Loading...
06-18-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 25-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 1. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 Area Variance No. 34-2014 Diane and Craig Goodman 2. Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21 Area Variance No.44-2014 Michael Ringer 7. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-11 and 14 Area Variance No.46-2014 Paul Deslauriers 12. Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45 Use Variance No. 33-2014 Wayne Mattison 19. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-41 and 40 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 06/18/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RONALD KUHL,ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL MICHAEL MC CABE KYLE NOONAN MEMBERS ABSENT RICHARD GARRAND STEVEN JACKOSKI LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. KUHL-I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here in the past,it's actually quite a simple process. On the back table there is information about each application and a bit about the process. We will call each applicant to the table here for presentation, to hear each presentation. We'll read the application into the record. We'll ask questions of the applicant. I'll open the public hearing when a public hearing is advertised. We'll generally poll the Board on how to move forward and then we'll make motions as applicable and then go on to the next application. So this evening I think we have five to go over,and also this evening we have five Board members, as other members are not available this evening. At any point during the review of the application this evening, the appellant may request to be tabled for the full Board. This is important because you're going to need four approvals to get your variance approved tonight. So it's your choice whether or not you want to table it or move forward. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I'd like to acquaint you with the information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of the Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided by and the procedures for the hearing before the Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals can grant or deny two types of relief, interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer's decision. In doing so this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for the interpretation, this Board's decision will be based on Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board's decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267 B. Additionally the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. We invite public comment on each appeal. However, and again, in the interest of time we'll keep it to five minutes. Okay. Now what's the first thing we have to go over this evening? MR.URRICO-Ron, I think we have to table two items. MR. KUHL-There's two we have to table, Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes. MR. KUHL-The first one is William and Pamela Roberts. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FOR FURTHER TABLING REQUEST: AV 25-2014 WILLIAM&PAMELA ROBERTS MR. HENKEL-I'll make a motion. MR. KUHL-Do I have a second? MR. MC CABE-Second. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William and Pamela Roberts for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040A of the Zoning Code of The Town 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) of Queensbury in order for construction of two cottages. These structures were previously approved for replacement within the existing footprint area via Area Variance No. 2-2014. Relief requested from minimum front yard and shoreline setback requirements of the WR zoning district. Relief required to allow for two residences on the same parcel. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 16,2014 and left open; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2014 WILLIAM &PAMELA ROBERTS, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: 4 Holly Lane. Until the August meeting with an application deadline of the 16th of July. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE MR. KUHL-And what was the second one? Was there a second one, Roy? MRS. MOORE-There will be a second one. However,you can take the applications in order,because you do need to open the public hearing for the second one that you'll be tabling. MR. KUHL-Okay. So then the first application we'll hear tonight is 34-2014 Diane and Craig Goodman,95 Pilot Knob Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN OWNER(S) DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 95 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED A 6,307 SQ. FT. TENNIS COURT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 94-953 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 92-756 3-CAR DET. GARAGE; BP 8760 YR.1984 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040 DIANE ARZBERGER GOODMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2014, Diane and Craig Goodman, Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 "Project Location: 95 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has installed a 6,307 sq. ft.tennis court. Relief requested from setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance from section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts: Front Setback Side Setback east Side Setback west corner (WR) (WR) corner (WR) Required 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 0 0.6 ft. 9.3 ft. Relief 30 ft. 19.4 ft. 10.7 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) 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 considered limited as the court has already been constructed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested 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 impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated stormwater has been addressed with a trench to the side of the court and the design of the court. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 94-953: Septic, 10-17-94 BP 92-756: 3 car detached garage Staff comments: The applicant requests relief for an already constructed 6,307 sq. ft. tennis court. The applicant indicated the contractor had constructed the tennis court had installed a drainage trench on the side of the court and underneath the court. The applicant had also explained prior to construction they had understood from the contractor no review was required. The project is located is subject minor stormwater permit due to the location -the applicant has received correspondence from the contractor and soil and water conservation service to address the information necessary for the permit. The survey shows the location of court. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. KUHL-Is there anybody here? The applicants,are they here? Would they please approach the table, and if you'll state your name for the record, and is there, do you want to sit down and just use the microphone. That's fine. We need the microphone for the record. MRS. GOODMAN-My name is Diane Arzberger Goodman. MR. KUHL-Would you tell us something about this whole project. MRS. GOODMAN-We decided, well we were hoping last year to build the tennis court. I contacted O'Connor contractors. O'Connor came over to the house, checked everything out,and I specifically asked him do we need a permit for this, and he said no,you do not, and I said are you sure we don't need a permit, no,you do not. Okay. So then we went on with the proceeding of having the court built, and then we were approached again about having a permit for this. I called him back again and he said, no,you're not in that. I call it New York State law states,blah,blah,blah,you are okay. I'm like, okay, fine, and then, after it was already built, we were approached again, and that's why we're here,is to dot our I's and cross our T's. MR. KUHL-Okay. Do any of the Board members want to address the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I see that you talked about the stormwater management was taken care of there, but if you're on the line, and how are they going to have, how is the stormwater going to be taken care of if you're on the property line? It's got to have some place to go. So in other words your stormwater's going into somebody else's property. MRS. GOODMAN-Well, actually,it's better now than it was before. MR. HENKEL-Right, but you're shedding,you've got a hard surface of 6,000 square feet, over 6,000 square feet that's shedding. Before you had just grass that was shedding just very limited amount of stormwater. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MRS. GOODMAN-Well, as far as I know that it was constructed, they constructed it in order to take care of that, and we had it checked out. We had it checked out by the State, and they said everything looked like it was good,for drainage. MR. HENKEL-Is there drainage underneath the court? MRS.MOORE-There's drainage underneath the court. Correct. MR. HENKEL-So that's how they took care of it. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-I'm saying,if it's hard surface on top,where's it going through? MRS. MOORE-It's drainage, there's hard surface on top and where it's sheeting to, there's drainage on the side of the court and there's drainage underneath the court. So percolating is within that system,on the side and underneath the court. MR.URRICO-So you mean the contractor didn't think that you might need some variances for this? MRS. GOODMAN-I asked specifically. I made many phone calls. MR. URRICO-I'm having a hard time following why that wasn't followed through on, because this is major,we're talking about major relief here. MRS. GOODMAN-Well,when I asked him initially,when he came over to the house to just see where we were thinking about putting this, he very strongly indicated, no, you do not need a permit for this. MR. URRICO-We're not talking permit,we're talking variances. There's a couple of different things here that we're talking about. MRS. GOODMAN-All right. MR. URRICO-The Zoning Code doesn't permit it to be located that close to the property lines, and we're talking for your front setback 100% relief. For your side setback we're talking almost 100% relief, and for the other side about 50%. So these are major, major setbacks, and we need to know if you can accommodate that in some way. MRS. GOODMAN-I honestly don't know how I'm supposed to answer you. MR.URRICO-Okay. MRS. GOODMAN-He knew where the property lines were. He had our survey. He knew right where the lines were. We showed him where they were. So, personally, when I trusted him, you know, from what I heard he's a great contractor. He's done this before, and by me hiring him I thought that would cover, I mean you know, all of our questions. That's why we hired someone that was supposed to be knowledgeable. MR. HENKEL-He did do a nice job. It's beautiful. MRS. GOODMAN-Thank you. MR. KUHL-On a personal basis,was there language in the contract you had with him about building permits and other requirements? Now have you paid him everything you're paying him? Because if we asked you to move this court. MRS. GOODMAN-It's all paid for last year. I paid him. MR. KUHL-Did you? Stop right there. But you entered into this with this contract, not seeing a building permit? MRS. GOODMAN-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MRS. GOODMAN-Because we were informed, and again, I specifically had asked several times, and when I had received a phone call, I called him again and he indicated, no, that is not where you are. You do not need this. New York State law, blah, blah, blah states. I'm like, okay, I just want to make sure we're doing the right thing. MR. NOONAN-What did he say when you told him you had to come here? Have you been in contact with him? MRS. GOODMAN-I also got another letter from him and I think after that he looked into a few more things. MR. NOONAN-The Town should have probably been called first. Going forward. MR. KUHL-I have a question for you, Laura. MRS.MOORE-Sure. MR. KUHL-Will this applicant also need approval from the APA because she's in the APA? MRS. MOORE-The application goes through the APA, through the normal process. Not necessarily whether she needs a variance or not,but it does go,this application will be sent to the APA. MR. KUHL-So she hasn't been to the APA yet? This has not been to the APA? MRS.MOORE-Your decision will be forwarded to the APA. MR. KUHL-Okay. Is that the normal process,or should this applicant have gone,no? Okay. MRS.MOORE-Because we have an approved land use plan. MR. KUHL-Gotcha. Okay. I should open the public hearing. Anybody else on the Board want to have any comments? I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this application? If so,raise your hand and you can come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. KUHL-Okay. Seeing none,is there any correspondence? MR.URRICO-There's nothing in here. No. MR. KUHL-I guess I'm going to poll the Board and see what everybody says. Kyle,would you like to start? MR. NOONAN-Sure. It makes it difficult, with the project already built. I can't speak for my Board members, but I do know that I don't think we ever allow anything on the line with a 100% relief, but at this point it's built. Our hands are tied. Dollar figures I don't necessarily want to know,but if you had come forward the first time, had you known, we probably would have helped you figure out where on that piece of property it could have fit, so that we didn't have to have the relief that you're asking for in front of us. It's built and it looks nice. It looks like other tennis courts that actually locally in some of the Town parks. So I would be in favor of saying yes to this, given the circumstances. MRS. GOODMAN-Thank you. MR. KUHL-How about it, Mike? MR. MC CABE-Well, I would have been swayed heavily by any feelings from neighbors, but apparently they don't care. It is a nice looking court. So I'll go along with it. MRS. GOODMAN-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Roy? MR. URRICO-This is a substantial request, and the way I look at these is if you had come to us with clean hands asking for this kind of variance, I would never say yes. I just think it's substantial. I think it sets a dangerous precedent if we approve it just because it was built already, because then 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) everybody can go ahead and build what they want and then come to us and say they couldn't, they need the variance in order to keep the project. So I would be a no on this. MR. KUHL-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Roy. I think maybe if you presented some documents saying that O'Connor construction said that you didn't need any paperwork, I might feel a little bit better about it, but I think you had other alternatives, locations to put it, and it doesn't fit into the neighborhood. It's not like everybody has a tennis court. It would be different if it was,you know, because it's supposed to fit in, it's supposed to go along with the neighborhood and it doesn't really. So I'd definitely be against it at this point. MR. KUHL-So you have a decision to make. You could table it and look to present it to a full Board, or if I call a vote and you don't get four yeses,you already have two no's. Then you'd have to move your tennis court, or take further action. So it's your decision to either request it to be tabled or proceed. MRS. GOODMAN-And what else can I do to help myself? I mean, I went into this with, being as honest as I could, and I feel like I was done injustice by someone who was a reputable contractor that we paid full amount for and we were lead wrong. MR. HENKEL-Can you get that in writing from O'Connor, that he told you that,that he said that you didn't need any type of permits or anything like that? MRS. GOODMAN-I will. MR. HENKEL-If you get that in writing,that would help. MR. KUHL-I think you should, well,you have a choice, either you ask us to call for a vote or you ask us to table it? MRS. GOODMAN-No, I guess I'll table it. MR. KUHL-Okay. I need a motion for that. MRS. MOORE-You can table the applicant until the next Zoning Board meeting in June,which is next Wednesday,because,that's up to you. There's only four items on next Wednesday's agenda. MR. HENKEL-Can you get your information together by,well,can she get her paperwork in in time? MRS.MOORE-What are you looking for? MRS. GOODMAN-Yes,what are you looking for? MR. HENKEL-Some sort of communication from the contractor saying that he believed that there was no requirement for a building permit here. MRS. GOODMAN-Okay. So he doesn't have to physically be here? I can just get a letter from him? MRS. MOORE-I guess the wording may be supporting information about your tennis court from the contractor. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So I'll make a motion that we table Area Variance 34-2014 until the next Zoning Board meeting with the applicant submitting paperwork as soon as possible indicating why the construction was undertaken without a building permit,without the proper approvals. RESOLUTION TO: TABLE Area Variance No. 34-2014. Diane and Craig Goodman, 95 Pilot Knob Road, Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21 at the request of the Board to the June 25, 2014 meeting in order for the applicant to submit supporting information from the contractor why the construction was undertaken without the proper approvals, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diane and Craig Goodman for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has installed a 6,307 sq. ft. tennis court. Relief requested from setback requirements for the WR zoning district. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 18, 2014. The public hearing remains open. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE MR. KUHL-We'll see you next week. MRS. GOODMAN-Okay. So just something that says that he built this without the idea that he needed to get any special permits. Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL RINGER AGENT(S) TOM CENTER- NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MICHAEL RINGER ZONING MS LOCATION 104 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN SITE CONDITIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN (SP 22-2010). AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WERE NOT A PART OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MS AND NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 22-2010, BP 2013-272, BP 2010-048, BP 2001-523, BP 2001-100 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2014 LOT SIZE 0.32 AND 0.14 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-11 AND 14 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL RINGER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2014, Michael Ringer, Meeting Date: June 18, 2014 "Project Location: 104 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain site conditions to a previously approved site plan (SP 22-2010). As-built conditions were not part of the approved site plan. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts: Permeability relief Required 10% Proposed 5.2% Relief 4.8% 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. Moderate 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 achieved with additional landscaping including green infrastructure for stormwater management. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered moderate 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 impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 43-14: Pending BP 13-272: Convert warehouse into workout room; CONDITIONS OF BUILDING PERMIT: Personal use only; Not open to public; No customers; No signs SP 22-10: 2,650 +/-sq.ft.commercial alteration for a Pain Management office, 3-16-10 BP 10-048: 2650 sq.ft.commercial interior alteration Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain the existing conditions on the site which were not part of the approved site plan. The previous site plan approval proposed additional green space areas to remain and to be installed. These areas included the area in front of the building to be landscaped and the rear of the property was to be maintained as is with a mobile home. The applicant has indicated maintaining the site as is and the installation of 2 new drywells on the site will accommodate the stormwater runoff from the new access drive and parking area. The board may consider additional landscaping on the site to encourage a defined access area from Linda Ave as well as implementation of green infrastructure to address stormwater on the site. The Code Enforcement Officer has completed an inspection report that identifies the items not completed as part of the site plan approval of 2010. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.URRICO-Also the Queensbury Planning Board met and based on its limited review,and with the applicant's offer to add some designated parking and some landscaping to the project proposal, they feel that there are no significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated, and this was adopted on June 17, 2014 with six approvals and no no's. MR. KUHL-Good evening. MR. CENTER-Evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering here with the applicant and owner, Mr. Ringer. As you can see from the drawing,to give you a little history on the project, during the Main Street construction project, Mr. Ringer was requested by the Planning Office to come before and get a site plan review prior to the completion of the Main Street project. That was the originally approved plan that you have in the package that was approved. During the process of the Main Street construction process, according to Mr. Ringer, what he's told us, they had several versions of the buyout of the parcel. One that included one curb cut, so a single entrance and exit off the parcel, and another with two curb cuts, one in, one out, and in that process they also, unbeknownst to Mr. Ringer, had located a transformer, which you can see in the northwest corner of the parcel. At one point that was actually located in the middle of the western entrance area of the lot, wasn't constructed there. They actually had to move it over to the corner,which kind of precipitated some changes that were made and never brought back to the Board, as far as what was done during that buyout process. What we have done, after last night's meeting with the Planning Board and some of their considerations we can show you up on the board right now, they asked us about trying to define rear parking, which we've done. In this area we've shown eight parking places back here. Originally there was, I believe, seven spaces in this area, and we've eliminated, there were two spaces right along here, which now that that transformer's there, you have to eliminate those two parking spaces because there's not enough room to get vehicles in and out in that area. They also asked us to change our plan that we had presented them initially that you have before you to try to limit the access in and out of Linda Avenue to a more defined egress, which we've done that with a single exit here, and they also asked us if we could possibly provide some landscaping. What we've done on the Linda Avenue side is provided grass lawn in this area with arborvitaes along this section so that you can keep traffic from going across the lawn and straight out Linda Avenue. The reason we didn't provide any more landscaping back there is because if we have a winter like we had last year, there was quite a bit of snow there. It's a tight parcel. In order to maintain the traffic flow in and out and the two curb cuts out front,we need a place to put the snow also. That's why we provided the grassed area which right now he was plowing most of the snow back into this corner during winter months. As far as the front area, it's a doctor's office currently is located in the building for pain management. Many of the folks that are visiting are dropped off at the very 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) front of the building. So the vehicle actually comes in and drops the folks off here, and then the person parks in the back. According to Mr. Ringer, when they did the Main Street project, that blacktop was done as part of the Main Street project, uncoordinated with the site plan that was previously approved,but what we've offered up here is to place planters along the front edge of the property, right along the sidewalk to provide some sort of green landscaping in that area. So we have changed it slightly from what you have before you now, based on last night's recommendations from the Planning Board. What this small little area here does, it does change our permeability from 94% to 92%. So we would be seeking less of a variance than we're currently requesting from you right now. MR. HENKEL-So the 4.8 would change to? MR. CENTER-Would just change to 92.8. So we're able to reduce it. MR.URRICO-He's talking about the relief. MR. CENTER-The relief would change, yes. We'd go from, the permeability would go from 94.8 to 92.8,which would change the relief from,what was it, 5. MR. KUHL-5.2. You needed 4.8 relief. So instead of 10%, you're only needing 7.2, is that what you're going,right? MR. CENTER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. CENTER-Ten percent is required. MR. MC CABE-He's proposing. MR. CENTER-2.8. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. CENTER-So we've made some changes that we feel can work with the site,per the relief. MR. KUHL-Anybody have any questions, Board members? MR. HENKEL-Those are two deeded different properties,or is that one now? MR. CENTER-Yes, they were, they're two separate, I believe when this whole project is completed, it'll be one. That is correct. MR. HENKEL-Boy,you'd think with all that property that the permeability would be better than it is. There's a lot of green space in the back. I mean,it's crushed stone,but that's still drainage. MR. CENTER-Well, you can't consider, anything that's driven on is considered hard surface, and in the future, if it is paved,you know, that's how it's looked at, and the plan is in the future to pave it, and that's why the Planning Board was asking that question last night was to delineate parking in that area,so that when it is paved,it can be delineated,and we can also limit any issues with coming out onto Linda Avenue. MR. KUHL-Okay. Anybody else? I should have opened the public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this project? If so, raise your hand,and I'll ask you to come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. KUHL-Seeing none,is there any correspondence? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "We live next door to the subject property. Here are a few concerns: poor drainage results in standing water on the north east side of the property; the lack of drainage is now causing the run off from rain to now drain onto our property; debris on the east side of property along fence; cars and trucks being parked within 4 feet of our home (Fire Safety); there is no vegetation of property line other than weeds." Peter& Helen Demas June 17, 2014"And I don't have an address for them. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MR. RINGER-Excuse me,can I answer that? MR. KUHL-Sure. MR. RINGER-That's the people next door, and I've jumped through hoops with these people before since I bought the building. Their grade sits like this far below the rest of everything else, and they are some very unique individuals, and I've jumped through hoops. That has been like that since Fran and Caroline Martindale owned that place, okay, and they're determined, because everything is sloped towards the road, what they can't figure out, okay, is, as a matter of fact, some friends of mine did some work in their place and put a drywell because what's happening is that their parcel is so low below this, my piece, it's a good foot, okay, and you'd have to look at it. I bank stuff like this. I've really tried, because everything goes towards the road in the front, and especially after the Exit 18 project, and if you look, the water's not coming from my property, but truly you're not going to get it through, you know, they're an older couple, I think. They own the diner on South Street. They're very nice people and she really takes care of her yard, but like she, I even went through and I've done what I could for them, you know what I mean, to, and it's, that piece of property, they have been below grade. Water is going to run downhill, no matter what, because what I did is Fran and Caroline Martindale owned that piece of property. I actually cut the grade down. You can go around the building and see where I cut it down, all the way around so it wouldn't push the water over to their side. I have really done a lot to try to appease for them,you know what I mean, and at some point in time,because like the drywells now that we're going to put in, the water from the building back is going to flow backwards, and there's really, and I don't even think that after Scott, John and another friend of mine that did the roof, they actually put the sidewalks in,because I've sat and watched it, and it actually comes from the street and comes down the sidewalk of her house. So,you know, I really have done my best, and I had a sudden death in the family, and I do have Bud's truck parked there. That was my brother-in-law. He's been with me since he's 12 years old, and he died and I put the truck out there for sale, and I don't think, and that's the pickup truck that they're talking, because I do have my tenants. I have some apartments upstairs and they all park in the back so the doctor's, you follow what I'm trying to say. So, that's my answer to that. There's nothing malicious there. There's no winning that battle. MR. HENKEL-It sounds like you've done your part. MR. KUHL-Any questions from the Board? Roy,do you want to start with you? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think you just need to settle up on what the exact percentage is, but I'd be in favor of the project. MR.URRICO-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with it. MR. KUHL-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, also I think you've made some great improvements with taking that mobile home or trailer out of the back there and cleaned that up, and if you're going to make that curb cut back there on Linda, I think it's a great project. Go for it. MR. KUHL-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I share the same sentiments as Board members. The fact that you're, you have less relief that you're ultimately asking for than what's on the application, I think you've done your part in terms of that granting of minimum relief. I think it's a good project. MR. KUHL-Yes. I'd also be in favor. Maybe you could show you're a neighbor and move the truck. MR. RINGER-No, that's my truck. It's just it was so hard. It's just a personal thing and I put it up there with a For Sale sign on it. It's hard to look at. MR. KUHL-All right. Would somebody like to make a recommendation? MRS. MOORE-You do need to close your public hearing, but I just want to clarify what the percentage is so that's part of your motion. I have 7.2% is proposed and 2.8% is the relief requested,because you said 92. MR. CENTER-92.18. Yes, I was able to reduce it by two percent. So,yes, 92. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MRS.MOORE-7.2%is proposed to be permeable where he needs 10%. MR. KUHL-Okay. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 44-2014, Michael Ringer, 104 Main Street, and Tax Map No. 309.14-1-11 and 14. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael Ringer for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to maintain site conditions to a previously approved site plan (SP 22- 2010). As-built conditions were not part of the approved site plan. Relief requested from permeability requirements for the MS and NR zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 18,2014; 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? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a deterrent to the nearby properties be created. The variance is to provide permeability relief, what is required is 10 percent, what is proposed is 7.2 percent; therefore the relief that we are granting is 2.8 percent. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Not really; it is not feasible for the applicant to pursue other than this area variance. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We do not believe so. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We feel not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is self-created. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 44-2014, Michael Ringer, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. 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; B. 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; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. 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 18th day of June.2014,by the following vote: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE MR. KUHL-Thank you,gentlemen. MR. RINGER-Thank you very much. MR. HENKEL-Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2014 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL G. DESLAURIERS OWNER(S) PAUL G. DESLAURIERS ZONING R-3 YR. 1967 AT TIME OF SUBD. APPROVAL LOCATION 33 WINCOMA LANE - ROLLING RIDGE ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,475 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE (WETLAND) SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF SP 40- 2014, FWW 3-2014; BOH SEPTIC VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.15 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-45 SECTION 179-3-040 PAUL&LINDA DESLAURIERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2014, Paul G. DesLauriers, Meeting Date: June 18, 2014 "Project Location: 33 Wincoma Lane- Rolling Ridge Estates Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,475 sq. ft. single family dwelling and other associated site work. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts: Wetland setback Height Required 75 ft. 40 ft. Proposed 40 ft. 40 ft. 7 in Relief 35 ft. 7 in 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 army corp area of allowed disturbance of wetlands on the parcel, location of the approved septic through a BOH variance and the proposed location of the home. 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 40-14&FW 3-14: Pending 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) BOH Septic Variance scheduled for June 16th Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home where relief is requested from the shoreline setback from a wetland. The applicant has received an army corps permit to disturb the wetland area within 40 ft. of the home where a 75 ft. setback is required. The plans show the location of the home,details of the wetland,grading information and other site details. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-Also the Planning Board met. There was a motion by the Queensbury Planning Board last night on June 17, 2014, that based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and there's six yeses and one absent. So it's six to zero. MR. KUHL-Good evening. MR. DESLAURIERS-Good evening. MRS. DESLAURIERS-Good evening. MR. KUHL-Would you please state your name for the record? MR. DESLAURIERS-Paul Deslauriers, and my wife Linda. MR. KUHL-Okay. Would you like to tell us about your project? MR. DESLAURIERS-We purchased the building lot from Dr. Reid in 2005 with the intent of building on it. We requested a variance, a 40 foot setback from the wetlands, to provide by the USACE permit, primarily because of the constraints. We can't go any closer to the road than the 30 foot setback. Once we were able to build, we obtained an onsite wetland delineation from the DEC, more specifically their agent Jed Hayden. We then proceeded to get the delineation of the finger of wetland that goes up onto our property from the Army Corps of Engineers. Deborah Roberts of Roberts Environmental Engineering of Queensbury performed an onsite evaluation and the delineation as required by the Army Corps of Engineers. She flagged the actual extent of these wetlands by sampling vegetation and soil makeup, thereby determining the line between the wetlands and uplands. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed these findings,granted the request to fill approximately 2560 square feet of this wetland to provide appropriate slope for the backfill of the house. When the house is built, it will be approximately level with the road, which will require significant fill. This fill and the vegetation on it will provide filtration for much of the runoff from Wincoma and Sheridan south. Add to this filter the planting of trees in front of the house and we believe the runoff to the wetlands will actually be greatly reduced from what it is today. With respect to the wetlands and the ecosystem they support, we expect to plant fruit trees and garden to the east side of the house, as I have done for the last 40 plus years. This would be organic in nature. We respect the land and our health. To this end, we chose the Presby system for our septic system. Unlike a conventional system, perforated pipe where the biologicals take place in the soil below the lines, the Presby system utilizes the aerobic bacteria to treat the effluent in the pipes. This allows the flow of only treated water into the soil. A height variance of seven inches is needed because I failed to catch the total height until after the plans were drawn. The actual height of the front of the house is 29 feet. This will,we expect,be the last house we're going to live in and we don't want to setup anything that's going to mess up our property or our food. So,thank you. MR. KUHL-Okay. Do you have anything to say? MRS. DESLAURIERS-Not really. I think you probably heard it all. MR. KUHL-He said it all. Are there any questions from the Board members? MRS. MOORE-I'll interrupt just to add to that, is that the Town Board has tabled this application for the Board of Health, and pending information being sent to the Town Engineer for review of the septic system. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MR. KUHL-Okay. The septic system that you described,was that something that your engineer told you to put in or is that something that you came to the Town and they suggested? MR. DESLAURIERS-That's something that I have researched over the last 10 or 12 years, when we lived in Vermont,and found it to be a superior system. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. DESLAURIERS-I've had considerable time working in septic systems in my life, usually on the back side of it. So I want to make sure that this is not going to give us any trouble. MR. KUHL-Excuse me, Laura,when are they going to the? MRS.MOORE-In early July. So it's potential that you could table this application to a July meeting. MR. KUHL-We should table it until a July meeting? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-We still have to have a public hearing,right? MRS.MOORE-Your public hearing is open. You're opening your public hearing. MR. KUHL-Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this project? Okay. Come on up,please. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOAN REID MRS. REID-Hello. My name is Joan Reid and it has come to my attention this week that Paul Deslauriers is applying for a variance to build this home and septic system closer to our wetlands than required. My house is, well, I'll read what I wrote. I have a big concern about this. For 51 years I've lived next to these wetlands. My father owned this land and started Rolling Ridge,being very aware that the wetlands were precious to our environment. The original survey was very careful to stay away from the wetlands so people would not build on the wetlands. In 1982 or '83, right around in that area, my father received a letter from the Town saying that they were designating many of his acres of land to be Town wetland, including right next to Paul's lot, to have sufficient designated wetland acreage for our Town. Now I realize that this was after the surveying for the lots that Paul bought,but this was at the time of the Earle Town proposals and the peat moss farms that were being planned south of the airport. Because of the land that Laakso, McCree and Eastward, if you all remember that time, over near Quaker Road, they wanted to develop this area that was the designated wetland area for Queensbury. So now they needed to replace it with other Queensbury land. So my father was told he could not build on his land, or in a sense he couldn't do anything that would hurt our precious wetlands. In light of this my father eventually gave the land to Queensbury with the understanding that this was indeed designated wetland area for our Town. The Town laws were created to help protect wetland boundaries, water tables, natural drainage and wells. The DEC has been involved and has drawn boundaries to ensure our water safety, making requirements for property, wetlands, buildings and well setbacks. Changing these laws is not for our health and well-being. I understand that the proposed Presby Enviro septic system is supposed to be good, and research has shown many states have approved it, but it is still experimental. There have also been many states that have looked into this experimental system and realized that some of it has flaws. So these states do not,they have not approved it. Even the Presby Enviro Septic System website lists some of the defects