Loading...
1992-12-08 SP '-. -- QUBERSBURY PLANNIRG BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEBTING DECBMBER 8TH, 1992 INDEX Site Plan No. 54-92 Paula & Louis Granger Ownera Paul H. & Mary D. Naylor 1. SEQRA REVIEW ONLY Dean Howland, Jr. Owner: Malvern & Carolyn Tippett 5. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLAHHIHG BOARD MEETING SPECIAL HBETIHG DBCBMBBR 8TH. 1992 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEHT EDWARD LAPOINT, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY KATHLEEN ROWE ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN. TIMOTHY BREWER CORINNE TARANA PLANHER-SCOTT HARLICKER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JIM MARTIN STBNOGRAPHBR-MARIA GAGLIARDI HEW BUSIHESS. SITE PLAN HO. 54-92 TYPE. UNLISTED LI-1A PAULA & LOUIS GRANGBR OWNBR. PAUL H. & MARY D. HAYLOR LOCATION. CORHER OF CORINTH AHD DIVISION ROADS BXPAHSIOH OF A HOHCOHFORHIHG PREBXIS'rIMG USE AHD STRUCTURB BY THB ADDITIOH OF 12' X 24' STRUCTURB TO THB REAR (SOUTH) OF THB BXISTIHG RESIDBNCB. PROJBCT IS SUBJBCT TO SITB PLAII RBVIEW AS PER SECTIOH 179-26 D (1) WHICH RBQUIRES ALL LAHD USBS IN LI ZONBS TO HAVE A SITE PLAII REVIBW. CROSS RBFERENCB. AV 1115- 1992 (WARRBH COUHTY PLAHHIHG) TAX MAP NO. 147-1-11 LOT SIZE. 108 FT. X 338 FT. SBCTIOH. 179-26 D (1) PAUL H. NAYLOR, PRESENT~ PAULA & LOUIS GRANGER. PRESENT STAFF IHPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 54-92, Paula & Louis Granger, Meeting Datea December 8, 1992 "Pro;ect Descriptiona The applicant is proposing to construct a 12' x 24' addition to a single family house. The property is located on a corner lot at the intersection of Division Road and Corinth Road, and is approximately 32,000 square feet in area and is zoned LI-1A. A variance was granted on November 17, 1992 to allow the addition to be placed within the 50 foot setback. Pro1ect Analysisl The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Codes a 1. The location. arrancrement. size. desiQn and creneral site compatibility of buildincrs. licrhtina and sicrnsl It appears that the addition is going to be constructed in the same style as the existing house~ it is going to be a 12 foot extension of the existing walls. No new lighting is proposed and there are no other buildings on the site that it has to be compatible with. 2. The adequacy and arrancrement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. includincr intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controlsl The addition should not i.pact access to the site. 3. The location. arranGement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parkinG and loadina 1 The addition should not create a need for additional parking. 4. The adequacy and arranQement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience 1 The addition will not impact pedestrian access. ~ The adeQuacy of stormwater drainacre facilities 1 The addition should not impact the water supply or sewage disposal facilities. 7. The adequacy. type and arranQement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantincrs. landscapincr and screeninq constitutinG a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and ad10ininQ lands. includincr the maximum retention of existincr veaetation and maintenance includina replacement of dead plantsl The addition will be located about 12 feet from two large pine trees to the rear 1 "'" " "---" '---- --" ~ of the house near the garage. Care should be taken during construction so that the trees are not damaged. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emerGency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: The addition will not impact fire or emergency access. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscapinq in areas with susceptibility to Dondinu. floodinG and/or erosion. The addition should not impact ponding, flooding, or erosion. Recommendationa If the pine trees are not impacted by the addition, Staff can recommend approval of this site plan." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have a variance from the ZBA. There's no need to read that into the record, is there. Jim? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARIMG OPBMED MR. LAPOINT-Does the applicant or anybody fro. the public have any questions, comments. Do you care to address the tree issue. Paul? MR. NAYLOR-Mr. Chairman. members of the Board. I can't wait until you let my grandchildren get their own bedrooms. That's all I've got to say. MR. BREWER-I've got one question. something about new lighting, no new lighting. What does that mean? MR. MARTIN-Exterior lighting. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Did you say we do a SEQRA Review on this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's unlisted. MRS. ROWE-What is all this reference to two of the trees, that they make in this thing. the two large pine trees. MR. HARLICKER-There's two large pine trees. MR. MACEWAN-Relatively close to where the proposed addition was going to be. MRS. ROWE-Okay. I didn't know if there was any other concern about proximity to the property? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. NAYLOR-There was about 500 pine trees on my lot, and they're the only two left, but we've got an expert excavator coming, which is me, so there won't be any problem. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Any other questions before we hit the SEQRA? Okay. RBSOLUTION WKBM DB~ERMI.A~IO. or MO SIGMIrICARCB IS HADB RBSOLU~IOM RO. 54-92. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewera WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application fora PAULA & LOUIS GRANGBR. for the expansion of a nonconfo~ing preexisting use and structure by the addition of a 12'x 24' structure to the rear (south) of the existing residence. Project is subject to site plan review as per Section 179-26 D (1) which requires all land uses in LI zones to have a site plan review. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the 2 ..., -.-..- "'--- -- --- '- '- '<" State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved, NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significance environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chair.an of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 8th day of December, 1992, by the fOllowing vote: AYES I Mrs. Rowe. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint NOES, NONE PUBLIC HEARI.G CLOSBD MR. LAPOINT-Any discussion from the Board, before we entertain a motion? MRS. TARANA-Anything from Warren County Planning Board? MR. HARLICKER-No. MRS. TARANA-Was it supposed to go to them? No? MRS. ROWE-It says in the thing that it is. Warren County Planning. MR. BREWER-Did you go to Warren County Planning Board? MR. NAYLOR-The County road's out front. side. The Town road's on the MR. BREWER-Yes, but the house is on the. MR. NAYLOR-It's on a corner. That's why we're here to begin with. MRS. TARANA-So, it has to go to Warren County. MRS. PULVER-No, he faces the Town road. MRS. ROWE-Can I ask you one other question I wanted to ask you. though? When I was down there. I was looking at the house, and there was only one entrance in the front. and then the one in the back. Are you going to remodel the house to put another entrance and exit. exterior door. onto the house? 3 ',,-- '- '-- -.../ MRS. GRANGER-Right now there's one that will be going into the, the one door that's in the back is going to be moved to the. MRS. ROWE-To the side? MR. GRANGER-To the garage side, basically. MRS. ROWE-I was just curious. I only saw it when I walked around and around, and I only saw those two. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Is this on a foundation or basement, the addition? MRS. GRANGER-The addition. no. MR. RUEL-A slab? MR. GRANGER-There's going to be a. MRS. GRANGER-Crawl space. MR. RUEL-Where does the septic tank go? Would it go under that structure? MR. GRANGER-No, out to the side. MR. RUEL-It doesn't go under this new structure? MR. GRANGER-No. MR. RUEL-It shows the septic back here. MR. GRANGER-No. that's the old. It's out to the side. You go out the side by the kitchen. MRS. GRANGER-Right under our berry tree. MR. BREWER-If it's preexisting, it doesn't make any difference, as long as it's not going over the top of it. MR. RUEL-That was my question. because apparently it doesn't, but if you look at the plan, the plan indicates that it would, because the septic is in the back, but now they tell me it isn't in the back, it's on the side. MRS. GRANGER-That was an old. original. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, septic tank resolved? Side entrances resolved? Okay. Any other discussion, questions. comments. Would anybody like to .~ke a motion? MOTIOB .,0 APPROVB SI.,B PLAB BO. 54-92 PAULA & LOUIS GRAIIGBR. Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulvera For an expansion of a nonconforming, preexisting use, with one stipulation, that those two large pine trees not be disturbed. Duly adopted this 8th day of December, 1992. by the following vote a AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE MRS. GRANGER-When can I start? MRS. PULVER-As soon as you get the building permit. MRS. GRANGER-Does that usually take awhile? 