlarge the slip. So that’s why the square footage had decreased. So we have a difference in that configuration. Actually to date that’s already done. I mean, we didn’t need to get a variance or anything to do that. It’s already done, and if at the time we submitted the application, I wouldn’t have done a difference in the existing proposed. MR. KOSKINAS-So this existing 8 feet 2 inches isn’t really, it’s really existing as 7 foot. MS. LESCAULT-Which figure are you talking about? MR. KOSKINAS-Sheet One of Five, in this sketch. MS. LESCAULT-Sheet One of Five. MR. KOSKINAS-Sheet One of Five shows the crib at 8 foot 2 and Sheet Three of Five shows the crib at 7 foot. FRANK DENARDO MR. DENARDO-Those are the pre-existing cribs that are there, and I had to repair those cribs. They were taken out by the ice. MR. KOSKINAS-So it’s really seven feet. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. DENARDO-Everything’s back together. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do we have any correspondence on this at all, Joan? MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Then I’ll close the public hearing, I guess. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as discussion goes, I think it’s pretty clear to everybody what this one is. I don’t think it’s going to be any great stretch to accommodate what they’re asking to do here. It’s not going to increase or decrease anything. It’s slightly smaller than previously was existing there. So, does somebody want to take this one, then? MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I think what we’ve got to do is be correct on that. MRS. HUNT-Yes, eight feet three inches. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I think we’re looking for an approval for 8.3 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the proposed sundeck, and that’s really all we’ve got to worry about, and that’s 41% relief. MRS. HUNT-Right. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2010 SEAN P. AND KAREN L. FLANAGAN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 150 Lake Parkway. Applicant proposes conversion of a pre-existing non-conforming dock with boathouse to a dock with a 700 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief requested from the side setback requirements for proposed sundeck. Relief requested from the side setback requirements for proposed sundeck. The applicant requests 8.3 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per §179-5-060A7. At a maximum height, the sundeck will be 14 feet 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) in height. In making a determination the Board shall consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this area variance. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood caused by granting this area variance. Whether the benefit could be sought by the applicant by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the project proposing a change to the superstructure and not the dock itself, the existing dock location along the northern property line appears to preclude the applicant from any other method other than the request for an area variance. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8.3 feet or 41% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per §179-5-060(7) may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this area variance request. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move we approve Area Variance No. 22-2010. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. DENARDO-Thank you. MS. LESCAULT-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER BONHOTE OWNER(S): JOHN AND TAMMY HAFNER ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 2 CRANBERRY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING 528 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO A WORKSHOP AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 700 SQ. FT. GARAGE. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 80 SQ. FT. DECK EXTENSION WITH ACCESS STAIRS TO REAR OF HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 88-593 SFD; BP 2007-004 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2009-213 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.17-3-36 SECTION: 179-3-040 PETER BONHOTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2010, Peter Bonhote, Meeting Date: June 16, 2010 “Project Location: 2 Cranberry Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert existing 528 sq. ft. garage to a workshop and construct a new 700 sq. ft. garage. Further, applicant proposes an 80 sq. ft. deck extension with access stairs to rear of house. Relief requested from front and rear setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.00 feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the proposed new deck adjacent to Cranberry Lane as per §179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests 11.20 feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the proposed garage as per §179-3-040. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the granting of this area variance. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Due to the limitations of the lot and the existing attitude of the dwelling, there appears to be limited options by which to avoid an area variance. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6.00 feet or 20% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the proposed deck may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 11.20 feet or 37% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the Garage addition may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 88-593 SFD BP 2007-004 septic Alt. 6/15/09 BP 2009-213 deck 1/4/07 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to use the existing garage as a workshop and not as an extension of the proposed garage. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to add? MR. BONHOTE-Good evening. I’m Pete Bonhote representing John and Tammy Hafner. This is Tammy. John couldn’t be here tonight. We just have a couple of issues we’re dealing with, as far as needing relief from the deck coming off the 20 foot existing closed in porch, which is going to be able to attach to another existing deck with a stairway coming down, and I’m sure you have the map there in front of you. It’s kind of heading towards the driveway, and the garage we’re dealing with is going to be a new two car garage coming out from the existing garage which is presently underneath the house, and we’ll partition that off to make that a separate workshop. MRS. JENKIN-So the existing garage will be the workshop now? MR. BONHOTE-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Not the new one. MR. BONHOTE-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. BONHOTE-We need 11 feet of relief there for the garage. We don’t think it’s too much to ask for. We think it’s going to create, you know, kind of conform to the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re going to be accessing from Cranberry as opposed to Sherman Ave., so that’s a bonus right there alone. MR. BONHOTE-Correct. Yes. A little less congestion there in the driveway area. MR. GARRAND-So you’re going to get rid of the driveway on Sherman Ave.? MR. BONHOTE-We will, yes. You don’t use that during the wintertime anyway. TAMMY HAFNER MRS. HAFNER-No, it’s very hazardous in the winter when the plow comes through to just try to get out or shovel or anything. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. GARRAND-I noticed now there’s two entrances. MR. BONHOTE-Right. We’ll keep the one on Cranberry Lane and just eliminate the other one. There’ll just be more front lawn there. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MRS. HAFNER-We’re trying to actually make it look more like it’s part of Cranberry, because that’s our address. MRS. JENKIN-Will you keep it a turnaround so when you back out, so you can come out front, and you’ll have a turnaround area there. MRS. HAFNER-Right. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you guys want to ask? MRS. HUNT-Will there be any windows in that workshop? MRS. HAFNER-Yes, the existing ones are going to stay. MR. BONHOTE-The ones that are there now. MRS. HAFNER-We have two sets, one on one side and one on the other. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody here from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICK EAGLESTONE MR. EAGLESTONE-Good evening. I’m Rick Eaglestone, 6 Cranberry Lane, Queensbury. I’m here tonight, first of all, thank you for advising myself and my wife about this project. We appreciate it. I’m going to go back a little bit, and some of the things I’ve heard tonight really concern me about this, and maybe I should have no concerns, but I’d rather voice them now than come back a year from now with a serious problem. It was approximately three years ago, a gentleman with a house across from Cranberry Lane built a garage, and when he built the garage, he didn’t adhere to the setback. So he came to the neighbors, came to the folks on Cranberry Lane saying, geez, I’m going to get a variance and I’d like you to sign my petition. I just have a garage there, and I need your support. So, I supported them. I signed his petition, and was very happy to do so because the house that he bought was in kind of rough shape and I thought he was making improvements to it. Here we are, a few years later, and the gentleman has consistently used it as a auto repair area, and I thought it was kind of fitting tonight as I sat and listened to the wonderful controversy, I guess if I can use that term, on what is, not a dump, but a junkyard. I thought it was fascinating because the gentleman now who has the garage now has numerous abandoned vehicles in his backyard and snowmobiles on trailers in his backyard, and I called up once to the Town and brought it to their attention and they said well, I was given a long story, and make a long story short, nothing was done. So, he continues today with vehicles in the backyard, and what started out as a garage or a quote unquote workshop is now an auto repair center, and you can go down there most of the time and see, one, two, three, sometimes four vehicles parked out front of the garage. So I believe we’re a residential zone, not zoned commercial. So when I saw this, the buzz word in here that bothered me, or I shouldn’t use the word bothered, that’s not fair, concerned me was workshop. I think it’s wonderful that the folks are looking to improve their property. The problem I have is, I don’t want to get into another quote unquote workshop in a home that gates into my property. Our property has taken a hit as far as value this year. The