they're working on to fix, and possible areas to be cautious about, and I just happen to have some of those printed out and some copies for you and some websites to look at if you're interested in checking out the system. I understand that it is, you know, they're working on trying to protect the environment, and I do appreciate that, but as it states in Paul's application on Page 13, or I guess it's Number 13 on Page Two of the Four pages that he proposed, it says there will be discharge fill material into approximately 2,560 square feet of wetlands to facilitate construction of a single family home. This is the reason, or there is a reason the DEC's original boundaries are where they are. The wetlands do fluctuate as the seasons become drier or wetter. Looking at the original maps it shows DEC lines to be 15 to 20 feet from the proposed leach fields. If the new Corps of Engineer lines are smaller, and they drew another area, which to get to that area they had to go at a diagonal not a straight line, and it makes it looks longer, like 87 feet, which is still less than the 100 feet that's supposed to be. These lands are wet and moist most of the year. As of Monday of this week,you 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) could see standing water from the road, and I took photos of it. If you look at the vegetation, you can see the edge of the cattails which are wetland plants and where the Goldenrod grows. I'm a beekeeper and we really depend on the Goldenrod for our bees, for the honey, and the Goldenrod does not grow in wetlands, and you can see where the edge of the wetlands are from this plant,but you do need to, at this point before the Goldenrod starts flowering, you have to stand in the field, and by then you're in the wet area. So we have to save our wetlands and protect our water. Almost all the trees have been cleared from his property and I'm concerned about the runoff and especially what happens during construction of a large building. Now I just heard Paul's statement about how careful he's being, and I do appreciate that. I appreciate the fact he's putting in the trees and trying to help the runoff from Rolling Ridge, but I still worry about the wetlands, and I also understand that Paul wants to get another variance to build his house taller than the laws. A larger house, building his leach field in the protected boundaries of our wetlands and building this house 35 feet closer, again, to the wetland boundaries are not okay with me. I am almost done. The weight of the fill and the large house can change the water table for many of us in the neighborhood. Look at what happened to our historic Halfway Brook which is now just a drainage ditch along the road. I worry about our precious wetlands and what happens to this water if the Enviro septic system fails. The house being built bigger and lots filling in and it just isn't going to save our wetlands. I met Paul. I believe him to be a nice person. I recommend that he build his home with the required boundaries and maybe having a holding tank instead of a leach field that can be pumped out. Another solution would be to do what his neighbor did and put the septic in front of his house,but I understand now that the boundaries, I mean, he just has,the lot's too small for the size of his house that he's putting in. Again, I've lived on the edge of the wetlands for many years and Paul's proposed leach field and home are a danger to our wetlands. I would like to see an Environmental Impact Statement about this project. Has one been done? Especially because it's about our wetland. MR. KUHL-It's not our purview. MRS. REID-Okay. Who do I ask about that? MRS.MOORE-Construction of a single family house is a Type II action under SEQR. MRS. REID-Okay. I guess I don't quite understand how building in a wetland isn't going to affect our environment. MR. KUHL-Well, your time is almost up, but he's not building in the wetland. He's building in the buffer to the wetland. Okay. MRS. REID-Correct. All right. I would love to have you come over and walk that land with me right now it's wet. MR. KUHL-Also your documentation on the septics, I would suggest you give that to the Board of Health,because they have the authority to approve his septic,we don't. MRS. REID-Okay. MR. KUHL-So if you have good documentation on the septic, I suggest you give that to the gentlemen,the Town Board,okay. MRS. REID-Okay. Anyway, I just wonder when it's going to stop,when we're going to stop filling in the wetland area. MR. KUHL-We hear you. MRS. REID-I also,there was a meeting last night? MR. KUHL-Planning Board meeting. The night before the Zoning Board there's a Planning Board meeting. MRS. REID-Okay. Are there supposed to be letters to people that live nearby if they're going to be affected? MRS. MOORE-It's a Planning Board recommendation only. There's not a public hearing that's required for that. So the public hearing starts with the variance. If the variance is approved,then you'll receive a notice again for the site plan application. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MRS. REID-Okay. Thank you for listening tome. MR. KUHL-You're welcome. Is there anyone else? Come forward,please. MICHAEL SPIELBERGER MR. SPIELBERGER-Good evening. My name is Michael Spielberger. I live on 11 Sheraton Lane South, Queensbury, NY,just up the road from where the proposed project is, and Joan pretty much covered many of the things that I have concerns about. I just wanted to voice that I have similar concerns about that. I think these people would be lovely neighbors. I just want everything to be done in a way that will allow the wetlands to remain healthy and for my wells and my water table, because this is a pretty wet ridge there, even though we're on a ridge. Even the houses, my house, which is up fairly high, still gets,we have to deal with water, and I know, or feel when all that soil is placed down to fill, that's going to put pressure, the water coming down, it's going to back up some place and may back up this way,but those are my concerns,basically to what Mrs. Reid was saying, and possibly there's some solutions that can be done to remedy this. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Anybody else? Come on up. CHRIS LYNCH MR. LYNCH-My name is Chris Lynch. Since 1985 I've lived up contiguous to what is actually one large wetland, in fact some of it's on my eight acres. Every spring as they say it just grows and it shrinks. I don't know. This might be a wonderful project. There is discussion. I will leave, and I would like to get into the record, again, if you read the Presby system, on their web page, it's the greatest darn thing in the history of the world, and you can tell on some professional threads where they have their little plants coming in and say, this is the greatest thing in the world, and there are other professionals in the field who have some really grave problems with it. The number one problem is it seems to work when you have really good percolation, nice, sandy soil, and if you go over there on your way home tonight,you'll see standing water, and you'd have to be silly to think that there's good percolation there. Now, this thing, a number of mitigating little features on this thing. One of them I'm reading about in some systems is about a 20 foot tall pipe where you have gaseous emanation. So if you don't mind the coliform every time the wind isn't blowing, I guess it's a really wonderful system,but I would like to read in just some discussion from professionals in the field about that. The last thing about the Presby system, I'll leave it alone, also,you'd have to be an idiot to build a system that breaks in four, five, six, seven, eight years,but we're more looking in the future towards 10, 15 years, and the idea just, if you look at that map, of dropping an experimental, and it is an experimental septic system in the middle of a wetland which happens to be an exceptionally important and delicate wetland, moral fen. Does anybody know what a moral fen is? Yes, right. That's one of the reasons it's gotten this far, but, again, the idea of dropping an experimental septic system in the middle of a wetland is crazy,absolutely insane. Now, Part II,why are we all here? Well, one thing we all agree on, and it comes off of your pre-submission conference form, 179-yadda, yadda, yadda, the reason for this review, project is too close to wetland. See, we all agree it is. This is a stupid little parcel. Nobody should have bought it. Nobody should have sold it. The Monday night our Town Supervisor saying, but this is a building parcel. Well,no, it is not,not unless you're in conformance with the law of Queensbury, and believe me, I know that very well, if anybody remembers the grief I went through with the screw ups between the County and the Town trying to build on the property that I'm at right now. Actually,to be a little less flippant about things, I'll tell you why you are here, and God forbid you forget, it is declared to be the public policy of the Town of Queensbury to preserve, protect, and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom and to prevent any despoliation, don't despoil the damn things, and destruction of freshwater wetlands, to regulate the development of such wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands. Now I don't see a darn thing in there where your job is to make it easier for people to stomp up and down on the laws of Queensbury, the Zoning Laws of Queensbury, and to make it easy for people to build or all that. Your job is to protect people over there in the wetlands, and I hope you do your job. Now I know it's easy for you to forget, but there are five criteria for you to look at. I submit four out of five are no brainers, not necessarily in favor of this project. Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting this area variance. Well, kill the wetlands. That's pretty damn undesirable, and having fecal whiffs every time there's an occlusion. I don't know,you want to live next door to an open sewer pipe or whatever? I don't know. Again,this has just been dropped on us in the last few days. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Yes, change the design. Buy another property. Build somewhere else, but again, this is not a viable parcel, I don't think, and if you look at that map, it just, it can't be. Number Three, is the requested area variance substantial? Again, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) another no brainer. You're chopping the variance to the wetlands by 50%, 5-0%, not 1-5, 5-0%. If that isn't substantial, what in God's name is? By definition it's a no brainer. No. Whether proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We've already been over that. Yes,you have a bunch of neighbors here, and last but not least, the alleged difficulty was self-created. Okay. The height of the thing, seven inches, God bless him,he didn't, I could care less,you know,but as far as the rest of it, of course it's self-created. We're trying to grab a piece of land real cheap, turn it around, get a really good value out of it. It was self-created the second he bought it. If you did due diligence you'd know damn well it wasn't a viable parcel to build on. The neighbors will tell you it doesn't, the contractor's been there trying to do a flip house, no, I wouldn't touch this with a 20 foot pole. Again, they've seen them. The neighbors watch them walk around. They come in, make nice. So again, four out of five are no brainers. I can't see how in God's name you could possibly accede to this request. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. LYNCH-So, enjoy your maps. I would request that there is some discussions. It's a wonderful system. Everybody loves it. It's just greater than sliced bread, other than a whole bunch of professionals in the field said. MR. KUHL-Again, you can bring those issues up to the Board of Health because they're going to be looking at that septic. MR. LYNCH-Well, again, the proximity of this to the wetland and the relief, I would like it in the, believe me, I will be bringing it up. MR. KUHL-Good. MR. LYNCH-Again, I've researched this stuff. A moral fen, by the way, is a very unique type of wetland. There are three of them in New York State. That's one. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. LYNCH-You're welcome. MR. KUHL-Anybody else wishing to be heard? Please come up. Good evening. MAUREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-Good evening. I'm Maureen Lynch. I live at 695 Ridge Road, and as Chris Lynch indicated, our property does abut the field, including the wetlands adjacent to the parcel that's in question. We were at the Planning Board meeting. We understand that the issue regarding the septic system is to be covered by them under the Board of Health umbrella. So we will be following up on that,and I understand that tonight's meeting is strictly about the height variance. MR. KUHL-And the distance to the wetlands. MRS. LYNCH-Is also being covered this evening. Okay. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Is the issue at hand. MRS. LYNCH-All righty. I think several people have already covered the issues. The decisions on whether or not to grant a variance are based on those criteria, as is covered. Yes, it's self-created. The alternatives, either a smaller house or reconfigure the parcel in the proposed foundation and the stuff around it, or frankly just build elsewhere. I gather, I'm not 100% sure, that the property has been for sale on and off over some years, since it was purchased, I think, in 2006. It has not been sold. There's a reason for that. Anybody who's looked at the parcel and done their due diligence, they have brought in builders. They have had people look at the property, and not one person has said other than this is not a viable building lot. The slope is too great. The dimensions are too small in which to put something. The only way that you can cobble together enough space in order to slap a foundation on to build a house is if you haul in tons and tons of fill, and that also is going to have a negative impact on the drainage characteristics going into that area. The variance right now is only for seven inches to the top of the house. What it does not factor in is how much height has already been added in the plans by the fill they're going to have to bring in. Much of the property has already been denuded. I mean, there weren't only, there were only so many trees on it to begin with. Quite a few have been cut down as it is to make room for this proposed house. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) The problem is with all of that screening gone,the house is going to be sticking up like a sore thumb as it is, and highly visible from pretty much every direction, and then you're going to have a steep drop off running right into the lowlands. The other consideration on that is if you increase the height of the house over the ground level,you're also going to be increase the height that the pipe, which is necessary for the septic system to ventilate, is going to be at. The minimum is 20 feet. If it goes higher, the stench is going to be dispersed further, and every time you get wet conditions in the ground, it's going to be driving the gases out of the septic field, right up into the pipe and dispersed over the neighborhood. It is not going to help the ecosystem of the wetlands either. Bear with me. I can understand there's multiple sides to this thing in question. I'm adamantly opposed to doing anything that can touch on the wetlands. A lot of questions have come up for us and the other neighbors in the past 48 hours, but we don't have any answers. We have not had adequate time to do our research to address the questions, but we have, you know, come up with these other questions and information. If it is reasonable, if it's prudent, I would ask that the Board consider, instead of voting on this one way or the other this evening, perhaps it would be reasonable to table this for one or two meetings, until the Planning Board has had a chance to render their decision. They have a bigger issue that they are looking at at the moment. They decided to table it, I believe to July 7th. I can't see any disadvantage in just waiting a few weeks, seeing what they come up with, what their decision is, because it will directly impact on this project. I'm not in favor of it, but I would be in favor of just waiting. There's nothing to be lost by waiting a few more weeks on it. Thank you very much. MR. KUHL-You're welcome. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this project? Okay. Would you like to come back up, please? It's Staff's recommendation that this be tabled pending the Board of Health? MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Is that okay with you all, we're going to table this pending the Board of Health? Okay. MR. DESLAURIERS-I would like to make one statement. The height of the house at street level would be 29 feet above the road. MR. KUHL-And I'll bet you if you had to take the seven inches off,you would. MR. DESLAURIERS-I could probably go to an eight/twelve pitch. MR. KUHL-You probably could. MR. DESLAURIERS-We couldn't do that without going back to the engineer. MR. KUHL-I understand. You probably could. MR. DESLAURIERS-And the aerobic system or the Presby system, which requires a vent, requires a vent so that the air can flow through the system, thus creating an aerobic system, not an anaerobic. Anaerobic is the old style septic system which when you open the lid of the septic tank stinks. An aerobic system has virtually no smell to it, so that the vent is going out the stack, which is a continuous thing,will have no smell whatsoever. MR. KUHL-But those are your issues to discuss to the Board of Health. Okay. We'll stick to our agenda. Okay, everybody. Mike,do you want to make that recommendation to table? RESOLUTION TO: Table Area Variance No. 46-2014, Paul G. DesLauriers, Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul G. DesLauriers for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,475 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from the shoreline (wetland) setback and height requirements of the MDR zone. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 18, 2014 and left open; Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2014 by the following vote: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. KUHL-We'll see you next month. MR. DESLAURIERS-Thank you,gentlemen. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MRS.MOORE-For the Board's information,the public hearing is left open. MR. KUHL-I didn't close it. MRS.MOORE-You didn't close it. MR. KUHL-Okay. USE VARIANCE NO. 33-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED WAYNE MATTISON AGENT(S) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) MICHAEL D. LARSON AND SHARON C. WELLS ZONING CLI LOCATION 0 LOWER WARREN STREET; 0 GREEN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1-STORY BUILDING IN ORDER TO OPERATE AN AUTO USE FACILITY FOR THE REPAIR AND SALE OF AUTOMOBILES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ALLOWABLE USES IN THE CLI ZONING DISTRICT FOR AUTO SALES. CROSS REF SP 32-2014 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2014 LOT SIZE 0.36 AND 0.11 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-41 AND 40 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;WAYNE MATTISON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 33-2014, Wayne Mattison, Meeting Date: June 18, 2014 "Project Location: 0 Lower Warren Street; 0 Green Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1-story building in order to operate an auto use facility for the repair and sale of automobiles. Relief Required: Parcel will require use variance as follows: Relief from allowable uses in the CLI zoning district for auto sales Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provide that return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has provided listings for the following years 4/7/2004 for 25,500 lowered to 23,500; then 9/6/2005 for 37,500 lowered to 32,000; then 3/20/2008 for 45,000 lowered to 39,000. The applicant has indicated the sellers have invested $4,750 plus closing costs and school tax of 605.14 and town/county tax of 261.09. Information from the RPS records indicated the 0.36 parcel was purchased 2001 for $1,750 and then in 2003 an adjoining lot 0.11 was purchased for 3,000. 2. The alleged hardship related to the property in question is unique,and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the surrounding neighborhood development has limited the property marketability. The surrounding neighborhood is zoned commercial light industrial but does border a heavy industrial zone where the uses in the area include single family dwellings, property that is vacant with improvements -garage, auto service -in heavy industrial zone, Cement Company - in heavy industrial zone,and vacant properties. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) 3. That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the character of the neighborhood is industrial. The area is mixed use where residential and vacant is notable character. The intent of the zone is for transition between old industrial uses to new commercial or retail uses where the newer uses are not predominate. 4. Whether the alleged hardship has not been self-created The applicant has indicated that the hardship is not self-created. Where it may be considered self-created as the zoning code has been amended to provide opportunities for uses for lots near to other industrials uses. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 32-2014: Pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new building specifically for auto service and sales where auto sales is not a permitted use. The applicant has indicated additional site plan details will be developed for site plan review dependent on the outcome of the use variance request. The applicant has provided listing details, an overview of the light industrial uses that would be suitable if a potential buyer were to apply for site plan review due to size of the parcel and the neighboring uses. The applicant has provided letters from the property buyer's representative indicating that the property has been on and off the market for 12 years without finding a buyer. The owner's real estate representative has indicated the property has been on the market for a number of years without success. The applicant has not provided details on any offers that were received only indicating the property has not been purchased. In addition the applicant has not provided supporting information about the uses that are allowed through site plan as the site is vacant. Further the applicant has described a pending site plan application of an allowed use for auto service so the board may wish to consider if adequate information has been provided for each use that is allowed for the zone in relation to the use variance criteria-reasonable rate of return. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board met on June 17th and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was approved six zero with one person absent. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Roy. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and Wayne Mattison is with me here at the table. He is the applicant. He is the proposed purchaser of the property. This is, and I said last night before the Planning Board, this is probably my commonsense application for the year. If you've been down, looked at the property, looked at the neighborhood, you pretty much can see why no offers, and you asked the question or somebody asked the question in Staff Notes, have any offers been made for the property. I've been told by owners that owner's representative, their attorney, not necessarily the realtor, that they've never received an offer, even though they've actually marketed this property since their ownership, which goes 12 years or better. It's an odd-shaped property. If you take a look at it, there's a small billboard out on Warren Street that cuts into the front of it. We've had about four different proposals for location of the building, for the size of the building on there, to meet with the two street setback on the front basis because we have to have a front yard setback from Green Avenue, and we also have to have a front yard setback from Warren Street. What we propose is a building that is 1320 square feet, and what we are asking for really is not substantial in any nature, because if you look at the permitted uses in this zone, you're allowed to have automobile service. You could have a repair shop there, and you could have heavy duty construction repair and sales, but for some reason, for automobile you can't have sales. The emphasis of Mr. Mattison's business is going to be sales, and he will do some repairs, but they'll be light repairs, and mainly he will get his cars ready for sale. I think it's pretty well accepted that an auto sales operation is a lot cleaner than an auto service operation, particularly if you're only going 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) to do light repairs. You don't have parts hanging around. You don't have projects partially done outside. Any repairs that will be done on this site will be done inside. So I think we're talking about a very minor variance. The Planning Board, in their comments last night, all said it was a good fill in project or fill in for that neighborhood. Across the street you've got the, I call it the Glens Falls Cement Company, and I think it's now called Lehigh Northeast Cement Company. To the east of it you've got Taylor Welding,which is on a bigger site. There are some uses in this zone, if you had a bigger lot, that might be feasible, but this is .44 acres by combining the two parcels. It would be very hard to get a warehouse or a distribution type operation like Taylor Welding in it. Next to that you've got the recycling or Brown's Auto junkyard, I think it's permitted as a junkyard even though that might not be a term that they like, and to the west of it you've got IBS Septic company and service operation. Probably in that whole neighborhood, the only thing that's been built of any nature is the additions to Brown's yard,and the additions to the septic yard. There are, it is permitted, and there are some single family homes there, but who's going to build a single family home across from the Cement Company between a septic system operation and a junkyard? I mean,there's got to be a lot better lots to build your new home on,where you're going to live. So, from a zoning point of view, from a planning point of view,we're not talking about a very heavy lift. Now, in the notes from Staff, they talk about what we've presented for proof, whether or not we meet the test for a Use Variance, have we met the test of presenting dollars and cents value? I've done three or four Use Variances in the last couple of years. I usually bring in Paul Dowen from Whittemore, Dowen and whatever, CPA, and he gives you his professional opinion. I didn't think it was necessary because we really don't have any return. What are we comparing this to? It's zero. These people put in $4750 for the property. They pay, right now, $865 a year for taxes, and I generously say go back, maybe the taxes, if you averaged them over the 10, 12 years, you're probably paying about $600 a year, because right now you're probably at the high end of the taxes. That's $7200. If you gave them 10% rate of return on the $4700 and the $7200, you'd be talking about another $10,000 if you do it over 10 years, and if you gave him 15%, which is what Dowen says is the standard for real estate investment, you'd be talking $17,000. You're up to almost $30,000 for investment in this property over the course of their ownership, and they haven't been able to generate one offer for it. Mr. Mattison has a passion here to have his own business and have a small business, and he thinks he can make a go of it on that site. In our presentation to the Planning Board we've said we will not ask for any other variances. We will make it comply with all the setbacks, the height. We will make it comply with the permeability, and it will be a compliant type operation. It's the only thing that's come along. In my letter, which I filed on March 17th, I omitted probably 15 of the permitted uses for that zone. I just said they weren't practical, agricultural service use,building supply,lumberyard,it's just not big enough. A bus storage facility. The building that he is going to build and meet the setbacks is 30 by 48 feet, 44 feet, I'm sorry. You'd get, what, two buses on it. Construction Company. I don't think you've ever seen a construction company on that type size lot. Distribution center, electric power plant. I mean, you can go through all those type uses. The uses that maybe you could compare it to is automobile service, business service, limousine service or repossession business. We've seen limousine service in different applications over off of Corinth Road. We've seen the repossession services I think also over in that area. There just doesn't seem to be a market, though, for another one of those businesses to come into the Town. So, I, and we've asked for a number of waivers. I'm sure you're kind of aware of the fact that representatives,when they come here,don't come here for free. They're not members of the Chamber of Commerce, and I don't mean that facetiously. I'm told that you can't get the engineer, and we probably can't get the engineering and surveying for this thing for less than $5,000. It may even go as high as $6500. It's a fairly flat lot, and it shouldn't be that hard to do the stormwater and do the septic. It'll be an onsite septic, municipal water. So that's why we asked for the waivers, and that's why we asked for temporary waivers, because we know that when we go to the Planning Board, we're going to have to have a full package, but we didn't want to spend $5,000 or $6,000 just get the engineering information and then find that we weren't going to go forward. We also didn't want to spend $1,000, Paul Dowen's typical fee is $1200, by the time he does the thing. He can give you a letter that says they have zero return right now,and if you allow this sale, the people will about break even at 10 to 15%. The reasonable rate of return isn't for Mr. Mattison's business. It's for the present owners of the property. Our contract is for $32,000, and they just about may break even. I did math on it and it's, if you look at their investment and everything else, it's $28,875 by the time they get adding in something on an annual incremental basis. So I think we have met the burden of proof. I'd be glad to answer any questions. I think that pretty much covers what we talked about. MR. KUHL-Okay. Any Board members have any questions? MR.URRICO-How many autos do you think would be able to fit on that property? MR. O'CONNOR-You've got a sketch there. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MR.URRICO-Yes, I've seen that. MR. O'CONNOR-That's about it. MR. MATTISON-Yes,right around, I mean, 10 at a max,at a time. MR. URRICO-You wouldn't be working on cars and leaving them outside when you're working on them in addition to that? MR. MATTISON-My service would be mainly, I mean, it'll be quick in and out like brake and oil changes, as far as to the public, and then repairs on let's say I buy a car at auction, I would, you know,get the car ready from my lot and then put it on my lot. So at no time there's going to be,you know,a ton of cars. I'm not going to do any overnight kind of service or anything like that. It'll just be quick in and out. MR. O'CONNOR-There are going to be two stalls. One will have a lift. The building at the eaves, I think,is 12 feet,and at the center is. MR. MATTI SO N-Greatly depending on the pitch of the roof. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's 16 feet. MR. MATTISON-Sixteen feet. MR. O'CONNOR-We had schematics or we had fascia drawings, we had exposures of all the buildings, but then we had to change the size of the building. So we haven't got those drawings done yet,but. MR. HENKEL-This dotted line around this, is this a fence, is that what's going to be around there, a fence? Or is that just showing the property? MR. MATTISON-That's just the property line. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I see because you have an employee's gate. I just thought maybe that you were having it fenced in. MR. MATTISON-No, just the drawings, that's what he ended up putting in there. I'm not sure if there'll actually be a real gate there. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MATTISON-But I don't plan on having any fences,just green space around. MR. KUHL-Now this property goes to where you cut the lawn, is that where it goes, or does it go all the way over to the,who's next door,the welding? No,there's a house next door. MR. MATTISON-There's a fence between the house and the property. MR. KUHL-Is that from Green and Warren all the way to that house? Is that this property? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. KUHL-No. MR. MATTISON-On the corner is an old bar that has closed down. MR. KUHL-Yes,okay. MR. MATTISON-And so there's a shed behind that building and the line's right behind that. MR. O'CONNOR-And the little odd jut out for the billboard sign,it actually encroaches on the lot. MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. I had a friend in Clifton Park that had a used car lot, and there was a number of cars he could only have on that property. Is that going to affect, is that same type of number going to affect this young man? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MRS. MOORE-I think he'll be able to answer that question, and it is something that was brought up during the Planning Board recommendation last evening, it was reference to whether it's a dealer's license or not. Is that correct? MR. MATTISON-Yes,we will have to have a dealer license. Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-We will also have to have a repair license from the State of New York, and that, the parking capacity on the lot will be part of the site plan considerations. MR. KUHL-Okay. So when you do go that route, then that number comes out, so that this young man knows he can only have X amount of cars. MR. O'CONNOR-I would imagine that they would put a condition on it. MR. KUHL-Okay. Just to know where that came from. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we show six, eight spots on here, and probably figure on two cars within the building. So you may be talking 10 cars on site. MR. KUHL-I'd want more than that. MR. O'CONNOR-His emphasis is going to be the sale. MR. KUHL-Yes,well,you've got to have a selection for the customers,right? MR. O'CONNOR-You'll see, if you ride around, I think you'll see a lot of small shops that seem to make out. MR. KUHL-Okay. Anybody else have any questions? So I'll open a public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to talk on this Use Variance? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. KUHL-Seeing none, I can close the public hearing? MRS.MOORE-You typically poll the Board prior to you closing it. So that's up to you. MR. KUHL-Thank you. You'll notice, Mr. O'Connor, they're dealing with a rookie Chairman this evening. So let me poll the Board first then. John,you want to start? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's a good fit. I think with that multiple use in that area with all the different businesses there. I think it's a good fit. They've shown hardship with that being vacant for so long. I say go for it. It's a good fit. MR. KUHL-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-No problem with the project as proposed. MR. KUHL-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, it makes little sense to me to have a developable piece of property that, with a willing participant and then leave it vacant in order to satisfy a Code that's not,is not so far from the beaten path to have this type of business there. It's not like we're putting,you know,a big business in an area that's strictly residential. This is a mixed use area,no matter what we call it,zoning wise. There's a junkyard,auto repair, auto junkyard next door,and I think it fits,and I think this would be fine. I don't have a problem with it. MR. KUHL-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think it fits the area,and I'd be in favor of the project. MR. KUHL-And I also have no problem. So would somebody like to make a recommendation for this Use Variance? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) MRS. MOORE-You can close your public hearing and you can do SEQR, and in the information I provided you about the guidance document, I do have a SEQR comment in that first, or that second row. MR. KUHL-So I'll have to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Which I'm closing. Are you going to do SEQR? MR. NOONAN-I'll make the SEQR. I'd like to make a motion regarding Use Variance No. 33-2014. The applicant is Wayne Mattison. Based upon the information and the analysis of the supporting documentation provided by the applicant,this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So a Negative Declaration is issued. RESOLUTION FOR A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE MR. KUHL-Now could I ask a Board member to give me a Use Variance on this. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman,would they include in that the waivers that we requested? MRS. MOORE-In the SEQR, in the Use Variance requirement? There's an opportunity for them to include conditions or grant waivers towards the end of the resolution that's been prepared. MR. O'CONNOR-It may be academic at this point because we know we're going to have to do that information, provide the information to the Planning Board,but I think to complete your resolution you should have the waivers that we requested in there. MR. KUHL-And the waivers you requested were? MR. O'CONNOR-Engineering plans,landscaping. MR.URRICO-The financial hardship I think I did. MRS. MOORE-There's, some of the items that may show up, and they're typically overseen in the site plan, is landscaping, lighting, stormwater, all relevant to site plan information. So you could explain in the granting of your waivers, if you so grant them,that that information is to be provided to the Planning Board during your site plan review. MR. MC CABE-We'll hold it until the end. I'll do the motion, and then I'll, if I miss something, you can correct it. Okay. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 33-2014 Wayne Mattison, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Wayne Mattison for a variance of Section(s) 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 1-story building in order to operate an auto use facility for the repair and sale of automobiles. Relief requested from allowable uses in the CLI zoning district for auto sales. Upon consideration of the application materials, completed SEQR review form and information supplied during the public hearing and the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(B) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law, and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1) It is the Board's finding that the applicant has met the requirement for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the district where the property is located. The applicant was unable to realize a reasonable financial return. The lack of 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/18/2014) return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence provided by the applicant. 2) It is our finding that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the district where the property is located, the alleged hardship relating to that property in question is unique and is not applicable to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. 3) It is our finding that the applicant has demonstrated that the requested use variance if granted,will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4) It is our finding that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the district where the property is located, the applicant demonstrated that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. 5) It is our finding that based on the findings above we hereby determine that the applicant has demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. Based upon all of the above, I move that this Board Approve Use Variance No. 33-2014 Wayne Mattison with waivers granted for engineer drawings, landscaping, lighting, and other elements of site planning which will be presented to the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'm going to interrupt you, only because under Finding, you need to indicate that, under One, is that it is your finding as a Board that has the applicant demonstrated that, through competent financial information, that he's met that criteria. So you as Board need to actually answer that question. MR. MC CABE-Okay. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your commonsense response. MR. KUHL-You're welcome,sir,and good luck,young man. MR. MATTISON-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Is there anything else that we need to cover tonight, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There is nothing. MR. KUHL-Okay. Can I have a motion to close this meeting? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2014, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE MR. KUHL-The meeting is now closed. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Ronald Kuhl,Acting Chairman 25