The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.06.22 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2011 INDEX AV 22-2011 Andrew West Page 1 AV 23-2011 Andrew West Page 10 AV 35-2011 Marybeth & Edward Kelly Page 12 AV 32-2011 David Robertson Page 15 AV 33-2011 Michael & Gabrielle Shearer Page 19 AV 37-2011 Christopher & Susan Granger Page 19 Discussion Inwald property/project Page 21 (request by Inwald’s Attorney) 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. 1 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2011 7 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Steven Jackoski, Chairman Richard Garrand, Jr. Vice Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary John Koskinas, Alternate filling in for Ronald Kuhl James Underwood Brian Clements Joyce Hunt Community Development Office Staff Present: Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner Sue Hemingway, Stenographer Mr. Jackoski: It is 7 o’clock, tonight is June 22, 2011 I’d like to call to order the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. For those of you who haven’t been here before, there is a general procedures sheet on the back table for your reference. We will call each matter to be presented to the Board. There is public comment scheduled this evening and why don’t we just start it. Mr. Jackoski: Under old business, I‘d like to call applicant Andrew West, Owner: Sharon Davies, 12 Joshua’s Rock Road, Area Variance No. 22-2011. And I’ll turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: This is for Area Variance No. 22-2011, Applicant is Andrew West, and the location is 12 Joshua’s Rock Road. The applicant is proposing alteration and a renovation of a 441 sq. ft. expansion of an existing 2,242 square foot single-family residence to include replacement wastewater system and raingardens. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions, setback requirements, and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The relief requested, the parcel requires area variances as follows: Height – Request for 2.7 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height allowed in the WR zone. North side setback – Request for 7 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed front porch. North side setback – Request for 9 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed new kitchen. South side setback relief – Request for 8 feet of south side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed new access stairs associated with the deck. West rear setback – Request for 1 foot of west rear setback relief from the 30 foot minimum requirement for the proposed new covered entrance. And, expansion of a non-conforming structure which requires the approval of this board. Just a reminder that the criteria for considering an area variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law requires the Board to consider 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. Staff says in its notes: minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The second criteria is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Staff says that feasible alternatives appear limited due to existing conditions and lot limitations. Three, whether the requested area variance is substantial? Staff says that the request for 2.7 feet or 9.7% height relief from the 28 foot maximum allowed in the WR zone may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. The request for 7 feet or 59% north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed front porch may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 9 feet or 75% north side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed new kitchen may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Additionally, the request for 8 feet or 67% south side setback relief from the 12 foot minimum requirement for the proposed new access stairs associated with the deck may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. Finally, the expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of this Board. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Staff says that minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood can be expected. And the fifth criteria is whether the alleged difficulty was self- 2 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 created. Staff says that the difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff Comment: The applicant has applied for and received a variance from the Town Board of Health (BOH 15-2011) concerning property line setbacks for the leach field. And, the application was tabled at the May 18, 2011 ZBA meeting pending a Planning Board recommendation and submittal of revisions concerning the National Historic Landmark designation. There are copies attached to this from the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as well as the applicant describing the status of the historic designation. Also, the Queensbury Planning reviewed this and there was no significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated as the current projects proposal. As far as SEQRA, this is a Type II-no further action required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Welcome, if you will, for the record, state your name and your position here please. Mr. MacElroy: Thank you; I’m Dennis MacElroy, from Environmental Design Partnership. I am the project engineer representing the applicant Andrew West and with me is our property owners; part of the applicant signature was Sharon Davies and Tom West, who is also an owner of record of the property. Also, happens to be the applicant’s father and attorney. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you, welcome. Mr. MacElroy: This parcel an individual lot the lays within a family compound. The Joshua’s Rock Corporation is a long standing family organization withholdings of about 90 acres, I believe, in this area off of Route 9L and the west shore of Dunham’s Bay. This individual lot has been in existence since the 20’s, the house itself was constructed in the 1880’s, so the subdivision of the lot, the creation of the lot took place after the house was constructed. And originally, it was associated with the neighboring house which is referred to as Owl’s Nest. This property referred to by the family is Mellowstone. But in the 20’s, again this subdivision took place that created this individual lot, zoning came along thereafter 60’s or so and thus were left with a preexisting nonconforming situations. Anything that we do here now is requires variance action. Now the situation regarding the lot lines to the north side of this, this is the lot line that follows directly down the building line of Mellowstone, as well as the building line of Owl’s Nest. So we’re at a zero lot line situation, basically there that creates half of these variances that we’re seeking. The proposal by the applicant is to renovate this house. You’ve seen from some of the sides and perhaps site visit, that’s in need of repair. It’s been in an estate situation for 12 or 13 years with Sharon and Tom as part of the ownership. That’s being resolved the next generation, Tom’s son Andrew is stepping up to take this property on and make the renovations he hopes to make to bring it back to a usable and viable property. So those improvements, the architectural sketches you’ve seen in your package involves actually a lessening of the impervious area; there’s less footprint than there is in the current condition. There will be more floor area, basically, in the addition of a second level adds more floor area but it’s certainly still well within the floor area ratio. Again, being a preexisting nonconforming, we’re faced with setbacks, the side yard setbacks as was described in the reading of the application. In three different instances both north side and south side, a rear setback, to the west side of the property, in the building height, perhaps the building height is the thing that is, whether it’s the hardest to perceive, or whatever, but the addition, the second story addition will not raise the height of the roof any more than what currently exists. But based on the measurement, and you’re familiar with the Queensbury definition and the point of reference of measurement of building height on the lakeside of the building, the grade, the existing grade or the proposed grade is slightly lower than the other point of reference, so hence there’s seven tenths of a foot higher, technically than what currently exists. So, I think that the proposal of the improvements are certainly reasonable in terms of the scale of the house, the proportion of the house; it’s not an enlargement, really of the situation, less footprint, slightly more floor area but again, well within the allowed limits of construction and development within this zone. And, I would characterize the variance request and the relief required to be, while maybe numerically seem moderate or perhaps even high, in reality, based on the existing conditions, I think they are all very reasonable request for relief. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Does anyone on the Board have any questions for the applicant at this time? Mr. Koskinas: I’ll have a few questions, but I think I’ll wait. Mr. Jackoski: No questions, well we do have a public hearing open this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board regarding this application? Please, if you wouldn’t mind giving up the table for a moment. If you wouldn’t mind, identifying yourself for the record. Thank you. Mrs. VanDyke: My name is Marilyn VanDyke. I am the public historian for the Town of Queensbury and we’re always interested in historic structures, especially when one is on the National Historic 3 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Register and we’re happy to see that some effort is being made to preserve the property and keep it in tact over the years rather than have it disappear from sight in our Town. I think that the ideas that are being presented here are sound, the building will probably remain over time and the historic aspect of the house, in which we have an outstanding literary figure who lived in Queensbury and wrote extensively, his works being the Hooser School Master and the history of the United States for Children and other books is a remarkable aspect of it; the history of our Town and we’re happy to see it preserved in this way and I hope that it will remain intact. My only suggestion is that we try to keep it looking as historic as possible and possibly by having it remain in the same color, outside in the exterior; make it look as nice as it was in the past when it was in its hayday. Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: And, Marilyn, may I just ask, is the current color the actual original color? Mrs. VanDyke: I really do not know that. I don’t know if it’s ever been painted any other color than the yellow. I would suspect that since it was called Mellowstone it probably always was that color. But I do not know that. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Mr. VanDyke: I also could add that, in the interior of this building; and I have been in the building recently. The actual library that Eggleston worked is there, his desk was there and is being retained by the family and those are important artifacts and we hope that they will stay in our community and not go elsewhere. Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Mr. Salvador. Good Evening, my name is John Salvador and I’m a resident of North Queensbury and a neighboring property owner to this facility. Tonight I have few remarks and I’m going to refer to this survey and map of, done by Coulter and McCormack that should have been part of your packet. The ZBA agenda shows that Ms. Sharon Davies and others, as owners of the lands identified on the Town’s Zoning Map as parcel number 239.19-1-9. Attached to the Community Development’s staff notes; which are a part of the agenda tonight is a copy of the Queensbury local Board of Health resolution of conditional approval for Ms. Davies, sanitary sewer disposal variance. Please take note that the sewage disposal variance was granted: quote: conditioned upon Town Counsel confirming that such property is a separate tax map parcel within the Town of Queensbury and that the deed was signed by the owner. If you will examine the minutes of that hearing; I cannot understand how anyone could come up with this phraseology for the contingency that was put on that approval. There’s no question that it’s a separate tax map parcel; it has a number. That should not be a question. And, that the deed was signed by the owner; the only time an owner gets to sign a deed is when he conveys it to someone else. It just makes no sense. The primary reason for this contingent approval is dependent upon the fact that the County’s deed and map records show the tax parcel number 239.19-1-9 is currently titled in the Joshua Rock Corporation; not Sharon Davies and others as it appears on variance application before this Board this evening. I am neither aware that Town Counsel has rendered his finding as to the current holder of title of this tax parcel. On Monday evening I read in to the Town Board’s meeting record, my understanding of the chain of events which adds up to this tax parcel being titled the name of the Joshua Rock Corporation. Supporting the contention that this tax parcel is actually titled in the Joshua Rock Corporation is the fact that, at a time when the Owl’s Nest was still referred to as the Edward Eggleston Estate, it was inventoried in the National Register of Historic Places. Edward Eggleston’s Estate consisting of three principal buildings were individually referred to as the Homestead, Mellowstone, and a one and one-half story stone structure northeast of the library in which he lived. Each of these three estate buildings stood on a definitive parcel of land at the time of nomination. These parcels have a current tax map designation of 239.19-1-7, 8, and 9. The Homestead is sometimes called the main house; Mellowstone was built and used as a library, and the half story stone structure, sometimes called the cottage were living quarters. The nomination of the Owl’s Nest for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places was filed by one Mr. E. Roy Stremple, acting on behalf of the Joshua Rock Corporation as its president and professing at the same time that the Owl’s Nest, that is the complex of the three buildings, occupied lands owned by the Joshua Rock Corporation. Now I’d like to have you look at this survey map please. Ms. Davies: There were several versions of that map. Mr. Salvador: This is the version that was in the – Ms. Davies: January 3, 2003 Mr. Salvador: Please refer to the survey map by Coulter and McCormack dated January 3, 2003 which has been submitted by the applicant and accepted by the Town Planning Staff. The frame house to the far west on TP 213.19-9 is what has been referred to as the Homestead. You see that 4 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 here, it’s a called a frame house now. That’s the Homestead. The Library building is clearly the one and half story stone frame house on TP 213, excuse me 239.19-1-9, you see that there, and the one and half story stone frame house on TP 213, 239.19-1-9 is the library and the one and half story stone house to the northeast of the library, which was reported to have been built in 1883 as Edward Eggleston’s residence to which a framed wing with a porch was added in 1890 is on 239.19-1-7. All of these structures were nominated for filing in the National Register and that’s the description that’s in the nominating text. I take it that the applicant is attesting that the Owl’s Nest complex continued to occupy the same three tax parcels in the same form as they were nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. May I, refer to the – Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Salvador, could you maybe help us understand, I mean we usually have a time limit, so can you try to make your point; I’m not sure where you’re going with all of this. Mr. Salvador: I’ll make my point. On this map you’ll see on Tax Parcel 7, the two story frame wooden structure, wooden wing with a porch. That structure is supposed to be right behind the library.; the residence here, you see that on your plan. And, that structure is no longer there. Now, this map was done in 2003 and I suspect that it was there at that time. It’s not there today. It’s part of the structure that was filed in the National Register, I don’t know that a demolition permit was obtained to take it down, but those are the things that should have been done. In any case, the National Register, the filing of the National Register has all three of these structures included in what is called the Owl’s Nest, that’s what the filing is for and all three tax parcels are noted as being in the possession of the Joshua Rock Corporation. I have just another point to make and that is that this building has always, - was built and was used for many years as a library. Don’t we need some kind of an approval to convert its use to a residence and this why I bring up the point; there’s a wastewater system involved here, okay, it’s a small lot, you’ve got to shoe horn the waste water system in and close proximity to the lake and certainly the incidence of discharge to the ground water from a four bedroom residence, can you imagine how many bathroom they’re gonna have, is going to be much much greater than what was a library. So, we have a change in use and it’s a significant environmental impact going to the residence. Mr. Koskinas: Sir, if I could, for clarification for my own edification; Mr. Salvador: Yes Mr. Koskinas: In understanding what you’re saying, you’re concern is that a demolition of some aspect of this property should have required a permit or something like that. Is that correct? Mr. Salvador: Yes, yes, since 2003 we have required demolition permits – Mr. Koskinas: New York State, I did a little research on this myself, New York State, and you can see it for yourself on their website: www.dos.statenyus I quote directly: In fact, private owners of properties on the National and State Registers may alter, or demolish their properties without any regulatory restraints provided they have not accepted federal funds for repair or renovation of the property where there’s no limiting local law. I looked for limiting local law; there’s none to the best of my knowledge; there have been no federal funds spent on that site. They can tear the whole place down. Mr. Jackoski: Quite honestly, I appreciate it, we need public comment and we’d like the applicant to respond and then we can have more questions if that’s okay, Mr. Koskinas. Mr. Koskinas: Sure. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Mr. Salvador Mr. Salvador: Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Board on this application at this time? Roy is there any public comment? Mr. Urrico: There is one letter, it’s addressed to Keith Oborne, it’s dated June 6, 2011. We wrote to you last month. We understand that the hearing to review the property we call Mellowstone located at 12 Joshua Rock Road has been deferred. My wife and I spend part of our summers at the Owl’s Nest located at 14 Joshua Rock Road. The property adjacent to Mellowstone; my wife is one of the general partners of the Williams Family Limited Partnership which owns the Owl’s Nest. We’d just like to reiterate that all of the partners of the Williams Family Limited Partnership also happen to be beneficial 5 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 owners of Mellowstone. Each is aware of and is signer of a contract to transfer the ownership of Mellowstone to Andrew West, a cousin. As part of the contract, plans for a renovation of the existing structure have been created by Drew and made a part of the contract. As willing parties to the contract, as sellers and as adjacent property owners, we want the Town to know that we are supportive of the plans which form a part of our contract with Drew. It is our understanding that Drew plans to renovate the property but in doing so will not increase the footprint of the house and that the roof line will not be increased in height above the current roof line. Both the Owl’s Nest and Mellowstone (the library) are part of the National Historic Register so a lot of thought was given to the plans before we agreed to them and the transfer of ownership. While no federal funding has ever been provided to either home, it is our understanding that the National Historic Register listing does protect each home from changes around them that might take away from their historic value. Please understand that after 12 years of discussion and consideration, as owners of the Owl’s Nest, we have agreed to the renovation proposed by Drew which is made a part of our contract with him and will survive our contract thereby allowing us to always protect the historic nature of our property. We hope this information is useful to you. Should you have any questions, concerns, or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. And it’s signed Joel and Ann Campanella. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Do you have any other comments in for the record? Mr. Urrico: I do not see any. th Mr. Jackoski: We do have a Lake George Waterkeeper letter dated May 18. Mr. Urrico: It should be in the file. Is it in this file or the other file? Here it is. Dear Mr. Jackoski. The Lake George Waterkeeper has reviewed the submission for the above-referenced proposed variance and would like to offer the following comments for consideration Shoreline Buffer: The application states that the “…shoreline has an existing shoreline buffer of mature trees and some shrubs and ground cover, thus no further vegetative buffer is required or proposed.” Based on the photos that were submitted with this application, the shoreline appears to be grass lawn that extends to the lake with some large, mature trees on the property. Queensbury Town Code Section 179-8-040B. Buffer requirements, requires that a property should have a viable buffer to the maximum extent practicable. In order to protect the lake from sediment and excess nutrients, a shoreline buffer that supplements the existing trees should be conditioned with the variance. Stormwater Management: The application states that the construction of this single family dwelling within 300 feet of Lake George is exempt from Queensbury’s stormwater management and that “…some provisions have been made to address stormwater runoff from portions of the project’s impervious surfaces.” New construction on the shoreline of Lake George creates an opportunity to bring all properties within stormwater management compliance, as stormwater is the leading cause of pollution and nutrient loading that is changing Lake George’s water quality. Fertilizers and pesticides: Fertilizers feed algae and aquatic plants and pesticides alter the natural ecology of the lake with their lethal and toxic chemicals. It is imperative to limit the application of these chemicals within the Critical Environmental Area of Lake George. In conclusion, the Lake George Waterkeeper recommends that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals conditions the proposed area variance with the following: 1) Requires a substantial shoreline buffer to supplement existing large mature trees on this property; 2) Require that the project incorporates stormwater management; and 3) Restrict the application of fertilizers and pesticides on the property. Thank you for discussion construction within the Critical Environmental Area (CEA) and the cumulative effects development has on Lake George. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. This is signed Kathleen Bozony Natural Resource Specialist, Lake George Waterkeeper. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Are there any other letters received under public comment. Mr. Urrico: I do not see any. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, and just before I close the public hearing, I do want to make note that when I did a site visit, I believe one of the owners of the property, Daniel Davies was there and he did show me around. So, I just wanted to bring that to everyone’s attention that I did actually speak with an owner who is part of the application; I guess, it’s a complicated ownership history there. Having no more letters and seeing no others in the audience who would like to address the Board, I’m going to close the public comment period. Mrs. Hunt: I have a question. Mr. Jackoski: Go ahead. 6 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mrs. Hunt: With the discussion of the demolition of …unintelligible, it has nothing to do with 239.19-1-9 does it? Mr. West: That’s correct, it had to do with the neighboring property which is known as Owl’s Nest and is owned. Mrs. Hunt: …Applicable to this application… Mr. West: Owned by the people who submitted the letter in support of the application, but as was noted in the questioning, they were free to demolish that structure which really was not part of the historic structure; it was add on summer porch that they took off. Mrs. Hunt: It’s not germane to this project. Mr. West: Absolutely not. Mr. Jackoski: And to address the Town Historians comments regarding the color of the building, do you have any comment on that. Mr. West: I don’t think we have any objection to that. We have not been able to determine the original color. We suspect that it was probably … Mrs. Davies: …unintelligible …. (did not speak in to microphone); I mean we can’t tell for sure, black and white photos… Mr. West: Yeah, so we can’t tell for sure, but I think the intent is to keep it consistent with what is there now. Mr. Oborne: I just want to remind everybody that you need to speak into the mic, so we can get it on the record. Mr. Jackoski: My instinct is the Planning Board will take a look at that also. Any other questions from Board members at this time? This is a Type II SEQRA so there is no further action; Mr. Koskinas. Mr. Koskinas: I have a couple of questions. Not that I have a preference; but just for my own understanding. We’re obligated to grant the minimum variance that will get the job done for you. And, I’m just curious about the; height was one issue but I understand from your comments why it’s the way it is. On the north side setback for the porch; what becomes of the common covered entrance shared with the Williams property. Mr. West: Well, there are actually two sections of that, if we could go to that photo. The section that you’re looking at there is actually part of the Owl’s Nest structure. Both covered porch ways are on the Owl’s Nest property but the section that has the peeked roof, that you see there, is actually joined to the Owl’s Nest property is part of a historic structure. Beyond that, heading towards the road, there’s a shed roof that was added, as you can see from this structure which is affixed to the Mellowstone property. Now we haven’t worked out all of the details but I think the shed roof will probably be removed because it’s actually attached to the section of the house that was used as bathroom and as a kitchen and dining area which will be removed to eliminate a nonhistoric addition that was built in the early 1900’s. And, that also gets me in to answering the, another of Mr. Salvador’s questions, which is his claim that this is just being converted from a library now. In actuality this was converted to a residential structure in the early 1900’s when the property was devised by Edward Eggleston to his relatives and one of my grandmother and my grandfather ended up owning this property in 1903 and they converted it to a residential structure shortly thereafter. What you’re looking at here is sort of the left side of the building addition that was put on the side of the house that faces towards the roadway. You can see it on the left side of this picture. That is a dining porch, a small kitchen and a bathroom and that’s part of what was used to turn the library into a residential structure. I do also want to go back to the height issue that you mentioned, and you’re correct if you have to use the minimum to get the job done. I like the way you said that. And, what the challenge was for the architect here, was to be able to put up a dormer type structure on the lakeside that would enable them to use the attic. The attic was converted into a bedroom back at the time they converted the library to a residential structure. But fortunately, as part of a library, it has like 12 foot ceilings, maybe even higher. And, so in order to be able to continue to use that attic, in order to be able to walk from the attic and try and use that space and make it usable with the second floor of the new addition, they have to have all the ceiling height possible to go up to the height of the existing peak. And, as it is now, there still is going to be a step down into the bedroom area that’s going to be created as part of the second floor. So, if we try to reduce the height of the addition below the peak height of the existing structure, it would make it impossible to connect the two. And, in replacement of the bathroom that is part of the area being removed in the section that I described previously, the main bathroom is going to go upstairs 7 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 central to the old bedroom and the new bedroom and that’s the way the architect figured out how to make this work. And, so it’s truly a minimalist approach to renovating the building to make it usable by today’s standards without interfering with the interior of the structure which would be unfortunate. The alternative would be to gut the interior of the structure, bring the ceiling height down to 8 or 10 feet so that the attic becomes more usable and then it would not be necessary to go to the full peak height but that would destroy the interior historic character of the building that we are trying to preserve. Mr. Koskinas: Another question regarding, thank you for that. Another question regarding the south side setback for the deck stairs Mr. West: Yes Mr. Koskinas: Why not replace the stairs on the north side; replace them towards the lake. Mr. West: I think the reason that they were put there was to keep, to try and keep the lakeside open and the other effort that’s being made is to come up with a basement that has full code height so that it can be used for occupied area; you could put a washing and dryer down there. And that was another challenge that the architect had, so trying to put stairs in front of that would interfere with what he thought was the best design. Mr. Koskinas: And my last question for your group is, relative to the comments of the Lake George Waterkeepers, particularly walking down this part of the lake, is very shallow, inside your boathouse, the water is very shallow. And, the work you’re doing, I think it’s the coring for the percolation tests; the day I was out there, it was raining hard, and there was an awful lot of soil going down that hill. And, would you have reservations about Lake George Waterkeepers suggestions and guides towards buffers. Mr. West: I believe that Andrew, my son, has met with the Waterkeeper at the site. And, I believe that they are working on an agreement with some sort of buffer, I will note that just going back, if you go back to the aerial photograph that shows the large pines and the heavy vegetation down at the lake, I think my ancestors invented the concept of a buffer zone and it’s always that the tall pines that have been there are beautiful now. I’m sure he will be willing to add some vegetation in there that will keep the character and if you don’t anything down there it gets pretty vegetated pretty quickly; with the families keeping up with that. But, I’m confident we can work out something and it would be my understanding that we would typically address those issues in the Site Plan Review context with the Planning Board. I know that he has met with the Waterkeeper; I’m a Board member of the fund, so you know, I have encouraged them to come up with some sort of accommodation. Mr. Jackoski: Any there any other comments from any other Board members. Why don’t I poll the Board just to get a general idea? Mr. West: Could I address the title issue, just to, because I think I understand where Mr. Salvador has gone astray in his review. It’s very clear if you look at the chain of title that the gray structure, the frame structure that is up there is owned by the Joshua Rock Corporation; it’s called the Homestead. But, that in 1903 as a result of Edward Eggleston’s role, the property to the right there, which is the Owl’s Nest went to one of the descendants; the Mellowstone Library went to my grandfather and grandmother and the Homestead, which is off to the left, was still kept in the family in common and that’s the property owned by Joshua’s Rock Corporation. We have provided a chain of title to Mr. Hafner in connection with the comments that were made at the Town Board. It’s my understanding he has concluded that there are no title issues; but we certainly have no problem if you condition whatever decision you make tonight upon confirming that he has concluded that there are no title. Mr. Jackoski: I think that’s some documentation that you’ll need anyway already is conditioned on that so. Mr. Oborne: I can confirm that Town Counsel has reviewed the ownership issue and is satisfied. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. So, I’ll go back to polling the Board just briefly. Let’s start with Mr. Clements. Mr. Clements: Thank you. As I went out and looked at this property it’s really as nice homestead. I think the application has lots of relief that you’re asking for, however, most of this is preexisting with the lines that were there, and they’ve been there for a long time. It looks like you’re going to actually make the footprint smaller. I think it’s a good idea to go along with the Waterkeeper’s suggestion for some runoff actions. But, other than that, and listened about the pipe and I think that you answered that question well so I would be in favor of this application. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Mr. Koskinas 8 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Koskinas: I, with a condition associated with a motion for approval that appropriate shoreline buffer according to Section 179-80-40 was included; I’d be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Garrand Mr. Garrand: Being that I was absent for part of the presentation I’m going to abstain. Mr. Underwood: As far as I’m concerned, it’s nice that these properties remain within families, because I think there’s continuity as it goes along, even though it’s been out of the loop so to speak for quite a few years before ..unintelligible…this restoration and addition on here, I think it is in keeping with what we would hope to see up on the lake and OPRHP, you know and their comments wanted it to stay about the same height that it was; it’s not going to change the height from what currently exists and I think there’s other mitigating factors; the fact that it’s setback about 300 feet from the lake which is pretty significant. Most of the time when we review projects that are over height we get concerned when they’re right up front where people can see them but it is back in Dunham’s Bay and is quite remote compared to most camps up there on the lake. So, I would be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Joyce Mrs. Hunt: Yeah, I don’t think the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I think with due diligence in trying to keep the same height and make this footprint small; I don’t there will be any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. And while the request is substantial; it’s a very unusual piece of property. And, I don’t think there will be any physical or environmental adverse effects and it’s self-created only in the fact that the owners wish to improve the property, so I’d be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Urrico Mr. Urrico: Basically I’m in agreement with the rest of my Board members, my fellow Board members. I do agree with the condition about the buffer and on a personal note I hope that the contents contained within the library stay within the community as well. I know Marilyn works very hard to keep those archives here. Mr. Jackoski: I too am generally in favor of the application, although I’m not excited about extensively limiting it because I feel that the Planning Board will do justice to the shoreline buffering plantings. Depending on how that’s worded, I’ll be in favor. So anyone like to put forward a motion? Mr. Koskinas: Sure, Mr. Chairman I move for the approval; Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 22-2011, Andrew West, Introduced by Mr. Koskinas, Seconded by Mr. Underwood: Granting the following relief; 1. 2.7 feet from maximum height allowed; 2. 7 feet from the north side setback for the front porch. 3. 9 feet from the north side setback relief for the proposed kitchen. 4. 8 feet from the south side setback relief for new deck access stairs. 5. 1 foot west rear setback relief for the new covered entrance. 6. Approval for expansion of a non-conforming structure. Find that: No undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, that the applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving an area variance; that the variance is not deemed to be substantial; that the variance will have minor adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to be self-created. Conditions associated with the motion include; establishment of appropriate shoreline buffer to include plants, shrubs, and trees per Section 179-8-040 with additional guidance from Lake George Waterkeeper. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Koskinas NOES: Mr. Jackoski ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand 9 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: We will go to the second application. Again, we have similar parties involved here. It is Area Variance No. 23-2011, and I’ll turn it over to Roy for entering it into the record. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is Andrew West, the location is 12 Joshua’s Rock Road, and the applicant is proposing reconstruction and enlargement of a boathouse to include a 527 sq. ft. new boathouse with a 53 sq. ft. reduction of existing 537 sq. ft. dock. The boathouse will require an area variance for the south property line setback. The request is for 20 feet of relief from the minimum 20 foot setback requirement as per Section 179-5-060A (7). And again, the Board will consider the criteria; we see minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the existing boathouse/dock will be rebuilt in the same general area. Feasible alternatives would be to relocate the boathouse/dock to a more compliant location within the property line projections to the north. The request for 20 feet or 100% relief from the 20 foot setback requirement as per Section 179-5-060A (7) may be considered severe relative to the ordinance according to the staff. And, there are minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood can be expected. As far the alleged difficulty; the difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff Comments: The determination of setbacks for docks and boathouses as per Section 179-5-060A (7) and is as follows: Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs onshore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, whichever results in the greater setback. The boathouse/dock currently exists approximately 13 feet onto adjacent property to the south. The application was tabled at the May 18, 2011 ZBA meeting pending submittal of a Planning Board recommendation, we heard earlier, we heard their opinion earlier, and revisions concerning the National Historic Landmark designation. And there are attached copies of the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as well as the applicant describing the status of the historic designation. And, the SEQRA status on this is a Type II; no further action required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Good Evening, Welcome. State your names for the record, please. Mr. MacElroy: Dennis MacElroy, Environmental Design Partnership representing the applicant; the applicant in the case, Andre West but the ownership, I would just clarify that it also includes the Joshua’s Rock Corporation because of the unique situation of the way this dock is situated on the shoreline. Again, Sharon Davies representing the ownership and Tom West applicant’s attorney with me. This situation at the shoreline, that this parcel was created decades ago, the southerly boundary simply ran parallel to the northerly boundary as it intersected with the shoreline. It somewhat bisects the dock; that again, pre-existed. So that, we had a situation where that existing dock which has been associated with the ownership of the subject parcel straddles the line. Co-applicant to this process is the Joshua’s Rock Corporation by that they obviously show their support and understanding of the fact that you can’t meet the side setback, the navigational setback that’s typically required. Normally, you would have 20 feet from the dock to a property line and in this case we’re over that property line. So, we obviously can’t meet that 20 foot setback and are seeking total relief, but again, it’s a dock that’s situated in at least, shorefront, shared with the family corporation. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Board members on that? Mr. Underwood: So, is the corporation, is Andrew West is going to assume ownership of the boathouse from the corporation, essentially, I didn’t know the relationship to the library building? Mr. West: Andrew West who is my son and who is under contract to buy the property will own the dock. The Joshua’s Rock Corporation is granting him an easement, several easements to allow access to the dock, to maintain the dock in its current location, and, also for the purpose of facilitating this approval. As Dennis MacElroy pointed out, there are co-applicants to JRC and Andrew West and so, because both property owners are applying for this, it is one sense a variance application because the property intersects with the middle of the dock and the dock overhangs the JRC by 13 feet. But the JRC, by applying for this, and in granting that easement, is essentially dedicating that property to it and we don’t anticipate future dock applications from the JRC in the vicinity of this, but I would imagine this Board would condition it upon 20 feet setback from the dock, not the property line. In other words, they can’t double dip on that and we understand that. Just by way of explanation, I think Dennis covered it very well. It’s safe to say that my ancestors were better writers than they were surveyors and you know when they laid this out its just cock-eyed. And, it was because that’s the way the oriented the house and as Dennis said, they based everything upon the line that bisects the northside of Mellowstone and the south of Owl’s Nest and my grandfather, who was an engineer and probably licensed surveyor just went ahead with maintaining, and building and expanding this dock. But fortunately the family has come together, not only the immediate family that owns Mellowstone but the Joshua’s Rock Corporation to agree to grant of bunch of easements. There were no easements for 10 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 access; there were no easements for a lot of things. So we had to kind of unravel all these issues that were created in 1903 when they divided up the property with the family and try and make some sense of it. This is one situation we’re trying to make some sense of it. But because you have the JRC as the co-applicant, it really is not as monumental as it seems. Mr. Underwood: Are you going to take out the cribs and rebuild everything from scratch or utilize what you have. Mr. West: Particularly the south crib is going to be maintained. We’ve had one of the local dock builders in and he thinks that that can be maintained without any real problem. The north crib is going to require more effort. The boathouse design has, by negotiations with the family, is going to replicate what’s there. It might be a slightly larger slip between the two docks because it’s very narrow. So, the northern most slip may actually get cut off a little bit on one side and enlarged on the north side. Mr. Underwood: So as far as an alternative, if we brought it over in front of the present lot that we just discussed in the previous item, it would be a much greater impact on the lake if you took out this one and moved it over and redid the whole thing. Mr. West: It would be a greater impact to the lake and much greater financial impact and you know that’s a big push for Andrew as it is. Mr. MacElroy: And, it’s likely that you would have a variance from the north and south property as well. Mrs. Davies: That’s correct, that’s what I was thinking. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions from the Board at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this Board concerning this application? Mr. Salvador. Mr. Salvador: To reinforce my contention that these, all these properties in the name of the Joshua Rock Corporation, I have here a shoreline map with a 1982 date on it and there is a notation that the outline of the dock as shown on the New York State Conservation Department of Shoreline Map dated 1956. This dock and boathouse has another location in 1956 and this is the map, the Conservation Department map that shows that location and all of the land is noted as being in the Joshua Rock Corporation title. That was the purpose of the shoreline survey at that time; was to identify the structures and the ownership of the land. So it has another location in 1956 substantiated by this map and it’s mapped here in its present location in 1982. Now, there was no concern then about locating the boathouse, they knew where the property line was; there’s a note here, it says iron pipe found. They knew where the line was. There was no concern because the title of both parcels was in the same name. It was no need for easements, anything like that. Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: Is there anyone else here in the audience this evening who would like to address this Board regarding this application? Other than the Waterkeepers letter which I assume applies to both applications, which we won’t need to read in again, we can refer to the first one. Roy is there any other public comment concerning this application? Mr. Urrico: There is the same letter that was submitted by the Campinellos’ that was also referred to. Mr. Jackoski: Would the applicant mind helping us understand Mr. Salvador's comments. Mr. West: Well, I took a quick look at the map that Mr. Salvador presented and it’s fundamentally inaccurate concerning the docks, now there was, to the north of the existing boathouse, another boathouse that was actually on shore, and it’s where, when I was growing up as a child, in that area that you see just in the foreground of this picture to the north of the existing boathouse there was a canoe boathouse where we used to pull up the canoes and the rowboats. And, I don’t know when that was taken down. It was many many years ago, but they had those docks backwards on the map that Mr. Salvador was referring to. The structure is backwards. So, I think the purpose of that map was to survey the shoreline, not to depict the exact location of the docks and structures. It’s fundamentally inaccurate to the extent that it had those two structures reversed in location and should not be relied upon by this Board. I mean, you have survey information, the structure’s been there for many many years which is obvious from the age of the structure and it’s deteriorating condition, I mean, in fact, if you look at the north crib, the north crib was built with log timbers which is, hasn’t been used in Lake George for many many years. It probably puts that crib, 60, 70 years old. So I think what Mr. Salvador is saying is just referencing something that’s inaccurate. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. 11 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Garrand: Is what he presented a stamped-survey, from a licensed surveyor? Mr. West: No. Mr. Jackoski: Do Board members have any questions? I think at this time I can close the public hearing. I see no others in the audience who would like to address the Board. I don’t think it’s necessary to poll the Board. It is a Type II SEQRA. If there are no other questions, would anyone like to make a motion. Mr. Underwood: I’ll make a motion. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Underwood, thank you. Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 23-2011, Andrew West, 12 Joshua’s Rock Road, Introduced by Mr. Underwood, seconded by Mrs. Hunt: The applicant is proposing reconstruction and enlargement of a boathouse to include a 527 sq. ft. new boathouse with a 53 sq. ft. reduction of the existing 537 sq. ft. dock. Proposed boathouse will require area variances as follows: The south property line setback; that is a request for 20 feet of relief from the minimum 20 foot setback requirement; as far as an undesirable change the neighborhood occurring, this boathouse will be rebuilt essentially as it exists to emulate the style that is currently on site. Whether the benefit could be sought by the applicant; feasible alternatives might include relocating the dock to a more compliant location but again, that would have a greater detrimental effect on the environmental conditions in the lake by removing the cribs and moving them farther down the shoreline. The request for 20 feet is a 100% relief but again this is a result of the previous joint family compound being split up over the years and this was done over a 100 years ago, now and whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or an impact on the physical or environmental conditions; minor impacts with the rebuilding of the crib on the north side, I think is the only thing that we really will see and because of the long standing nature of the boathouse, even though it’s self-created, it’s created by the situation that exists previously with the angle of it being lost from the lot that we previously discussed in the last application. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: The next item of business, under new business, Marybeth and Edward Kelly, Area Variance No. 35-2011, I’ll turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: The location is 2 Jay Road, on Glen Lake. The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing 1,495 sq. ft. residence with a 270 sq. ft. detached garage and construction of a new 2,800 sq. ft. single family residence with a 462 sq. ft. attached garage. The variances are as follows: the north side setback request for 9.5 feet relief from the 20 foot minimum as per Section 179-3-040. And there is a south side setback request for 2.3 feet relief from the 20 foot minimum as per Section 179-3-040. In making the determination the Board shall consider the following criteria and whether an undesirable change will produce in the character of neighborhood. Staff stays that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The only feasible alternative would include designing the dwelling to fit within the building envelope. The request for 9.5 feet or 47.5% of north side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. That the request for 2.3 feet or 11.5% of south side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Any shoreline development may have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood; however, stormwater controls and erosion and sedimentation controls are planned and should mitigate any potential adverse effect. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The staff comments; the project proposes approximately 9,900 square feet of disturbance on a 15,530 square foot lot. Erosion and sediment control should be robust due to the lack of an existing shoreline buffer and on-site slopes. Slopes exceed 15% within 50 feet of the proposed single family dwelling; however, these slopes are isolated and not indicative of the overall topography of the parcel which could be categorized as less than 10%. An increase in impermeability (23.5% overall) is proposed from the existing conditions (17.5% overall) but is within the 75% requirement. There is an asphalt drive proposed. And the SEQRA status is a Type 2 and no further action is required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. If you could, identify yourselves for the record and welcome. Mr. Dybas: Curt Dybas 12 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Center: And I’m Tom Center. Mr. Jackoski: Do you have anything, more that you would like to add to what Mr. Urrico has already read into the record? Mr. Dybas: No, basically if we could get feedback from the Board and answer any questions. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Board members you’re on. Mr. Garrand: Is the septic system sized for a 5 bedroom house? Mr. Center: No sir, it’s sized for the 3 bedroom house that it’s designed for with the 50 percent replacement. Mr. Garrand: It’s got 3 bathrooms in it and it’s got 2 large lofts in addition to the 3 bedrooms. Mr. Dybas: 2 large lofts? Mr. Garrand: Yes, second floor. Mr. Dybas: There’s a loft in front that overlooks the great room, and there’s an office and 2 bedrooms. Mr. Garrand: Okay and those won’t be used for bedrooms at all? Mr. Dybas: No they will not. Mr. Garrand: Likewise above the garage? Mr. Dybas: No, they will not. Mr. Jackoski: What is above the garage, planned for? Mr. Dybas: Basically storage, this house does not have a basement; it’s a crawl space only. And, they obviously need a place to store stuff, so that’s why the loft above the garage. Mr. Jackoski: At this time I don’t see any other comments from Board members. Why don’t we go ahead and open up the public hearing. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one in the audience at this time, is there any comment received Roy? Mr. Urrico: There is note at the bottom of one of the announcements that says We Richard and Susan Rourke, next door, do not object. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Well, I guess at this point I’ll close the public hearing and ask the Board members for any additional questions. Would anyone like to make a motion? Mr. Koskinas: Can I ask a question? Mr. Jackoski: Go ahead. Mr. Koskinas: In the staff note; I’m concerned about erosion and sediment control. What’s the purpose of putting that note in here? Mr. Oborne: What’s the purpose? Erosion and Sediment Control. Mr. Koskinas: Are you asking us to do something about that? Mr. Oborne: No, I’m bringing it to your attention; there’s a note that’s also attached to the site plan review. Mr. Jackoski: So that’s Planning Board item. Mr. Oborne: It’s Planning Board but I do like to bring those types of notes to the Zoning Board’s attention. 