value’s gone down, and I have now at the opening of our street, across the street from Cranberry Lane, is a gentleman that I’m not sure of the correct term that he’s calling it, but it’s a car repair center, and I know he also repairs motorcycles because Cranberry Lane is the test strip for it. So I’ll be out cutting the grass and I’ll see a motorcycle go up a gentleman with no helmet on, and he’ll go back and forth a couple of times and then he’ll go back in and he’s done his repairs. So it’s very frustrating for me, especially since I’m a great believer in doing your own thing and, hey, God Bless America, do what you want, but I have a neighbor now that is across the street that is across the street that is definitely affecting my home value and I resent that, and, Mr. Underwood, you made a statement tonight that really bothered me, and maybe you didn’t realize how you said it, but with the folks that had the problem with the junkyard, you made the statement, it’s been going on for years, and it bothered me in the sense, that oh my goodness, the Town has known about this for years, and it’s still going on, and again, I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t, or that you folks should 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) not grant these folks an approval, which I’m sure you will, and that’s wonderful. My concern is, is that what’s going to happen if we’re in a residential neighborhood and we have a commercial use going on, and that’s wrong. It’s wrong, but it continues to go on, and nothing is being done about it. That’s my concern, and I just hope that my new neighbors, these folks that have moved in recently, I would just hope that they’ll adhere to the residential term and Cranberry Lane is a wonderful part of Queensbury. It’s a small little six or seven home street. I absolutely love it. We’ve been there 20 years, and I’m just concerned that I’ve seen what’s happened on, across from us, over on Upper Sherman, and I’m hoping that this doesn’t happen again with this, and I would ask you folks to consider also the gentleman that’s across the street from us doing what is not per Code, if he wants to do that, and I hope he goes out and does it. MRS. JENKIN-He’s across Sherman Avenue you said? MR. EAGLESTONE-He’s right across from Cranberry Lane. MRS. JENKIN-Is that a business area, is it a commercial area? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. It’s residential. MR. EAGLESTONE-And shame on me, I didn’t bring pictures, and I should have brought pictures. MRS. JENKIN-You should continue to make complaints, because then they need to follow up. MR. GARRAND-Craig, can you pass that on to Building and Codes? MR. BROWN-Yes. They may be dealing with it right now. This is the first I’ve heard of this. Depending on which property is across the road, I know we’ve dealt with one individual over there. I’m not sure which one you’re talking about. MR. EAGLESTONE-Well, there’s one on the corner that I believe it’s Jeckel that has his used car dealers and appliances, and right now there’s a washer and dryer out on the road now for that. I mean, again, it’s a shame, Queensbury, I’m very proud of Queensbury. I’ve been here many, many, many years, and it just bothers me that we, at times, look the other way on some of these things, and it’s a shame, but I appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as my comments, I was commenting from the same line that you were. I don’t understand how, after all these years, it hasn’t been cleaned up. I mean, we Board members come and go, but the Town is always there, and for some reason, there’s no oomph to the regulations. MR. EAGLESTONE-You know, Mr. Stec was campaigning at the time and we brought that to his attention, and he made what I thought was a very naive, very foolish statement to my wife and myself by saying, well, you should live in a community where they have rules and regulations, such as Bedford Close, and that’s not what it’s about, and I told him, I said I think that’s a very foolish comment to make because there’s guidelines already set in place. I’m just asking to adhere to the guidelines, and again, I’m not trying to prevent somebody from expanding their home. I’m not trying to prevent someone from doing business. I’m just trying to, if you want to do your business, and that type of business, go out into an area that you can have five acres, ten acres, fifteen acres, and where it’s zoned to do the proper business. So I just hope that we don’t get into that again because, as I said, my property has taken enough of a hit lately, and I can’t afford anymore. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ve got a letter. MR. UNDERWOOD-For the assurance of the Board and for the community, I would assume that you’re proposing this for your own personal use. It’s not going to be any business oriented. MRS. HAFNER-Right. No, not at all. MR. CLEMENTS-There’s a letter. Do you want me to read that in? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Go ahead. Before I close it. MRS. HAFNER-The one comment I want to make, in regard to what he said, we face that disaster that he’s talking about, and that’s another reason why we’re trying to face the other direction, so that we can make it look nicer and not be like so, right in front of it, because our 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) other driveway that we’re going to take out is facing right in front of it. We put plants out, but they’re not growing fast enough. MR. KUHL-But your contention is that you’re going to use this for personal use? MRS. HAFNER-Yes. MR. BONHOTE-Yes. John’s going to make like a wood shop out of it. MRS. HAFNER-Yes. He wants to put like a workbench and like his tools. MR. BONHOTE-I know John and Tammy, and they take pride in their house, and it’s not going to be a junkyard, and they don’t deal in cars, and we appreciate the neighbor’s concern. MRS. HAFNER-Exactly. MR. KUHL-But you also have to, you know, you have to respect everybody’s concerns about a neighborhood. The man, in 20 years, has seen a lot coming and going, and I understand Cranberry Lane has more motorcycles per capita than. MR. EAGLESTONE-Well, we actually, we have three. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian, do you want to read that in? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. This is from Kerrie Burch. She lives on 4 Cranberry Lane, Queensbury, NY. This is dated June 15, 2010, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury “To Whom It May Concern: I live directly next door to Mr. and Mrs. Hafner, the applicants for variance at 2 Cranberry Lane, Queensbury, New York 1284 (No./Type 23-2010). I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to family obligations, but I do want my opinions on this matter stated at the public hearing to be held June 16, 2010. I have several concerns about the variance sought by the applicants as their property directly borders mine. Please see the list below: The applicants already have a large deck off the back of their house that overlooks my property with a staircase that extends into their back yard. A larger deck, or second deck in the location mentioned in the variance, will be even closer to my property and is an invasion of my privacy because it will directly overlook my property. As it is, the residents of the property in question cut down several trees last year that lessened the privacy between the two properties. The residents of Cranberry Lane have thick barriers of trees between each property so as to maintain privacy between neighbors. Removing these trees lessened the privacy I am accustomed to as a resident of Cranberry Lane and adding a deck so close to the property line removes even more privacy. The requested garage is quite large in size. Where exactly will this new garage be located? The lot size is only .47 acres and this building and extra deck will detract from the openness and clutter free atmosphere that the Cranberry Lane development has exuded over the years. The other residences on Cranberry Lane are uncluttered and free of extra buildings that are too large for the property. To keep the integrity of the development, 2 Cranberry Lane should be required to keep their property free of excessive outbuildings too large for the property. Will this new garage be located close to the street? If so it may detract from traffic being able to see properly in order to turn on to or off from Sherman Avenue. There are children on this street as well. If the garage is close to the street a car might accidentally hit a child while backing out of the driveway due to a lack of visibility. In conclusion, I believe that this request for a variance should be denied as it infringes on the privacy and neighborhood aesthetics that residents of Cranberry Lane, including myself, are accustomed to. Queensbury is a Town that prides itself on its open spaces and placing a home and additional large garage and deck on a postage stamp sized lot is against the values that people in the Town of Queensbury hold so dear. Thank you for your time and sincere consideration of the above concerns. Sincerely, Kerrie Burch Lifelong Queensbury Resident” MR. BONHOTE-I guess if I could say something about the deck and the garage. The deck, the new proposed deck, is basically a walkway that connects the bigger deck, and there’s a door in the center of the closed in porch. Basically the deck acts as a landing, and then you’ll go down the stairs that way. So it’s really not a big, obtrusive deck. It only comes out four feet. The garage is kind of kitty cornered. One wall, the eaves wall, is shorter than the other one, which kind of makes it face Cranberry Lane, and that one wall is 22 foot, which is kind of the minimum for a garage, I mean, usually a garage is 24 foot. The other side is 28 feet. So we really can’t make the garage any smaller, I don’t think going back to the house anymore. MRS. HAFNER-And it actually will fit in front of our house that is already there, so she wouldn’t even be able to see it from her property. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MRS. JENKIN-I think probably she didn’t know what the details were. She had just heard you wanted to put another garage on. MR. EAGLESTONE-Can I ask a question? Do you have to remove any trees? MRS. HAFNER-No. MR. EAGLESTONE-So no trees will be removed? MRS. HAFNER-No. MR. EAGLESTONE-Okay. Then you said four feet out, is it four feet out from where the current deck is? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to look at a copy? MR. BONHOTE-No, it comes right off the house, four feet. MR. EAGLESTONE-Okay. Thank you. MRS. HAFNER-It would kind of make it look more completed and more finished with the front part of the deck going around it, because right now it looks kind of funny because the stairs just shoot straight down, because we couldn’t continue it last summer because of the variance. MRS. JENKIN-Actually, when you look at the house, this photo of the house, it does complete the house more having the walkway along there, because now you’ve just got that little staircase going down. It just looks like it was an afterthought or something. MRS. HAFNER-Right. Exactly. That’s why we’re trying to like make it look connected. MRS. JENKIN-So it does connect it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board members. I’ll start with you, Ron. MR. KUHL-Well, I think it’s a good, valid request. I think they’re improving it. As long as the concerns of the neighbors, and it’s just for personal use, I really have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-Well, they’ve agreed that they’re not going to be using this for any type of business. They’re going to be eliminating driveway on Sherman Avenue. It’s going to have one entrance, Cranberry Lane. Overall, I think it’ll be an improvement. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. KOSKINAS-It looks like a nice proposal, and I was at your property. I think getting rid of those big stairs in the back and making an improvement with that is going to make the house look nice. What happens to the bay window there, on the front? MR. BONHOTE-That’ll have to be taken out and (lost words) and we’re going to put two windows up on the gable of the new house or of the existing house, it will be changed around a little bit. MR. KOSKINAS-I have no problems with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Well, yes, I agree with the rest of the Board members. I have no problem with this. I think it would be a good improvement. I think it would make the house look finished off. I see you’re not taking down any trees, with the privacy issue and things like that, and I think that what somebody else has said here is right, that the deck that you’re putting on there is not going to infringe on anymore privacy issues. It’s just kind of a, you know, to connect to your other deck and get some stairs down from that door. I think it would be a good project, and I think it’ll be a desirable change in the neighborhood. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problems. I agree with the rest of the Board. I think it’s a good project. I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think it definitely fits the criteria that we’re supposed to follow of improving the neighborhood and it’s not a substantial request, and I think that it definitely will help you, as a family. It finishes off the house. I don’t think that, if you consider the neighbor’s comments from the letter, because the garage is on the opposite side of the house from where she is. MRS. HAFNER-Right. MRS. JENKIN-I don’t think she realized, as I said, what it was. MRS. HAFNER-And the trees that she was talking about that we took out were facing the street of Cranberry not the street between us. There’s like a couple really closer about to fall down that were really old by the house, but they were like on the property. There wasn’t any that we took right in her area that made a big hole where she could see, anymore than it is now. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s too bad. Maybe you can plant some more. MRS. HAFNER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-In the interest of good neighbors, being a good neighbor, but I have no problem with it, approving the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t foresee anything either, here. I think the proposed deck is just, it’s going to lessen the traffic going towards your neighbor who’s the one who was complaining about being affected by it, and I think that that’ll siphon off some of the noise, also, by having it go the other way. As far as the garage goes, it makes more sense to do what you’re proposing here. It’ll give you more room in the house for a workshop or whatever else you want to use the downstairs for. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2010 PETER BONHOTE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 2 Cranberry Lane. They’re proposing to convert an existing 528 sq. ft. garage to a workshop that’ll be undeneath the house and only used for personal use, and construct a new 700 sq. ft. garage. Further, the applicant proposes an 80 sq. ft. deck extension with access stairs to rear of house. Relief is requested from front and rear setback requirements. Specifically, they’re requesting six feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the proposed new deck adjacent to Cranberry Lane, and that’s only going to be a four foot wide deck up there, per Section 179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests 11.20 feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the proposed garage as per Section179-3-040. We don’t really consider that any undesirable changes will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to any properties. As far as the safety issue, the benefit could be sought by building something smaller, but the garage, at 22 feet, is about as small a garage as you can make if you want to fit a car in there effectively, and as far as whether the requested area variance is substantial. The six feet is 20% of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement, and the request for 11.20 feet is 37% relief from the 30 foot front setback for the garage. That’s minor to moderate relief. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions. It’s not anticipated that there will be any effects, negatively, on the neighborhood, and the access road will now be from Cranberry Lane as opposed to Sherman Avenue. Also, the mitigation from the neighbor across Sherman who makes a lot of noise I guess is going to be a bonus for the applicants as property owners, too, in the neighborhood. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-And we would also ask the Community Development Department to look into the noise and business going on supposedly across the way there to try and rectify that situation for the neighbors, too. Thank you. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II JACK BALFOUR OWNER(S): ART RIVERS ZONING: MDR LOCATION: CORNER OF OHIO AND CENTRAL AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 1,782 SQUARE FOOT DOUBLE-WIDE MANUFACTURED HOME ON PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM BOTH FRONT AND BOTH REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-1-87 SECTION: 179-3-040 JACK BALFOUR, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We did, there was a copy, also in the file here on this one, because they needed a resolution from the Board of Health, entitled Resolution Approving Arthur Rivers Application for Sanitary Sewage Disposal Variances, and that was passed by the Queensbury Town Board on May 3, 2010, which does have an issue with the smaller lot here. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2010, Jack Balfour, Meeting Date: June 16, 2010 “Project Location: Corner of Ohio and Central Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 1,782 square foot double-wide manufactured home on parcel. Relief requested from both front and both rear setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for both the 30 foot front setback requirement and both 30 foot rear setbacks as per §179-3-040. Relief request is as follows: 1.South front setback relief of 16.00 feet. 2.West front setback relief of 15.00 feet. 3.North rear setback relief of 13.90 feet. 4.East rear setback relief of 14.00 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated due to the small nature of the lot relative to the size of the proposed home. However, the proposal is in character with the nature of the development within this particular area of the town. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Short of reducing the size of the proposed structure to meet code requirements, options appear limited other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 16 feet or 53% relief from the 30 foot south front setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-4-030 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 15 feet or 50% relief from the 30 west front setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 13.90 feet or 46% relief from the 30 foot north rear setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-4-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 14.00 feet or 47% relief from the 30 foot east rear setback requirement for the MDR zone §179-3-040 may be moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficultly could be categorized as self created. However, the Moderate Density Residential setback requirement would not allow for any home to be constructed on this lot thus not meeting the 800 square foot minimum size for a single family home. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 100-1996 Front setback relief Denied 11/21/96 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) A.V. 78-1993 Front setback relief Approved 10/20/93 Staff comments: Measurements for south front setback relief as well as east rear setback relief are taken from the proposed steps to the respective property line. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-And again, sometimes people make the mistake of just going from the edge of the house and they forget to put a step down. Anything you wish to add? MR. BALFOUR-Well, obviously I’m looking for an approval, and I waited a long time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sorry about that. MR. BALFOUR-I’m currently living on Ohio Avenue at Number 28, in a rental, and I enjoy the neighbors. I enjoy the area, and I’m, you know, proposing to install a really nice double wide, on slab. I had a septic system designed to fit the lot, which I got the Town Board approval on, and I’m looking forward to starting my job. I’ll answer any questions you have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you guys all clear as to what’s being asked for here? I mean, I think we’re used to, we’ve had quite a few requests for modular homes down there. MR. BALFOUR-Yes. I’m putting one in right now down the street from me. MR. BROWN-And so you know, the Town Board is considering, with the updates and revisions to the Zoning Code, the typos, we talked about a recycling definition of recycling center that’s not in the Code. They’re talking about adding those things, and one of the idea they’re considering is this area, for