4 '- -. '--' '- - MRS. PULVER-No. You can just go in and get it. SEQRA REVIBW O.L Y IfYPE I WR -lA DBAlI HOWLAlID. JR. OW.BR. HALVERR & CAROLYB TIPPBlfT LOCAlfION. BBAR RD. OPP PILOIf KBOB RD. POR AN BVALUAlfIOB or IfHB IRVIRONUBlfAL ASS.SSURIf RBVIIW ARD A DBlfERMINAlfION OF SIGNIPICAlICB OR IfHB RIQUBSIf WHICH CO.SISlfS or IfHB FOLLOWIBG. RBMOVAL OP RBAR PORlfIOB or BXISlfIBG RBSIDEBCB UD RBPLACBMBBIf WITH IXPABDID ADDITIOR. CORSlfRUClfIOB OP A FIRST rLOOR UNIBCLOSBD PORCH WIlfH A SICORD FLOOR DORMER. CROSS RIFBRBBCB. AV 1125-1992 SP 153-92 If AX HAP BO. 152-1-12.1 LOIf SIZB: .34 ACRES SBCTION 119-79r DEAN HOWLAND, JR.. PRESENT MR. HARLICKER-The applicant submitted a Long EAF with this application. We're reviewing it. It was referred over to you from the ZBA. They require area variances for construction within the side yard setback, and it would also be back before you later on this month. on the 22nd, I believe. for site plan approval, but tonight the SEORA concerns the variances that they'll be seeking next week. STAFF IHPUT Notes from Staff, SEQRA Review Only, Malvern & Carolyn Tippett, MeetinCjJ Date, December 8, 1992 "Pro1ect DescriPtion, The proposal involves the removal of a rear portion of an existing house and replace it with an expanded addition. The project also involves the construction of a porch and a second floor dormer. The addition requires an area variance for construction within the side yard setback and site plan approval. The property is located on Bean Road off of Pilot Knob Road. Pr01ect Analysis. The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this proposal has the following comments: IMPACT ON LAND The project involves the slight enlargement of an existing single family house. There should be no significant adverse impact on the land. There are no unique land forms on the site." The expansion is, I believe it's one foot larger, on one side. from the original footprint, and four feet on the other side, on the width, so it's not that large an expansion with the existing footprint. "IMPACT ON WATER The project will not affect any designated protected or any non-protected water body. The action should not affect surface or CjJround water quality or quantity. The project should not alter drainage flow or surface water runoff. IMPACT ON AIR The project should not effect air quality. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMA~S The project should not effect any threatened or non-threatened species. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES The project should not affect agricultural land resources. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project is only goinCjJ to encroach by one foot into the existing side yard setback. This slight encroachment should not significantly affect the aesthetics of the site nor should it significantly affect the neiCjJhbors enjoyment of their property. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project should not affect an area of historical importance. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION The proposal should not affect the quality or quantity of open space or recreational opportunities. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The project should not effect existing transportation systems. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The project should not effect existing transportation systems. IMPACT ON EHERGY The project should not effect the community's source of fuel or energy. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS There should not be any objectionable odors. noise, or vibration as a result of this project." Other than possibly those created during the construction process, which are unavoidable. They can be controlled somewhat by limiting construction to just normal business hours. "IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH The proposal should not adversely effect public health and safety. IMfACT ON GROWTH AN~ CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project should not significantly affect the neighborhood character or growth. The slight encroachment into the existing side yard setback should not 5 '-- ',-; have a significant impact on the neighbor's property. The eXisting structure is 5.5' from the property line and with the addition the side yard setback will be 4.5'. RECOMMENDATION I The Planning Staff. after taking a hard look at this project, recommends a negative declaration for the purpose of SEORA." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have a ZBA note dated 18 November 1992, that made a motion to appoint us, the Queensbury Town Planning Board, as lead agency in the matter of the Area Variance for the Tippett project, and we do not have any other input. comments in writing. MR. HARLICKER-No. There'll be more in-depth review of the proposal at site plan review. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we open a public hearing that stays open for SEQRA through the site plan? Is that the way that goes? MR. HARLICKER-This is just for SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-This is just for SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Open and close for just SEQRA, and then we go through the same thing again when it comes up for site plan. All right. Does anybody have any comments or questions before I open the public hearing? MRS. ROWE-You were reading something about the side yard setbacks and the dimension, or how much it would intrude into it, but it was something like four and a half feet now? MR. HARLICKER-Right. Well, it's five and a half feet. now, I believe, and it will expand out a foot. So. it will be four and a half feet. MRS. ROWE-Okay, because according to this paper work that I have, it says that it's already existing at four feet, and the setback is for three feet. So. I was just curious why there was a discrepancy between the two documents. MR. LAPOINT-You're reading from the ZBA's agenda, correct? MRS. ROWE-Yes, and that has different amounts and. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets see if we can reconcile that. Do we have a drawing here or anything? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There should be a site plan. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well, I think what we'll do is we'll open a public hearing and we'll have the applicant explain exactly what the situation is. Okay. I'm going to open a public hearing, and we have a question as to what exactly the expansion and setback, resulting setback will be. MR. HOWLAND-I'm Dean Howland. I'm the agent for the Tippetts. Basically what we're doing is we're going to remove, this concrete slab out back has a foundation along a side yard setback and right now that is out, at this point. It's four feet six inches. That's to the concrete. We won't encroach anymore than that. What we're going to do is remove this shed. which is basically, it's a deck upstairs. I don't know what it is downstairs, but we're going to take that out, remove the existing foundation, which is the line of the concrete. and so we aren't going to encroach anymore on this side. We're just going to extend the back of this shed out this way four feet. and remove all the concrete. MR. LAPOINT-In parallel to the property line, so the entire thing stays. MR. HOWLAND-Well, it's going to be getting further as it goes. I mean. it will never be closer than it is now. 6 --,,' -- -- HR. LAPOINT-Right, and here's the property line, right? HR. HOWLAND-Right. HR. LAPOINT-So. it's. you're extending parallel to the property line? So, expanding of the other dimensions, as distance between. a foot in this direction. what you're doing is an opposed to shortening the MR. HOWLAND-Basically, there's a slab of, concrete and the foundation beneath it. We're going to line right up with that. We're just going to take it back out. MR. LAPOINT-So, you're going out another four feet this way? HR. HOWLAND-We're going out four feet past this shed and taking out all this concrete and stuff like this. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Does that answer your question? HRS. ROWE-Well, not really. It doesn't explain why there was a discrepancy between the two. HR. HOWLAND-I have no idea. MRS. ROWE-I understand from what you're saying that this would be, basically, the dimensions here. MRS. PULVER-Well, what he just said is this. They're five and a half feet out, and they're going four and a half feet. MR. HOWLAND-Well, the existing building's still only four feet six, which it is, they aeasured to the superstructure, the foundation is four foot six. The foundation is out here, and then put a slab over it. The wood, from here, came in a foot, built a little two blocks up. and went there. So, we aren't going to encroach any more than the existing is now. because there was the concrete anyway. MR. LAPOINT-I see. So, you are widening. but just going to the edge of the concrete? HR. HOWLAND-We're just going to widen out to what's there, the superstructure. MR. LAPOINT-So, there will be four and a half feet between the property line and the edge of the building and the property? MR. HOWLAND-Correct. HR. LAPOINT-Any other questions? Does that clear that up? HRS. ROWE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We're in a public hearing. Do any of the other members of the public wish' to comment? There being none, any other questions for the applicant from the Board, before I close the public hearing? PUBLIC'HEARIBG CLOSBD MR. LAPOINT-Are we ready to go through the Long Form? HR. HARTIN-You're going to be seeing this again on the 22nd for site plan. HRS. PULVER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. 7 -- '--- -----' '--' -.-/ RESOLUTIOM _HBM DBTBRHINATIOM O~ HO SIGRIFICAMCB IS HADB RBSOLUTIOM FOR SBORA RBVIBW OMLY. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for. DBAN HOWLAHD. JR. for an evaluation of Bnvironliental Assessaent Review and a deteraination of significance on the request which consists of the followingl Reaoval of rear portion of existing residence and the replaceaent with expanded addition. Construction of a first floor unenclosed porch with a second floor doraer.. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved. The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of Hew York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 8th day of December. 1992, by the following vote. MRS. ROWE-Was this also submitted to the Warren County Planning Board? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. ROWE-And the said no on it. right? MR. HOWLAND-That's because nobody was there. MRS. TARANA-Because nobody was there? MR. HOWLAND-They didn't know what we were doing exactly. I wasn't there. I was in Fort Edward. Came here for the Zoning Board. Sat 15 minutes and they canceled us. I've been dOing this for years, and I've never been even asked. It's one of those stand up, sit down, passed. They talked about it. but they thought we were building a much larger project. I went over and talked to the lady the following day. MR. MACEWAN-And what did they tell you when you talked to them the next day? 8 '- -'" '~ MR. HOWLAND-They weren't sure what we were doing. so therefore. MR. MACEWAN-Because their notes on here say they disapproved because of the density and the encroachment on the neighbor's property, that's what the notes they've got on here say. MR. HOWLAND-Well, we're not getting any closer to that house. MR. LAPOINT-They weren't there to explain. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. but that's also for site plan. too. I mean, we're just doing this for SEQRA, right, so they're not. going to be up in front of us for site plan for another week or so. right? MRS. PULVER-Right. They have to go back for site plan. MR. LAPOINT-For the County Planning Board. correct? MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-See. they're on for their variance hearing next week, and then they're going to be at your second Planning Board meeting the 22nd. You can't deal with it until we hear the variance. MR. MACEWAN-And you need to have the SEQRA to go to the variance? MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So. what do they, do they have to do anything with the County? MR. MARTIN-No. If the County disapproved it. then it's going to require. as you know. a majority plus one here. at this. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. All right. MRS. PULVER-The County refused it for site plan or just for SEQRA? MR. MACEWAN-Site plan. MRS. PULVER-For site plan. Okay. So, we're only talking about just talking about the SEQRA here. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The SEQRA's only done for the variance by the Zoning Board, and classified as Type I, it gets passed on to you. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MRS. ROWE-This has been bothering me. I have to be honest with you. Why are you expanding down the boundary line side and not out the other side where you seem to have more room? MR. HOWLAND-Well. if you're on the piece of property. the view is to the rear. There is no view to the south. There's no view to the west, north you can't go. MRS. ROWE-But you have room on the other side. MR. HOWLAND-But there would be no reason to put it there. I mean, that's where the living area. That's where the sun comes up. That's the only view that they have. The structure is there. There's a foundation underneath that whole concrete slab. which we're going to remove. MRS. ROWE-I just feel that you wouldn't be encroaching so the neighbor on that side if you built out the other side. a question of expanding because you need the room. then plenty of room on the other side to expand into. much on If it's there's MR. HOWLAND-But then you'd be getting into everything on the inside 9 ""-- of the house, too, that's existing there, and the project becomes more expensive. MRS. TARANA-Wasn't the house next door a good distance? MR. HOWLAND-There's a vacant lot in between, the property was owned by. MALVERN TIPPETT MR. TIPPETT-The original property was owned by one person, and the reason that the vacant lot sits to the left of ~ house is because he was talked into selling it to his neighbor, with (TAPE TURNED) in the interim. the man got sick and died and the person was stuck with the lot right next to my building, but originally the lot was totally owned by one person. That's why you get the crazy lot line, almost to my living room, or my garage. The reason that the concrete, the original building was a storage barn. Like 1988 it was converted into a home for one of the children of the family that owned the lot, okay. The cement concrete area behind the property was a basketball court and a shuffleboard court, okay. Now, the person that converted the house to a home fro. a storage barn put a shed. it's not insulated. It's merely a shed with two windows and a sliding glass door, so