13 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Yeah, I think that sometimes we get confused when there’s not Zoning Board issues necessarily site Planning Board issues. They’re just not sure which guidance you’re trying to suggest to us. Mr. Oborne: Fair enough Mr. Koskinas: I mean, if you’re suggesting a condition. Mr. Oborne: You’re certainly within reason to condition an approval upon additional E & S, if you feel the need to. Mr. Koskinas: How would we have overwritten over that? Mr. Jackoski: That’s always been my argument, how do we overwrite the Planning Board. Mr. Oborne: Well, you wouldn’t overwrite the Planning Board. Mr. Underwood: I think, it’s not a matter of overwriting, but I think it’s creative suggestions sometimes, in other words, like someone may have a brain storm and say look this property really could use a little more vegetation, as in the case of this one. Almost all lakefront properties can use more buffering than what they present in most instances. Mr. Jackoski: And, I think our Planning Board is doing a great job in addressing that, so I think if we start adding those kinds of offsets that it kind of may take away a little bit from what the big picture overall revisions may be, that they have the responsibility. Mr. Oborne: I will say, you know, I will continue to bring up to the attention of both Boards. I feel that that’s my due diligence to do. Mr. Jackoski: We’re just making sure that we’re supporting the Staff‘s concerns. Mr. Urrico: He’s making it in the comment section; he’s not making it in the criteria section. So you’re not suggesting anything, he’s just commenting on it. I think that’s in the appropriate area. Mr. Jackoski: Yeah, I think we’re just being diligent, making sure that we’re doing what we need to do. So, Joyce, if you’d like to make a motion, go ahead. Motion to Approved Area Variance No. 35-2011, Marybeth and Edward Kelly, 2 Jay Road, Glen Lake Introduced by Mrs. Hunt, second by Mr. Clements. The proposed project is that the applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,495 sq. ft. residence with a 270 sq. ft. detached garage and construction of a new 2,800 sq. ft. single family residence with a 462 sq. ft. attached garage. The relief required; the parcel will require theses area variances: 1. North side setback – Request for 9.5 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum as per §179-3-040. 2 South side setback – Request for 2.3 feet of south side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum as per §179-3-040. In making a determination, the board shall consider: Whether an undesirable change will be produced? Minor impacts to the neighborhood. Whether the benefit could be sought by some other method feasible to the applicant? The only feasible alternative would be to design the building to fit within the envelope; the variances are minor to moderate so it’s not a great question. Whether the request is substantial? The request for 9.5 feet or 47.5% of north side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. And the request for 2.3 feet or 11.5% of south side setback may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. There will be minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions and the shoreline development may have an adverse effect, but that would be considered by the Planning Board. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? It was self-created in the fact that the owners wish to build a new home. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski 14 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Next applicant, David Robertson, Area Variance No. 32-2011 at 27 Meadow Drive. Roy. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposing construction of a 1,560 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 400 sq. ft. deck. The parcel will require an area variance for the shoreline; request is for 12.1 feet of relief for the 75 foot requirement for the MDR zone. In making the determination, the Board shall consider the following criteria: And that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated according to the staff. That the lot limitations appear to preclude any feasible alternative other than an area variance concerning setbacks to the wetland. That the request for 12.1 feet or 16% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. The development adjacent to wetlands could have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood; however, with proper erosion and sediment controls these concerns could be mitigated if not eliminated. And that the difficulty may not be self-created as lot limitations appear to create the difficulty. Staff comments; due to the proximity of wetlands, the amount of clearing relative to lot size, and the presence of slopes in excess of 15%, the ZBA may wish to direct the applicant, as a condition of approval, to follow the New York State Standards for Erosion Control by utilizing Appendix E Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Small Homesite Construction. In particular, silt fencing, vegetative stabilization, and construction entrances should be considered as per referenced document. And this is a Type II SEQRA and no further action is required. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you Roy. Welcome, if you could state your name for the record and if you’d like to anything at this time. Mr. Robertson: I’m Dave Robertson and this is my wife Jessica Robertson. Mr. Jackoski: Hello, welcome. Okay. Do any Board members have questions for the applicant? Mr. Clements: As I was looking at this property, it looks like – are you going to put in any, a lot of fill in there? Mr. Robertson: Not much fill at all. A little bit of fill on the bottom side of the hill, where it already exists which is what they’re putting a foundation on to. Mr. Clements: It’s a pretty steep slope. Mr. Robertson: No, not really. The way we actually have it; it actually only goes down about 10 feet right where we’re actually putting the house and then it gradually goes down another 10 feet from there, but it’s a gradual slope, not, - it doesn’t just drop right off, except for where we’re actually putting the house. Which the house is going right on the backside of that 10 ft. slope. Mr. Oborne: I would like to mention that the address actually is 39 Meadow Drive. Mr. Robertson: No, 27 Mrs. Hunt: 27 Meadow Drive Mr. Oborne: It’s 27 Meadow Drive; it’s actually on the record as zero Meadow Drive at this point. Mr. Jackoski: Is there anyone here; I’ll open the public hearing, if we have no other comment. Is there anyone here who would like to address the Board on this application? Okay, if you could, if you wouldn’t mind giving up the table. If you could, state your name for the record, I’d appreciate that. Ms. Jack: Yes, my name is Angela Jack. I live at 35 Meadow Drive which is right next door their lot. What adverse effects is that going to have my property with the slope, the 10 foot slope, and the issues of fill. As it is, where I’m situated, I’m 15 feet below street level, okay, my house is brand new. It’s only 2 years old, it was built by Clute Enterprises, and he couldn’t use fill for my property. Well, how could they be using fill for theirs? Mr. Jackoski: Keith. Mr. Oborne: I think that’s a fair question. It’s a question for the Planning Board. Mr. Garrand: Filling in wetlands right. Mr. Oborne: You can’t fill in the wetlands. You do have disturbance. If you have permits for disturbance within the adjacent area of the wetland. 15 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Ms. Jack: Are you asking me if I do? Mr. Oborne: No, they do. Mr. Underwood: I remember the Clute application; you know it was probably like 3 years ago now. Ms. Jack: I’m living there 2 years; it was brand new when I purchased it. June of 2009. And if there’s going to be any adverse effects. Mr. Garrand: If you see somebody filling in wetlands I’d definitely give them a call. Mr. Underwood: This is going to have pass muster with the Planning Board anyways. Mr. Oborne: Oh, absolutely. Mr. Underwood: Yeah, I would think that they would dial in what they could do and what they couldn’t do. And also, be appropriate stormwater preventive things will go up before they even start. And, I’m sure they’ll be down there to monitor it knowing that it’s a steep slope. Mr. Oborne: And actually, I did speak to Bruce Frank whose the Code Compliance Officer for the Town and he did actually mention your property while it was being built and there were a few issues obviously and I’m definitely going to make sure that we incorporate some of those restraints that you were under to this, not me personally, it’s the Planning Board. It will be brought to the attention of the Planning Board. Mrs. Jack: Yeah, because, you know it’s a beautiful home, I did a lot of work to it. I don’t want any adverse effects to my land, my property, or my home because of the water, the slope that they’re going to be on. Mr. Jackoski: When you bought your property, do you know if Mr. Clute suggested that they couldn’t build on this land. Mrs. Jack: They can’t fill, he said I couldn’t fill; they can’t put any fill in there because of the wetlands and the creek that’s behind me. Mr. Jackoski: I’m not sure that it’s correct that they can’t fill. Our code does allow for fill and disturbance so I don’t know why Mr. Clute told you that but that is up to our Planning Board to work that out. Mrs. Jack: Okay Mr. Underwood: They’ll probably set parameters as to how much, where they can bring in fill and how much they can spread it around so they’re not going to let it go all the way down the hill by any means. Mrs. Jack: As long as whatever they do won’t affect my area, that’s all and I’m concerned about it. Mr. Jackoski: Hopefully it will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Mrs. Jack: And, that’s all I have to say. Mr. Jackoski: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Board concerning this matter? Roy do we have any comments, written? Mr. Urrico: I do not see anything…wait a minute, sorry, there is one public comment written on the public hearing notice, and it says we have no objection to the project. And it says, Henry and Phyllis Hess 30 Meadow Drive. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. If you wouldn’t mind joining the table again. Board members do you have any other comments or questions for the applicant? I’ve got a feeling, there’s no need to poll the Board on this one either. So does anyone want to make a resolution? Mr. Garrand: I’ll make motion Mr. Jackoski: Thank you, go ahead Rick Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 32-2011, David Robertson, 27 Meadow Drive Introduced by Mr. Garrand, seconded by Mrs. Hunt 16 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Applicant proposes construction of a 1,560 sq. ft. single-family residence with a 400 sq. ft. deck. Also, I would like to add as a condition of this approval that they follow New York State standards for erosion control by utlizing appendix E, Erosion and Sediment Control plan for small home site construction. Whether the benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant; they’ve got to locate their septic system away from the wetlands, therefore moving the house back close to the wetlands, so I don’t see feasible alternatives. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood; I cannot, at this point, foresee any undesirable change in the neighborhood. Is this request substantial; no, I think we deem it moderate at best. Will this request have adverse, physical, or environmental impacts on the neighborhood; I do not, at this point, believe that it will have adverse environmental impacts. With them using Appendix E, I think they should mitigate any potential impacts. Is this difficulty self-created; it may be deemed self-created, it is the homeowner building the house there. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Okay, the next item on this evening is Michael and Gabriella Shearer, Area Variance No. 33-2011 at 52 Russell Harris Road and Roy I’ll turn it over to you. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposes to replace an existing 412 +/- sq. ft. covered boathouse with a 400 +/- sq. ft. dock and 392 sq. ft. sundeck. The parcel requires area variance for the north side setback for 3.3 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirement for docks in the WR zone. And, the south side setback for 8.3 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirement for docks in the WR zone. As per §179-5-060 the following applies to this project: Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs on shore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, which ever results in the greatest setback. The board shall consider whether there are minor impacts to the neighborhood. Staff says they may be anticipated. Feasible alternatives other than an area variance appear limited due to lot restraints and the associated property line extensions into the lake. The request for 3.3 feet or 16.5% relief from the 20 foot north side setback requirement for docks in the WR zone as per Section 179-5-060 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Request for 8.3 feet or 41.4% relief from the 20 foot south side setback requirement for docks in the WR zone as per Section 179-5-060 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. There might be minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood; according to staff, and that the difficulty may be considered self-created; however, existing location of dock cribbing appears to be driving this request. Staff comments; the boathouse as proposed is to be 15 feet above the mean high water mark and as such does not exceed the maximum 16 foot height requirement and as designed, appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities as per Section 179-5-060(12). And this is a Type II SEQRA and no further action required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Welcome, and if you could state your name for the record and if you have anything to add at this time. Mr. Shearer: Michael Shearer and no I’m just here to answer any questions. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, are there any questions? Mr. Clements: I have one. Mr. Jackoski: Go ahead Brian Mr. Clements: And, maybe this should go to Keith. The relief required for the north side dock looks, I’m sorry, the south side dock, looks correct; for the north side it says required 3.3 feet of relief; this says required is 20 feet; existing is 19 and proposed is 19. Mr. Oborne: Let me get my survey out. North side is 3.3, south side Mr. Clements: 8.3? Mr. Oborne: South side should be, what am I stating it should be? Mr. Clements: 8.3. Mr. Jackoski: I think it’s 8.3 as well. Mr. Clements: That’s correct. 17 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: At the shore. Mr. Clements: Yeah, 8.3 south side but the north side says the existing and proposed is 19 ft., so you only ought to ask for one foot of relief. Mr. Oborne: What they’re asking for is, is Mr. Clements: 3.3. Mr. Oborne: 3.3 feet of relief. Mr. Jackoski: But isn’t that because of the property line extension Brian? Mr. Clements: I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking Keith. Mr. Jackoski: Yeah, if you look at the survey, the very tip, because the dock at an angle differ from the property projection. Mr. Clements: Oh, okay. Mr. Jackoski: As they go out into the lake they get closer to the property projection. Mr. Clements: Okay. Thank you. Clarification, I apologize. Mr. Oborne: Glad to help. Mr. Jackoski: Seeing no other comments at this time, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this Board on this application? Sir if you could, if you wouldn’t mind giving up the table please. If you could state your name and address for the record I’d appreciate it. Mr. Brown: My name is Jason Brown; I have a property at 44 Russell Harris Road, two properties up from Mr. Shearer. With regard to the dock, whether an undesirable change would be produced to the character of the neighborhood or environmentally. No undesirable effects would be created. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method; the dock as you saw, already exists and we’re just looking to, Mr. Shearer is just looking to replace it. Whether the variances are substantial; no it already exists. We’re not, he’s not asking for any change to existing variances or setbacks and was it self-created, and the dock’s been there forever as far as I can tell. So I support it, thank you very much. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience at this time who would like to address the Board concerning this application? You can join the table again Mr. Shearer. Roy, is there any written comments? Mr. Urrico: I’m definitely sure this time. No. Mr. Garrand: Will this be rebuilding from scratch. Mr. Shearer: Say again. Mr. Garrand: Will this be rebuilding the dock from scratch? Mr. Shearer: Yes, it’s to replace the cribs. The cribs are made of timbers. The dock was put in in like 1940 and so you’re talking 60, almost 70 years. The cribs are falling apart; that’s the whole thing behind this, to replace the cribs, to make the dock structure worthy, I have to replace the cribs. To replace the cribs I need your permission. Mr. Garrand: Did you see if there was any way to make this more compliant. Mr. Shearer: In what way? Mr. Garrand: As far as the orientation, do you think there’s any way it could be oriented to make it more compliant. Mr. Shearer: I don’t think so. It’s going where the existing dock sits. Mr. Garrand: Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, again, I don’t think I need to poll the Board. Would anyone like to make a motion? 18 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 33-2011, Michael & Gabrielle Shearer, 52 Russell Harris Road, Introduced by Mr. Clements, seconded by Mrs. Hunt Applicant proposes to replace existing 412 +/- sq. ft. covered boathouse with a 400 +/- sq. ft. dock and 392 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief required: The parcel will require area variances as follows: north side setback – relief of 3.3 ft. and the south side setback request for 8.3 feet of relief. In making a determination, we consider: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties? Minor impacts may be anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives, leaving the deck there, appear limited. Whether the required area variance is substantial? We’re just replacing a crib in the same place, so the request is not substantial. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect; minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions can be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? You can consider it self-created, however, the existing location of dock cribbing appears to be driving your request. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: The next item on new business for this Board is applicant Christopher and Susan Granger of 39 Meadow Drive, Area Variance No. 37-2011 I’ll turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposing construction of a 192 sq. ft. deck addition to the rear of the single family dwelling. The parcel will require area variances for: Shoreline Setback; request is for 42.8 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement for the MDR zone. Shoreline Setback; request for 10.9 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement for the MDR zone. And, expansion of a non-conforming structure and this request must be approved by the ZBA. The criteria as submitted by the staff says that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. That feasible alternatives appear limited due to lot limitations in regards to wetlands and water bodies and nature of project. Concerning the pond setback, request for 42.8 feet, or 57% of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Concerning the wetland setback, request for 10.9 feet, or 14.5% of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. And the request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated and the difficulty may be considered self-created. th Also staff comments that a Site visit on June 9 indicates that the shed to the west, adjacent to the wetland is not compliant in regards to shoreline setbacks of the MDR zone. Further, shed located to the south will need to be clarified in regards to ownership and location. Either way, both sheds are non-compliant in their existing locations and will need to be relocated to compliant locations or application for variances submitted. Mr. Oborne: I’d like to make a comment on that. At this point, I would have the Board, or request that the Board focus on the deck portion of this project at this point, because Code Compliance is working with the applicant on the other issues. Mr. Jackoski: And, there’s no SEQRA, correct? Mr. Urrico: No SEQRA. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Welcome and just to clarify, staff has, we are aware of the shed issues and we are going to try to focus on the deck issues at this time. So, Mr. Granger if you could identify yourself for the record? Mr. Granger: Chris Granger, 39 Meadow Drive. Mr. Jackoski: I suspect there’s not much you want to add, right? Mr. Granger: Just that it’s, how very minimal, I mean impact the posts, I’m not going to be putting in the concrete posts, it’s going to be those new tech posts so they’re won’t be any , zero solid disturbance on it and it will be up 10 feet high, coming off the house. Mr. Underwood: How long has the house been there now? Mr. Granger: The house has been there since 1987, I built it in 87, so what, 26, 27 years. 