Loading...
02-20-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 5-2013 CRM Housing Dev., Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1 Area Variance No. 4-2013 Ronald B. & Cynthia F. Mackowiak 8. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.12 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 ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD GARRAND, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT STEVEN JACKOSKI ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. GARRAND-I'm going to start the meeting for tonight, February 20, 2013, and I'm going to start with an administrative item. Approval of the meeting minutes for December 19, 2012. Members present were myself, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, and Mr. Kuhl. Can I get a motion for approval of the minutes for December 19tn? MRS. HUNT-So moved. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20t" day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-On to the first item on the agenda tonight. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2013 SEQRA TYPE I CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. AGENT(S) CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. OWNER(S) CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. ZONING MDR LOCATION BURKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF ABBEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 56 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX ON A 17-ACRE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. ZONING BOARD TO CONSIDER PLANNING BOARD REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY. CROSS REF SP 8-2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 17.01 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-28.1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2013, CRM Housing Dev., Inc., Meeting Date: February 20, 2013 "Project Location: Burke Drive, south of Abbey Lane Description of Proposed Project: The Planning Board will likely seek Lead Agency Status for this project with concern to SEAR at their February 19, 2013 meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs to consider acknowledging the Planning Board as Lead Agency concerning SEAR for coordinated review of the project. Applicant proposes construction of a 56 unit senior housing apartment complex on a 17-acre parcel. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Density requirements (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce the variance requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The lot size of 17 acres allows for 8 units on the site. Where two acres are required per unit if not connected to public sewer and water. The request may be considered substantial relative to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. The hardship must be created by the ordinance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, No parcel history identified Staff comments: The application has indicated relief from the Interstate Highway Overlay District Section 179-4- 035 whereas this is not applicable as existing vacant lands are permitted to be developed. SEAR Status: Type I" MR. BROWN-You guys were provided with a copy of the resolution from the Planning Board last night, requesting to be Lead Agency. So you have to make a decision to consent to that request or to seek Lead Agency status yourself. This is a Type I SEAR project. So you can't really do anything on the project until SEAR is done first. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. Great. Good evening. MR. ANDRESS-Good evening. Tom Andress with ABD Engineers and Surveyors. We're representing the owner, CRM Housing Development, Inc. We understand we are here really tonight for just an overview for the Zoning Board to look at. We had received the information that the Planning Board took the action last night to request for Lead Agency status. So, proceed sort of with that, knowing that obviously anything can't be done until we go through that procedure, but we'd like to at least introduce the project. Again, as it was mentioned, it's a 17 acre parcel. You can see it on the overhead projector. It is bordered by, it's actually off of Burke Drive and then Abbey Lane. Abbey Lane is the drive that goes to the Ramada. Across the street, Montcalm is owned by the same ownership, that I think it's a different corporation but effectively the same ownership, and then we adjoin a little bit of residential to the south side along with some construction areas. You can see that on the, no, you can't because this isn't quite there, but it is in the package of the information that we provided. The applicant has owned this property since 1986. So one of the points that was made, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, the note is that hardship must be created by the ordinance, and in fact this hardship was created by the ordinance put it into effect for the median density, and I don't actually know the exact date, but you should go through Craig to find out the date, but the applicant has owned this property for a significant amount of time. At one point the applicant actually also owned the Ramada Inn, but they did sell that. The proposal is to create a drive through the site, private drive, and have senior apartments. These would be market based apartments so there would be market based rates. We would be building seven buildings. Each building has eight units in it. They are two story buildings. There was some comments in regards to the stairs and the nature of two story. The applicant has actually constructed other sites. We provided more information as we move along in this process, but they feel that there's a certain mix within here that are one floor and the others are on two floors. They feel that this is (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) still an appropriate mix and type of housing unit for the seniors that they're looking for. They are looking for active seniors. This is not a situation where we have, you know, some type of a care for seniors. It would be active seniors, being at market rate. We do do a lot of senior projects that are all one story or elevator access, but a lot of those are subsidized rates. So this would not be. The site does have public water, because the public water, it helps, but it doesn't quite change the zoning. The zoning requires both public water and public sewer. There isn't any potential to get sewer, really, across the Northway. Luckily for the applicant and also for the Town, the site is absolutely beautiful sand. So it's appropriate for subsurface disposal. We did some initial testing out there. We did have the TIDE out there, Chazen Companies was out there also witnessing the testing, just so that we don't have the problem from the septic standpoint. So because of that, the density that was said in the median, or the Moderate Residential zone is only half a unit per acre. So that would give us approximately eight units on the full 17 acre site, and we've provided in the summary therefore, but the surrounding properties, the Ramada, the density for that is 19.6 units per acre, and across the street, Montcalm is 8.2 units per acre. We are proposing 56 units. So that would give us a density of 3.3. So still significantly less than the density around, but obviously significantly more than the .5 per acre. We feel it is a very appropriate use for the site when you do read through the Moderate Density, it speaks of single family. I think you can really just look at the aerial. You're surrounded by, effectively, ramps to the Northway. The Northway, an access drive that's really just an access drive to a commercial project, and on the opposite side another senior project. So we feel it's really not something that would really lend itself to the single family home use, although there is single family that was established years ago next to the Northway. Obviously this would be able to, as a leasing type situation I think would be able to lease out better than a sale type situation. So that's sort of the overall view. Because of the good sand obviously you're utilizing green infrastructure, as you were just listening, for the stormwater management. We will be disturbing more than the one acre so obviously we'll be doing the New York State DEC regulations for the stormwater management. It's all pretty straightforward. Everyone has a, for the units, everyone has a garage, garage access to their units. There was a comment in the Staff review in regards to there are a few areas where there's a common entry area between two garages. So both garages go into a small little common hall, it would either go to one unit or the unit upstairs. Those would all be access controlled. No one would be able to obviously go into your garage unless you had a key, and the only other way into that common area is with a key through the front door. So it would be access controlled. So it gives you sort of an overall view. I could certainly get some comments from there. MRS. HUNT-I have a question for Staff. From what I'm reading, even if they were on public water and sewer, they would be allowed one unit per acre? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. HUNT-Which would be 17 units? MR. BROWN-Seventeen. MRS. HUNT-And they're asking for. MR. ANDRESS-Fifty-six. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-Craig, I had another question, too. Do you know what the density requirements were when they originally bought this property? MR. BROWN-No. I don't know when they bought the property. I can certainly find that answer out. MR. GARRAND-Didn't the title of this property recently change hands, John Burke Apartments? Wasn't that bought like two years ago? MR. AN DRESS-That was just an internal change between the different corporations. MR. GARRAND-Also on the proposal page you might want to change some of the wording on this. It says CRM owns and manages the adjacent sewer housing complex, John C. Burke Apartments. MR. ANDRESS-Yes. It was, senior, it was changed on the application in to the Planning Board, but this one had gone into the ZBA before we saw that. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. URRICO-1 have a question for Staff. I know, is it a fait accompli that the Planning Board has sought and received Agency status, Lead Agency status, when it seems to me that at some point they're going to have to come here to get a substantial variance. MR. BROWN-The answer to half of that question is yes. The Planning Board has certainly sought Lead Agency status. They're not Lead Agency status until every other involved agency consents to that request. If another involved agency wishes to be Lead Agency, like you guys, the Planning Board would have to consent for you to do jt. I don't think that's probably going to happen. Usually the Planning Board does the SEAR review for large projects like this. So once you guys consent, if you do, then it's complete and they can start SEAR, if they need to do SEAR, you need a recommendation from the Planning Board on the variances. Then they'll be back for the variances. So if the thought is, and I'm sorry this is going to be a longer answer than probably you wanted, but if your thought is to consent to give Lead Agency status to the Planning Board, you can certainly take this opportunity to pass along your thoughts on the substantiality of the variance request to the Planning Board so they can consider that during SEAR, and you can certainly pass those comments along anytime. MR. URRICO-How do I do that? MR. BROWN-When you make your resolution to consent to the Planning Board Lead Agency request, please pay attention to this or, you know, put it right in. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Craig, and they'll get in contact with the DEC and all that for other wildlife and everything else out there? MR. BROWN-As part of SEAR, well, actually as part of. MR. GARRAND-Because I haven't seen them do that in the past. MR. BROWN-Yes, as part of the stormwater management, the SWPPP and Notice of Intent, they have to do endangered species and historic preservation. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Any other Board members have questions for the applicant? MR. KUHL-If you had to limit, reduce the amount of housing, what would be your second proposal? MR. ANDRESS-This is our proposal at this point. MR. KUHL-Okay. You want a yes or no on this. MR. GARRAND-Yes, we're just considering SEAR tonight, Lead Agency. MR. KUHL-No, no. I know we are. MR. ANDRESS-Not ready to horse trade yet, right? MR. KUHL-I think you're asking for an awful lot. MR. GARRAND-Anybody in the public who'd like to address this issue tonight? Certainly step up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. KEVIN MARKHAM MR. MARKHAM-Hello. My name is Kevin Markham. I'm the General Manager for the Ramada next door. I'm representing, working with PTM Enterprises who owns the property now, and a couple of things we came up with by looking over the paperwork is there's an egress to our private property as an emergency access point, and I don't know how that all came about because I don't see any paperwork come through my office regarding permission to do such thing unless it was in the original sale in 2006, or '07. MR. KUHL-When I looked at that, I thought that that was Abbey Lane, the extension of Abbey Lane, and it was going to Abbey Lane, and what he's saying, Abbey Lane stops. MR. MARKHAM-Abbey Lane stops up at the top corner where the. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. ANDRESS-Yes, Abbey Lane does stop. The proposal was to provide an emergency access to the Ramada property. It was a request that had been made when there had been some discussions with the Town before to try to provide not only emergency access to this site, but also another way in in the event that there was an issue on Abbey Lane, and we'd try to get emergency vehicles in to the Ramada site. It is proposed to have gates at both sides so it would never been any access. The fire chief has already looked at it and spoken about the access gates. So it would not be a normal way to drive in and out. Only in an emergency situation. The additional value that we looked at and said the Ramada does have food service, and this would. MR. MARKHAM-We're not saying we're opposed to it. We're just saying we were never asked or, you know. MR. ANDRESS-Right. Actually I guess we could certainly speak to that. So there's a certain benefit to the seniors to be able to walk to the Ramada. Hopefully there's a real benefit to the Ramada also. MR. MARKHAM-We also, the land is a little bit higher ground than most places. That's the highest point of Abbey Lane, and goes down into Dixon Heights and it goes down into some of those housing, other residential areas down below, and we do have issues with the Montcalm Apartments. Is that what they're called now? Montcalm as far as, we definitely have issues with their sewer project that they have there at the hotel through the summer, from our guests. While this project is, I think it's great for that property to be doing something with it. I just want to make sure that all the environmental impact studies are done to make sure that that water or leach fields or whatever you want to call it does not leach down into other people's properties, and they are higher ground than we are, and we do get water back up on the back corner of our property, just from the natural ground that's there. So I understand that it's sand underneath, but still there's an impact where it's going to stay on the ground for quite some time before it does drain through. So I think that's all I have at this point in time. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Markham. Anybody else from the public who'd like to speak regarding this? Please step up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. ROZ NOLAN MS. NOLAN-Hi. I'm Roz Nolan. I live at 70 Old Mill Lane in Dixon Heights, and I don't know if it should be addressed here or it's farther down the road, but my concern was if it doesn't continue as a senior home, and I'm not opposed to senior homes, is there a, I don't know, how is it designated a senior home and will it always stay a senior home? MR. GARRAN D-Staff? MR. BROWN-Yes, that's not really an issue at the Zoning Board. that's a great Planning Board question, and there's probably going to be some sort of a, I don't really know. There's definitely going to be some documentation in the site plan application or do you see anything in there that? MRS. MOORE-There's nothing in there yet that indicates specifically that it's going to be senior other than the statement that it's supposed to be senior housing, at this time. They may be looking at either private sources or other sources for tax credits or things like that. That's not stated in the application at this time. MR. BROWN-When it gets to the Planning Board, that's a better question to ask the Planning Board to commit to that somehow. MS. NOLAN-Okay. MR. BROWN-I'm sure there's ways to do that. MS. NOLAN-Okay, and I just want to back up about the sewer system. I previously, and I don't know what the problem was, but I have been out in my backyard last summer and did get smell of sewer from that apartment complex, and I don't know what it was all about or if it was corrected, you know, it's wintertime, you don't smell it now, but that is a big concern, too, for overuse of the property. MR. GARRAND-It's a concern of ours, too. MS. NOLAN-Yes. Okay. Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Anybody else from the public who'd like to comment on this? Not seeing any hands, I'll close the public hearing. The applicant can come back. MR. BROWN-You may just want to leave the public hearing open at the end of the meeting, you're going to continue it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. JOAN SILETTI MRS. SILETTI-It's probably the wrong place. This is zoning and it's probably about planning, but I'm Joanne Siletti. I'm with Dixon Heights. Roz and I are both on the Board. I have a real concern about traffic. I don't think this is the right time or place, but I am concerned about, that people who live both in Dixon Heights and use John, you know, the access road to get on to Aviation Road are really going to have a backup of traffic if we have too large a complex in there. It seems to me the complex is a little bit large and that there could be a lot of traffic. That's it. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MRS. SILETTI-You're welcome. MR. GARRAND-All input is good. I'll leave the public hearing open. Now the applicant can come back. At this point, no correspondence? MR. URRICO-No, not that I can find. MR. GARRAND-What I'm going to do right now is poll the Board members. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-What is this for, the Lead Agency? MR. GARRAND-Lead Agency, SEAR Lead Agency. MRS. HUNT-I would go along with the Planning Board. I think that they've done it before. They have more expertise than us, I think, but we should make some comments in our proposal about what we want covered. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Can you come up with something? MRS. MOORE-I've identified three. I don't know if you want me to chime in now or wait until you poll the Board. MR. GARRAND-I'll finish polling the Board and you can go over them. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think the Planning Board should take Lead Agency status, but I think it should be emphasized that as currently constructed this plan way exceeds the number of units that it should have on that piece of property. MR. GARRAND-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree also. The Planning Board should take the Lead Agency on it also. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-Yes, I go along with the Planning Board. I'm opposed. I think you're asking for too much. I think the amount of housing here exceeds what should be put on this piece of property, but I do think it's a good use for the property, but I think that there's too many homes. MR. GARRAND-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I'm going to agree to consent to the Planning Board being Lead Agency, but I also agree with Roy that we ought to put some requests for some things in there or at least say, you know, what our feelings are. The other thing is maybe we could request a copy of the minutes go to the Planning Board also, from the other things that have gone on with the public comments. MR. GARRAND-Okay. That should be coming up next month. MR. BROWN-Next week. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. GARRAND-Next week. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I did come up with. The one we want to make sure that the density is mentioned and that it remain a senior complex, senior housing complex. That should be in our motion. MR. ANDRESS-The application to the Board was, and is, for a senior complex. So that's what the application is. The methodology that you as a Planning Board, or Zoning Board uses in granting a variance you can obviously have that as a condition. So, I mean, I don't think there's any. MRS. HUNT-To cover all bases. MR. ANDRESS-Right. I don't think there's any question we would certainly restrict that. If I may, from the standpoint of traffic, the generation of traffic with seniors is a very, very low number. The 56 units here, based upon the ITE, Institute of Traffic Engineers, generation, first of all, it doesn't happen, that the peak use and peak hours is different than the general peak use and peak hours of the adjoining streets for traffic, but when you do look in the Institute of Traffic Engineers for the four to six p.m., the peak there of the adjacent street traffic, these 56 units would generate six trips. So that would be three in, three out or six all leaving, but that's each time something goes in or out it counts as a trip. So from that. MR. URRICO-For each person that's in there? MR. ANDRESS-No, six for the entire, correct. Because, in fact, because it is a senior complex, they generate traffic at different points than you would normally have if it was in a regular apartment complex, then the generation is going to be more in line with what the peak a.m. and peak p.m. for the (lost words) are. In general seniors aren't getting up from, that peak morning is anywhere from six thirty to seven thirty or seven to eight depending on the area, and the peak p.m. is four thirty to five thirty or five to six, depending on the area. So you usually don't see that generation during those periods. So that is an important point from the standpoint getting back to the gentleman in regards to the density. You don't have that same type of impact. Certainly I heard the concern about the sewage from their other facility. We'll have to speak with them. This is obviously not going into their facility in this instance. We're going to utilize it on site so we don't add to, I guess, the problems that they already have. MR. GARRAND-It's been problematic over there. This isn't going to help. MR. ANDRESS-Well, this wouldn't add to it. So this would be completely separate. MR. GARRAND-Groundwater. MR. ANDRESS-What's that? MR. GARRAND-Into the groundwater? MR. ANDRESS-Correct. Right. It's regular on-site sewage disposal. So it wouldn't be adding anything to that facility at all from those impacts. Certainly as we come back to this Board and discuss things further, we certainly would like to go in to the issues of what an area variance entails, which I'm sure you're all aware of, and the criteria that this Board has to look at to make sure that in fact they get the area variances. MR. GARRAND-Staff, you had something you wanted to add? MRS. MOORE-You had, there was three, and you've highlighted the one. Relief request as being substantial. The other one was consider what details will be needed to ensure your senior complex will be considered seniors, and the third one was the environmental analysis specific to septic design and to traffic flow. I know you've addressed it, but this way it's within your realm to add it to your language that you're going to do in your resolution to the Planning Board. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Does somebody want to make a resolution? MR. URRICO-Isn't there a process that we normally go through? Okay. I make a motion that the Planning Board take Lead Agency status. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD TAKE LEAD AGENCY STATUS ON SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 CRM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, INC., Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) And that the three items that Laura just mentioned be included, which would be, One, density be addressed specifically. Two, that the septic system be able to handle the amount of waste that will be originated by that property, and then, Three, that it remains senior housing as presented right now. Those are the three specific issues that we would like to see addressed by the Planning Board as the Lead Agency. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: MR. CLEMENTS-Could I add one more thing? I just wondered if we could add the density requirements at the original ownership date, what that was, if we can find that out, just for our information. MR. BROWN-Yes. I can certainly find that out. MR. CLEMENTS-And that it be passed on to the Planning Board and brought back to us. They're going to come back to us. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't think that's for the motion. We can certainly provide that information. MR. URRICO-We have somebody from the public that would like to add something. MR. MOORE-Do your motion first. MR. GARRAND-Certainly, if you want to come up to the microphone. MR. BROWN-Do you guys want to go with your motion first? MR. GARRAND-Well, we'll make a motion, and lend your input. The public hearing is going to be open. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-It used to be 5,000 square feet, the zoning back in those days was 5,000 square feet per unit, until 1989 or something like that. I think it changed when they re-did the zoning across the street. You maintain it senior by getting the restrictive covenant to the satisfaction of the Board (lost words). MR. BROWN-So you guys have a motion to consent to the Planning Board to be Lead Agency for SEAR purposes with three specific requests that the Planning Board look at, and I think you guys are probably looking for a second. MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. BROWN-I didn't mean to jump in here. I'm just trying to get back on track. MR. GARRAND-Please call the vote. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. ANDRESS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2013 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD B. & CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING RR-3A AND WR-1A LOCATION OFF HALL ROAD, 9 GLEN HALL RD., SHERWOOD ACRES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CREATION OF A NONCONFORMING LOT BY SEPARATING LAND HOOKED PARCEL FROM MAIN PARCEL. MAIN PARCEL WILL BE 2.45 ACRES. THE SEPARATED PARCEL, WHICH IS SEPARATED FROM THE MAIN PARCEL BY A 50 FT., PAPER STREET, WILL BE MERGED WITH ADJOINING LANDS OF RONALD B. AND CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK(289.11- 1-33). NO NEW BUILDING LOT WILL BE CREATED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SUBDIVISION NO 8-2007; SUBDIVISION NO. 1- 1971 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.11- 1-59.12 SECTION 183-17 Fla (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2013, Ronald B. & Cynthia F. Mackowiak, Meeting Date: February 20, 2013 "Project Location: off Hall Road, 9 Glen Hall Rd., Sherwood Acres Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the creation of a nonconforming lot by separating land hooked parcel from main parcel. Main parcel will be 2.45 acres. The separated parcel, which is separated from the main parcel by a 50 ft. paper street, will be merged with adjoining lands of Ronald B. and Cynthia F. Mackowiak (289.11-1-33). Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Minimum lot size requirement Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited based on the existing lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requested Variance will reduce an existing conforming lot to non-conforming and decreasing an existing non-conforming by 0.59 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Little to no impacts will be realized as a result of this lot line adjustment. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SIB 8-2007 -The subdivision of 12.74 acres into 4 lots where a condition required the land hook as part of Lot C SIB 1-1971 Staff comments: The adjustment will not create a new building lot. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a recommendation on behalf of the, on this variance, area variance, and the Planning Board, based on its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal, and this was adopted February 19, 2013, and it was a unanimous vote. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor, for the purpose of your record, from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant. This is an Area Variance. Basically what we're trying to do is do away with the land hook. When this subdivision was approved, they land hooked the piece that's on the north side of the Town road to a piece that's on the south side of the Town road. That road is a paper street. It has not been constructed. I think there's some topographical problems with trying to connect it, and I think at one time we tried to get the Town (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) to do something with it and were not successful, either abandon it to the adjoining owners or to actually build it and somebody on the Planning Board last night recalled that there was some opposition there, they didn't want to have Hall Road connected to the road at the other end of that, but that, I think, has little to do with what we're doing here. Basically, it's our thought that that would never be used in connection with the actual house that would be built on Lot C. So removing it from Lot C has no impact. It does have a useful purpose for the adjoining owner on the other side of the road, and we have stipulated that it would not be an independent freestanding building lot. It would be merged with his present ownership which would be still an undersized lot. I think he has probably about a quarter of an acre in his own lot. So when he adds the .59 he's still going to be underneath the one acre for the lake, waterfront zone. To do this we had to get your area variance, or an area variance from you, and then we have to modify the filed subdivision map. Last night the comment was made it seemed like an awful lot of paperwork for what we're trying to accomplish. I kind of agree with it, but that's our process. I have had the modified subdivision map prepared and per discussions with Craig, on here retained the acreage from Lot C, 2.45, which would be the (lost words) that 5.9. (lost words) lands to be merged with Tax Map Parcel 289.11-1-33, which is the adjoining parcel, Mackowiak. So we're not creating a new lot, but we're going to have, we can use that land in connection with his parcel. He actually has his driveway that goes through a part of it, and you see that on the survey map, and it's a potential area for a septic, further away from the lake. So there's no impact on anyone. We think it's fairly simple. MR. GARRAND-Is he going to be building a bigger house on this parcel? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know that. I don't know that. Not on this parcel. MR. GARRAND-On the existing parcel. MR. O'CONNOR-On the existing parcel. MR. GARRAND-The lakefront. MR. O'CONNOR-There are some title issues with that parcel, which, again, I don't think necessarily affects you, but some surveyors came from the east, or from the west and laid out lots, and some surveyors came from the east and laid out lots, and between he and the fellow that's next to him, I think Stephenson, with the little house in between there, and it's very, very, it's a difficult lot, but some day, the house between them hasn't been occupied for probably 20 years. You can't even see it from the lake now because it's so overgrown, and they're hopeful, between Stephenson and him, they're hopeful to someday get the people to sell that lot and they can divide it between the two of them. It's kind of like if you remember the Mozal property, and people thought that the lots were perpendicular to the lake, and they weren't perpendicular to the lake. If you look at the survey that we submitted for Mr. and Mrs. Mackowiak, you can see that there are various versions of lot lines, and in one of those versions, part of his deck and stairs and his dock are on the adjoining parcel. MR. KUHL-Is this that little house behind all the trees? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, well, that's the one that they're hopeful to acquire title to someday, by somebody out in Syracuse. MR. KUHL-I thought that woman was in a nursing home on Long Island. MR. O'CONNOR-She's died since. MR. KUHL-She has. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and he hasn't decided to do anything. If you actually looked at Mackowiak's survey, you're going to see Stephenson, who's on the other side, part of his main building is in trouble, but that has little to do with what we're here for, I think. Don't be the last guy to get your property surveyed. Do you have any questions of me? MR. HENKEL-That's not going to affect the right of way for any of these properties? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think Barry, people by the name of Barry also use part of that road, but they have a right to use it so we can't discontinue it. MR. HENKEL-Because I went over there and walked it and it just looked like it might cause a problem with the right of way, I mean, from what I could see. MR. O'CONNOR-Change of ownership doesn't affect existing right of ways. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. HENKEL-Okay. Now what happens to the other little piece of property here that's, when you're cutting that? Wasn't that part of the? MR. O'CONNOR-What piece are you referring to, sir? MR. HENKEL-The, I guess you'd say, well, it's the other half of 27, Lot 27. 1 mean, I might be looking at something totally wrong, but, I mean, between the paper road here. The paper road cuts it in half. Okay. Now what happens? MR. BROWN-This parcel right here and this are all one. MR. HENKEL-All one. Okay. MR. BROWN-They want to take this part off and add it to this one. MR. HENKEL-Okay. It looked like they were trying to make three lots there almost. MR. BROWN-Yes. These dotted lines are. MR. O'CONNOR-That's an old subdivision. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. BROWN-All those lots were consolidated. MR. HENKEL-I was going to say that would be too small, obviously, if that was a. MR. GARRAND-What about the waterfront lot? MR. O'CONNOR-That'll be added to this. MR. HENKEL-So that would be considered, that's going to be rezoned as Waterfront Residential? MR. O'CONNOR-It is Waterfront Residential. MR. HENKEL-It is, that piece is, not rural? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, this is rural, and the zoning map actually has it as Waterfront Residential already. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That's why we marked it that way. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members have any questions for the applicant? It's a Type 11. So no action necessary. I'm going to open up the public hearing at this point. Would anybody from the public like to comment on this? Please step up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GLEN STEPHENSON MR. STEPHENSON-My name's Glen Stephenson, and my wife Sharon and I own the property where the arrow is right there, on the red line. From there we own it somewhat down to the lake. The part that's confusing me is this particular rendition of the project does not represent what's in the prints. The prints that I looked at (lost words) yesterday, shows the, let me put it this way. All the lots to our north are laid out according to the Queensbury tract subdivision 1925. All the lines are parallel down through. Down to where my kayak is there's a change of divisions. It's a subdivision south of that, they have different orientations of the lake. Now what happens is when you bring those, that survey up through the camps that were surveyed under the Queensbury tract, the lines don't match up anymore, and on this print it shows, and this is a print they were using to show the project, the line goes through our house, and, you know, that's going to cause a problem down the road if we ever want to sell, and the Board has been working off of this print, and all I'm saying is that this project should base its lines on the Queensbury tract subdivision, which goes all the way down Mackowiak's house and not any survey other than that. Because there's several surveys in the area. There's one south of us. There's one (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) that was up on the hill that established the paper road, where there was going to be a subdivision, and those houses, like I say, north of Mackowiak are all under the Queensbury tract, and that's the survey that should be followed in this project, and because they didn't do that, I think it should be done over, and re-surveyed based on the Queensbury tract. That's all I have to say. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. MR. O'CONNOR-What we're doing does not affect the alignment of the lots along the lake. The survey that you're looking at is a survey that Mr. Mackowiak had prepared. Your property is this property here. MR. STEPHENSON-Right here. Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. According to this, but that's out at the lake. It's not this back piece, and it doesn't affect this back piece. Van Dusen and Steves says that the line runs through your house there. Okay. This is the people that are missing, the fellow that you and both Mackowiak have been trying to purchase that or thinking about purchasing that. It creates a problem on his property as well because his front deck, which is out at the lake, is shown to be on Mackowiak property, too, but the Board, tonight, is not doing anything with regard to this property, except allowing him to, or separating this piece right here, okay, which you, at one time, were trying to purchase as well, the Sherwood Acres piece, if I remember right. Well, you wrote about that. No? Okay. But you were trying to purchase that at one time, and now what's come forth is Mackowiak is a new owner to the lake and has an agreement by which he would purchase that, but it doesn't affect your property at all. There's this survey. There's a survey by. MR. STEPHENSON-It doesn't affect us, though, because this line next to. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't make any difference. They're not changing the lakefront lot, line at all. MR. STEPHENSON-Yes, they are. MR. O'CONNOR-No, they aren't. MR. STEPHENSON-This is the line that was the corner of our land. Now, this project that he's working on, he's using this other survey and he's coming off over here. MR. O'CONNOR-If he decides to do anything that requires a permit, he will have to come to this Board with a survey that the Board is satisfied with is correct. That's not before the Board this evening. What's before the Board this evening is to disjoin part of the Sherwood Acres Construction Corporation property, to allow the separation of this piece from this subdivision. This was land hooked to this lot here at the time of the subdivision, and all it does is allow the change. MR. KUHL-Could I just ask a question here? Maybe it might clarify your problem, your position. Now, Craig, if he's got a deed, when he bought the property, that shows different measurement points than what we have here. MR. BROWN-He who? MR. KUHL-Glen Stephenson, right, okay, if Mr. Stephenson has, then his is paramount over this, but if we do any approval on this, this now becomes public record, and then he'll have to fight that. My question was to Craig, because I wanted him to clarify this. MR. BROWN-Yes. I don't think, actually I know none of us here are surveyors, none of us are able to determine where the property lines are. So none of us can say which one holds over which document. There is a process to go through if all the parcels have come out of one parent parcel. We'd have to go through the title and see which ones came out first and figure that out. I'm not sure that's the case here, but where the property lines are, which end of the lake you start surveying from, that's a surveyor's question to iron out. Technology of surveying has progressed a long time. You used to measure with a chain. So sometimes you have what used to be 1,000 feet is now 950 feet when you measure it accurately. So over time things happen, whether you prorate those distances. I don't know how the surveyors would figure that out, but it's really a survey question. It's not. MR. KUHL-But my point is if we make an approval of this, does this then become public record and Mr. Stephenson has to fight for his corners? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. BROWN-You're not changing any property lines here at all. All you're doing is you're taking a .59 acre parcel from an existing lot in a filed subdivision map, and that's a matter of public record, and you're allowing somebody else to own that and add it to lands that they already have. You're not moving property lines around. You're actually taking the property line out between those two and you're hooking them together now. MR. KUHL-Right, but I mean the fact that Mr. Stephenson has come forward and suggested that what we're looking at is incorrect by his record, doesn't that put any doubt into this? MR. BROWN-Well, I think the issue is, and I have been watching what they're pointing at the maps, I think the issue is on the lakefront parcels. This is a parcel that's adjacent to, I think, another parcel he owns behind the lake parcel. MR. KUHL-I understand that. MR. BROWN-And those lines aren't in question. MR. HENKEL-Wouldn't that change that, though, if the lines are wrong? Well, I mean, obviously it wouldn't be that far off, but it might not be connected to that? MR. BROWN-Well, I think, you guys can do what you want to do, but I think you go with the signed stamped survey map that you have by a licensed surveyor. That's what they're licensed to do is determine property lines. So unless there's another map that shows a different location of that line that shows that the parcels aren't connected, or they're not adjacent or they can't be combined, you go with the information that you have in front of you, and again, this has to go the Planning Board. They have to give the final approval on the modification of that subdivision. They can take a close look at ownership. We're just being asked, can I make the lots smaller, can I go underneath the zoning requirement of three acres and chop a piece off. That's really the only thing that's on the plate. MR. URRICO-So it's irrelevant as to what actually the size of that lot is. MR. BROWN-Of which lot? MR. URRICO-The lot that we're. MR. BROWN-Adding to? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's irrelevant. The question is, I have a three acre, three plus acre parcel and I want to make it less than three acres. Can I chop a piece off. That's the question. MR. O'CONNOR-And then what you also should understand is that the map that we're taking this parcel off of is already of public record. It was filed at the time the subdivision was approved. This is all Sherwood Acres land at this time. I don't know of anybody that's disputed Sherwood Acres map. What he's talking about is the existing lot on the lake that Mackowiak owns. MR. STEPHENSON-No, I'm not. I'm talking about property, like I said, the arrowhead which goes up into Sherwood Acres and the fact that this project does not come off of that line that it shows there. It comes off the line of this other survey, which is about 30 feet up the hill. MR. O'CONNOR-And you're also disputing the Town's road that goes through the middle of it, which was surveyed and conveyed to the Town. What's in the red there, I think, or in yellow, that's actually a Town road. That's deeded to the Town. MR. BROWN-Yes, this is a compilation of the County tax maps. Those are put together. MR. STEPHENSON-This is our lot. This is Reardon Road, it comes in here, okay. The paper road comes down this yellow line. Our property here comes across the road up to the top of the hill. This is the back of our property. It is also, right here, the corner of, far corner of our property, right there. This is our property. Now this proposal uses the other survey that puts these lots at a different angle. This lot ends up with the end of it up here, and that cuts off this piece of our property. That's all I'm saying. We lose that corner. I guess I should have it surveyed and put a fence on it. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think we're affecting this property. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. STEPHENSON-Okay, well, like I say, I'll have it surveyed and just put a fence up and as long as everybody stays on their own side, there's no question. But I was surprised, like I said, when I saw this print with the property line going through the house, because I can see (lost words) McKasty selling his house. He's got a very small lot, and all of a sudden he needs the land that's under our house. So what do you do, take the house down? MR. O'CONNOR-How long has your house been there? I mean, we're getting into issues that, your house has been there, occupied adversely, somebody else's land. MR. STEPHENSON-That house has been there 50 years, and I've owned it since '98. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you can tack on to the prior owner, but 10 years is the rule for occupation of land for adverse possession, for a good claim of adverse possession, and I think in that area there's enough dispute out at the lake. MR. GARRAND-Mr. O'Connor, why don't we just have it at this. If somebody here decides that they want to approve this taking of land from one piece to another, why don't we just condition it on the fact that should there be any construction by the Mackowiaks, as a condition of approval they have both lots surveyed. MR. O'CONNOR-They have. They have had both lots surveyed. MR. GARRAND-Both Mr. Stephenson's and their lot surveyed? MR. O'CONNOR-They've had their lot surveyed. MR. STEPHENSON-Yes, I've got the survey right here. MR. O'CONNOR-And they've had the lot between them and Stephenson's surveyed, and Sherwood Acres had their land surveyed. They've already been surveyed. MR. STEPHENSON-But they don't agree. Because the survey that they're using is for property south of Mackowiak and that doesn't overlap. MR. O'CONNOR-The survey of the Sherwood Acres parcel that you're being asked to approve, that this separation, and the survey of the Mackowiak. MR. GARRAND-It also has a bearing on what's going to happen on the future of this property also. MR. O'CONNOR-It's already been surveyed. MR. STEPHENSON-All right. This is our lot here now. See how, this is our (lost words). MR. HENKEL-Right, the line goes through it. MR. STEPHENSON-The line goes through our home, and this is (lost words) the Queensbury tract survey. So this comes back, and this is the lot. This is the way, this is the corner that they use to go up the hill, and not the one in (lost words), and it also, like I said, I think they should go back to the other. MR. URRICO-Can I ask you a question? Any time we approve a variance, or deny a variance, we're assuming that the survey map is correct. There is, at some point, there has to be a record when somebody, at what point, it doesn't change the survey. (MUCH DISCUSSION WITH BOARD AND APPLICANT AND PUBLIC - INDISTINGUISHABLE) MR. BROWN-You guys can do that, but just one conversation at a time. I might be able to clarify