he could store things in that shed, with a makeshift kind of a deck on top. Now, what we want to do is to take the building as far out as the shed is now and four feet further, parallel with the next door neighbor's line. Now the reason that we're going out that direction versus what you say is going out to the south toward my neighbor is I'm basically looking at my neighbor's garage, whereas, if we go out the way we propose, we're looking at the mountains. and that. I hope, will be my family room, and that's why the concrete's the way it is, and that's why the building is one foot in, because the guy built it after the fact. He built it as a storage shed, and the reason for the strange concrete thing was there was a shuffleboard and a basketball court, and they used to play basketball when it was a shed, and that's pretty much it, and half the downstairs part of this building is .y garage, which is unusable, really, because we park our cars out front, and I would like to have some more living space within that portion, but we have no children at home, so it's not any big deal as far as the water supply is concerned, and it wasn't my decision, or I had nothing to do with why they made the property line so close to the side of my house. That was done long before I ever took over the building. MRS. PULVER-You haven't gotten your variance, yet, though, have you? This is for the variance. MR. HOWLAND-All I want to do is just go parallel with that property line. MRS. PULVER-So, it's possible the ZBA could say, why don't you go th,e other way. MR. LAPOINT-Right. We're looking at environmental impacts, here. MRS. PULVER-They get to make the decision which direction he goes. MR. RUEL-Actually, you're not going parallel with the line lot. You're going parallel with the existing structure. MR. TIPPETT-Right. MR. RUEL-Because the further back you go. the more space you'll have between the new structure and the lot. MR. TIPPETT-Correct. MR. RUEL-So, you keep saying parallel to the line, but it isn't. 18 MR. HOWLAND-Yes. We're getting further away from the property. MR. TIPPETT-I'm not encroaching any further onto the other person's. MR. RUEL-No, you're going away. MR. HOWLAND-Right, and that's the only reason that we're putting it that way, is because obviously if you saw the property. it's a gorgeous view. and the sun rises and so forth. I'm not building just for more space. Part of the reason was to have a family room and a kitchen which is in the back, exposed to part of that beautiful view. AYES. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mr. Brewer MR. MARTIN-That's all we had. in terms of business for this meeting. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Did you get a chance to zip up through some minutes, Tim, or. did anybody else? MRS. TARANA-I have a stack. MR. LAPOINT-Lets go to at least August. August 25th, September 17th. September 22nd. September 24th, October 27th. November 10th. November 18th. Any problem with any of those. or drawing a line somewhere in the sand and approving old and new. MR. MACEWAN-Anywhere from September on. As far as September 17th on, it's okay by me. August is out for .e. because I wasn't here. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets break it up, then. Lets have a motion to approve the minutes from August 25th, 1992. MQ~IO. ~o APPROVB ~HB HI.U~BS O~ AUGUS~ 25~H. 1992, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint. Duly adopted this 8th day of December, 1992, by the following vote. AYES. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Rowe MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Is there any proble. going all the way through November 18th. or should we draw a line at September? We go all the way from September through November. MR. MACEWAN-No, because she wasn't here. MR. BREWER-Why don't we wait until Tuesday and do those. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Here's the deal, because we keep saying this. but we never do it. If you're on the Board. you can vote on minutes that you weren't here for. MR. MACEWAN-Right. You're just approving them as they read. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. All right. Lets have a motion to approve September 17th, September 22nd. and September 24th. 11 -- MOTIO. TO APPROVB THE MI.U~BS OF SBP~BHBBR 17TH. SEP~BHBBR 22.D. AMD SBPTBYBBR 24~H, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Taranal Duly adopted this 8th day of December, 1992. by the following votel AYES I Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Rowe MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We are cleared through October now. with a commi tment for everybody to read the 27th of October. November 10th. and November 18th. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Edward LaPoint, Acting Chairman 12