The following are the minutes of the Town of Ballston Zoning Board of Appeals hearing held on Wednesday, August 1, 2007.

Chariman Lesniak called the meeting at 7:30pm and Mr. Wood led the Pledge of Allegiance. The chairman asked for corrections to the July 11, 2007 minutes. They were as follows:

Page 1) para; change presented to "present", change accept to "except"

MOTION: Ms. Kane made a motion to accept the motion as amended. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Lesniak indicated that Kathleen Morris on 97 Midline Road will not be hearing that case this evening. The applicant is proposing an area variance pursuant to section [138-26A.1] having 3.6 acres and need 5 acres to pursue a PUD to hold outdoor weddings. This application has been tabled due to lack of insufficient parking and need to supply a parking plan. Mr. Lesniak said that the public has forward several letters to Board members and will not address until the application is heard.

MOTION: Ms. Kane made a motion to table the application for 97 Midline Road for one more month to present the outstanding information if not received, will be removed from the agenda. Ms. Bell asked if a notice will be sent to the applicant. Mr. Lesniak said that a notice will be sent to the applicant and if no further information is forwarded to the Board the application will be removed from the agenda. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Lesniak went over the agenda.

Richard Doriguzzi, 65 Lake Road for an area variance pursuant to section [138-21.2] for the construction of a garage. Mr. Lesniak read the narrative that the applicant is planning to remove an existing 20’ x 20’ wood frame garage and erect a new 26’ x 36’ garage. Mr. Lesniak said that a 25’ lot width variance is also required. (175’ required applicant has 150’)

Ms. Bell asked the applicant if there has been any attempt to purchase sufficient property to avoid a variance. Mr. Doriguzzi said that this land is owned by a family member and has made no attempt to extend this property and did not want to encroach on the property and applied for the variance.

Mr. Lesniak said that as a general rule the Board tries to grant the minimum variance that is required. If land could be acquired, it would be a lot line adjustment. Mr. Doriguzzi said that this could be the direction that could possibly be pursued. Mr. Doriguzzi said that the proposed garage will be used for storing the snow blowers and lawnmowers.

Mr. Lesniak asked the applicant if he is willing to acquire more land he will not have to reapply.

Mr. Lesniak asked the applicant when he was planning on building the garage. Mr. Doriguzzi said that he wanted to have it built before cold weather.

Mr. Lesniak went through the criteria specifications; 40,000 sq. ft. and 175ft. frontage. Mr. Lesniak asked if this garage would only be used for personal storage.

MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion to table the request for a garage construction at 65 Lake Road until next month for lot area and lot width variance so the applicant can pursue additional land. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Lesniak opened the public hearing 7:40pm

Mr. Cottone asked the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Lesniak replied 65 Lake Road.

Paula Jackson, 531 Randall Road for an area variance pursuant to section [138-10.1] for the construction of a garage. Mr. Lesniak indicated that the applicant has 68,825sq. ft. and the latest zoning requires 80,000 sq. ft. and an area variance of 11,175sq, ft. is required. Mr. Lesniak read the narrative which states replacing existing garage/shed with a 28’ x 38’ garage with storage.

Ms. Bell asked if there is any method to obtain more land. Ms. Jackson replied no.

Ms. Bell asked the reason for this size of garage. Ms. Jackson said that there is no basement storage and are requiring more storage. Ms. Bell asked if there are plans other than personal storage; cars, no business operation. Ms. Jackson said that shipments are received, but do not run a business. Ms. Jackson said her husbands contract states he can only conduct business in Rensselaer Columbia County.

Mr. Groves asked how the shipments were received; Fed- Ex and UPS. Ms. Jackson said UPS. Mr. Groves asked if tractor trailers would be making deliveries on a regular basis. Ms. Jackson replied no; mainly UPS.

Ms. Bell asked if UPS shipments are currently being received. Ms. Jackson replied yes. Ms. Bell said that there would be no change other than the structure that is being proposed. Ms. Jackson replied yes.

Ms. Brown asked if the proposed garage will have a second floor. Ms. Jackson replied yes. Ms. Brown asked the purpose of the second floor. Ms. Jackson said for personal storage.

Mr. Lesniak asked how often the shipments are received. Ms. Jackson said twice a week. Mr. Lesniak asked if a standard UPS truck makes the delivery. Ms. Jackson "said occasionally something else will come in if it is a bigger tool box, but he usually has those put on his truck."

Mr. Wood asked where the backlog is stored. Ms. Jackson said in the shed. Mr. Wood asked would it then be stored in the garage. Ms. Jackson said some of it would be, but not large amounts.

Mr. Rogner asked if any business will be conducted out of the garage. Ms. Jackson said no, because Snap-On business cannot be conducted in that territory.

Mr. Rogner asked if there are plans for any living quarters. Mr. Jackson replied no.

Mr. Lesniak said that letters have been received by two neighbors and Ms. Corwin states that this variance is not suitable for the location of the proposed garage. (see attached)

Mr. Lesniak read a letter from a Donald H. Partridge, stating that this outbuilding should not belong in a residential area. Mr. Lesniak clarified the zoning; it’s rural not residential. Mr. Partridge has a concern that it may become a warehouse to the Snap-On representatives inventory and truck and could this move change the zoning from residential to commercial; it’s rural not commercial. Mr. Lesniak replied no. Mr. Partridge asked could the continual traffic of heavy delivery vehicles damage Randall Road as well as tie up traffic to the degree it does now. Mr. Lesniak asked is there a tie up of traffic? The letter goes on to say that there are at present a couple of unregistered vehicles on the premise; could this turn into a motor vehicle repair facility. Mr. Partridge asked that the variance not to be approved. (see attached)

Mr. Lesniak opened the public hearing 7:57pm

John Bone, 533 Randall Road took photos of the adjoining properties to give the Board and idea of the location of the houses and the surrounding area. Mr. Bone took the liberty of taking photos of the area and various properties and a photo shop composite of what the proposed garage would look like.

Mr. Lesniak said that if this property has 80,000sq. ft. the applicant would not be in front of the this Board other than an area variance.

Mr. Johnson said that the maximum building coverage is 30% on that lot; technically the applicant can have 20,400 sq. ft. of building that meets the zoning.

Ed Thomas said that the building that is proposed is a commercial storage area for Snap-On tools and believes there are places in Burnt Hills that rent space for commercial. Mr. Thomas feels this is a commercial piece of property. Mr. Thomas said that there are tractor trailers that are on that road delivering materials that have stopped traffic on a road that is doubled lined with 34’ of width and does not understand and has a traffic concern. Mr. Thomas feels that Randall Road is one of the worst secondary roads in the town for traffic and speed. Mr. Thomas has a concern for tractor trailers trying to turn into driveways from a 30’ road on a double line hill on Randall Road which is 10,000 lbs; a truck should not be there to begin with.

Russell Thomas said that the trailers are there everyday and some trailers are 45’ long.

Mr. Reilly asked if the deliveries are made to this house. Mr. Thomas replied yes. Mr. Thomas said that they try to unload pallets on the road and stop the trailer and people try to go by at 60 mph on a double lane highway down the hill. Mr. Thomas feels that it will be a bad area for traffic going up and down the road.

Mr. Lesniak brought up other two instances where businesses were run out of the home and it has caused problems and the businesses have had to relocate. Mr. Lesniak said By George which was located on Goode Street which now is located on Route 50 because of the tractor trailer issues on Goode Street. The other business was H20 Technology on Hop City Road which is now located on Route 50.

Mr. Lesniak said the Board looks at how the deliveries are being made. Mr. Lesniak said tractor trailers are what the Board wants to avoid. Ms. Jackson said if the larger shipment other than the UPS shipments were dropped off at a different location, would that be satisfactory. Mr. Thomas said that Mr. Jackson said that he has two warehouses. Ms. Jackson said that he has two storage units. Mr. Thomas said he is going to bring all that storage over into this new warehouse. Mr. Thomas assumes that this is a new business venture. Mr. Thomas said that all the new shipment will be coming to that address.

Mr. Thomas said that he does not want someone running a commercial business in an area where there is $500,000 homes being built it just does not make sense. Mr. Thomas said that there are rental properties all over the Town of Ballston. Mr. Thomas said to run your business from a commercial piece of property.

Mr. Reilly said that if the applicant only receives shipments there, he is not conducting business out of that area, if he simply comes home with a truck, parks it there, and restocks it and takes it somewhere else. Mr. Reilly said that there is a gray area here and that is what we are discussing. Mr. Thomas said that it is black and white. Mr. Reilly said no it is not. Mr. Thomas said that if there is commercial material coming in. Mr. Reilly "said that the applicant goes out he gets his tools somewhere else his supplies, drives his truck home fully loaded leaves the next morning does his business and comes with the truck fully stocked parked in the driveway and goes out again; he is not conducting a business." Mr. Reilly said the scenario is the applicant gets tools delivered and people buy from him; that is definitely a business and then there is gradations in between and that is what we are talking about. Mr. Reilly is not sure what permit Mr. Thomas is referring to that should have been given by this Board; no permit has been given by this Board. Mr. Reilly said that this Board is trying to determine whether a business is going to be conducted out of there which is not permitted under the zoning. Mr. Reilly said but as the Chairman stated, but for the size of this lot, this applicant would not have to be here she is not even changing any use of the property that exists today; but, the fact is the applicant is present because the lot happens to be undersized that building fits on the lot by all other criteria.

Mr. Lesniak asked Mr. Reilly to look at the last page of the photo of the photo shop composite of what the building would look like on the property.

Mr. Johnson said that the applicant could put the building on that lot if she were not conducting business and the maximum building height was 40’ and was allowed to cover 30% of her lot. Mr. Johnson said that the applicant’s lot is 68,000sq. ft. with 30% is allow to have 20,400sq. ft. of building on that lot under present zoning. Mr. Reilly said that this building is all of 1,064sq. ft. Mr. Bone said with two floors is 2,000sq. ft. Mr. Reilly said that it is measured by the footprint of the building. Mr. Bone said that it is semantics. Mr. Reilly said that it is not semantics that’s lots area. Mr. Johnson said the applicants could have that building on there lot legally if they are not running a business out of it.

Mr. Lesniak said that it has been stated that tractor trailers deliveries have been made to this address. Ms. Jackson said that larger tool boxes have been dropped off. Ms. Jackson said that she thought the trucks were similar to the UPS trucks which have the drop lift gates; tool boxes and UPS cannot deliver them. Mr. Thomas said that the trucks are a minimum of 40’ to 45’ in length and should not be on Randall Road which has a 10 ton limit.

Mr. Thomas asked when it says 10,000 lbs. for road what does it mean for the road. Mr. Reilly said that it means the weight limit. Mr. Reilly said that this Board has nothing to do with trucks on the road.

Mr. Lesniak asked Mr. Reilly what can the Board do to solve this problem. Mr. Reilly said that this is a difficult situation the Board is looking at the application for the variance and if passed; it would be subject to all restrictions for garage area variances that have to be that no business would be conducted out of the garage. Mr. Lesniak has a concern for the tractor trailers. Mr. Reilly asked the applicant if there was another drop site. Ms. Jackson said "that we don’t." Ms. Jackson said that we would have to hire someone to receive shipments at a different location. Mr. Lesniak has no problem with bringing home his truck or having UPS deliveries, but with the tractor trailers. Mr. Reilly said that there is a gray area there is hard time to define a business at times when you start getting inventory delivered that impacts upon the neighbors that is a good criteria that is a business that is again impacting neighbors, roadway and something that should not be allowed.

Mr. Thomas said that the road is worse than where By George was originally. Mr. Lesniak said that By George business was always conducted with the tractor trailers.

Mr. Reilly asked the applicant if the tool boxes have to be delivered by a tractor trailer. Ms. Jackson said that deliveries are made during the day and she has only been witness to one.

Mr. Thomas said that tractor trailers make deliveries when no one is at the residence. Mr. Lesniak asked how often. Mr. Thomas replied one or two a week during the winter and summer.

Mr. Bone has a concern with the size of the building. Mr. Thomas who resides at 526 Randall Road has a concern with it becoming a commercial area in a residential area building $250,000 homes and building a commercial building.

Mr. Groves said the size of the building is not an issue. Mr. Johnson said that if the applicant did not have to apply to the ZBA a permit would have to be issued for that size if it is being used for pleasure or personal use. Mr. Johnson indicated that if it were being used improperly, then a citation would be issued.