it on the Board here, Mr. Stephenson can jump in if I'm saying something wrong. The survey map that you guys have in front of you from Van Dusen and Steves is a survey of these two lots. What the survey shows is these property lines are at more of an angle than what's shown on this tax map. The land that Mr. O'Connor's asking you to combine with this lot is this parcel right here. I don't think there's any dispute over the size, shape and location of this parcel. This is part of the approved subdivision. So this lot right here, when it comes back up, that's not going any place. That's there. It's been there since the subdivision was approved. There's no question as to the size and location of this lot. Correct? Of this parcel. The issue is the property lines for these lots. One survey map has them going this way. One survey map has them going at an angle. So the Van Dusen and Steves survey map shows the lines like this, still adjacent still to this lot. So they're still connected. Where these lines are doesn't (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) change anything with adding this lot to any one of these lots over here. This lot doesn't change it. I don't know if that helps or not. MR. STEPHENSON-1 (lost words) come off of the corner. MR. BROWN-It comes off about halfway. It looks like on the survey map that Van Dusen and Steves had I guess the one you contest has the lines at an angle. MR. STEPHENSON-Yes. MR. BROWN-Right. Sothis lot. MR. STEPHENSON-And because it goes over longer, their lots are longer. MR. BROWN-Right, but the plan is to not do anything with these lots. The plan is to just add this lot to this lot, wherever it is. MR. STEPHENSON-Because it comes over longer, it comes into property that we now own. MR. BROWN-In here? MR. STEPHENSON-Yes. MR. BROWN-I think all the lot lines come at an angle and they stop on this line. They're just at an angle and they stop on this line. I don't think they come up in here. MR. STEPHENSON-1 believe that they do. MR. URRICO-Can we just, we can't fix this tonight. I mean, we can't make it, but we're not surveyors here, and any time we approve or disapprove a variance, we're subject to a survey, a licensed survey, that we have no idea that it's accurate to the inch or whatever it is. I mean, basically we have to go by what we're presented here. If at some point later on it's found that the survey was inaccurate, there are legal measures, aren't there, Mr. O'Connor, to change? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. You're talking about a civil boundary line dispute, that has nothing to do with what we're asking for tonight. MR. URRICO-See, we're not in a position to decide either way what's the right survey, other than the one that's right in front of us. MR. O'CONNOR-It's like a restrictive covenant issue. MR. URRICO-I understand what you're saying, but we can't, one way or the other we're not going to change that survey. MR. O'CONNOR-And we really aren't even talking about his front lot and whether his house crosses a line or doesn't cross a line. MR. STEPHENSON-Like I said, the best thing for me to do is have that corner surveyed and put up a fence and be sure that any expansion up on the hill for a house or whatever they're going to do up there doesn't interfere with the existing line because just because you come in and work off a different survey doesn't change the lines. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. Thank you for your input. MR. STEPHENSON-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Mr. O'Connor, do you have anything to add? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I thought this was much simpler. We've got too many lines on a map to confuse you, but I think I'll go back, I think probably just say Craig probably explained it better than I explained it. MR. GARRAND-Yes, he did. Nice clarification, Craig. MR. O'CONNOR-And I hate saying that. MR. GARRAND-Board members, anything? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) MR. URRICO-1 do have public comment. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. URRICO-It says, "We are aware of the Area Variance application of Mackowiak to modify Lot C. We consent to and approve of the application. Daniel R Barber Barbara L. Barber" And I don't know where they are in relation to this property. MR. O'CONNOR-They actually own Sherwood Acres Corporation. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-They were in Florida, and I got that piece of correspondence because Craig wanted to have the actual owner go on record as Mackowiak who actually made the application. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Is that it, Roy? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. GARRAND-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-Board members, let's poll you. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. I think it satisfies all of the criteria. I would be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I agree. Just looking at what we have to vote on, I would agree with that. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Henkel? MR. HENKEL-I agree with it, yes. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-Yes, what's presented is straightforward. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Clements? MR. CLEMENTS-1 would move to approve it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Can I get a motion, please? MR. CLEMENTS-Before Roy asks, I'll do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2013 RONALD B. & CYNTHIA F. MACKOWIAK, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Off Hall Road, 9 Glen Hall Rd, Sherwood Acres subdivision. Applicant proposes the creation of a non-conforming lot by separating land hooked parcel from main parcel. Main parcel will be 2.45 acres. The separated parcel, which is separated from the main parcel by a 50 ft. paper street, will be merged with adjoining lands of Ronald B. and Cynthia F. Mackowiak as per 289.11-1-33. The relief requested is the parcel will require an Area Variance of minimum lot size requirement. In making the determination, the Board shall consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produce in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. No impacts are anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Feasible alternatives are limited. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Variance is not substantial. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. No impacts will be realized as a result of this lot line adjustment. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Difficulty may be considered self-created, and I move for its approval. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/2013) Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. Can I get a motion to adjourn? MRS. HUNT-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Garrand, Acting Chairman