The following are the minutes of the Town of Ballston Zoning Board of Appeals hearing held on Wednesday, December 5, 2007.

Chariman Lesniak called the meeting at 7:30pm and Mr. Rogner led the Pledge of Allegiance. The chairman asked for corrections to the November 17, 2007 minutes. They were as follows:

Corrections to the November 17, 2007 minutes: Page 3) 2^nd para; strike "what type"

MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion to accept the November 17, 2007 as amended and Ms. Kane seconded the motion. CARRIED.

Mr. Lesniak reviewed the agenda for this evening.

JAF, LLC, 318 Charlton Road, Ballston Spa for a review of a previously approved use variance pursuant to section 138-10. Mr. Lesniak said that the applicant was before the Board for a 12,000sq. ft. pole barn in which the motion read Mr. Rogner moved to grant a use variance under section 138-10 of the zoning law for 318 Charlton Road for the construction of a 12,000sq. ft. structure which will replace the existing pole barn with the following stipulations that the new structure be used only for present; the fabrication of fire controlled products which is presently being done on site, light industrial, office space, storage, light manufacturing as defined in the ordinance. No storage of hazardous materials which doesn’t restrict the use of legitimate materials used in the manufacturing process, Mr. Lesniak said that the problem with the motion was back in 1988 when a use variance was granted because it is a nonconforming use it was tied to a particular building. A use variance applies to the entire site. Mr. Lesniak indicated that is why the applicant has returned to amend the motion. Mr. Fantauzzi wants to thank the Board to make the clarifications.

Mr. Rogner would like to clarify or amend the motion that was made last month regarding 318 Charlton Road.

MOTION: Mr. Roger moved to grant a use variance under section 138-10 of the zoning law for the entire tax parcel 238-1-7.2 at 318 Charlton Road and for the construction of a 12,000sq. ft. structure which will replace the existing pole barn with the following stipulations: (1) That the new structure be used only for the fabrication of fire controlled products which is presently being done on site, light industrial, office space, light manufacturing as defined in the ordinance. (2) No storage of hazardous materials which does not restrict the use of legitimate materials used in the manufacturing process. Mr. Fantauzzi said that one of their concerns was to state that the area with the variance that the entire property would be light industrial, office space, storage, light manufacturing. Mr. Lesniak said that is what Mr. Rogner said. Mr. Fantauzzi said that was a repeat of the last motion from the prior meeting. Mr. Lesniak said it is for the entire site.

Mr. Lesniak asked Mr. Rogner to read the motion again, but not the stipulations.

Mr. Rogner read the motion again. I moved to grant the use variance under section 138-10 of the zoning law for the entire tax parcel 238-1-7.2 at 318 Charlton Road and for the construction of a 12,000sq. ft. structure which will replace the existing pole barn with the following stipulations: Ms. Bell suggested removing "the new structure only be used for" referring the whole site. Mr. Groves disagrees with that the phrase "that the new structure be used only for." Mr. Reilly said that he does not disagree with that either. Mr. Lesniak suggested a new motion to avoid the ambiguity between the two. Mr. Lesniak indicated that the applicant came before the Board for a 12,000sq. ft. pole in which they wanted a pole barn which was addressed in the motion and now make the second motion to clarify the use variance on the entire site. Mr. Groves said that if the motion is reworded and the phrase "that the new structured be used only for" be taken out so that the existing pole barn will the following stipulations: the fabrications of fire control products which is presently be done on site, light industrial, office, space, storage, light manufacturing as defined in the ordinance. (2) No storage of hazardous material which does not restrict the use of legitimate materials used as manufacturing process.

MOTION: Ms. Bell grant the amended motion be to grant the use variance under section 138-10 of the zoning ordinance for the entire tax parcel 238-1-7.2 at 318 Charlton Road for a use variance for the entire location and for the construction of a 12,000sq. ft. structure which will replace the existing pole barn. The following stipulations apply to the property: fabrication of fire control products as presently done on site, light industrial, office space, storage, light manufacturing as defined in the ordinance. No storage of hazardous materials which does not restrict the use of legitimate materials used in the manufacturing process. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

NEW BUSINESS:

Todd Stewart, 37 Beechwood Drive, for an area variance pursuant to section 138-8.1. Todd Stewart of Stewart Construction was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Stewart is proposing a 50ft. front yard setback for the construction of a single family dwelling. Mr. Stewart said that this home would keep in nature with the other homes in the neighborhood.

Ms. Bell asked what would preclude the applicant to create a shared driveway. Mr. Stewart replied that the applicant is trying to maintain as short a driveway as possible and would prefer not to have a shared driveway.

Mr. Rogner said if the variance was not granted, would this house fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Stewart said that it sets the house farther back that the others.

Mr. Lensiak has a concern when plowing out for the hydrant using a loader pushing the snow to the property line; 10ft to 15ft of the garage. Mr. Lesniak has a concern with drainage. Mr. Stewart said the way the house is graded in that area the surface water will go down the swale and if the loader pushes the snow around the fire hydrant and around the oak tree. Mr. Lesniak feels that this is putting to much responsibility on where to put the snow.

Mr. Groves asked the distance from the corner of the house to the fire hydrant. Mr. Stewart said about 30ft. to 40ft. Mr. Groves asked what would prevent you from rotating the house and pushing the corner back. Mr. Groves indicated that the Board is charged with granting the least amount of variance necessary. Mr. Stewart said that this would be fine, but this position was requested by the customer. Mr. Lesniak said that there should be a turn-around coming out of the driveway. Mr. Stewart said that there will be turn-around. Ms. Bell asked if the garage door could be reoriented to be placed on the front side of the house as it is rotated.

Mr. Lesniak has a concern with the snow and what position it puts the town in; not only the present customer, but the future owners as well. Mr. Rogner said if the future owner did not like where the snow was being pushed, he could shovel out his own fire hydrant and put it where he wants to put it.

Mr. Reilly said that there is plenty of room for the town to do what it has to do to put the snow within its right-of-way and it is what it is and it is no liability for the part of the town.

Mr. Lesniak opened the public hearing 8:11pm.

Mr. Lesniak closed the public hearing 8:12pm.

No one wished to speak.

Mr. Wood asked if the side of the house that is toward the leach field is that is far as if could go in that direction. Mr. Stewart asked the side of the house or the leach field. Mr. Wood can the house be moved in the direction toward the leach field. Mr. Lesniak said that the leach field could be moved to the front.

Mr. Lesniak asked the applicant if 30ft. would be sufficient. Mr. Stewart feels that the 10ft. is sufficient.

Mr. Rogner went through the five criteria of an area variance:

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 the area variance. Mr. Stewart said that it is farther back than most houses on Marlyn Drive and Beechwood Drive.

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

3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Mr. Stewart said that the number is substantial, but the intent is not.

4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood of district. Mr. Stewart 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. Stewart 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 under SEQR and therefore exempt from review. Ms. Bell seconded the motion all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner moved to grant an area variance under 138-8.1 at 37 Beechwood Drive with a front setback variance of 50ft.; 10ft next to the town property line. Ms. Bell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor except Ms. Kane and Mr. Lesniak who voted against. CARRIED.

MOTION: Ms. Kane made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Rogner seconded the motion.

Meeting was adjourned at 8.50pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman