Loading...
2010.07.28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2010 INDEX Area Variance No. 29-2010 Joe Nudi 1. Tax Map No. 309.13-1-59 Sign Variance No. 30-2010 Trustco Bank (Cont’d Pg. 23) 5. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-12 Area Variance No. 31-2010 Donald & Sandra Kruger 8. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.311 289.11-1-22 Area Variance No. 33-2010 Greg Garafalo 16. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-49 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 07/28/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT JOAN JENKIN RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the July 28, 2010 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 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 the 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: AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II JOE NUDI OWNER(S): TODAY’S MODERN MOBILE HOMES SALES, INC. ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 8 OHIO AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A MANUFACTURED HOME ON PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 88-669, BP 90-712, BP 93-724, BP 95-677 BP 05-167 [ALL MH PERMITS] WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 14, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-59 SECTION: 179-3-040 JOE NUDI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2010, Joe Nudi, Meeting Date: July 28, 2010 “Project Location: 8 Ohio Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a manufactured home on parcel. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for the following setback requirements for the MDR zone as per §179- 3-040. Relief request is as follows: 1.West front setback relief of 8 feet 6 inches. 2.North side setback relief of 9 feet. 3.East rear setback relief of 18 feet 10 inches. 4.South side setback relief of 9 feet 9 inches. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) 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. 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 8 feet, six inches or 28 percent relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 9 feet or 36 percent relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 18 feet, 10 inches or 63 percent relief for the 30 foot rear setback requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 9 feet, 9 inches or 39 percent 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 tomoderate 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 requirements 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.): BP 88-669, 90-712, 93-724, 95-677, 05-167 All mobile home permits Staff comments: Measurement for north side setback relief taken from the proposed steps to the respective property line. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Could you tell us who you are for the record? MR. NUDI-Yes, I’m Joe Nudi. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, Mr. Nudi, anything you want to add? MR. NUDI-That pretty much covers it, except that we’ve owned that lot for over 22 years. Prior to that, there was a mobile home on it. This was the Mobile Home Overlay area that the Town created years ago for, you know, high density, low income housing, and the new Ordinance or, you know, increasing these setbacks, I believe has created a hardship, you know, not just for you me, but I understand for other people, too. I mean, I think that should be looked at for, you know, for this area. I just, as I stated before, if something has been that way for years, why does it have to come before a Board to be reviewed? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions you want to ask or anymore clarification you need? I would just make a comment. We’ve had quite a number of these in that area. The Board members are pretty familiar with a lot of these smaller lots that were pre-existing, and in general I think we tend to, you know, roll over on these, and as long as the house is going to fit, and, you know, not be shoehorned in there, and in this case here I don’t think it’s really that much different than other ones that we’ve previously reviewed and gone through and granted relief for, but, nonetheless I think we’ll wait. I think we’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any correspondence at all? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-I have, when I was there, I may have been looking wrong, there is a mobile home on the property now? MR. NUDI-There is. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. NUDI-And what happened is we did not anticipate this. We had, Dave Hatin had looked at the home and approved it to say yes, it would be okay, the homeowner, who happens to be Bill Vanness, or actually his daughter who lives right next door to that site. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, because there’s two of them. MR. NUDI-Yes. Said that, had already hired the fellow to move it. It had to be off of a lot that it was on by that Friday. He did talk to Dave Hatin and said, Dave, here’s my situation. Dave said it can go there, but if the Board does not approve it, it has to be taken off immediately. So with that stipulation, yes, that home is there. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-That is the home that you’re planning to put on it. MR. NUDI-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-It looked new, and I thought that’s really strange. MR. NUDI-No, it’s not. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. NUDI-It’s not that new, and as I say, it has been inspected to make sure that it does meet the HUD Code for safety. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I noticed that. MR. NUDI-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Keith, there’s no Planning Board review on this at all? This is just going to be a regular building permit issued? MR. OBORNE-That is correct, pending approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Do you guys need to talk about this one? Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I just wanted to ask a question. I thought that a couple of meetings ago you had asked if someone from the Building Department would talk to the Town Board about re- zoning this area. Is that correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we threw out the idea, but, you know, in general, I think, you know, because we’ve got to look at every one individually, it’s a broad stroke if we just say go ahead, put anything you want anywhere. It’s probably better that at least we see it, you know, because occasionally we get requests for the double wides, you know, and in that case I don’t think something like that would fit. MR. NUDI-And, yes, I was going to say, I mean, this was set up, the slab is there for the single wide. That’s what we’ve always had there. MR. UNDERWOOD-And in this case here I think it’s more a replacement of something that you had, just an upgrade, newer. That’s the way you want to go. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. NUDI-Right, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to make any commentary at all? Is there anybody who disagrees with this at all or, I mean, to me it seems pretty repetitive. We’ve seen other ones in the past. MR. OBORNE-I think it’s a safe bet you’ll see more in the future also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. GARRAND-You said that a year ago. MR. OBORNE-And I stick to it. MRS. JENKIN-My comment is I think that it passes the criteria that we’re supposed to look at, and it looks like it fits that neighborhood and it’s probably a good project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think everybody expects that there’s going to be replacement of all the older ones. MR. NUDI-Yes, and that’s what, I have four other lots that are the same way. MR. UNDERWOOD-In general I think it’s the way to go down in that end of Town, and, you know, it makes living more habitable for a lot of people. MR. NUDI-Yes. Some people don’t want to be in apartments. This way. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you own your own place. MR. NUDI-Yes, and as I get, you know, at some point in my life, I will be selling those off. My son has no interest in them, and whoever is on them will have the opportunity to buy it and become a bonafide landowner, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-So you rent them, all the lots that you have. MR. NUDI-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want me to do this one? All right. MR. URRICO-Jim, you have to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll close the public hearing. Sorry. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2010 JOE NUDI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 8 Ohio Avenue. The applicant is proposing placement of a manufactured home on the parcel. The applicant is requesting relief for the following setback requirements in the MDR zone: west front setback relief of 8 feet 6 inches; north side setback relief of 9 feet and east rear setback relief of 18 feet 10 inches and south side setback relief of 9 feet 9 inches. The Board has considered the applicant’s request and we don’t really consider that there would be any undesirable change created in the character of the neighborhood. Although there’s quite a bit of relief on all aspects of this project that are necessary, we recognize the small nature of the pre- existing lot that’s there. It would really seem too burdensome to place a smaller home there because it probably wouldn’t meet the requirements for the 800 square feet. I think you’ve got to have 900 square feet is what you need to justify a home being on the lot there. As far as the relief that’s requested, even though it’s substantial relief, in regards to the area, we’ve granted this same relief for similar projects throughout that neighborhood and we anticipate more in the future. It’s not out of character with the other ones that we’ve granted, nor would it be out of character with the ones that we might grant in the future. In the Moderate Density Residential requirements have become more stringent over the years, and I think there’s some question, brought up by Mr. Nudi whether that should be addressed by the Town Board, but we do have to look at each one individually so I would move that we do approve this one. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) th Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. NUDI-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of these back? MR. NUDI-I would not mind betting a set back because. MR. OBORNE-You’ll need to submit four to us, to close everything out. MR. NUDI-I need four more for you? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Grab them all, Joe. MR. NUDI-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 30-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED TRUSTCO BANK AGENT(S): GRAPHIC IMPACT SIGNS OWNER(S): NORTHEAST REALTY HOLDINGS ZONING: CI LOCATION: 118 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD A SECOND WALL SIGN TO THE CANOPY ASSOCIATED WITH DRIVE-THRU (FACING GLENWOOD AVENUE). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS WITHIN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF.: BP 2010-073 WALL SIGN, BP 2010-074 SECOND WALL SIGN; SP 1-08; SV 9-1991 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 14, 2010 APA, DEC, OTHER 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE: 4.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-12 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 JOHN RENZI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 30-2010, Trustco Bank, Meeting Date: July 28, 2010 “Project Location: 118 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to add a second wall sign to the canopy associated with the drive-thru (facing Glenwood Avenue). Relief requested from number of allowable signs within a Business Complex. Applicant proposes attaching one (1) 41.25 square foot additional wall sign to be added to the east side of the bank. One (1) 41.25 square foot sign exists on the north side of the building facing Quaker Road. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from number of allowable signs within a Business Complex per §140- 6(B)(3)[4][b] Criteria for considering a Sign 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 surrounding properties may be anticipated. 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. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for one additional wall sign or 100 percent relief from §140-6 of Town Code may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) 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 surrounding properties 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 2010-073 BP 2010-074 SP 1-2008 SV 9-1991 Staff comments: Applicant proposes attaching one (1) 41.25 square foot additional wall sign added to the east side of the bank drive through canopy facing Glenwood Avenue. One (1) 41.25 square foot sign currently exists on the north side of the building facing Quaker Road. The applicant has requested a waiver from the ZBA Chairman for the requirement that the survey be signed and dated by a licensed professional. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted – The ZBA will need to perform a SEQR review; short form attached to application. MR. URRICO-Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can e achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. This is no comment by Staff? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would say that there obviously is no feasible method. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If I could add, just to clarify, as far as the requested waiver. We did talk about that, and the Chairman did grant that request. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to add? MR. RENZI-Sure. My name’s John Renzi, Graphic Impact Signs. Just a quick history of how we came about this. Trustco Bank has upgraded all their signage in Florida. Now they’re upgrading their signage to their new image here in Upstate New York. We went through the proper application process for two building signs, submitted it to Craig Brown. He went through the process. He was able to issue the permit for one sign, but not the other. It was denied. He clarified that the reason for that was that this Trustco Bank building was not on its own separate parcel. If it was, then he would be able to issue the second sign permit. Because it’s part of the Plaza parcel, therefore he had to deny it based on the way that the property and the by-laws are written, and so therefore the reason for our application is to come and ask for an Area Variance, not based on the total square footage. We’re under the square footage if you combine the existing sign that we’ve permitted and the proposed sign. The Area Variance is based on quantity according to the zoning by-laws. The property does front a secondary street, which is Glenwood Ave., which, if it were its own parcel, would justify the approval for the second sign. The visibility, the main concern over the second sign was the visibility. When you’re traveling in the direction approaching the branch, there’s no way to, after you pass Glenwood Ave. and recognize the sign on the front of the building, there is no way to take a left turn into that property. If you see the approaching end of the building, which I have here, you can see that there is no visibility of the sign on the front of the building, and therefore justifying the need for that sign on the end of the canopy, so that people have time to negotiate a left turn into the property and safely enter to park or use the drive thru. So, in summary, that’s the purpose for our application. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this picture here speaks for itself. If you drove the road and drove east to west, if you’re west bound, you wouldn’t have a clue as to what it was, and if you’re an owl and you can turn your head around when you’re driving and look back, you might see it, but that’s kind of dangerous. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MRS. JENKIN-They might think it’s Benson’s Pet Center, since that sign’s sitting there. Is there something in the parking lot? Is there a sign on that side of the building, at the front as you, when you drive in to where the parking? MR. RENZI-There’s a directional sign for the drive thru, to let people know that there’s the entrance for the drive thru, once you get to the back of the property. There’s also two awnings that are on the back of the property. There used to be a sign on the back of the property. When they renovated it and painted it, that was removed and not replaced. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So right now there’s no Trustco sign as such. MR. RENZI-There’s nothing that says Trustco Bank on the back side of, no. There are some window signs that were installed. They are in compliance based on the percentage of the glass area. We did our due diligence on that, worked with Craig Brown to make sure that he understood the percentages, and therefore calculated it around that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would just make a comment. The bank that we just did up on Bay Road, you know, when we replaced the bagel store with the bank up there, they’ve got the sign out front, but you don’t have the, you don’t really have the place to put the sign out front there, and again, with the Plaza, that would need a variance to do something like that, too. In commenting on this one, I would think that, you know, it’s a legitimate deal for a second sign. It makes sense if you want to run a business, that people know where it is, and as far as the rest of the mall, you know, everybody else in there is pretty visible from whatever direction you’re going, I think, you know, with the exception of maybe O’Toole’s, if you’re going east until you’ve got to look real quick to see it there, but it’s a different situation in that respect, I think than what’s being requested here for this standalone building. MR. URRICO-Keith, Craig’s reasoning for saying that if this were not a Plaza that they would be allowed the second sign is because it’s a corner building? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And as long as each sign fronts the road. MR. URRICO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any commentary at all? MR. URRICO-No commentary. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any commentary you want to make? MR. GARRAND-Why do you need a sign so big for the canopy? This is going to almost completely cover the canopy, that end of the canopy. MR. RENZI-It’s based on, what we do is do a calculation based on the visibility, the distance that you would read it at. We look at the surrounding background area. We look at the contrast. We look at the speed of the traffic, and then we calculate a letter height, and then that’s how we determine the size of the sign. Aesthetics also do have a part of, when you’re laying something out, aesthetic also comes into play. MR. KUHL-When you talk about changing signage, is the sign on the north side, is that the new sign? MR. RENZI-Yes. The signs are designed, their logo, their new letters are black. How do you get a black letter to light up? Well, it’s actually a black perforated vinyl over white. So it actually is a white letter at night and it’s a black letter during the day. It’s really unique. It’s very tastefully done. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. CLEMENTS-There is no monument sign out there except for the Pet Center. Right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and, you know, if we’re going to go there, we’re going to get into another like, we don’t want to talk about the other. MR. KUHL-It appears to be the right fix for the situation. Because if it was a freestanding business, they would be allowed two signs because of two main roads. MR. UNDERWOOD-And it still meets the square footage area, if it were done for that reason, too. Okay. You guys, I don’t think I really need to poll you guys on this one. Does somebody want to take this one? MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 30-2010 TRUSTCO BANK, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 118 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to add a second wall sign to the canopy associated with drive thru facing Glenwood Avenue. Relief requested from the number of allowable signs within a business complex. Applicant proposes attaching one 41.25 square foot additional wall sign to be added to the east side of the bank. One 41.25 square foot sign exists on the north side of the building facing Quaker Road. The applicant requests relief from the number of allowable signs within a business complex per Section 140-6B(3)(4)(b). In making the 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 this variance, and there would be minor impacts to the character of the surrounding properties. The benefit could not really be sought by the applicant any other way feasible to them. The two signs will be less than one allowed sign that would be allowed, and if they had been on a separate parcel, they would be allowed the two signs, one on each road. The request, whether it’s substantial. It may be said to be minor relative to the Ordinance, and whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There will be minor impacts anticipated, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, the difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Bank wants to have adequate advertisement of where they are. So I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 30-2010. th Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. RENZI-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II DONALD & SANDRA KRUGER AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR LOCATION: 3 & 4 OSPREY DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO EXISTING LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: AV 53-09, AV 22-01 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A APA, DEC, OTHER 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE: 0.58, 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.311, 289.11-1-22 SECTION: 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. KUHL-Jim, I’ve got to recuse myself. They’re a good friend of mine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. John, do you want to come up. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2010, Donald & Sandra Kruger, Meeting Date: July 28, 2010 “Project Location: 3 & 4 Osprey Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing lots to provide the 0.56 acre lot frontage on Barber Road and to allow septic systems for each respective camp to be located on their own lots. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for the following dimensional requirements as per §179-3-040 for the WR zone: 1.71 feet of frontage on a public road 2.86 feet of average lot width. 3.1.68 acres for lot size 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 no physical change is proposed. 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. Lot limitations coupled with the nature of the request preclude anything other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Assuming the road frontage relief is 71 feet as denoted on survey, the request for 71 feet or 47 percent relief may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 86 feet or 57 percent relief may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 1.68 acres or 84 percent relief may be considered 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 tomoderate impacts on the physical and 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.): AV 53-09: Side setback relief for dock Approved 9/23/09 AV 22-01: 1,880 sq. ft. single family dwelling Approved 4/18/01 BP 02-63: 1,993 sq. ft. SFD w/ attached garage Approved 4/7/05 Staff comments: The applicant’s agent will need to quantify the amount of road frontage relief required as the property line adjacent to the road appears different than town records indicate. Staff has contacted the applicant’s surveyor and expects quantification for road frontage to be available prior to the ZBA rendering a decision. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Donald and Sandra Kruger on this application. Real brief, I believe that the Staff has got it pretty much nailed down, but I’ll just go real quick on it. This is obviously two lots that are on Glen Lake. The northerly lot, as you look on the map that Keith has on the board, is a very small lot that fronts on the lake with no road frontage, and the septic is actually on the lot to the south. So what this lot line adjustment really accomplishes is that both parcels, even though neither one of them are compliant with lot width and lot size in the zone as they are, it allows them to be even more compliant as far as the Code is concerned by having each individual septic system on the individual house lot that the house is on, and accommodating road frontage for both parcels. Right now as you look at that small parcel to the north, it has no road frontage. So anything to do with that lot would need a variance. Anything to do with either lot needs a variance. So therefore a lot line adjustment needs a variance, but we’re just trying to clean it up a little bit. Actually as Keith has stated, there is no physical change to the site. The driveway is still where it is. It’s actually now shared on the property line which meets, again, the Code, and the road frontage. As far as the question that Staff had, my office did drop off some plans to Keith a couple of days ago, but obviously he 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) just hasn’t had time to review them, but I can answer that question. As far as the road bounds, Barber Road is a road by use, which means that it wasn’t a formally dedicated road to the municipality. So therefore the Highway Superintendent can claim up to three rods wide, which is 49 and a half feet, for maintenance, anything up to that. He doesn’t have to claim all that. They typically do, and if you look at the northerly line, there was an iron pipe found exactly 25 feet off the center line. Using 25 feet off the center line, which the courts would say is the highway bounds by usage, the highway bounds to the north lot would be 109.69 feet ,and the southerly lot would be 43.05 feet. Therefore, still meeting the 45 foot minimum to meet a lot as far as the Town standards, but not meeting the lot width requirement of the zone, and I know it’s a lot of little variances, you know, minor to moderate, I would say, but at the same time it really just cleans up two parcels that are basically, say the one to the north has the lot, no road frontage, and the septic is currently on the lot to the south. MR. UNDERWOOD-And if you were ever going to sell that parcel, you’d probably have to combine them before you sold them anyway. So you might as well take care of it. MR. STEVES-Take care of it now. You’d either have to do that, or you’d have to do it with an easement for the access to the road, and then an easement and maintenance agreement for the septic system, and then it just gets so many cross easements. The Krugers have currently owned this I think since about 2003, if I’m not mistaken, and there’s no real plans, but they just said, hey, we better clean this up before we move forward with anything. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject. We’re going to need to quantify those numbers. So I’m going to go ahead and do the calculation on that. It’s based on a 150 road frontage. What was the north lot, Matt? MR. UNDERWOOD-109.69. MR. STEVES-Correct, 109.69, and 43.05. MR. GARRAND-I’ve got a question for you. Back in ’05 when you got the building permit for the house, you used this entire lot for floor area calculations and all that stuff. Now that he house is built, you don’t need that anymore for compliance? MR. STEVES-That’s a good question. I wasn’t aware of that. MR. GARRAND-That’s all. MR. STEVES-I mean, if you needed a variance at that time, and I understand trying to think back through as fast as I can on that, obviously anything moving forward on either lot needs a variance, no matter what you do. I mean, so it just creates a building that is more nonconforming but it really doesn’t change the physical characteristics of the property at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think going forward it would probably affect it if you were going to try and add a garage or something like that behind the new house, because then you’d probably be way over the FAR. MR. GARRAND-Put a stipulation in that that no further, or any further construction reduces the FAR. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, I don’t think we would have to like condition it because, I mean, they’re going to have to, regardless, you know, if they do the lot line adjustment, then that’s going to have a direct effect on the new home and the pre-existing camp on one is going to be co-joined with the piece is probably going to benefit from it, if that one ever gets re-built, but that one would have to be done compliantly for Floor Area Ratio, too. MR. STEVES-It would have to come in front of this Board and I think, as the Chairman is saying, if he was to come in now with that lot, and reducing it, it would be so far, I think at that it me you could just say it would be an unreasonable request. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m not sure what the size of the new home in comparison to that lot, FAR wise. I don’t remember when we did that one if we were close or if we’re at the maximum. MR. STEVES-I don’t know if I have any data on that or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, out of curiosity we would want to know? MR. STEVES-I don’t think I handled that variance. So I apologize. I don’t have any information from the file. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MRS. JENKIN-So then with the lot line, then, the northern piece of property is now going to be .56 acres, that’s the new size? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-And then the lower one is .32. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-So those are the final. MR. STEVES-Correct. The existing north lot is .25 exactly a quarter acre, and then it would be adding .31 to make it the .56. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Just looking at it, like I say, there wasn’t any reason for the size, other than trying to accommodate the septics on each lot, and if we’re going to adjust the lot line, it only made sense to share it down the middle of the driveway at the road, and I met with Staff and we discussed that before, both with Keith and with Craig. If it was to reduce that a little bit, if you wanted us to move that line to the north, easily accommodate that, but, like I say, it doesn’t physically make any difference to the property. So, I’m open to suggestions on that. MR. CLEMENTS-I have a question. Keith, Barber Road is a Town road? MR. OBORNE-Barber Road is a Town road I believe, by use. MR. CLEMENTS-This is 3 and 4 Osprey Drive. Is that just the name of the driveway? MR. STEVES-That’s just that little private spur that comes off is Osprey Drive. MR. CLEMENTS-Which is not a Town road, is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-That is a private road. Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Basically that’s a driveway. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Town made everybody name every little land and road in Town, and I think that was done for emergency purposes. They actually had a credible address. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. If you came off of a driveway like this, like a shared driveway, and, because that lot didn’t have any Town road frontage, then they had to name the road that it was, quote road that it was on. JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, the Town Assessor calls it Osprey View. MR. OBORNE-Well, the new quantifications for relief for the north lot is 40.3, and for the south lot it’s 106.95. So that’s what you’re going to want to reference when you do this. Do you agree with that, Matt? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Could you run by that? MR. OBORNE-40.3 for the north lot, and 106.95 for the south lot. MR. URRICO-Is that 40.3 or 40.03? MR. OBORNE-40.3, based on 109.7. MR. STEVES-They rounded .69 up to 7, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. STEVES-If you want to get real technical, you can say .31, but I think it’s close enough. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody understands what the situation is here. I think it will go down the ranks and poll everybody this time. So, in essence, it’s going to be shrinking the size of that lot that the newer home’s been created on, by adding on and separating it so there’s a septic system on the parcel owned by that property and the older camp to the north. MR. STEVES-And road frontage for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the road frontage requests, and we have that down as 40.3 for the north, and what’s the south again? MR. OBORNE-106.95. MR. UNDERWOOD-106.95. Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. As I looked at this when I was out there, as a matter of fact, the northern part, in the back part towards Barber Road, that part that kind of sticks out here, is basically a big hill there, isn’t it? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-So, you know, it’s not really usable. So as I look at this, you know, I mean, you mention some things about maybe moving the line going to the north more. I don’t think it’s going to make a big difference. So as far as I’m concerned, I’d be in favor of the proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. looking at the criteria, because it is a lot line change, I think probably there’s not going to be any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and it certainly will benefit the applicant. To have the two separate lots and provide actually road access to the newer home which they never had before. It was a landlocked, it wasn’t landlocked, but it didn’t have any road access. It is fairly substantial, but the size of the lots are really very, very small anyway, which they are in that area. So I don’t see, I don’t think it’ll have an adverse effect or impact on any of the environmental concerns. It’s just a lot line change. So I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I guess you’ll have to indulge me, because I’m unclear on a couple of things. The south lot that carries that new home, it was granted a variance. It was granted a variance based on calculations that included the lot prior to any revisions. If this variance is granted, you, in effect, if I understand it correctly, negate the foundation for previous decision-making and allocate additional area to the northern lot, so that if someone comes and wants to duplicate the house that now sits on the southern lot and the northern lot, they’ll come with a request for a variance based on that calculation. So in granting this variance, is there some manipulation here of this Board that is saying I want to do something today and tomorrow I want to change the dimensions of the lot so I can do something more, creative in the future. Then if that’s the case, I’m troubled, and if it’s not. MR. STEVES-Can I make a suggestion on that? MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. MR. STEVES-And the Board may have thought of this. Other people on the Board may have not. Since it’s owned by the two, both parcels are owned by the same entity at this time, is it 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) possible that if the Board wanted to, because I understand the concern there, is to say that the Floor Area Ratio cannot be exceeded by the combination of the two parcels? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s what I was going to suggest. MR. STEVES-Do you see what I’m saying? Treat it as one so that if you’re allowed 4,000 square foot of building and you already have 3,000 on this lot now, you only have 1,000 on that without a variance. I mean, so therefore it takes into consideration the fact that it can’t be overbuilt because you’re looking at it in its entirety. MR. UNDERWOOD-You don’t get double dipping on this one. MR. STEVES-And I would agree with that, and I would have written that in myself, and even discussed that with the Board, and I apologize that I didn’t know that that was part of a previous variance, but that would be a simple solution in my mind. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think that would be a fair way to do that. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I concur. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-At this point, with that stipulation, I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it’s a logical thing to do and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would go along with that. I was going to make that same suggestion that we, because it’s owned by the same family, and that way it would negate somebody building a large oversized one on the other side there, and a big grab for, you know, maximum Floor Area Ratio. As far as the rest of the request, the road frontage request, I mean, I think it’s, you know, it’s due diligence on our part. Barber Road’s not like some major thoroughfare. Everybody back there, the only people that go back there are the people that live there on those back roads, once you get on the back side of Glen Lake there, and we’re not talking about a huge amount of traffic generation or cars that people are going to have to worry about. MR. OBORNE-One thing I think I have a problem with is on that northern lot, if they sell that lot, they’re under the restriction that that house cannot be any larger than the total size of the FAR for both lots? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know, legally, if we would stand up on that one. Because I think as long as it remains in the family, but as far as the stipulations, you know, whether some family member wants to rebuild at some point on there, you know, and replace the original camp that’s there, I think that we could hold them responsible, as far as a family, but as far as if it were sold, we would be out on thin ice on that one. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that’s my point. MR. GARRAND-Any variance and the stipulations with it go with the land. MR. STEVES-The land. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the only other way to do it would be to note it and put it in as far as the record goes. MR. STEVES-I’ll put it on the plan as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-If, indeed, we come to the point where we are going to rebuild a home on there, then at that point in time it would be up to whoever the Board is at that time to figure it out, but I don’t know as if we can, you know, it is a swaperoo, and it’s going to be a double dip. They could sell it tomorrow, and I don’t think that our stipulation would stand up in the long term. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that goes without saying that this lot line change, that it makes both of these properties more salable. I mean, that’s probably one of the purposes of doing it. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m thinking, you know, in respect to the new home they just built, probably that would be way over the FAR, you know, based upon what we see, you know, with the, take subtracting land surface area off the lot size, and certainly John’s argument is legitimate, too, because, you know, if somebody wants to rebuild another one on the other side, that’s like getting a bonus on there, too, but I don’t know what we can do, legally, as far as that goes, and it can be a gentleman’s agreement with the family. I would think that would be something that would stand up because, you know, you put it out there, we put it out there, and I think as long as the Krugers agree to that, that’s fine, but. MR. STEVES-Do you get a copy of these? It has to be signed, correct? Three or four copies signed back that you have, and I’m not saying that that is a stop gap permanently, that nobody can ever come back in front of this Board. I’m not saying that, but if we write it on to the plan that is then officially signed, sealed after, if an approval is granted, and given back to the Staff, and kept on file, then you have it, and it has a little bit more teeth at that point. That if anybody did come back in for that northerly lot, you can say, this is what was stipulated, and it’s in writing on the plan and it was agreed to, and that’s the plan that was approved and submitted back to the municipality. MR. URRICO-Why isn’t the Floor Area Ratio on the table right now? When the lot line changes, does that change? MR. OBORNE-But they’re not here for Floor Area. They’re not doing anything to the house that would be considered pre-existing (lost words) nonconforming. MR. URRICO-But the pre-existing lot, you are changing the Floor Area Ratio? MR. OBORNE-You are definitely changing the Floor Area Ratio, but you’re not changing it in a physical sense, if you understand what I mean. MR. URRICO-You’re not building on it. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. URRICO-But by creating a new lot size. MR. OBORNE-They make it less conforming, that’s for sure, but it’s pre-existing, nonconforming. That would be the way I would look at it. That may be a question for Craig. MR. URRICO-Pre-existing, nonconforming under a certain circumstance. MR. OBORNE-Currently pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. URRICO-That created a variance for. MR. STEVES-I did discuss that with Craig when I submitted, not that I knew what the variance was, but I just said that the size of the buildings may affect that, and he said at this point any lot line adjustment becomes a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. That’s why I say, I would feel better, to be honest with you, more comfortable on my part, even to put that note in the drawing about the Floor Area Ratio, just to be moving forward so that I don’t have an issue with it. Ten years down the road somebody comes to my office and wants to do something on the north lot, and then we have to scramble around and figure it out. I’ll have that note on my plan as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-That’s consistent with the way Craig operates, too. So, that’s your answer, pretty much, Roy, is that it’s pre-existing, nonconforming and now it becomes less pre-existing and less nonconforming, or still it continues to be pre-existing, but less nonconforming. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So everybody’s clear as to what’s going on, and what we’re going to do as far as the stipulation on that, and that will become part and parcel on the plots, I would assume you’re going to add that on. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-Would you repeat that stipulation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what it will be is this. As far as the Kruger, because the Kruger family owns both the north parcel and the south parcel, we recognize that by subtracting 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) land from the south parcel, that lot probably is no longer Floor Area Ratio compliant with what it was when it was approved previously for construction. As far as the north parcel goes, any future construction, as long as the Kruger family owns that parcel, will be contingent upon the combined Floor Area Ratio for both parcels together. MR. GARRAND-Do we have to put in it, since they continue to own it? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know as if we can, you know, if the parcel’s sold, then I think we’re in a different situation. I mean, I don’t know if that would be something that would carry over or not. You know better than I. MR. STEVES-I would think as long as you wrote it onto the plan and made the plan and the recommendation, and the approval part of that in your motion, I think it could carry over. It’s connected to the parcel. MRS. JENKIN-But then it’s void. If they do sell that parcel, which certainly is more salable than the other one. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, if it does carry over. MRS. JENKIN-Then if it sells, they can do what they want with it, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but if it’s on the actual print, you know, on the actual plot that’s provided by Van Dusen and Steves who are the surveyors that did it, then it becomes part and parcel for the future. It wouldn’t matter if it was sold or not. MR. STEVES-That’s right. That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-Then you shouldn’t say, as you said, as long as it was owned by the Krugers. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Let me go back and revise it, then, and I’ll say it this way. Because those two parcels are at this point considered to be co-joined, that is there’s a north parcel and a south parcel, because the original south parcel was considered as part of a greater land area than will be currently existing once we modify this, and remove some of that land and attach it to the south, to the north parcel, then any future construction on site will have to include the Floor Area Ratio based upon both those parcels together. You’re not going to be able to consider just the north one or just the south one. So if the north parcel is, in the future, reconstructed, it’s Floor Area Ratio will be predicated by the combined land area of both the north and south parcels. MR. STEVES-Exactly. I just had a note, FAR for both parcels will be calculated based upon the total area of both parcels and both buildings will be included in that FAR ratio. MR. OBORNE-And in the body of that, make sure you put the tax parcel numbers. MR. STEVES-I was just going to say, that being tax parcel, which is already on the map, 289.11- 22 and 289.11-59.311. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is that going to work for everybody? MRS. JENKIN-That works good. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then at this point, I guess, I’ll close the public hearing, and I guess I’ll go ahead and make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2010 DONALD & SANDRA KRUGER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 3 & 4 Osprey Drive. The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment between two existing lots to provide .56 acre lot frontage on Barber Road and to allow septic systems for each respective camp to be located on their own lots. The applicant is requesting relief for the following dimensional relief for the Waterfront Residential zone. For the north parcel it’s 40.3 feet of relief on the north parcel. For the south parcel it’s 106.95 feet of relief, and it’s also 1.68 acres for the lot size, and I think that’s with both lots together. We recognize that this will make one parcel less conforming, the other one more conforming, but it will bring both in so they both have frontage, essentially, and septic systems that are separated from each other on separate parcels. The stipulation that we will put into effect here, and we’ve gone through this a couple of times, Number One, for both those parcels in the future, any future construction on those parcels will be based upon the complete area of both parcel to the north and parcel to the north, and 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) those are property tax numbers 289.11-1-59.311 that’s the parcel to the south, and tax parcel 289.11-1-22, that’s the parcel to the north. Any future construction on those parcels will be based upon the Floor Area Ratio combined of both those lots together because we’ve swipped and swapped here, and we feel that that is a legitimate means of keeping the Floor Area Ratio reasonable for both properties in totality. th Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II GREG GARAFALO AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 375 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.48 +/- ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.74 +/- ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH & LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. PENDING PB SEQR & RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: AD SB 3-06, SB 9-10 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 3.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-49 SECTION: 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think we’ve got to do flag lot on that one, too. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2010, Greg Garafalo, Meeting Date: July 28, 2010 “Project Location: 375 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre into two lots of 1.74 +/- acres. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage, lot size, and lot configuration requirements for the MDR district. Both lots will require area variances and relief as follows: 1.Lot size: Request for 0.26 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre minimum lot size requirement for both lots as per §179-3-040 2.Road frontage: Request for 46 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement for both lots per §179-3-040. 3.Relief from the flag lot configuration for both lots as per §179-4-010B(1)(b). 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. 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. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 0.26 acres or 13 percent relief for both lots may considered minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 46 feet or 46 percent of road frontage relief for both lots may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for relief from the flag lot configuration must be granted for approval. 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. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 9-2010 Pending Administrative Subdivision 3-2006 Staff comments: The proposed subdivision will require not only dimensional relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals but also flag lot configuration relief. Both lots are accessed by a shared drive. Planning Board recommendation dated July 20, 2010 attached. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review required MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board recommendation dated July 20, 2010. The Planning Board met and voted to “MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2010 FOR GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.” And this was adopted July 20, 2010. It was unanimous. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. STEVES-Good evening, again. Matt Steves representing Greg Garafalo on this application. Again, briefly as pretty much stated by the Staff comments, this property is 3.5 acres on the south side of Luzerne Road and is completely wooded, as you can see by the overhead map, and we’re seeking a variance for the lot area by the .26 acres and for the lot frontage so that the 100 foot requirement per lot is at 54, but we’re going to share the driveway. I know there were some concerns with the flag shape, and we understand those concerns, but as we had discussed with the Planning Board, if you look in character of the neighborhood there, you have lots that front on the south side of Luzerne Road, if you can look on Keith’s map here, that range from 80 to feet to about 200 feet in width. So when you start looking at the separation between the homes on Luzerne Road, especially in this area, going in both directions, east and west on the south side of the road particularly, they range anywhere from 40 to 50 feet separation to no more than about 200 feet of separation between the homes on the road. Looking at the way we were trying to configure this lot, we had looked at coming back and making more of a square shape, but where the optimal location for the houses and the septics are on that lot is in this configuration, (lost words) we put that line, but this allows the septics to be in the optimum location, and looking at the separation from the homes, you have about 400 feet, and then they’re in the wooded areas, and it’s Mr. Garafalo’s intention to clear enough area for the house and the septic and a small lawn on each lot, therefore allowing it to have a fair amount of separation between the homes, almost to the point of double the separation between the ones that front on the current road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just ask a question, Matt? If you look at what Keith’s got up there now, because you’ve got so many skinny little, scrawny little lots down there, has anybody ever thought about combining all those back parts of the parcels together, putting a road back there, and then you could have a street with houses on both sides and make more compliant sized lots? I mean, you know, I don’t know as far as like long term, but you’re thinking if you were really trying to solve the problem for everybody down there, because they’re unusable for the most part, most of those parcels. You would think that somebody would have approached the people back there and said, what could we do to make it more suburban with doing it, you know, in a less, you know, I mean, this parcel is really unique, other than the other big one, further to the east. I mean, the other ones are like pencils, where you’re not going to get anything in there. MR. STEVES-No. I think a few years ago, I’m trying to remember the person’s name that came in, was trying to acquire a lot of these properties and come in off of Sanders Road in the back and trying to merge some stuff there, but all the houses were built up on at the time. I think there was one small lot in the middle that actually abuts to the south of our lot, and this was before Mr. Garafalo owned it. I remember it was back, maybe it was Bob Clark or somebody else that was involved in it, but they just couldn’t get all the people together. I agree. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I’m just thinking in a sense, once we allow this one, then that’s going to probably negate any of those other people ever getting anything out of their property. MR. STEVES-Yes. I think roughly the same thing happened to the west a little bit along the power line with lots created off a private road called American Way there. MR. UNDERWOOD-American Way. MR. STEVES-Basically the exact same scenario. MR. GARRAND-Yes, behind the Eisenhower property, and he got so tired of the traffic going in and out he moved out. MR. STEVES-Really? MR. GARRAND-Yes. Or Einstein. I’m sorry, that was his name. MR. STEVES-I couldn’t agree with you more, but that’s beyond my control. I couldn’t agree with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-You would think like the Town Community Development Department would be looking at stuff like this for future build out in the Town. MR. OBORNE-If we had the time to look at stuff like that. Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, with all your free time. MR. STEVES-And to be honest with you, we wouldn’t object. One of the major concerns with that scenario now, from just a pure perspective of planning on my part, when it was a one acre zone it was quite feasible. Now it’s a two acre zone that it’s really tough, because it really gets expensive to create roads for two acre lots in this part of Town. MR. UNDERWOOD-And to negotiate with everybody and get them to all come on board. Good luck. MR. STEVES-You’d have to get everybody on board in order to accommodate that, and I’m just saying in that part of Town maybe you don’t get the high price for the lots as you do in other parts of the Town, in order to justify the road cost for a two acre lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that just because houses were so small that they created all those lots initially, that people were just trying to maximize their piece of the pie? MRS. JENKIN-How did this piece of property get to be this shape in the first place? Did that front, the home at the front, did they subdivide just enough for themselves and then sell off the back? Do you know how big the front property is? MR. STEVES-An acre I believe. MRS. JENKIN-It’s just one acre? MR. STEVES-Just over one acre, when it was a one acre zone. This was a one acre zone just back before the last re-zoning. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So they cut off their piece and then sold? MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, to me the two acre thing seems to be just a means of putting the kibosh on building. You’re trying to make your Town look like something, but it’s really going to create, in the long term. MR. OBORNE-I think the intent is, for Number One, open space, and Number Two, there’s not a lot of usable property left . A lot of the property has got the slopes or the wetlands on them. MR. UNDERWOOD-But this is flat as a pancake down here. MR. STEVES-It’s flat as a pancake, sandy soils and we did have, as I explained to the Planning Board, too, we had DEC come in and look for Karner blue and Frosted Elfin. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re saying if you just made everybody one acre along Luzerne Road and just said, look, everybody throw all their pieces in the pie and go back and reconfigure, it would seem to make more sense from the long term viewpoint to do that. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. The only problem there, as you said, is trying to get everybody to come to the same conclusion. MRS. JENKIN-The shape of these lots is very weird as well. I just don’t. MR. STEVES-When you start looking at it in terms of sheer conformance with the neighborhood, is it out of character with the neighborhood. No way. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. STEVES-And that’s what we look at, too. I mean, before I come in to you and ask for a variance, I want to make sure I’m armed with whatever information I can have, but if you look at that and you say is it out of character with the neighborhood? There’s flag lots. There’s narrow lots. There’s wide lots. There’s, like I say, just to the east of this there’s an 82 foot wide lot that’s 1700 feet deep. I mean. MR. OBORNE-It’s like the French (lost word) lots MRS. JENKIN-But you said something about the distance that this, the new road would be from the home on the, what is it, the west side, but it’s only 50 feet away from the other road on the other property. MR. STEVES-Right. I’m talking about a separation between the homes. MRS. JENKIN-The separation between the homes. MR. STEVES-If you go down the road, you’d be basically looking at 40 to 50 feet between the homes, sometimes maximum about 100 to 150, at one location 200. MR. UNDERWOOD-So every single one of those is over 800 feet long, those property lines, side lines? MR. STEVES-Yes, 822, and then they keep going deeper as you go to the west. MR. UNDERWOOD-You could each have your own take off and landing for your airplane if you wanted to. MR. STEVES-As far as keeping it green, like I said, but it’s a flat, sandy soil, 1.74 acres. You’re probably looking at clearing about .74 of that, really to accommodate the single family home in the back with the septic. So you’re going to have two acres of still wooded area in the back. MRS. JENKIN-If the people decide to do that. MR. STEVES-Well, he’s going to develop them himself, I believe. MRS. JENKIN-The other thing is, is Luzerne road is so busy now, and it might not be so busy when new Main Street is finished, but right now it’s just bumper to bumper traffic. It’s really busy, and having all these access roads, and then increasing it is definitely a detriment to that area. MR. STEVES-I would think it would be if you were backing out onto the road, but entering off that way, and I agree with you, it’s busy now, but after Main Street, but Mr. Garafalo’s owned this since 2006, and he’s just planning on subdividing it, doing one lot at a time, and the way the market is right now, I don’t think you have to worry about both lots being sold and built before Main Street is completed. MRS. JENKIN-And the other thing is, too, with the shared driveway, it really doesn’t matter if he has five homes back there, because it’s one access road to Luzerne Road, although I probably shouldn’t say that. MR. KOSKINAS-Keith, could I ask you a question regarding Luzerne Road being a collector road and what the driveway spacing cuts are or access for driveway spacing standards. Do they exist here? MR. OBORNE-That I can look up for you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Isn’t it 180 or something? 120 feet or 180 feet. MR. KOSKINAS-Because there’s a driveway, you’ve got a driveway 50 feet away from the center line of your shared driveway, if I read that correctly. MR. STEVES-It’s about 60 feet away, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-Your map says 54. MR. STEVES-Fifty-four feet from our driveway to the property line, and then that earthen drive to the west is about another 12 feet beyond the property line. Correct? MR. KOSKINAS-And there’s a fire hydrant right there, because when I walked it. MR. STEVES-Yes, there is, a fire hydrant and a concrete monument sticking right up there. MR. KOSKINAS-And you’ve got a power pole right in the middle of the driveway, or just about in the middle. MR. STEVES-Of our lot? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, it’s almost there. MR. STEVES-The actual power pole is about 40 feet to the east of where the proposed shared driveway is. MR. KOSKINAS-But is there a standard for driveway cuts, what is it? MR. OBORNE-That’s what I’m looking up right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All the arterial roads, I think it’s. MR. OBORNE-Two twenty. MR. UNDERWOOD-Two twenty. MR. OBORNE-And there’s a stipulation, that’s from 0 to 100 peak hour trips, but the stipulation is the Planning Board may waive the separation standards in the event the applicant can demonstrate that no negative impact on the transportation system will result. MR. UNDERWOOD-When we’ve done them before we’ve usually looked at the sight lines, like whether it’s a straight road or a curved road. MR. KOSKINAS-So the Planning Board looked at that? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, because it’s a straight shot on that road, you can see for quite a ways. It’s not as major a concern as if you were coming around the bend MR. OBORNE-When they perform SEQRA, that’s part of the SEQRA review is impacts on transportation, and being that this is a straight line, I mean, I didn’t even mention it in my notes. So if it’s on a curve, then you’re starting to talk some issues here. MR. STEVES-Because we’re sharing the driveway, there’s a lot of nuances there. You’re sharing it, if you go either to the extreme west or the extreme east of this 108 feet, it doesn’t make a lot of difference, and if you push it to one side, then you’re not technically sharing the driveway, the driveway and the road frontage, and you get into issues there, too. So, I mean, it’s stated it’s such a straight road that, I don’t care if you move it back or forth, it really doesn’t make any difference. MR. KOSKINAS-Well, everyone wants to be sensitive to your applicant’s need or desire to develop his land, but when you look at that map up there and you wonder also, I personally wonder about the motivation behind the 2009 rezoning, and the Comprehensive Plan for the Town. They’re pretty cohesive and they make sense to me, but what we’re saying is this is a flag lot and the zoning area doesn’t require flag lots, and the remedy for the people next door will be, well, gee, we’ll make a flag lot and it’s just a mirror of this one, and our zoning went out the window, and our. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. OBORNE-Hence why they’re before you today. MR. KOSKINAS-And our consolidated plan went out the window and. MR. STEVES-And I wholeheartedly agree, but at the same time zoning has to be more of a broad brush. They can’t go into each lot and then say, well, this one is this shape, this one’s this shape, this one’s this shape, then that’s spot zoning. So you have to do more of a broad brush approach, and therefore when you come into these situations where you have lots that are not conducive to put in a Town road, but yet you have the area for it, and it is in conformance with the neighborhood, you may go a block over and it’s not. MR. KOSKINAS-But it is conforming to the two acre requirement of the zoning is the way it was mapped. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. KOSKINAS-That’s the part I look at and say, well, what’s the problem here. It looks like he could build a nice house in there on a compliant lot. MR. STEVES-And I agree, but my point I was getting to is a little bit beyond that, is when you do that, and you re-zone areas, like for example where I live down the road in Hidden Hills not too far from here, and it’s the same thing. It was a half acre, a third acre zoning when it was originally approved. Then it went to one acre. Now I believe it’s a two acre. MR. OBORNE-Two acres. MR. STEVES-So you go into a 155 lot subdivision and now you make everybody nonconforming no matter what they do to their home, so you’re going to see a lot more of these things coming in to this Board, only because of the fact when they do a broader brush re-zoning, which they have to do, it results in us coming before the Board. MR. OBORNE-Right, and wait until somebody wants to put a duplex in the MDR district. MR. KOSKINAS-But this is an empty lot. It could be developed in accordance with the current zoning. It’s not like there’s a challenge before the owner that says I can’t do anything with my property. The fact is that he owns that house in front, doesn’t he? MR. STEVES-Yes. He bought that house, long story, but he bought the house. Has anybody ever seen that house before? It was nine years with a building permit and the previous owner never finished it. So it went into, I almost think it was acquired by the bank, maybe foreclosed upon, and then he bought it, took out a mortgage, fixed it all up, broke it off for the mortgage purposes, fixed the house all up, and he went, he actually had talked to us about two and a half years ago about doing a subdivision in the back when it was one acre zoning, and he ran into some family health issues. His wife developed cancer, and went through a lot of problems with that, and then by the time he was able to get back and get back on his feet and get back to this, now it’s a two acre zone. I wasn’t going to bring that up at the beginning because it really doesn’t have any relevance as far as what is here. That’s just a timing issue, but that’s what happened. He bought that property and then cleaned it all up. If anybody had seen that house, five, six years ago, you can really appreciate what it looks like now. It was really under construction for nine years. MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys are pretty clear here. Did I open the public hearing yet, or not? I can’t remember, it’s been a while. I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody from the public wishing to comment on the matter. Do you want to come up please, sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Good evening. I’m Don Kruger. My son and I looked at buying that property in ’05. We were going to develop it into three lots plus the house, which at that time was an allowable use. For whatever reason, Greg ended up buying it. For the record, Greg is a friend of mine. He had all these plans for it and everything, as Matt said. Unfortunately, the man’s wife got very sick, and time went by him. Zoning changed. He wanted to build four plexes back there. Now he’s trying to divide it into two lots, and if you see it, it’s all wooded, way back. People would love to live in there, if you can live with a shared driveway. I just think it’s a very good use for it, and he called me tonight. He apologized for not being able to be here. He’s in 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) West Virginia tonight with his family, and he couldn’t be here, but it’s a viable use for the land. He’s had the house for sale for four years, and it was literally a garbage dump, and the guy that owned it before, Glen, nothing against him, but he now lives on Bonner Drive and I tell you he lives in the worst damn mess on Bonner Drive that there is, and he moved from there to Bonner and I’m like, you know, Glen, I don’t, personally I don’t understand it. Jim, you and I both live in a nice home. Why a guy can’t spend a few minutes and clean his yard up, I don’t understand, but that’s part of life, I guess. If there’s any way the Board can do it to approve Greg’s project, I think it would be a good thing to do for him, and it’s interesting, his wife is doing far better. She’s kind of, she’s up on her feet and she’s going around and it certainly was a tough thing that his family went through. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public? Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’m going to poll you guys to see what you think here. So I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-I understand some of the concern about changing zoning and then almost right off the bat granting variances for it. It’s sort of what created the famous swimming pool project, problem at this part of the Town, but I also understand that there are some mitigating circumstances that create situations when the re-zoning occurred. That being said, I think this is not an unreasonable request on face value. I understand what the applicant is trying to do here. I think they made a good presentation. I don’t think it would be out of line with the neighborhood that currently exists there. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with Roy. I think it’s the most logical plan, the way you have divide it, and as long as no one minds an 800 foot driveway, I think it’s a good use of the property. I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I do have a problem with flag lots. Nobody’s ever sure who’s going to maintain the driveway, and I’ve seen other problems where neighbors have been bothered by cars repeatedly going in and out next to their house, but going through the balancing test, I can’t find justification for denying this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I echo this gentleman’s comments exactly. I think flag lots are something the Town doesn’t want, and this zoning area is something specifically the Code says will be prohibited, and immediately an investor who’s got a property for sale in the front wants to do exactly that, and just with those facts, and if there was some mitigating issue here that there was no other way to make value out of this property, other than divide it in this creative division in a flag, I guess I’d call it pendants more than flags, then I’d be for it, but as it stands, I’m not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think considering the neighborhood, and considering that the property that he is dividing is in two lots, which could previously, in other years, before the Zoning Code change, it could have been even more lots, which he had planned. I think that the curb cut bothers me, but it is Luzerne Road and there are curb cuts all along that road. So I would be, I think I would be in favor of this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I have to agree with Joan that, you know, a couple of years ago you could have made this three lots. Now, without a variance, you can only make it two. However, the lots are 1.74 acres, which is close to two acres. I think the houses, the way he has it set up here, the houses are spaced apart. If they leave the trees in there, then they’re probably not going to be able to see each other, and I think that the single shared driveway coming on to the road is going to help because you only have one driveway coming out there with only one cut. So, in looking at the balancing test, I would be in favor. I can’t see why we should deny this. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m going to go along with the majority, although I recognize John’s concerns here. I think that, you know, we’re in a situation now in Town where we’re down to the last remaining land area that you can build on in Town, and ideally I think the suggest that I made that people look at combining the backs of those lots, you know, those very deep lots that are over 800 feet long, to me are, it’s sort of a waste of property unless you’re just hoping to keep it as green space forever back there which is always a possibility, too, but given the times people need some way to pay their way, and, you know, breaking this up into two lots back there doesn’t seem extraordinarily like it’s going to have a negative impact on the area back there, behind there. They are flag lots which we would not like to see throughout that whole area down there, but we may end up in this position sooner than we think again, because people are always looking for ways to cash in and cash out. So in this instance here, I think when we look at the shared frontage and the single curb cut on Luzerne Road. I think that’s a plus. I don’t see that as a minus. I’d rather see that than two driveways two inches apart, just to satisfy the Code book or something like that, as far as road frontage requirements go, and as far as the lot size, I mean, those are substantial lots. I mean, hardly anybody in Town has a 1.74 acre lot. I mean, that’s way over the top, even for Bedford Close or places like that. So I think it’s going to give the people who own those homes or rent those homes the ability to have a little bit of privacy, too, and the shared drive is just something that they’re going to incur as a liability going forward. So I would also go along with it. So does somebody want to take this one? MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian, go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2010 GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 375 Luzerne Road. The applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre into two lots of 1.74 +/- acres. The relief required is applicant requests relief from the minimum road frontage, lot size and lot configuration requirements for the MDR district. Both lots will require Area Variances and relief as follows: One, Lot Size. Request for 0.26 acres of relief from the two acre minimum lot size requirement for both lots as per Section 179-3-040. Number Two, road frontage request for 46 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement for both lots, as per Section 179-3-040, and, Three, relief from the flag lot configuration for both lots as per Section 179-4-010B(1)(b). In making the determination the Board shall consider, One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Number 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. No. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 0.26 acres or 13% relief for both lots may be considered minor relative to the Ordinance. Further the request for 46 feet or 46% of road frontage relief for both lots may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. Finally, the request for relief from the flag lot configuration must be granted for approval. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts may be anticipated and it seems to be in relation to the rest of the area. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered as self- created. Just as an addition here, the proposed subdivision will require not only dimensional relief but also flag lot configuration, which we have done, and both lots are accessed by a shared driveway, and I move to approve it. th Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Koskinas MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got to go back and do Trustco Bank. This is an Unlisted. We’ve got to do SEQRA on that one real quick. So I’m going to do that right now. MOTION THAT BASED UPON OUR REVIEW OF THE TRUSTCO BANK PROPOSAL FOR THE SECOND SIGN ON 118 QUAKER ROAD THAT WILL BE FACING THE SPORTS PAGE ACROSS THE STREET THERE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY REQUEST FOR A SECOND WALL SIGN, BUT BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THERE’S NO 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/10) VIEW OF SIGNAGE WHEN TRAVELING WEST ON QUAKER ROAD, WE MAKE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS FAR AS THE SEQRA GOES. WE SEE NO IMPACTS WHATSOEVER AS FAR AS EXCESS SIGNAGE ALONG THE ROAD THERE, AND THIS ONE WILL BE HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE WHERE TO TURN BEFORE THEY REACH GLENWOOD AVENUE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and we’ve got some approval of minutes to do. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 16, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE June 23, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 24