Mr. Cottone asked the applicant if there is a mobile trailer on the property. Mr. Cottone said that the deed states that it cannot be on the property. Mr. Cottone would like to read the deed from Mourningkill Estates. Mr. Reilly said there could be a declaration of covenants and restrictions, but this Board cannot enforce and should not get involved. The Zoning Board is strictly involved with the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Cottone asks if the majority of the residents on Randall Road do not want this building does that carry any weight with the Zoning Board. Mr. Lesniak said that if it is permitted by zoning. Mr. Cottone asked would the Board issue the building be torn down if the building is used commercially with the tractor trailer shipments. Mr. Reilly said that the answer is that this Board does not get involved with that. Mr. Reilly said the proper body to turn to for enforcement would be the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Catone said that you are going on good faith and this is a warehouse. Mr. Cottone asked why the Board would grant a variance. Mr. Lesniak said that it is permitted by zoning; it lacks area.

Mr. Lesniak asked Mr. Reilly if stipulations can be put in the motion that there will be no tractor trailers. Mr. Reilly said no business to be run out of the garage and no delivery by tractor trailer speaks to health, safety and welfare. Mr. Cottone asked when pictures are taken where he would take then. Mr. Reilly said that he would take them to Mr. Rohrmeier, that the applicant has violated the stipulations of the variance. Mr. Cottone asked for clarification. Mr. Reilly said that if the variance is passed with the stipulation that no business be conducted and a specific that no prohibition against any delivery by tractor trailers. Mr. Cottone said if a violation is seen. Mr. Reilly said that then it is taken to court a Notice of Violation is sent out and court proceedings ensues and if there is a finding that it has been violated the person can be fined and or jailed. Mr. Cottone said that the building cannot be taken down. Mr. Reilly said correct. Mr. Reilly said that in and of itself is an allowed building by square footage by any criteria other than the lots undersized. Mr. Cottone said that the homeowners on Randall Road are unanimously opposed to granting this variance, why would this Board grant this variance? Mr. Reilly said because the applicant has rights also; it’s a balancing the Board has to balance the applicant’s rights against the neighbor’s rights the impact. Mr. Reilly said that if you go through the criteria on this the applicant should obtain retain the relief that has bee requested even though it has been opposed by residents.

Anne Pierce how much would the building have to be reduced for the applicant not to need a variance. Mr. Lesniak said that it has nothing to do with the building. Mr. Lesniak said it has to do with the size of the land.

Mr. Reilly said that this Board is a quasi judiscial Board which does have to follow law unlike planning where there is there is some more subjectivity. Mr. Reilly there is criteria to be applied and the law has to be followed; just because the neighbors feel that it does not look good is not a reason for not to deny something.

Ms. Brown asked if the building could be positioned a different part of the lot. Mr. Lesniak said no that is where the driveway is located.

Mr. Bone feels the garage should be smaller. Mr. Lesniak said that is what you want and what you feel is appropriate and what is allowed what the applicant is entitled to. Mr. Bone said that the applicant will use this building as a warehouse.

Mr. Lesniak closed the public hearing 8:30pm

Ms. Kane asked Ms. Jackson why your husband did not attend the meeting this meeting. Ms. Jackson said that he is at a Snap-On meeting. Ms. Jackson said that she owns the property so it should not be an issue.

Ms. Kane asked about the unregistered vehicles on the property. Ms. Jackson said that the unregistered Suburban that broke down will be leaving, the other Suburban broke down has been taken away, another Suburban that is going away and the registered Suburban that he presently drives.

Mr. Rogner asked if this application could be tabled for a month and returns with your husband to better address this tractor trailer business or offer suggestions. Mr. Rogner looks at this as just a garage as no one has proven to him that it is a commercial venture, but it sounds like the local neighbors have a concern with the health, safety and welfare with the tractor trailer trucks. Mr. Rogner asked if this garage needs to be built right away. Ms. Jackson said that they were prepared to build. Ms. Jackson did not realize that there were issues with their neighbors. Ms. Jackson said that no one has approached her and this is the first that she is hearing about it.

A further discussion was held on placing a stipulation which cannot be met.

Mr. Reilly asked Ms. Jackson to check with her husband to see if something else could be done before the Board moves forward. Mr. Reilly does not believe delivery in and of itself constitutes a business, but does understand the concern about tractor trailers.

Ms. Kane asked about having storage off site and not going to have that anymore. Ms. Kane asked if these items will be stored in the new garage. Ms. Jackson said that it will be stored in the new garage.

Ms. Jackson said "what about people who have things stored in their garage." Ms. Kane said that personal use and business use are two different things.

Mr. Reilly said that this is such a tough area. Mr. Reilly gave an example "say you are a plumber and you can absolutely store plumbing supplies on your property and to and from that house and are not conducting a business."

Mr. Lesniak asked the applicant to table the application. Mr. Wood said that if the application is not tabled, the Board will stipulate no tractor trailers. Ms. Jackson said that if there are shipments on the way, other arrangements will need to be made to get to his truck.

Mr. Reilly asked how your husband delivers the tool boxes. Ms. Jackson said that there is a lift gate on his truck. Mr. Groves said that UPS has a size limit of the package that they will deliver and these tool boxes are huge. Mr. Rogner said that the Board is not against motor freight; the Board is just addressing eighteen wheelers.

Mr. Groves went the five criteria of an area variance:

1) Whether the properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Ms. Jackson replied no.

2) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Ms. Jackson replied no.

3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Ms. Jackson replied no.

4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood of district. Ms. Jackson replied no.

5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. Ms. Jackson replied no.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner motioned to name The Town of Ballston Zoning Board of Appeals the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Ms. Bell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner motioned to declare this a Type ll action. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Rogner said that if this were under the old zoning the applicant would not have to be in front of this Board.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner made a motion to grant an area variance pursuant to section [138-10.1] at 531 Randall Road for the construction of 28’ x 38’ garage to replace an existing 16’ x 24’ shed. The

following variance is needed the lot area variance of 11,175sq. ft. The following stipulations are included no business will be conducted out of the garage, no living accommodations in the garage, the present garage be torn down and no tractor trailers to be permitted. Mr. Groves seconded the motion.

Ms. Bell voted in favor, Mr. Wood voted in favor, Ms. Brown voted against, Ms. Kane voted against, Mr. Rogner voted in favor and Mr. Lesniak voted in favor. CARRIED.

Anthony Cotrupi, 20, VanVorst Drive for an area variance pursuant to section [138-8.1] Mr. Lesniak read the narrative that the applicant needs a 12’ side yard variance making an attachment of a Bilco door to access the cellar. Mr. Cotrupi indicated this should have been done 30 years ago. Mr. Lesniak commends the applicant’s for stopping all work on the property until the variance was granted.

Ms. Kane asked the reason for this location for the Bilco door. Mr. Cotrupi said that is the only place it can be put. Mr. Johnson said that typically you do not want to put a Bilco door on the eve side of a house; should go on the gable end of the house.

Mr. Rogner said that Mrs. Hatfield, neighbor asked once the Bilco is built, will there be any further need to go over her property. Mr. Cotrupi replied no. Ms. Bell indicated that there has been water in the basement for the first time. Ms. Bell asked if the water will be pumped out and drain it out the Bilco door onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Cotrupi said that there is a sump pump and will drain away as far from the house as possible.

Mr. Lesniak asked Mr. Cotrupi if Ms. Hatfield knew if the backhoe was going to end up on her lawn and did she agree. Mr. Cotrupi replied yes and she gave permission.

Ms. Brown said instead of running the sump pump hose out the Bilco door why not just install a window. Mr. Cotrupi said that the Bilco door is on the side and sump pump is in the back. Mr. Cotrupi said that the sump pump is going north and the Bilco is going west.

Mr. Lesniak opened the public hearing 8:55pm

Mr. Lesniak closed the public hearing 8:56pm

No one wished to speak.

Ms. Bell went through the five criteria of an area variance:

Mr. Groves went the five criteria of an area variance:

1) Whether the properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Mr. Cotrupi replied no.

2) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Cotrupi replied no.

3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Mr. Cotrupi replied no.

4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood of district. Mr. Cotrupi replied no.

5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. Mr. Cotrupi replied no.

MOTION: Mr. Groves motioned to name The Town of Ballston Zoning Board of Appeals the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Groves motioned to declare this a Type ll action. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion for a 5ft. side yard setback variance on 20 Van Vorst Drive for the installation of a Bilco door on the west side of the house. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Ms. Kane made a motion to adjourn.

Meeting was adjourned at 9:00pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman

Enc.