Loading...
03-26-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 26,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 64-2013 Dodge Watkins 2. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54 Area Variance No. 65-2013 Larry Clute 2. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-55 Notice of Appeal No. 1-2014 John Wright BPSR 2. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-4 Area Variance No. 19-2014 Thomas DeNooyer 10. Tax Map No. 252.00-1-86 Area Variance No. 20-2014 James Ayers 16. Tax Map No. 227.14-1-4 Area Variance No. 21-2014 Bernardo DeJesus 19. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-56 Sign Variance No. 2 2-2 014 Brandon Vanderwerker 25. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-67 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 26,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to open this meeting for tonight, March 26th here at the Community Center. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite an easy process. We have an agenda established and that's on the back table. There's also a sheet back there explaining the process. We'll call each application up to the small table here for presentation. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll then ask some questions. When there is a public comment period advertised or a public hearing period, we will, of course, open the public hearing for comment. We will determine whether or not we're going to close the public hearing, based on information presented. We'll poll the Board to determine what they'd like to do to move forward, and then we'll take action as applicable. So it's fairly straightforward. We do have some housekeeping. So if you can just bear with us for a little bit, we'll try to get through this pretty quickly,but the first item for housekeeping is the approval of the meeting minutes for January 221,x. Would anyone make a motion for us? APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 22, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 22,2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR.JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda this evening is the approval of meeting minutes for February 19th. February 19, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2014, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,and finally the meeting minutes for February 26th. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. February 26, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26,2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. All right. The next item on the agenda this evening is further tabling consideration of the Dodge Watkins Area Variance No. 65-2013 for Larry Clute. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION AV 64-2013 DODGE WATKINS AND AV 65-2013 LARRY CLUTE MR.JACKOSKI-Should we have any discussion by Staff? MR. BROWN-No,it's for both applications,Watkins and Clute, 64&65. They've been previously tabled by the Planning Board to their May 22nd meeting. So probably the May 21St Zoning Board meeting makes sense. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Craig. Is everyone okay with that? So do we have to have two separate resolutions? No? Just one? Great. Anyone like to make that resolution? MR. GARRAND-I'll make the motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2013 DODGE WATKINS &AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2013 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the May 21, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda for this evening is Notice of Appeal No. 1-2014. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2014 SEQRA TYPE N/A JOHN WRIGHT BPSR OWNER(S) NORTH HIGH REALTY - ANDREW MUCCI ZONING CI LOCATION 1519 STATE ROUTE 9 APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING A DETERMINATION THAT A STRUCTURE AT 1519 STATE ROUTE 9 HAS NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY. OWNER OF PROPERTY MAINTAINS STRUCTURE FOR USE AS A RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY AND HAS NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED FOR LONGER THAN 18 MONTHS THAN APPELLANT CLAIMS IN THEIR APPEAL. CROSS REF A V 56-2013 (DETERMINED AV NOT REQUIRED); BP 1372 YR. 1971 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.15 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-13-020 JOHN WRIGHT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-2014, John Wright - BPSR, Meeting Date: March 26, 2014 "Project Location: 1519 State Route 9 Information Requested: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to an October 9, 2013 determination from the Zoning Administrator regarding the residential occupancy of the property at 1519 State Route 9. Staff comments: First, Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? The appeal was filed within the required timeframe. • The Zoning Administrator determination was filed in the Town Clerk's Office on December 18, 2013. The Notice of Appeal application was signed on January 29, 2014 and filed with the Town on January 31, 2014. It would appear as though the appellant has met the required timeframe for filing. Is the appealing party aggrieved? • The appellant is an immediate neighbor to the subject property. • The appellant's papers do not offer any proof of injury in fact or of a very significant possibility of future harm that differs from any impacts on the general public as a result of the decision in question. Second, Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing: The issue at hand is section 179-13-020, Discontinuance. Which reads: If a non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of 18 consecutive months, such use shall he deemed to he abandoned and further use of the property shall conform to this chapter. The appellant asserts that the residence was not occupied for several years and they offer information relative to utility costs and usage. The Town Zoning Administrator position,as noted in the referenced October 9, 2013 determination letter, asserts that the utility billing information supplied by the property owner was sufficient to show that the use was continuous and uninterrupted, and as such, may be continued. As noted in previous findings by the ZBA, complete discontinuance is difficult to prove. Occupancy of the building for 1 day every 18 months preserves the right of the use. It does not appear as though there has been proof submitted of a complete discontinuance of the use of the home. Again, the appellants papers do not offer any proof if injury in fact or of a very significant possibility of future harm that differs from any impacts on the general public as a result of this decision regarding a residential use next to their commercial property." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, and if you could identify yourself for the record, and if you'd like to add anything to what Roy just read in,we'd be happy to listen to it. MR.WRIGHT-Thank you. Yes,good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm John Wright with Bartlett Pontiff in Glens Falls. I'm here with Michael Giella on behalf of Lumber Jack Pass Amusements, LLC,which of course operates the Lumber Jack Pass Mini Golf Course which is at 1511 State Route 9. Adjacent to 1511 State Route 9 is the subject property. It's 1519 State Route 9,and this Appeal,as Mr.Urrico just said in reading in the application, concerns a determination by the Zoning Officer that a pre- existing, nonconforming residential use at that property has not been discontinued. This is a Commercial Intensive zone. So a residential use is not permitted. So we're dealing with 179-13-20 of the Town Code which this Board has, of course, dealt with before, and Craig has dealt with before, and I just want to touch on the Staff Notes briefly before I go into the history of this,but one of the things that this Board has been asked to consider I believe in prior applications concerning this abandonment issue is that use one day out of every 18 months is sufficient to keep that use alive. I understand where Craig's position comes from in that respect. I think a lot of the prior instances of this have been involving commercial uses in residential zones, but when you go and look at the definitions of commercial use versus residential use in your Code,you'll see that there's 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) a different standard, and this is as good as my special effects are ever going to get. So I hope you guys can read this. With commercial use, it's any activity involving the sale of goods and/or services carried out for profit, any activity. Whereas when you get to a residential use and this is, you know,in my letter,but I thought I'd point it out just before we go through the facts here,the use of a structure or parts thereof as a permanent place of dwelling, a permanent place of dwelling. So when you're dealing with a residential use and trying to determine whether it's been abandoned or not, simply going once to the property once every 18 months to use it in some residential fashion, whether you're sitting down to watch tv or stay there for one night, that's not a residential use under the Code, because it's not a use that's for, as a permanent place of dwelling. This goes back to about May 2008,this is the property where Peg's dollhouse is located. There's,that's in the back of the property. There's also a single family structure on the property where Mrs. Krostowski used to live. She moved out of the property in about May of 2008, and it was,the property was listed for sale at about that time. We've provided you with the Multiple Listings Services listings showing that it was advertised as a commercial property. It didn't sell by August 2010, and in August 2010, a realtor named Betty Duffy with Coldwell Banker became the listing agent. We've given you an affidavit from her. She was the listing agent for the property from August of 2010 to October of 2012. So more than two years, and what she tells you is that she never had to notify anyone that she was going to be showing the property. She never had to get anyone's consent to show the property. She basically had unfettered access to this house for over two years to show it, and any time she showed it she never encountered any occupants of the home. So right there, anybody who's ever bought or sold a residential real estate,you know that if someone's living there,that has to be coordinated, and the listing agent would know if someone was residing at the property, and Mrs. Duffy also checked with the Town,with Craig,and was told that a variance would be necessary for any buyer to use it as a residential use, as a home, and she told all the perspective buyers that, and specifically she told the entity that now owns the property, she told that entity's real estate agent specifically that the residential use had been discontinued, that it was in a commercial zone, and that without a Use Variance it couldn't be used as a home. In fact, she was asked to put it in writing that it was a residential use and she wouldn't because she couldn't. Aside from Mrs. Duffy's affidavit, we've submitted affidavits from both Mike and Mary Giella who operate the mini golf course next door. They never witnessed, for two or three years leading up to the sale of the property at least, there were never regularly cars parked in the driveway. There were never regularly people coming and going from the residence. There was a large hole in the garage window that remained unrepaired until the property was sold in October of 2012,and most notably no one was getting mail there because the mailbox was knocked over and laying on the ground for two or three years prior to the sale. It wasn't fixed until the property was sold in 2012. So if you look at the affidavits of Betty Duffy and the Giellas, it's pretty clear that nothing was going on at this house in terms of a residential use, and in fact in October of 2013, so five or six months ago, a variance was placed on this Board's agenda, and in the Staff Notes from that variance, for that variance, it was noted that the residential use had been discontinued for a period of longer than 18 months. I think, as best I can tell from looking at that agenda, which is attached to Mike Giella's affidavit, I think that was published on October the 2nd, thereabouts, for the October 231d meeting. It was removed from that agenda, and we never found out why until we submitted a couple of FOIL requests. So the question is what changed between October 2nd and October 231d so that a variance application was no longer necessary, and come to find out, if you read through the Staff Notes, the property owner submitted to Craig utility bill information, and what that utility bill information shows is that electric service remained on at the property. What we've submitted to you are not only the National Grid bills upon which Craig based his determination, but we've given you a study from the Department of Energy, an agency within the Department of Energy, and what that study showed was what the average monthly usage for a residence would be. The national average per month, in terms of kilowatt hours, is 904 kilowatt hours. The State of New York is a little lower. It's an average of 603 kilowatt hours for a single family residence, and in the lowest in the nation it would be 530, that's in the State of Maine. So I took the 18 month period between February 2011 and August 2012. The average monthly usage at that property was 48.6 kilowatt hours per month. Which is less than a 12th of the New York State average. There simply is, so essentially my house or Mike's house or your house would do in a month what this house was doing in a year, in terms of usage of electricity. The next thing we submitted was some information from National Grid about the typical kilowatt hour usage of your typical appliances, and just having a refrigerator running would well exceed, it's over 100, it's almost 150, I believe, kilowatt hours a month, just having a refrigerator. So, and again, so that's 100 kilowatt hours a month more than the total usage at this property. So the National Grid bills,the utility bill information that the Zoning Administrator relied upon, we think actually demonstrates the exact opposite, and it actually demonstrates that there's no possible way that anyone was using this for their permanent place of dwelling. There's no lights going on. There's no tv's, the water pump, all of those things that would be in addition to, you know, the appliances that we have listed in here. It just defies any credibility to believe that a person could have lived there, even one person could have lived there and used so little electricity. So we think if you look at the overall picture, there's, you know, a mere fraction, you know, one 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) twelfth of the average electricity usage. The listing agent of the property for two years never had to coordinate with anyone to show the property. She showed up at her leisure and had unfettered access to the house, and, you know, Mike and Mary Giella saying, look, we just never saw anybody there. Nobody was regularly coming and going, and these are people that are at the mini golf course during the summer, you know, every day, all day. So, you think that when you look at the definition of residential use in the Code, it requires that it be used as a permanent place of dwelling, and that simply could not have been, given all the evidence, and in terms of standing, I just want to address that real quickly. We are an adjacent neighbor. I believe that gives us standing to bring the Appeal, and aside from that, in Mike's affidavit you'll note that over this past summer, the resident of the property actually confronted Mike on an occasion or two about the hours that his business was open and that it was bothering his family. So in terms of alleging injury which is distinct from that of the general public, I think we've done that, even though as an adjacent neighbor we don't believe we had to. So I think we have standing. Like I said, I can understand Craig's reliance on the one day every 18 months theory, but, you know, that's applicable to commercial uses and I,you know, last October I was here on behalf of the Harris' for the Pickle Hill Appeal and that was a commercial use in a residential zone, but when you're dealing with the flip flop, the definitions in your Zoning Code make a difference, and so we think that the determination needs to be overturned and this use has been abandoned. If the Board has any questions for me or Mike. MR. JACKOSKI-Before the Board asks questions, let's just go through some housekeeping if we could. I mean, is the Board in agreement that there is standing for the Appeal? I think everybody's in agreement,right? Okay. Good. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can we be heard on that issue at some point? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, you will. Just give us a chance to try to move forward with our process and then, of course,we'll open a public hearing, and then the next item I guess would be to confirm that the Appeal was filed in a timely manner,and Staff is acknowledging that it was. Correct? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything else that we should address before we move forward, and I think what we'd like to do is give our Zoning Board Administrator an opportunity to address the Board as well before we ask questions of those who filed the Appeal and then open a public hearing. MR. BROWN-Okay. I'm happy to do that. I don't, is this on, is everybody hearing this? I can't tell from here,but there's really not a lot to add other than what was in the Staff Notes. It's a pretty cut and dried decision as far as I'm concerned. I guess my comments would be procedural in nature. I think Counsel's hit it right on the head as far as beginning. The first thing I think you formally want to do is find that they have standing, so you can get into actual merits of the argument, or merits of the decision and the Appeal, and in making that decision on standing, it may be beneficial for you to open the public hearing, hear some comment, take that information and then formulate your decision on standing. If you want to move forward from there, then we can get into further merits of the case. We've heard some of the merits about the utility billing, but we can go further if you want to jump the first hurdle. So that's really all I have. MR.JACKOSKI-That seems reasonable. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So if we could, are there any questions, right now, from Board members of those who have filed the Appeal before we do open the public hearing and we will address the standing issue first with the public hearing, and then we'll hopefully resolve that and then we will then ask more questions about the actual Appeal itself and the details of it, and then have another portion of the public hearing to address those details. I apologize to you out in the audience, but sometimes these things take a little bit of time. So is that fair to open the public hearing to talk about the standing issue first? Okay. MR. HENKEL-One question. Your client is there just seasonal,right? He's not there year round. MR.WRIGHT-Well,they can't. They don't operate the. MR. HENKEL-Right. That means he's not around. MIKE GIELLA 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. GIELLA-We're not there year round,however, I stop there every day to pick the mail up. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you're there,you do stop by during the winter. MR.WRIGHT-They live in Queensbury. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I am going to open a public hearing for this entire Appeal, though we may do it in two parts. So is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? And I do see several, and, Roy,do we want to hold off on reading public comment until we see what we get for public comment,correct? That's fair. Okay. MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-And if you could identify yourself for the record,please. BOB MC NALLY MR. MC NALLY-My name is Bob McNally. I'm an attorney with Stafford, Carr and McNally up in Lake George. This is Andy Liucci whom I represent with respect to this matter. Standing is an issue that doesn't require that you just be a next door neighbor. Town Code Section 179-14-40 says that the only person that can bring an appeal is someone who's been, and I use the word aggrieved,by the decision of the Zoning Administrator. To be aggrieved there has to be some kind of showing of harm, of something that's been done to a person that results in them having an injury that they can bring before you. Now as you're aware, these premises consist basically of a doll shop closer to Route 9, and a single family raised ranch residence in the back. This is historically always been used as a residence, and the property has never been changed from a residence. It's not now being used as a McDonalds or any professional office or anything like that. It's maintained its character, and as such there's simply not any major input of tourists, of retail users, of cars, of traffic or anything. It's actually occupied by Andy Liucci's daughter,her husband and they've got an infant child. That's it,the three of them. Now these premises, and I've submitted a memorandum, which I would like if it gets distributed for you to consider,that lists,of course,the allowable uses in a Commercial Intensive zone. This is what a Cl zone is, in this instance. We could have a McDonalds there. You can have a drive-in theater there. You can have a car dealership there,you can have all sorts of high intensive, high traffic uses to which this property can be put. The property,though, is being used as a single family residence, and Lumber Jack Pass Amusements can show no harm, can show that they are not aggrieved. There is no injury. They've made no demonstration to show any harm except his son spoke with Mr. Giella. Speaking with them is not a harm. There's been no decline in the condition of the property. To the contrary, the property's been renovated when it was purchased. There's been no traffic that might interfere with people coming in and out. There's been no injury in the sense that people playing miniature golf are in any way, shape or form harmed because people live in the residence on the property. The use is far less than any other allowable use under the Zoning Code, and I think that it should be continued, but the point I'm trying to make is there's been no showing, and they've got the burden of showing that, not us. They have to show that they've been harmed, that they've been aggrieved, as the Statute says, in some way, shape or form,before this Appeal can even be brought. I don't think that they've made any showing of actual harm, let alone potential future harm. No one has indicated what in the future might even possible result from the people living in this house as a single family residence that's going to harm their business. For that very reason, we think that this Board shouldn't even hear about it because the first step in the process of an appeal from Craig's decision is a showing that they are aggrieved in some way, shape or form. We'd like to reserve, if we can, with respect to the remaining issue on the merits itself, but on the standing, I think that cuts it off pretty straightforward. There's been no showing of harm, and we'd like this Board to recognize that fact,and to basically deny the application. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Are there any questions? MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here? Marilyn, did you want to? Please. Welcome. MARILYN STARK 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MRS. STARK-Thank you. My name is Marilyn Stark, and the Stark family have been residents and business owners of the Mohican Motel and recently constructed Comfort Suites properties for 38 years. Comfort Suites is located right next door, on the northern boundary of the property in question tonight. During our 38 years,we have witnessed the enormous growth of commercialism surrounding us. In all of these years, we've had a delightful neighbor, Peggy, and her antique doll business and never once was there an issue with her or of her, and especially being a resident living on that property for all of those years. Peggy became ill, and my mother-in-law was an antique dealer and they had a lot in common, and they became friends. The estate, once Peggy was ill, the estate put the property on the market. During the For Sale duration, the property became vandalized and used for a dumping ground for nearby commercial debris and became a wasteland for spring cleanup of landscaping trees, etc. The new owners of the property have done a great job of cleaning up the property with much needed interior renovations of the house. In our collective experience of demolition, re-building an existing structure and constructing a 98 unit franchised hotel,there are always delays such as weather, permits, finances, unavailable materials, contractors on other jobs, and life events. Due to these reasons, and I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons, completion dates are hardly met, if ever. Our question is, what is the compelling factor to have an ambitious and wonderful family and neighbor leave their home? In our opinion, there's none. This is a waste of time, energy and taxpayers money. The Stark family is confident you, the Board, will tonight finalize a decision on having the new family occupy their home without any outside further intervention. We are here to represent our united approval of residential use for the property at 1519 State Route 9, Lake George, NY. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MRS. STARK-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board? Mr. Stark? GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-I could say the same thing my wife said,but I'm going to add a few extra things. Inside the house Andrew stripped it to the studs, re-built the whole house, wiring, plumbing, heating, everything you could think of inside, insulation. Outside,there was a shed in the back. He cleaned it all up, put new siding on it. He did nothing but clean up the property. I'm not going to get into the timeline of when he did this and so on and so forth, but he's done nothing but improve the property. I used to go over and plow Peggy's driveway because she was an old lady and,you know, she was in her 80's and everything and,you know, she was a nice lady. She got sick. She had to go in a nursing home. The son lived there. The son was killed. The daughter, the granddaughter couldn't live by herself, and that's when it went up for sale. That's all I know, but I've been there a long time and never had a problem with anybody, and Andrew sure as heck don't have a problem with him. I mean,you know,he's a good neighbor. That's all. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you,sir. MR. STARK-You're welcome. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this Appeal? DAVID STRAINER MR. STRAINER-Hi. My name is David Strainer. I live at 1124 Ridge Road, and I was the selling agent for that property. I'm a little disturbed at the affidavit that I saw that Mrs. Duffy wrote. When I would want to show that property, I would have to call her and she said that she would have to make sure that the son was not staying at the property at that time. I'm very disturbed that she has written that affidavit because I don't know why she has changed her tune or changed her mind, but God as my witness,that's what I had to do every time I showed this property, and I showed it to Andy four or five times before he purchased it. So that's all I'd like to say. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Strainer. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? We are going to leave the public hearing open, and at this time, Roy, we're just going to make mention of. MR. URRICO-Well,we have these copies here, I don't know what we're supposed to do with them at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean, it is public record so I think we should pass them out,just the standing issue, yes. We'll hold off on the other stuff because it's not standing related. That's fine. So I'd like to 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) give those who filed the Appeal the chance to address public comment, but then the Board members are also going to continue to, and maybe possibly ask people they want to address standing one last time. So,if you wouldn't mind. MR. WRIGHT-With respect to the standing issue, I have a couple of things. I think this Board is probably aware of the rule that, it's in case law, when you're talking about who's aggrieved. Typically property owners within 500 feet are granted standing when it comes to zoning determinations. We're an adjacent neighbor, and I think that's something this Board has experience with. Secondly, for a commercial property owner to be accosted or harassed by an adjacent residential owner over his commercial use of his property does allege an injury which is distinct from that of the general public. Secondly, there have been fireworks from that property, that's in Mike's affidavit if you look, which have landed on the Lumber Jack Pass property as well. So standing, I think the issue raised about standing is a red herring,you know, which is designed to defer this Board's attention from the merits of the action, the merits of this Appeal, because from what I've heard so far, the merits, there really isn't a whole lot of argument. So I think standing, Attorney McNally was right,it is pretty cut and dried. We're an adjacent property owner and we've alleged distinct injury, separate and apart from just being a property owner. So we think that denying standing would be in error. So we'd ask you to find that we have standing, that Lumber Jack Pass has standing,and continue with your consideration of the merits of the Appeal. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. If you wouldn't mind just answering a couple of questions from me first. When you allege, I think the word was harassment, were there ever any charges filed or investigations by any of the law authorities? MR. WRIGHT-No, not harassment in the criminal sense, but a confrontation over their use of the property. So,no,and I didn't intend to suggest that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any Board members have questions at this time? I would like to maybe have our Zoning Administrator add anything,if he would like to. MR. KUHL-Can I just ask a question? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,please. MR. KUHL-When that neighbor came up to you, Mr. G., was it one on one or was it in front of your business with all your clients there? MR. GIELLA-It happened about midnight, and we were closing down. I was on the course, cleaning the course. MR. KUHL-Okay. So it was more one on one? MR. GIELLA-Right. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-But the one you had the problem with, is that actually not the owner of the property, right? MR. GIELLA-He's the son-in-law, I believe. MR. HENKEL-Right,but he's not the owner. MR. GIELLA-He's not the owner. MR. HENKEL-Well, he's a renter, right, but wouldn't the harm have to be the person who actually owns the property? MR.JACKOSKI-I would argue that it would be the intended user,because of the residential use. MR.WRIGHT-The resident of the residential use. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, so, we've given you a chance to follow up. I wonder,Attorney McNally, do you want to address the Board any further,or could we deliberate? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. MC NALLY-The only two instances that have been referred to are one instance of fireworks and one instance where the son-in-law actually went up and spoke man to man with Mr. Giella. In the first instance, fireworks, they were never repeated. It was around the July 4th holiday, and it was stopped when asked. No claim was brought, no criminal complaint was brought. The police weren't called. It was taken care of on a person to person basis. With respect to the midnight encounter, they again spoke person to person. That's the way these kind of problems should be handled. You've got a problem with your neighbor,you speak to them, but in any event, it did not harm his business, and he should not have had to come before the Zoning Board in order to have an issue resolved which is more properly between neighbors,but there is no actual harm. There is no actual injury, and the mere fact that you're next door is not enough. The Statute says you must be aggrieved,and that is what I believe this Board should find. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, and Staff, in general, this Board has looked at the folks with 500 feet of access,and we've allowed them to,in that general sense,have standing. Correct? MR. BROWN-Well, there's no hard fast rule, there's no dimension, there's no, you know, measurement from a property. There has to be some sort of, you know, effect on the aggrieved party to cause them to come before the Board and challenge a decision. So it's not just an adjoining property. It's not just within a certain footage. I'm not as familiar with case law and some of the decisions that the Appeals court may have made as counsel would be, but it's not an easy thing to find. It's not automatically because you're next door. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. BROWN-And the reason it's in the Staff Notes, it's not a wild goose chase, it's part of the process. We have to do the standing thing first and I certainly have arguments for the merits of the case if we get that far. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time, Board members and reminder the public hearing is still open. I think I'd just simply like to poll the Board and get an opinion from each of you as to whether or not you believe there is standing so that we either move forward or we deny the Appeal. Is that fair? I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Reading the affidavit in here,the occupants of the residence on at least one occasion complained about the hours of the business and asked them to change the hours of operation. Also there was the fireworks. I think aggrieved is a pretty broad term. To me this constitutes what might be construed as an aggrieved party. MR.JACKOSKI-So you would suggest there is standing? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, I believe that if this man was really aggrieved, the neighbor would have done things in front of his business, affected his business. I think if it's one on one, and if when you brought out about the fireworks that the man ceased and desisted, and had enough respect for that, I don't see how you're aggrieved. I believe you have standing because you're within 500 feet, but I don't see how he's aggrieved. Now if he has to be aggrieved to have standing, then I'd say he's got no standings. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR.URRICO-I do not believe this party was aggrieved. I don't believe they have standing. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I haven't heard anything that gives me the aggrieved status, so, based on the Code and that requirement, I don't see the standing either. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members that there isn't enough harm to aggrieve there either. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. NOONAN-Based on statements presented by both sides,the fact that it's neighborly, or it's with neighbors on a property line,or adjacent, I'm sorry, I agree that I see, I think there is standing. MR.JACKOSKI-Now I have two. MR. GARRAND-Ron said they had standing,but he didn't feel they were aggrieved. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. MR. GARRAND-And what we're looking for is standing. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I think there's enough to establish that they have been aggrieved because of the confrontations in running a business next door to a residence. So I'm going to say yes. So it kind of goes back to Ron,or Staff. MR. BROWN-Do I get a vote? MR.JACKOSKI-You don't get a vote,but you can help us clarify as Staff. MR. BROWN-I think the way to clarify it is if somebody wants to make a motion to vote on whether they have standing or not,and you have a vote. MR.JACKOSKI-That's fair. Rick,could you make a motion. MOTION THAT THE APPEALING PARTY IS AGGRIEVED AND IS FOUND TO HAVE STANDING REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2014 JOHN WRIGHT BPSR, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do have a motion to suggest that those who filed the Appeal are aggrieved and do have standing. MR. GARRAND-And/or. MR. KUHL-Is it and or is it or? MR.JACKOSKI-It has to be and. MR. KUHL-It has to be and. Aggrieved and standings. MR. GARRAND-Yes,legally,yes. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-So it's my understanding that the Board has determined that there is no standing to move forward with the merits of this Appeal. So be it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2014 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS DE NOOYER AGENT(S) JOSEPH J. BIANCHINE, PE; THOMAS ANDRESS, PE OWNER(S) THOMAS DE NOOYER ZONING RR-5A 396 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD, LOT 6 OF HELEN MITCHELL SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,162 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 28 FT. 2 IN. TO PEAK. A NEW DRIVEWAY IS PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED AS WELL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF MINOR STORMWATER PERMIT; SB 1-2001; BP 2002-199 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.10 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-86 SECTION 179-5-020 TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM DE NOOYER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2014, Thomas DeNooyer, Meeting Date: March 26, 2014 "Project Location: 396 Lockhart Mountain Road Lot 6 of Helen Mitchell Subdivision Description 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,162 sq. ft. detached garage with proposed height of 28 ft. 2 inches to peak. A new driveway is proposed to be installed as well. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested for a second garage. Section 179-5- 020 Accessory Structures Garage Maximum allowed 1 Proposed 2 Relief 1 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 limited due to the size of the garage proposed in relation to the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, Minor Stormwater Permit: Pending SB 1-2001: Helen Mitchell Subdivision, Lot 6 Lockhart Road, 7-17-2001 BP 2002-199: 4,555 sq.ft.single family dwelling w/3 car attached garage, 6-22-2005 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage that is 2,162 sq. ft. for storage of vehicles and other items for personal and maintenance of the property. The plans show the location of the detached second garage including elevations, and access drive from the main driveway. The applicant has completed a stormwater permit application for the project due to disturbance. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review required" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, and if you could identify yourselves for the record, and if you'd like to add anything to what Roy's already read in, feel free to do so, otherwise we'll simply ask questions. MR. ANDRESS-Great. My name is Tom Andress with ABD Engineers and Surveyors. With me tonight also is Tom DeNooyer who's the owner of the property and the applicant. We are proposing to add a detached garage to the 6.1 acre parcel that Mr. DeNooyer owns. The Zoning Ordinances lists that only one garage can be on the property. The house does have an existing attached garage that was built as part of the house construction. This is a proposed separate garage. There are, obviously, provisions in the Ordinance for accessory use type of situations, but 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) unfortunately,the way the Ordinance reads, it just says one garage. So I guess the interpretation is you can't build another garage even though you could use it for other purposes other than a garage I guess if you built an accessory building. So we have an application before you for the garage. The garage does meet the requirements for the size. The size can be no more than 2200 square feet, and it's 2100 and change, 2162. So it does conform to that. The garage is actually located in approximately the middle of the lot. It's surrounded by woods. It's over, like 238 feet to the adjoining property of Lot Seven. It's almost, it's over 350 feet from Lockhart Road, and it's 108 feet to the adjoining property to the north, which is Lot Four, which is owned by the applicant also. So it's pretty much secluded from the neighbors. It will have its, utilizing an existing driveway that will come off of the driveway about halfway up and have its own separate drive. So it won't be cleared between this garage and the main house, other than where the garage, or the driveway would come off the existing driveway. We feel that, in fact, as was mentioned in the reading of the application,that, due to the size of the lot, due to the position of the garage,that it does not have an undesirable effect on the neighborhood. It is, again, over 230 feet away from the adjoining owner that is, adjoining property that is not owned by Mr. DeNooyer, and Mr. DeNooyer obviously owns the property of Lot Four which is 108 feet away. So we feel it's not having an issue there. We have done stormwater management in accordance with the Town of Queensbury regulations to make sure that the pervious areas that are being built do meet the stormwater requirements. So we have provided that. From, as far as the benefit being sought by another means, unfortunately because the Ordinance reads that there's only one garage allowed, doesn't define whether that was one garage attached to the house or separate, we do need a variance. There's no other way around it other than to call it an accessory building,which would be allowed,but then we wouldn't be able to utilize it for vehicles. Is it substantial? It is substantial because it's a variance. Because you can't have a freestanding garage, it does become substantial, but it in the context of what the application is,we believe it's not a substantial application to this Board. Again,going back to the location of the garage on the property. For the effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, again, we feel because of its position on the lot, the ability to provide stormwater management on the site and to have such a large wooded area surrounding it, it won't have any environmental effects on the property, and it is, we do, as this Board recognizes, if an alleged difficulty is self-created, this Board still does have the ability to grant a variance for that. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. Do Board members have any questions on this particular application at this time? MR. KUHL-Is it marked off on the driveway? I came in the driveway and I saw the permit and I didn't go down any further. Is it marked at all where you're going to cut the road in? MR. DE NOOYER-No. MR. KUHL-What are you going to do for a driveway? Asphalt or are you going to do pavers? MR. DE NOOYER-No,it will be asphalt. MR. KUHL-Asphalt. This is the garage where you're going to park the Ford? The Chevy's go down the house? MR. DE NOOYER-No,there'll probably be mainly Chevrolets in there, older ones, really old ones, old Chevrolets. MR. HENKEL-I see you're going to have seasonal water hook up. Is that going to be just on the outside,the seasonal water hook up,or is that going to be inside,too? MR. DE NOOYER-I was just planning on probably the outside,because I'm just storing cars, antique, or not antique, but, you know, classic cars, and I just need to get water, because during the winter I'm not going to. MR. HENKEL-Okay,no bathroom or anything like that inside? MR. DE NOOYER-No bathroom,no floor drain. MR. KUHL-More or less it's just a seasonal garage,is that really what you're? MR. DE NOOYER-Yes, I mean it's going to be heated, but it's basically, if I need to wash a car, you know, and these cars are probably driven a couple hundred miles a year kind of thing, you know, that type of thing. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-If you only had a Benz dealership,right? All right. MR. GARRAND-I've got questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Rick. MR. GARRAND-Question for Staff,what's the maximum height allowable? MR. BROWN-Thirty-five feet. MR. GARRAND-Thirty five feet?. MR. BROWN-Thirty-five feet. MR. GARRAND-The site data sheet says 16. MR. BROWN-Yes,for an,no,that's only from the Waterfront Residential zone. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. BROWN-This is in an RR zone,so 35's the number. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Also the deed says for residential use only, and may include a detached garage for not more than three cars, and a detached garage shall be of the same construction as the single family dwelling,and that was in the deed you submitted. MR.ANDRESS-Right. This is the detached garage that would be the one detached garage. MR. GARRAND-For three cars,no more than three cars? It's 46 feet long. MR.ANDRESS-I have a 48 foot long by 24 garage and I have three cars in it. MR. DE NOOYER-I mean, I do have motorcycles. I've got plenty of stuff to fill it. My wife will tell you. If she was on the Board she wouldn't be as excited as I am about it,but. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, in the matter of a deed restriction, it's one that has to be followed up through the courts and not as part of this Board, but that's certainly up to your neighbors and those who granted you the property title in the first place. Unless, Rick,you're suggesting that it changes the character of the neighborhood. MR. GARRAND-We'll see. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions or comments from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Sir, if you could come to the table, please, and identify yourself,we'd appreciate it. TOM JABAUT MR. JABAUT-I'm Tom Jabaut. I live on 370 Lockhart Mountain Road, two doors down, and I'm not against the project, but I really didn't know where it was sited on the lot. I really didn't know too much about it. They say that it's going to be set back a ways, but if I could just see the site map or what the plan was in a little more detail, I'd appreciate it. MR.ANDRESS-Here's the Lockhart Road here going that way. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR.JABAUT-I think it would be over here. MR.ANDRESS-Okay. Here's the driveway in. MR. JABAUT-All right. That clears up a lot for me. That's all I really wanted to know. So that concludes my session here. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one,the public hearing is still open. This is a Type II SEQR. So I'm going to poll the Board at this time before I close the public hearing. Kyle,we'll start with you. MR. NOONAN-As the project is proposed, I have no problem with the project. I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Even though I'd like to see a little smaller garage, I'd be in favor. Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I like the fact that you're considering stormwater runoff. I think it'll set well, and you have a nice piece of property to build something like that on. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. My colleague suggested that we should sort of use a rule of thumb of five acres before we even push for approval of a second garage. So you guys meet that standard, and I support it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm going to be the contrary in here and say it's a little large for the lot. They could have made a much smaller proposal. I think it's substantial. I think it'll change the character of the neighborhood,as you were alluding to before. That's my opinion. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm okay with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-And so am I. So we're going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And we'll ask for a motion,please. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 19-2014, Thomas DeNooyer, 396 Lockhart Mountain Road,Tax Map No. 252.00-1-86. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas DeNooyer for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,162 sq. ft. detached garage with proposed height of 28 ft. 2 in.to peak. A new driveway is proposed to be installed as well. Relief requested for a second garage. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 26,2014; 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? Minimal or no undesirable change to the neighborhood will be created. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? At this point,there would be no,unless you didn't build it,but there would be no feasible alternative. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It is substantial. You're asking for 100% of relief,but you can't get a 50%variance for this one. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There will certainly be some environmental impacts, but I think you're going to remediate with your stormwater runoff. So they would be considered minimal. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,this is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 19-2014, Thomas DeNooyer, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions > B. <insert conditions> C. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 26th day of March,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations,good luck. MR.ANDRESS-Thank you very much. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2014 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES AYERS AGENT(S) DOUGLAS MC CALL OWNER(S) JAMES AYERS ZONING WR LOCATION 31 HICKOK LANE, PILOT KNOB APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 108 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA). NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. CROSS REF BP 2014-025; SP 17-2014; BP 89-593 RE-BUILD DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK ALD LOT SIZE 0.539 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-10 DOUGLAS MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 20-2014,James Ayers, Meeting Date: March 26, 2014 "Project Location: 31 Hickok Lane, Pilot Knob Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 108 sq. ft. residential addition. New septic system to be installed as part of the project. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Section 179-13-10 Continuation Shoreline Required 50 ft. Proposed 45 ft. Relief 5 ft. 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 due to the arrangement of the house on the parcel as the existing home does not meet the setback requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 17-2014: Pending BP 2014-025: Residential addition 12'x 9' (new bathroom) BP 2014-025: Septic alteration BP 1989-593: Rebuild dock, 8-23-1991 Staff comments: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) The applicant proposes the construction of a 108 sq. ft. addition to an existing non-conforming structure. The addition is to be used a first floor bathroom and the exterior will be consistent with the existing home. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review required" MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board also introduced a motion, and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was adopted unanimously on March 18, 2014. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. Pretty straightforward application, but if there is anything you'd like to add,please feel free to do so. MR. MC CALL-I think I addressed it all in my narrative that you guys have read. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing. So, so be it opened. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No,there is not. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to continue to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board. I will start with Harrison. MR. FREER-While I hate to see things continue to build on the lake that don't conform, this is not new construction. So I guess I'll be curious to hear what the rest of the Board says,because I guess I'm sort of on the fence on this. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I also don't like to see stuff built so close to the lake, but anything you build on to this house is invariably going to require a variance. Everything is pretty much right up on the lake. It's not an unnecessarily large lot. As far as putting that bathroom somewhere else, I'm not really sure there's a better place to put the bathroom than where you propose it. I'm also encouraged by the fact that you are proposing anew septic system for replacing a very old one. That's all. MR.JACKOSKI-Is that a yes or a no? MR. GARRAND-I didn't think it was ambiguous. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to mark it as ayes. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I think the, you know, the placement of the bathroom there is a great spot. Originally it looked like, I guess you were going to put it in the front there about 15 feet from the lake,right,now you're putting it. MR. MC CALL-No,it's always been planned there. I mean,that's. MR. HENKEL-It's in the back corner,right? MR. MC CALL-The back corner. MR. HENKEL-Originally I think our. MR. MC CALL-The whole purpose of this house,the Ayers are truly concerned about,this house was built in 1911 by his great grandfather, and they want to keep the character of the house. So this is going to be a construction that fits to something that was built in 1911. It's going to look like it was there originally. They don't want anything to affect the look of the house, the impact on the area. They want this to look like,they want to just have a bathroom. The existing bathroom was put in in 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) the 1940's, in a hallway that went upstairs to the attic because there was no bathroom, there was no plumbing in this house when it was originally built. So they're just trying to make it. MR. HENKEL-I can see, to me you're only asking for obviously five feet of relief and you've got it on the back corner. I think that's a good option. I'm definitely for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I don't see any changes to the neighborhood. I think the alternatives are limited. This is minimal construction, and I don't think there'll be any environmental conditions effected. I think as pointed out it'll probably be better than it was before because of the new septic system that's a part of the project,and the difficulty is self-created,but for a reason. I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Yes. The project as proposed, I'm in favor. I do like the fact the septic system will be overhauled. I also see the size of a nine by twelve, a 109 square foot bathroom, that's not a huge bathroom for the house. So you showed some restraint there. The owner showed some restraint there by not going any bigger and putting in necessary changes. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's a good request. I think anytime anybody puts in a new septic system around the lake, I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we will close the public hearing and will seek a motion, and just mention that it sounds to me like Board members were going to make it all contingent on a new septic system. MR. GARRAND-Contingent on what? MR.JACKOSKI-The new septic system. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 20-2014, James Ayers, 31 Hickok Lane - Pilot Knob,Tax Map No. 227.14-1-4. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Ayers for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-13-10 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 108 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area (CEA). New septic system to be installed as part of the project. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 26,2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood whatsoever by this addition. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Short of tearing down the house and moving it farther back,I don't see how. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It's, at best, minimal. The application shows that it's only going to be 108 square feet. It's very minimal. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Quite to the contrary. It's going to have an improved effect on the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I honestly don't think it's self-created. The positioning of the house creates the need for the variance here. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh / would be outweighed by the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 20-2014, James Ayers, Introduced by Richard Garrand,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. That the applicant does install the new septic system with the new bathroom. B. <insert conditions> C. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 26th day of March,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2014 SEQRA TYPE II BERNARDO DE JESUS AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND OWNER(S) BERNARDO DE JESUS ZONING WR LOCATION 135 SEELYE ROAD - CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A GABLE ROOF OVER A FLAT ROOF TO THE EXISTING COTTAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND NORTH SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. CROSS REF SP 19-2014; BP 2013-581 SEPTIC/PERC TEST WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.50 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-56 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-10 DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2014, Bernardo DeJesus, Meeting Date: March 26, 2014 "Project Location: 135 Seelye Road - Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a gable roof over a flat roof to the existing cottage. A new septic system is to be installed as part of the project. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from shoreline and north side setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts Shoreline Side north Required 50 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 44 ft. 17.3 ft. Relief 6 ft. 2.7 ft. 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 due to the existing house location and new roof being already constructed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 19-2014: Pending-expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA BP 2013-581: Septic/Perc Test, 12-20-2013 Staff comments: The applicant requests relief from an already constructed peaked roof to replace a flat roof. The new roof configuration is an expansion of a non-conforming structure that is subject to site plan review. The plans show the previous flat roof and the existing peaked roof, this includes the eave trenches to accommodate the stormwater. Also shown is the new septic system to be installed where a portion of the existing driveway area is to be removed and a new driveway are to be installed. The shoreline area plantings that are on the site are to remain and no new plantings area to occur. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review required" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted unanimously March 18, 2014. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Dean. If there's anything you'd like to add, or would you just like to field questions from the Board? MR. HOWLAND-My name is Dean Howland. We got involved after the roof was built. He had it done by a firm from downstate or something, and when we met during the discussion they were already pumping out the old septic tank and leach field and a firm called IBS was doing it we use a lot. What had happened, well, with some of these old camps, you just don't find anything. So recommended that, to the owner,you have to get a variance,you have to go to site plan, but you've 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) got to put in anew leach field. He is going to remove this camp sometime in the future. How many years down the road, I don't know, and so the septic, new septic is a pur a flow system which is the only thing would really work on that particular lot, and it's shown as being maxed out for the size of the area there. So, you can use five tanks, so you've only got a one bedroom house, it only needs one tank, but he's going to do a system for a home that he's going to build in the future, and that's about all I can tell you about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-I have one. Are you doing the construction,is that what you're doing? MR. HOWLAND-No,we didn't do anything. I had met him when he first bought the lot. So I'd seen the house, what it looked like. I grew up three doors down anyway, but he wasn't going to do anything, and then he's going to replace the docks because they're not conforming and they're falling down, but we were going to build the, if they ever build it, we'd probably build it, but we have done no work and we don't plan on doing any work up there,no. MR. KUHL-Well, the house, to me, looks like it's not finished, right? I mean, there's a top on the roof. MR. HOWLAND-Well, what they did, he had a framing crew from Long Island, I guess, I'm assuming they're from Long Island. MR. KUHL-So whoever started it is going to finish it? MR. HOWLAND-Well, no, they'll probably come up and just put, the roof, it's got a plastic tarp over it. MR. KUHL-Well,how do we know,because they already started something without getting a permit and a variance,how do we know it's going to be done right? MR. HOWLAND-Well, they have to be, it's open. I think, Dave Hatin was there. He's the one that put the Stop Work Order. MR. GARRAND-Did they start this without a permit? MR. HOWLAND-They did the whole thing without a permit. Correct. MR. BROWN-Yes, there's a building permit that's required for the work. So there'll be inspections throughout the process. So if it changes, other than what's, if it changes other than what you approve,we'll drag them back in and we can talk about it. MR. KUHL-But they started without a permit,and out of tonight they'll end up getting a permit? MR. BROWN-Tonight they won't get a permit. Tonight they'll get the variance to do it, and then they'll follow up with the building permit. We'll issue the building permit. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. BROWN-We haven't issued it. They've applied for it but we can't issue it until they get the variance. MR. KUHL-Okay. So I've got to go back, Dean, in one sentence, because what's your take on this, why are you presenting this? MR. HOWLAND-He met me, and again, earlier he met me, and then when he had the Stop Work Order,he called me over and I said,you screwed up. This is what you're going to have to do. MR. KUHL-So,you're just a neighbor? MR. HOWLAND-No, I'm not a neighbor. In the future, he's going to build a new house somewhere down the road,and this is what we do. I'm a home builder in Lake George. MR. KUHL-You're a home builder? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. HOWLAND-Yes, I am a home builder. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Remember,he always got permits and did things by the rules. MR. HOWLAND-We always do,yes. That's why we knew it wasn't a builder from locally, and I think they did it all, they had, when he called me over is the day they got the Stop Work Order. I mean, they were putting the tarp on, and there had to have been 12 guys there. So they probably did it, came up on a Saturday and did it and I'm not sure when the Stop Work Order was, but it was, it wasn't there the week before because I went by, down to the marina. So, other than that, I don't know what. MR. KUHL-I have a question for Craig. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. KUHL-What's the procedure,now,because a septic is involved in this? MR. BROWN-The procedure is,as far as the project is progressed? MR. KUHL-Do they have to go to the Planning Board for the septic? MR. BROWN-No, they have to go back to the Planning Board for an expansion of a nonconforming structure because that structure is within a CEA,a Critical Environmental Area. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. BROWN-So they have to go back to the Board for that. They've been initially, and Roy read the recommendation. They offered a positive recommendation that they didn't see any major difficulties with the project. The Planning Board will talk about probably a little bit about stormwater, and any other site improvements that there might be. The septic system would be reviewed and approved during the building permit process. MR. KUHL-But Dean talked about a different kind of septic system than we see, but that's not our purview? Okay. I'll be quiet. MR. BROWN-Yes,that's all done through the building permit. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-We put this,that type of system's gone in before. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional questions from Board members? We will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Written comment? MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, I couldn't see anything under the tarp, but I guess what you're saying is they're making an improvement to the camp, to the building? And as long as it's done under the purview of a good building permit, which you're not going to be responsible for, and we'll watch it. Again, for me, I mean, they already started something. We can't stop it, but I'm in favor of new septic systems in the Critical Environmental Area for sure. So I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. URRICO-This bothers me. I mean, on the face of it, if we were looking at this as a brand new application, with no work being done, it probably would not be a problem, but that's not what happened here. The aggrieved party is not here. The party that initiated this is not here. The people that constructed it are not here. So we're getting, basically, something that wasn't even involved with the project making an appeal for us to pass a variance, when this is like, seems to be the best way to get around having to do a variance. So I would be against it. I'm sorry. I don't think this is the right way to do things. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I would have loved to have seen this done differently, also, done by the book. Any building on this lot, in the future, should be compliant. If they plan on building a house here in the future, as the agent has stated, I think they should be compliant in every way, shape and form. I do like to see a new septic down here. This is an area with a very high high water table. I think the best thing for this area is a new septic at this point, and they do,they come in here with dirty hands on this one. Is it self-created? Yes. Adverse physical or environmental effects? As long as stormwater's mitigated, that can be taken care of. Is it substantial? I don't think so. Undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood? I don't think so. I can't see how a peaked roof will do that. Can benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? Well, what are the benefits here besides a new peaked roof? Not a lot. I think, going by the five criterion, I think it barely passes muster on the five statutory criterion. From a personal level, I just think it's wrong it was approached in this manner. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I think Rick's criteria review sort of tilts it in favor of me being in favor of the variance. I,too, object to the way it was handled and presented, in terms of not having it properly done in the first place and then sort of a very weak showing here to the Board,but I would support it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's great that you have a new septic tank, a new septic system. I think that the reliefs they're asking for are very minimal, but I have to agree with Roy that this is being represented by someone that's not even going to be doing the work or associated, really, with the project. So I'd be against it. I'd say no. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-My question I guess maybe I should have asked earlier, but septic is not on, is not part of the relief requested,but is it a carrot that's being dangled in front of the Board as,well,we're going to do this with the septic tank, and right now new septic tanks on Lake George are a big thing, it's a board to do that. I don't know if it was thrown in there to get us to say, okay,we like the idea of a new septic tank,so we'll approve the variance for the shoreline and north side setbacks. Is that something we can put in as an additional? MR. BROWN-You can. It's kind of duplicative, I guess, it's required under the Zoning Code. Any time you expand a dwelling in a Waterfront Residential zone, any kind of expansion/alteration, you're required to update the septic system or prove that the septic system that's there is up to current standards. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. BROWN-So that might sound like an offer,but it's more of a requirement. MR. NOONAN-Okay. That makes more sense, I mean, and I'd hate to think that anyone, at this point, would want to see a blue tarp over a structure for the remainder of the deliberations, figure out what to do with this. It certainly will probably look better than what it was. It certainly wasn't handled the right way,but I would be in favor,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. MR. KUHL-Could I do the motion, Mr. Chairman? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Please. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 21-2014, Bernardo DeJesus, 135 Seelye Road- Cleverdale,Tax Map No. 227.17-1-56. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Bernardo DeJesus for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-13-10 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. The applicant has constructed a gable roof over a flat roof under an existing cottage. The relief requested is required shoreline 50 feet, proposed 44. Six foot of relief is requested. On the north side, 20 feet is required, 17.3 feet is proposed,and relief is 2.7. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,March 26,2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? Minor impacts to the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? The fact that he already started it and we're behind that, feasible alternatives are limited due to the fact the existing house is in where the location is and the roof has already been started. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The relief requested may be considered minimal relative to the Code. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor really. Better environmental conditions with the new septic. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,it is considered self-created. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 21-2014, Bernardo DeJesus, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. A new septic system will be installed as part of the project. B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-And to reiterate,this is a condition that the new septic system go into place, not that they demonstrate that the current septic system is operational. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Thanks. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED BRANDON VANDERWERKER OWNER(S) JEFFREY SCHWARTZ ZONING CM LOCATION 980 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REFACE A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE NEW BUSINESS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND MAXIMUM SIZE LIMITS OF THE SIGN CODE. CROSS REF SP 1-2014; BP 2013-542; 02-414; BP 93-410; 95-082 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-67 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6 PETER BROWN&JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-This is an Unlisted SEQR. So we will be doing SEQR this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 22-2014, Brandon Vanderwerker, Meeting Date: March 26, 2014 "Project Location: 980 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a new 50 sq.ft.sign utilizing an existing free standing sign frame. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and maximum allowable sq.footage limit of the Cl zone. Section 140 Signs. Front yard setback Maximum allowable sq.ft.limit Required 15 ft. 45 sq.ft. Proposed unknown 50 sq.ft. Relief unknown 55 sq.ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the 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 to build a compliant sign may be considered. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for the size of sign may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The front yard setback is currently unknown so it is not clear the extent of the relief. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 95-082: addition 1,144 sq.ft. SP 18-95: 1,144 sq.ft.addition-expansion of existing facility AV 17-1995: relief for addition in travel corridor overlay required 75 approved 50 BP 93-410: interior alterations adding sink BP 93-1596: sign permit LaMirage Hair Design BP 92-414: CO "this is it" BP 85-210: free standing sign 5X10 sq.ft."Pattis Homemade" BP 85-209: building construction 52x44 sq.ft. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to new sign of 50 sq. ft. utilize the existing free standing frame. The sign does not meet the 45 sq. ft. maximum allowed size. Staff has reviewed the files for this site and found no survey. The applicant has provided a survey that is from 1985 since that time the NYSDOT has improved Route 9 and sidewalks have been added at this time it is not clear that the current sign meets the required setback of 15 ft. Staff has understood that the past consensus of the board in regards to the requirement of surveys is when the project requires dimensional relief than a survey would be required by the board which has been explained to the applicant in detail and length since November 2013. In this case the applicant has requested the board review the information provided in determination if a survey is needed. Staff would encourage the board to be consistent with past practice requiring survey for dimensional relief request. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, it is an Unlisted SEQR, and just to reiterate, I have made the determination on this that a survey is required and this Board has supported that determination by me. Welcome, and if you could please identify yourself for the record, and if there's anything you'd like to add at this time or just field questions from the Board. MR. SCHWARTZ-Hi, I'm Jeffrey Schwartz,owner of the property. BRANDON VANDERWERKER MR.VANDERWERKER-Brandon Vanderwerker. I'm the applicant. MR. BROWN-Peter Brown,construction manager. MR. SCHWARTZ-We've submitted a 1985 survey. There's no proof anywhere that that survey isn't accurate, okay. The State's never notified me that they've taken land from me. We've checked the records. There's no records that they've taken any land from our property. Now they have, the State has taken land where the Remington Bar, south of that area, and you can see how the road changes. So when they did do construction,they did take it from that side,but past that,there's no record of anything that, no official document that anybody has taken land. Nobody's, the State has not told me they've taken land from me, and, I mean, Craig has had a water, the Water Department did some drawings when they put in the water line. I mean, for all we know it was a sketch that they made. I mean, they're not an official, I'm trying to think of the word, surveyor, and even our, just passed out that document. Even at one time, Craig, noted that,you know, whoever this entity that produced the drawing, you know, I'm going to have to accept the dimension of the surveyor. So at one point even he said that. So there's nothing that says that my survey is invalid. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, could we just, so that we don't continue to reiterate this, can you tell me, is the current survey that you are presenting to us,does it have the sign located on the survey? MR. P. BROWN-Yes. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, if you could show me that document, I'd sure appreciate it. I just want to know, is there a survey on this property with the sign denoted on it and surveyor marks as to where it is regarding lot lines to the property? We are dealing with dimensional relief. Yes or no? MR. SCHWARTZ-No,but can I. MR.JACKOSKI-No. If we don't have a survey,we can't move forward. MR. SCHWARTZ-Can I make a statement? MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ-Let me just talk first. If you take, the survey says the distance from the road is 50 foot,okay. So if you take the distance from the building to the sign. MR.JACKOSKI-Who takes that distance? MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Early on. MR.JACKOSKI-Sir, unfortunately,this Board is very clear to me, as the Chairman of this Board, and I think we've tried to help you along by suggesting, a month ago, that if you had the survey, we can move forward. When we have dimensional relief, we require a survey. I can't tell you where that sign is based on a surveyor's documentation. Unfortunately, that's what this Board has tasked me with. That's what this Board and the Town of Queensbury has been doing for, since I've been on this Board. I can't make an exception to that for one applicant. MR. SCHWARTZ-Can I just give a response to that? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. If the distance, the survey says the building is 50 foot from the road, okay. So originally when I talked to Craig he was going to have his Department measure and say, okay, well,the sign is so far from the building. MR.JACKOSKI-Who was going to have who's department do what? MR. SCHWARTZ-When I talked to Craig initially,in fact it even says it right here that he would check it out, in this letter I just gave you. If the Town can just take the dimensions and subtract from the 50 foot from the building,you'll find out it's 19 foot from the road. MR. JACKOSKI-It is my, again, I'm sorry, but I do not believe that I should ask this Board to move forward with this application as presented. I believe it is incomplete, and I'd like to have the Board members determine with me whether or not this application is complete and we should be hearing it. I do not know how we can possibly, as Board members of the Town of Queensbury, determine where that road is and how to take dimensions,who's going to take dimensions from a road that we don't even know how to locate and/or we're not licensed. So I'm just going to poll the Board here. Is this application complete or not at this point? I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I was going to ask this gentleman, if he said he's got something, a survey with something that can help us out here,something that could give us an idea of what type? MR. P. BROWN-This is a New York State map, okay, it's right from the State. It takes and shows all the property up and down the thing, okay, they do not clearly identify, by law, okay, the exact location of the property line. It's just called highway boundary. However, it's very accurate and you can very simply go up, anybody can go up there and measure that sign from the face of the building or the face of the pole which sits right at the edge of the property,which is identified on the survey map. It's a matter of taking a tape measure and measuring from there to here. MR. JACKOSKI-Then what I'm going to argue is it shouldn't cost that much for a survey to certify it, if it's that easy. MR. P. BROWN-Well, you're talking $750 that means a cost of business, that's a heck of a lot of money. I don't know what you think about it. Maybe you guys are in a different position than I am, but I don't see where that's necessary when a group of intelligent men can go up there and agree on one measurement. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Again, I'm going to go and poll this Board to determine whether this application is complete or not based on the criterion in which this Board is established for the Town of Queensbury. Rick? MR. GARRAND-We're required to have a defined number of relief to grant to an applicant. Without that,we cannot grant the relief. We can't just say ballpark we'll give you 10 to 20 feet of relief. MR. P. BROWN-We're not even asking for relief. We're telling you it complies. Okay. All we're saying is let Craig,like he originally agreed to do,go up with one of his men, or I'll go up with him, I can hold the dumb end of the tape against the building. Nobody can see, but they can see it if I move it. Okay. I'll take the dumb end,and I will nail it to the building. MR. GARRAND-Unless I get a definite number from Mr. Brown as to the relief requested, I can't grant any relief. MR. P. BROWN-He can't go up there and take a measurement and determine that that sign complies? MR. GARRAND-That's not my call. MR. P. BROWN-That's not your call,but he volunteered to take and do it actually in a written memo. MR. C. BROWN-If we could just clarify that. I never volunteered to go and take a measurement. Jeff asked if we could, either myself or Bruce Frank from my office, I'm sorry to interrupt but, either Bruce Frank or myself could go out and do that, and I told him what we could do is if he had a survey that showed the sign on there, even an old survey, we could go out and confirm that in the field, to try and make sure that it hasn't moved, but not that we would go out and generate that number for them. MR. SCHWARTZ-But it says it right here in the last sentence of this. MR. C. BROWN-I'm not sure how this, where this e-mail came from. It looks kind of like a cut and paste kind of an e-mail. MR. SCHWARTZ-It's from you,you were making responses. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. At this point,the Zoning Board Administrator,the issue is not whether he can or cannot hold a measuring tape. The issue here in front of us is in order to grant dimensional relief, are we going to move forward with this application as it is stated with the information that we have in front of us. Rick,you are saying no. MR. GARRAND-Without dimensional relief, we can't move ahead. I'm looking for anything, you know, I'll accept anything from the Zoning Administrator. MR.JACKOSKI-Craig,do you have dimensional relief numbers at this point? MR. C. BROWN-No, I don't. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So,next thing. Ron? MR. SCHWARTZ-Could I just ask one? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to move forward with asking this Board if we're moving forward. I'm not going to go any further until I understand what this Board wants me to do. Ron? MR. KUHL-Mr. Brown,does that,the maps or what you're offering,does it show the sign? MR. P. BROWN-Yes,it does. MR. KUHL-And are there dimensions on that map? MR. P. BROWN-No, there isn't. It's, as I say, this is highway boundary. They do have blowups of these things when they take property. They have not taken property, and I can prove that by this because it does show on the deed. Does it show boundaries? Yes, it shows side boundaries of the property in some cases. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. KUHL-Did you present those to Craig Brown to see if it was what would work for us? MR. P. BROWN-He was already been to the State and asked. MR. KUHL-No,the physical documents you have in front of you. Has Craig seen those? MR. P. BROWN-No,not that I know of. MR. KUHL-And would those documents work for the dimensional relief? MR.JACKOSKI-The answer is no. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-This Board has told me point blank numerous times that I cannot move forward with a, unless you want to change that, but you better tell me now before I continue to be in these positions. If this Board is not going to support what you've directed me to do in the past, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. MR. P. BROWN-Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Just a moment. I'm going to get through my Board, our Board. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I certainly can understand the argument being on both sides, ours and yours, but to go forward with it without the proper paperwork would be setting up a precedent that I think this Board doesn't want to get in. So I'd say no right now. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-We need a complete application, and in order to have a complete application,we need to know what the variance relief we're allowing,and in order to get that we need that document. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree. The application is not complete. It doesn't show any plot of where the sign is or where it's going to be,and so it's not complete. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I support the fact that the application is not complete and that we need surveys to grant that kind of relief. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Staff, at this point I guess our confusion is why was it put on the agenda if it's not complete? MR. C. BROWN-This might be along answer. The process that the Board has setup is any variance requires a survey. There's a method for an applicant to seek a waiver from that survey requirement and that's done by submitting a letter or at least the application materials that show here's what I want to use, and that's submitted to the Chairman. The Chairman makes a decision on whether that's a, you know, viable set of plans to go forward with the application at hand. If they've kind of progressed through those stages, got a, basically a denial from the Chairman, I agreed with Mr. Schwartz that we put his application on to give him a chance to get in front of the entire Board, to make his case in front of the entire Board, rather than just have the denial of the application, albeit at the direction of the rest of the Board. The Chairman has made the, you know, the decision on a survey's required,just in an effort to try and get the applicant his chance to have a day in court, so to speak. I certainly knew the application or felt the application was incomplete as well, but I just wanted to offer the applicant his chance to come and explain why they wanted to move forward with the maps that they have, to the whole Board, and it sounds like you've listened and you've come to a decision. MR. KUHL-Does this affect the presenter from renting out his place and starting business? MR. C. BROWN-No. MR. KUHL-So the business can proceed without the Sign Variance? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. C. BROWN-Along with the wall sign. Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-I honestly truly believe that this will be pretty easy once you just provide us with the dimensional relief. We feel bad that you're trying to operate, and I mean, we can see the signs under the black plastic. MR. SCHWARTZ-So do we need a whole survey of the whole property,or what do we need? MR. P. BROWN-It has to be re-certified. A complete survey. The original surveyor is gone. MR. C. BROWN-Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. C. BROWN-What you may find acceptable, and I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth,but with an application that's going to be coming before the Board next month, an applicant has supplied basically a letter,a stamped,signed letter from the surveyor,in lieu of a map,but it has the actual dimension from the property line to the edge of a sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that demonstrates actual dimensional from a licensed surveyor and this Board can move forward with that information. MR. C. BROWN-Right. So I guess what I'm saying is, does it have to be a complete survey? I don't think so, but it has to have some sort of professional determination on the distance from the property line to the edge of the sign,and that can be in letter form. MR. P. BROWN-So we can have a surveyor go there, and he doesn't have to certify the existing survey at all. Is that correct? He just locates the pins and he locates the sign. MR. JACKOSKI-And he has to provide, a licensed surveyor has to provide the actual dimensions from the lot line. If he doesn't want to re-create a map and he wants to do it in letter form, that would be reasonably acceptable, that it is from a licensed surveyor,that is not from Craig Brown or somebody in his office,that it is actually someone who handles these things. We're not trying to be difficult and unfriendly to new businesses in the community,but this is the standard that's been set, and to waive it for one particular application doesn't make sense. MR. P. BROWN-Steve, I don't disagree with you, but the point is this all arose because somebody thought that they could take the plan, because, there's no evidence, Number One, Jeff would have received a nice healthy check if they took. MR.JACKOSKI-I don't disagree with you,sir,but. MR. P. BROWN-On the deeds, it is not there. That survey is as good as the day it was. The only thing that's not is the location of the sign. MR.JACKOSKI-Which is what we're here for,but the location of the sign is what we are here for. MR. P. BROWN-Right. So if we get the location of the sign, have it placed just dimensions and signed by a licensed surveyor. MR. JACKOSKI-I've got to tell you, a red flag is going up for me in trying to determine why it is that we can't demonstrate what the improvements are to that property, because, that's my opinion. We haven't made any determination,sir. MR. P. BROWN-Yes, you did. They voted on it, we weren't even allowed to speak before. This is the United States. MR. SCHWARTZ-Right. We'll just do what you're asking. Thanks. MR. C. BROWN-So I guess what we want to do is probably table the application and pick a date so they know when they're going to be back. You guys pick a date. I mean, technically we've got to table it. MR. JACKOSKI-You would need to file the completed application according to the filing requirements,which is the. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. C. BROWN-April 15th. MR. JACKOSKI-April 15th to be on the May agenda. I don't believe any of us want you to have to leave that black plastic up over that sign,but unfortunately we have to follow this process. MR. C. BROWN-And we've dealt with this before. That April 15th date's flexible. We'll work, if it comes in on the 20th,we'll work to keep it on May as best we can. MR. GARRAND-But, Craig, as you said before, a signed letter from a surveyor outlining what dimensional relief is necessary is coming up on another appeal. MR. C. BROWN-Yes. Yes, without getting into the details of that application, they have a survey, a survey similar to this survey, although that survey has the sign, it doesn't have a dimension to the sign, but they have the surveyor, rather than re-produce, it's a large property, re-produce the survey,just did a certified dimension of this is how close the sign is to the property line. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. C. BROWN-I mean,that's really what you're looking for is that number. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. C. BROWN-So whether you're reading it from a map or from a surveyor's letter,it seems like it's the same information. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. C. BROWN-Sure. MR.JACKOSKI-So can I have a motion,please? MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 22-2014 BRANDON VANDERWERKER, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: 980 State Route 9. Tabling it to the May 21St meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with an April 15th ballpark filing deadline. Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-So we do have a motion, at the request of the applicant, to table the matter to the May meeting with an April 15th,the 21st of May. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Thanks. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Board members, I think this raises a good point. I'd like to add something to our agenda this evening for discussion, if we may, and that is whether or not we are going to move forward with accepting certified letters on parcels, and I've got to mention that this raises a red flag for me that if we don't have a survey, how do we know that there aren't other nonconforming matters associated with the parcels as we move forward and determine whether we're going to allow variances for certain aspects of the parcel itself in whole? Permeability issues, other building issues on the property. I need direction from this Board in order to know how to move forward. MR.URRICO-There are instances where we allow waivers,right? So there already are exceptions. MR. HENKEL-Since I've been on the Board, we've always had a survey for every applicant, application. MR. GARRAND-Unless he grants a waiver. MR. HENKEL-But I've seen,since I've been on the Board,there's been a survey for every application. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. BROWN-Yes, I think the only, and not to interrupt or answer for the Board, but the, really the only time there's probably a reasonable explanation why there's a waiver for a survey,and I've used this example before, is if you're an applicant like the applicant was on tonight with say a 100 acre parcel, and you want a second garage in the middle of that 100 acre parcel,we're not really worried about setback relief. You're not close to any property line where it's even a question. So, I mean, I think that's kind of the way it's been before. MR. JACKOSKI-That's the issue. When it has been dimensional relief, we have required the survey. When it has been a second garage or something on a 100 acre parcel, and that's the variance, there has been no need for the dimensional details. MR. BROWN-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-So it's purely been about dimensional relief that we've required a survey. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. KUHL-But didn't we have this discussion with the small properties on the west side of the Northway when they take a building and tear it down and replace it with a new one? The cost of that survey was putting a hardship on those people. Weren't we giving them a buy on that? MR.JACKOSKI-I don't remember that, Ron. MR. KUHL-Before your time. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't think there was a decision to do that. I think there was, you know, the thought maybe the Planning Department, and I think Laura may have offered this because she did some of that work when she worked at the County Planning office is to maybe explore options that, you know, affordability options for people that are maybe on fixed incomes or low income to maybe seek out the certification letters rather than surveys. I remember that kind of discussion,but there hasn't been a, if you're in this area or you make this much money or if you own the properties here you don't have to do surveys. There's,it's consistent. You have a variance,you need a survey. MR. GARRAND-It's always been,also,at the Chairman's discretion. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. GARRAND-Even back to Chuck Abbate,it was up to the Chairman to decide. MR.JACKOSKI-But the Chairman, I've got to tell you, in these cases,has been making these decisions based on the guidance you guys have provided me and what I'm supposed to do. So we're consistent, but I want to go back and listen to the recording of the last meeting that we had concerning this last application and I want to listen to the dialogue, because we were very careful not to, we tried very hard not to argue the merits of the case, and I want to listen to Mr. Clements' and Mr. Borgos' comments, because it's important to, I want to know what it's been suggested that we've already made the decision on when I don't believe that's the case at all. MR. BROWN-And it wasn't an application that was on the agenda. I think it was an after the meeting general kind of conversation that, you know, had some innuendo about what the application was,but it certainly wasn't mentioned that this was the application. MR. KUHL-Yes,but, Steve, I mean, if that's the process that we've worked by,this should have never gotten here when,once you said you need a survey. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but it sounded to me as we were starting to move that all of a sudden we were moving away from that, and I wanted to send a very clear message that that's the direction this Board has given me. If you want to change it, I have no problem following your future direction,but I need to know. I can't be in this position of being questioned. That's very difficult. MR. BROWN-Well, if I did that by putting them on the agenda, I apologize. That wasn't my intent. I had conversations, so you know, I had conversation with counsel and asked the question about the request that I got from the applicant, which basically was, hey, can I have my day in court, and I don't want to talk about the application too much because you've tabled it, but we've already said this part, but can I have my day in court. Against my better judgment, I put them on the agenda, kind of at the advice of counsel,by saying,you know,let's let the entire Board decide on that rather 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) than just the Chairman, but that's that balancing act over, the Board's already given the Chairman the decision, you know, the power to make that decision. So I was trying to give the applicant a chance to make an argument. I wasn't trying to put you or the Board into any position or challenge the authority that the Board's given you. I was just trying to help the applicant, that's all. Sol apologize if that's what's happened. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're still going to require surveys for dimensional relief. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Which is against the idea that something is going to come as a letter form,certifying? MR.JACKOSKI-No, I believe at the end of this application they heard very clearly that they needed to have a re-done certify,survey,is that correct? MR. BROWN-I don't think they were clear that they needed a re-surveyed map. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. MR. BROWN-I think they're understanding they can come with a certified letter. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. FREER-Along with the survey that they provided, right? I mean, what I heard was, hey, this sign isn't on the survey. So how can we give dimensional relief. Right? But if they tell you where the sign is versus the property line in a letter,with that survey. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't know the logistics of a surveyor being able to generate that letter without doing some field work and doing a survey,but. MR. NOONAN-Not to talk too much about the application that we haven't seen yet, all the dimensions on that are something that you're accepting as certified and legitimate that we could use as something to make a decision from? MR.URRICO-How are we going to identify the travel corridor? Because that's the. MR. BROWN-What's your question? Go ahead. MR. URRICO-Well, we're dealing with, you know, a major corridor here that has had issues with identifying where the edge of the road is. So what are we going by with that? I mean,where is the, I don't know that a survey is always the right answer. It may help in this instance, but,you know, the center of the road may not even be anywhere near where the yellow line is right now. MR. BROWN-The center of the right of way. Correct. MR.URRICO-Yes. MR. BROWN-I mean, and that's what they rely on a surveyor for. Just a little history. Before I worked with the Town, I worked for eight years as a land surveyor. So I kind of have a feel for the process of surveying. So in order to generate this letter that says, here's the property line. Here's the dimension from the property line to the sign,you don't just go out and find two points on a map. You have to confirm that those points are accurate yet essentially end up locating all the survey points you can to confirm that the points you're going to use are accurate. So, it may result in an actual survey being done, or you may find a surveyor that can find those points on that other map and certify that. I'm not sure the comfort level of a surveyor certifying a 30 year old survey without doing quite a bit of field work. So, to answer your question, though, Kyle, does the survey certification or the letter stamped by a surveyor that says here's the dimension to the property line, does that seem adequate? I mean, it does. Surveyors are licensed in New York State to determine property lines and determine setbacks from property lines. They're the only professionals in New York State licensed to do that. Engineers can't. Architects can't. The licensed surveyor is the one to do that. So kind of give them the benefit of the doubt when they tell me that here's the property line and here's the dimension of this sign from the property line. That's what their license is for. MR. NOONAN-So it's as good as seeing it in a picture form,as it's been measured,it's been stamped. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MR. BROWN-If you take that myopic look at just the sign on the property, yes. To answer Steve's question, what does it do to help us understand all of the other improvements on the property like are there building setbacks or are there permeability issues, well, a lot of that depends on what the application is for. If this application is for, or an application is for a side setback requirement, and that's the only issue,you don't really need to know where the sign is on the property or how much permeability is on the property. Those are bits of information we gather during the application completion. We review the site development data page and make sure all the permeability numbers and square footages are accurate. If there's a question that they're close, if they're close, we're going to ask the applicant to clarify those, and maybe that's done by survey to confirm those dimensions, but it really depends on what the application is for on what kind of detailed information is reasonable to have in front of you. Do you know what I mean? So it's hard to come in with a survey that has setbacks to every single corner and every single shed,the square footages on every sidewalk. It really,they can be really tailored to what the relief request is. MR. NOONAN-Okay. I like that answer,and thank you. MR. BROWN-You're welcome. MR. NOONAN-But going ahead to that application, then, we're going to see, is it going to be considered a non-complete application,or not complete application. MR.JACKOSKI-I would argue that the Board acknowledged that they would accept the letter. MR. BROWN-For the applicant that was here tonight,or the one I referenced as the kickoff for that? MR. NOONAN-Well, I think if we're going to do that,then it's something we've got to consider doing for all of them. MR. BROWN-Sure. Again, I'm happy to be as strict as you want to be. If it's no survey, no agenda, I mean, if that's the flavor of the Board, it doesn't make me the most popular person all the time, but if that's the rule,that's the rule. MR.URRICO-I'd be comfortable with Steve determining whether that's the case or not. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Allowing a letter. MR.URRICO-Yes,that would be part of your. MR.JACKOSKI-I think that's reasonable. MR.URRICO-That's one of the,so in between a survey and no survey. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. MR. BROWN-But again, a lot of times the reality of that is there's a lot of field work that needs to be done to generate even that letter. MR.URRICO-Yes,and I think we recognize that. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, you're saving the cost of drawing a map, basically. You still have to do that work to determine which points are accurate before you can write that letter. MR.URRICO-He still has to map the property some way. MR. BROWN-You still have to do something if you're in the right spot. MR. NOONAN-If it saves somebody$500 or$300, I think it's worth it. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And it makes sense that a surveyor cannot put their name on a letter as stating it. I mean,that's under their license violation. Any further discussion by Board members? Can I have a motion to adjourn,please. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/26/2014) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 26,2014, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-We're adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 35