19 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Underwood: So, the shoreline regulations have change pretty dramatically since then. I think, in a lot of respect, we get into these issues with these older homes that pre-date the regulations. Mr. Oborne: You’re going to see more and more and more of this as the lands gets built around here. Mr. Underwood: Yeah, and I think too, because Mr. Garrand: And we’re filling all the wetlands too Mr. Underwood: Like that last one we just did too. We end up on these more marginal lots and things like that as, on other projects too, keep that in mind. Mr. Oborne: Correct, and at one point the shoreline setback was 150 feet in the MDR zone; it was reduced down to 75; a little bit more palpable and that’s still difficult. Mr. Jackoski: Are there any comments from Board members at this time? Mr. Underwood: I would just say down on Meadow Lane especially in that whole area, I use to live down on Meadowbrook and you know, the whole thing is a wetland down there, you know, I don’t think you can build anything down there without being in the zone, you know. Mr. Garrand: It’s flood plain. Mr. Oborne: That’s what it is. Mr. Underwood: Sure. Mr. Granger: When I originally built the house, it was not classified as wetlands. And then it was classified after I built the house; that the back property was wetlands. Mr. Jackoski: So, no comments at this time. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board concerning this application? If you could sir, you wouldn’t mind giving up the table Mr. Granger. Mr. Granger: Yep. Mr. Jackoski: If you could, state your name and address for the record? Mr. Longacker: Thank you, my name is Warren Longacker. I reside with my wife at 20 Meadow Drive, across the street and 2 lots up from the Grangers. I’m just here tonight for myself and on behalf of my wife just to the let the Board know that both myself and my wife, neither one of us have objections to the Granger’s constructing this deck. We don’t feel that it will propose any negative impact to the neighborhood what-so-ever. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to address the Board? Roy, are there any comments on this application. Mr. Urrico: We have no objections to this project; this is Henry and Phyllis Hess, 30 Meadow Drive. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. I will close the public hearing and ask Mr. Granger to come back to the table. Are there any additional questions or comments from Board members? I will make a comment; you’ve got some great fish in that pond. Mr. Granger: I’ve got a couple of them in there with barbs taken off, so you can catch and release. Mr. Jackoski: Anyone else? Would anyone like to make a motion? Rick, go ahead. Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 37-2011, Christopher and Susan Granger, 39 Meadow Drive, Introduced by Mr. Garrand, seconded by Mr. Clements Applicant proposes construction of a 192 sq. ft. deck addition to rear of single family dwelling. Parcel will require area variances as follows: Shoreline Setback (Pond) – Request for 42.8 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement for the MDR zone; Shoreline Setback (Wetlands) – Request for 10.9 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement for the MDR zone; Expansion of a non-conforming structure – This request must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now on the balancing test: Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant; I don’t foresee any other way they put a deck on this house without requiring some type of variance given the wetlands 20 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 from that neighborhood. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood; I don’t see any undesirable change what-so-ever from this. Is this request substantial; I do not believe it is substantial at all? It’s going to have minimal impact on the property itself. Whether this request will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood; conditions in the neighborhood; I do not believe it will have any adverse environmental effects on the neighborhood at all. Lastly, whether this difficulty is self-created; I do not believe it is self-created. AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Mr. Granger Mr. Granger: Can I say something really quick and just, and I really appreciate it, but I really do think for some size of projects; the cost, I’m almost at, I’m at 800 dollars in survey cost right now for a 2,000 dollar deck. Mr. Jackoski: And, we understand it, believe me, this Board, with your application in mind; while we didn’t address your application, I was the only one that knew of it, we talked extensively in a workshop about when and when not to require. And dimensional relief is very difficult for this Board to grant without a survey. Believe me; we’ve certainly paid attention to your comments. Mr. Garrand: It leaves us open to making decisions that we’ll regret down the line, not having a survey. Mr. Jackoski: And yours was an easy one, but there are some where, that, we did certainly have a workshop on that particular item. Mr. Granger: Okay, thank you. Mr. Jackoski: You’re welcome. I do have a request here from the Inwald’s attorney. DISCUSSION ON INWALD PROPERTY/PROJECT - request by Inwald’s Attorney Mr. Oborne: Yes, and we certainly can discuss that. Mr. Jackoski: We’ve been asked to add them back to the agenda, to clarify the positions of the jurisdictional matters associated with the Lake George Park Commission, I believe, the Adirondack Park Agency, sorry. Mr. Oborne: Does he, got an NJ letter (non-jurisdictional letter) I believe, from the APA. The application that they submitted, this is for the ramp aspect of the boathouse, had landscaping changes, that’s all. There was no other change to the plan; as it stands now, staff’s position is that, as there’s been no marked change to the plan, as directed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, that, that plan is incomplete. Your resolution also stated that once those plans, those changes, are submitted for review, it goes back to the Planning Board for their review, first before it gets back to you. It was a unanimous decision. Mr. Underwood: They’ve got to come back with some substantial changes from what they’ve proposed before, you know; vegetation. Mr. Oborne: If you’re certainly going to discuss that. Mr. Jackoski: I think we should discuss that. Mr. Oborne: And what’s before you changes your mind. Mr. Jackoski: I don’t want to have an executive session. I think everything should be public. But we haven’t advertised that we’re going to talk about it. Mr. Underwood: But we can discuss how to proceed, you know, because. Mr. Oborne: That’s true, it wasn’t advertised. There’s not a public hearing associated with this aspect of it. You certainly can discuss it in generalities; that would be my suggestion to you, as far as procedures go for getting an application on the agenda. Mr. Underwood: And, I think we made concrete commentary last time in regards to what we expected if they were going to come back. 21 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Oborne: You certainly directed the applicant to come back with changes. And there were some suggestions but not; the onus is on the applicant to bring those changes back to you. Mr. Underwood: I think the problem we got in to was because the APA had given us a comment; that they congratulated us for not proceeding with it and allowing it; that it would have to be something different. But you, know, it was pretty much there, the ramp was an issue. Mr. Garrand: And the fact, as part of an Article 78, asked for removal of land bridges haven’t we? Mr. Underwood: We have a pending one still with Mrs. Hoffman’s, we really shouldn’t. Mr. Oborne: There are multiple issues with that one. Mr. Garrand: It’s part of the issue at hand, though, with that Article 78, I mean. Mr. Oborne: Not with this particular application, I mean there are land bridges on the lake. Mr. Underwood: Yeah, but not new ones. Mr. Koskinas: Can somebody as a courtesy just tell me how you finally settled this. I wasn’t sitting here, I wanted to, because I hated that thing from the first day I say it and that’s a fact. But, I’m interested in what the Board, what this Board – Mr. Underwood: I think that most of us said that, we thought there were feasible alternatives to what they had proposed. That you didn’t have to go all the time and expense of doing that long ramp that went 40 some odd feet, I believe, from the shoreline to the top of the deck there. And, there were other alternatives like getting on a boat on the lake and going on the lake or something or – Mr. Koskinas: So was it left that no action was taken? Mr. Oborne: Exactly, it was tabled Mr. Jackoski: The applicant requested a tabling. Mr. Oborne: Yes, they did and one of their arguments, also, was that they want a full Board. Mr. Underwood: Because we were short that night Mr. Oborne: But, there is no guarantee that you’re going to have a full Board, at every meeting to begin with. But the specific resolution, that John states, you’re to make changes and present those changes to the Planning Board before they come back. It’s pretty short and sweet. Mr. Koskinas: And their Counsel, now, Mr. Chairman, is asking for what? Mr. Jackoski: They would like to be put back on the agenda. Mr. Koskinas: Well, they need to go before the Planning Board first. Mr. Oborne: Well, not until they make changes. Mr. Underwood: They haven’t made any changes except for vegetation. Mr. Oborne: They have not made changes to the structure, exactly. Mr. Underwood: We gave them a couple of alternatives. Mr. Jackoski: But if they come back to this Board and or the Planning Board with the exact same plan. Mr. Underwood: They can’t. They have to make a substantial change from what they originally proposed. Mr. Oborne: They’ve got to change the structure. Mr. Underwood: Otherwise, it’s the same thing again Mr. Urrico: So we’re getting into semantics Mr. Jackoski: The intent of the language was clear. 22 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 22, 2011 Mr. Oborne: The body of the minutes will bear that out. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, so we have our answer; it’s not getting put on to the agenda. Mr. Oborne: They missed the deadline date to begin with. Mr. Jackoski: But they need to go before the Planning Board first. Mr. Oborne: At your direction, yes. Mr. Jackoski: I believe the Board is unanimous in that, correct. Mr. Underwood: Correct. Mr. Garrand: Correct. Mr. Jackoski: We have a unanimous Board. Okay, is there any other business that should be brought to the Board? Mr. Underwood: I’m not going to be here next week. Mr. Jackoski: Note that Mr. Underwood will not be here next week. So Mr. Koskinas, if you can sit in, that’s fine. Would anyone else like to make a motion to adjourn? Mr. Clements: So moved. Mr. Jackoski: So moved, seconded. Mr. Hunt: I’ll second. Mr. Jackoski: All in favor? AYES: All at once. NOES: None Meeting Adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 23