lack of a better description, the avenues area, they’re considering re- zoning that area to offer different setbacks that are more acceptable to the lot sizes over there, for instance maybe a 20 foot front setback and 30 foot side, or I’m sorry, 10 foot sides and rears rather than 30, 30, 30. So the Town Board’s position is, let’s make it a little easier to develop on these lots. MR. GARRAND-Yes. This lot, there’s no way this lot could ever be compliant. MR. BROWN-Exactly. MR. BALFOUR-Well, it’s considered two fronts, you know, it fronts on Ohio and it fronts on Central, impossible to meet the setbacks, and I’m sorry to say I wish it was bigger, but 60 by 100, and I’m doing the best I can with it. MRS. JENKIN-One thing I notice here, you put steps in, and they look very, very small. Have you considered maybe making them a little larger, just because of safety concerns? MR. BALFOUR-Well, I think the Code requires three foot deck, and then steps off that, three by three, which is, the front door would be only 36 inches wide anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to be able to step out onto a deck before you go down. You can’t have the steps immediately at the threshold or otherwise you’d take a tumble. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s what I mean, it doesn’t look very large for safety. I’m suggesting that it be a little bit bigger. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, in the past, you know, we’ve had people come in after the fact and ask to put more of a porch or a stoop out there, something like that, and we’ve pretty much always accommodated it, you know, just from the standpoint of if you want to change it later, you can always come back. MRS. JENKIN-Right, okay, but then he has to apply for another variance. If he did it now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but he can only apply for what he applied for tonight. MRS. JENKIN-That’s true. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-You can’t change it in the middle of the game because you haven’t advertised it. So, that’s kind of hard. MRS. JENKIN-Will the steps have a railing or anything? There’s just three steps. MR. BALFOUR-The Code requires that if you have three or more steps, you’ve got to have a railing. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Okay, that’s the only question I have. I think it’s a good project for you. MR. BALFOUR-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no further questions, then I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any correspondence? Quick, I’ll check. No, the only thing we had in there was that letter from the Board of Health, and they did approve the siting of the septic system on that lot. So, since you’re on Town water, you don’t have to worry about a well or anything like that down in that part of Town. So I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to be polled, or are you all pretty much squared away? I don’t think you could put it anyplace other than where you propose to put it. MR. BALFOUR-I kind of centered it on the lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, it makes sense to fit it in there. MR. BALFOUR-I had the lot surveyed, and Van Dusen and Steves come and staked it. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as far as like traffic, you know, there’s limiting factors to how many cars you can fit on those small lots down there. So, it’ll fit where it fits, I guess. You’re probably not going to get a garage. MR. BALFOUR-No. There’s a lot next to it I’ve got my eye on. Older house, it looks like it’s falling down now. I might not have to wait too long. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to take this one, finish off the evening? MR. GARRAND-I’ll take it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2010 JACK BALFOUR, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: Corner of Ohio and Central Avenue. Applicant proposes placement of a 1,782 square foot double-wide manufactured home on the parcel. Relief is requested from both front and both rear setback requirements. Applicant requests relief for both the 30 foot front setback requirement and both 30 foot rear setbacks as per §179-3-040. Relief request is as follows: South front setback relief of 16.00 feet. West front setback relief of 15.00 feet. North rear setback relief of 13.90 feet. East rear setback relief of 14.00 feet. When weighing the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Given the constraints of this lot, any home put on this property is going to require a variance. Will this produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood? I don’t believe it will produce any undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. It’s well within the character of the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? Relative to the Ordinance, it may be deemed substantial, numerically speaking. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? It will have none whatsoever, and this may be deemed as self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 24-2010. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2010) MR. BALFOUR-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore information anybody wants to add? That’s it. I guess we’re a wrap then. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 50