The following are the minutes of the Town of Ballston Zoning Board of Appeals hearing held on Wednesday, June 6, 2007.

Chairman Lesniak called the meeting at 7:30pm and Ms. Kane led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Lesniak asked for a moment of silence in memory of Donald Brown.

Chairman Lesniak asked for corrections to the February 7, 2007 minutes.

Page 2) para: 7) 1) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, para; 9, change "of" to "or".

Page 3) para; 1) change "accept" to "except" para; 9) 1) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, para; 12) change "of" to "or".

MOTION: Ms. Kane made a motion to approve the February 7, 2007 minutes as amended. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all present voted in favor accept Mr. Lesniak who abstained was not present at February 7, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Lesniak reviewed the agenda for this evening.

Lisle A. Eaton, Jr., 8 Waverly Road, Ballston Lake, NY 12019 for and Area Variance pursuant to section 138-11.1 and 280-A Relief for the construction of a detached garage. Mr. Eaton is before the Board for 280-A Relief because his property is located on a private road. Mr. Eaton said that the road is maintained by Herb Jackson and other home owners who reside on Waverly Road. Mr. Eaton said that the placement of the proposed garage would not impede access to the road.

MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion to grant 280-A Relief at 8 Waverly Road. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all preset voted in favor. CARRIED.

Lisle A. Eaton, Jr., 8 Waverly Road, Ballston Lake, NY 12019 for and Area Variance pursuant to section 138-11.1 and 280-A Relief for the construction of a detached garage. Ms. Kane asked if the garage would be used for storage. Mr. Eaton replied no and no above storage. Ms. Kane asked about storing the boat. Mr. Eaton replied the boat is stored in the boat house and would be selling the boat trailer in the future.

Ms. Kane said to convince her why the proposed garage needs to be placed here. Mr. Eaton said that it is user friendly to pull the vehicles into the driveway and will not be facing the lake or will not have to cut the pine trees down.

Mr. Rogner asked for 25ft.

Mr. Easton said that Morton Building Systems said that 10ft. is need for work spaces between buildings.

Mr. Rogner asked if the proposed garage will be used for living quarters. Mr. Eaton replied no.

Mr. Rogner asked if the proposed garage will be used for any type of business. Mr. Eaton replied no.

Mr. Rogner asked if the proposed garage will be used to store hazardous materials. Mr. Eaton replied no.

Mr. Lesniak asked if the existing garage could be removed and could construct a larger one. Mr. Eaton replied that it would be too costly at this time.

Chairman Lesniak opened the public hearing 8:00pm.

Chairman Lesniak closed the public hearing 8:01pm

No one wished to speak.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner 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: Ms. Bell moved to issue a Negative Declaration, with the basis that there is not a potentially significant environmental impact. Mr. Groves seconded the motion. CARRIED.

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. Eaton replied no.

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. Mr. Eaton replied no.

3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Mr. Eaton replied yes.

4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Mr. Eaton 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. Eaton replied yes.

Further discussion was held on the driveway to the proposed garage.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner made a motion to approve the construction of a 36ft x 30ft at 8 Waverly Road the following variances, 15, 313 sq. ft. lot area variance, 25ft. front yard set back and 6ft. side yard

setback variance, with the following stipulations. The garage will not be used as a residence and there will be no business conducted out of the garage. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all presented voted in favor. CARRIED.

Kathleen Morris, 97 Midline Road, Ballston Lake, NY 12019 for an Area Variance pursuant to section 138-26.A1 to make the property available to the public as an avenue for outdoor wedding receptions, meetings, etc. Dr. Morris and Mr. Bobeck presented the case to the Board. The variance requested in for 1.4 acres. The applicants are proposing a PUDD to the Town Board to change the Zoning to Mixed Use and five acres is needed for a PUDD and the applicants have 3.6 acres.

Dr. Morris said that this event would be held outside would consist of wedding receptions, meetings and catering and feels that the 3.6 acres is sufficient.

Mr. Lesniak read the Saratoga County Planning Board comments which stated no significant county wide impact. (see attached).

Mr. Lesniak received comments from surrounding property owners and read them into the record.

Margaret Lamb, Larkin Drive has a concern with traffic and is against the proposal (see attached).

Alec Davis, Larkin Drive has a concern with traffic and noise and is also against the proposal (see attached).

Dr. Morris said that the neighbors across the street are in favor of the proposal.

Mr. Lesniak asked when the hours of the home occupation are in session. Dr. Morris replied Monday at the Mideline Road office and Tuesday through Friday in her Albany office.

Ms. Bell asked the number of guests that are being projected. Dr. Morris replied 150 to 200.

Ms. Bell asked what days of the week. Dr. Morris replied Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and are only projecting one event at a time; wedding reception until 10:00pm to 11:00pm. Mr. Bobeck said it would simulate the "Pruyn House" and also share the property with the community.

Mr. Bobeck said that a fence would be erected around the entire house for privacy.

Mr. Bobeck said that the middle barn will be taken down to make more space for parking on the property.

An engineer will have to determine the amount of parking spaces on the property.

Mr. Bobeck said that the driveway is in the shape of a horse shoe which makes pulling off the road easier for traffic.

Ms. Bell asked the applicants if the adjoining land was considered for purchase. Dr. Morris replied no.

Mr. Rogner has a concern with traffic and noise.

Mr. Rogner read the first criteria of an area variance:

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. Bobeck replied no.

Mr. Groves has a concern with the parking and asked for a plan that is to scale. Mr. Johnson said that a parking space is (9’ x 18’).

Mr. Reilly said that the mapping proposal should show the number of cars, tents and also include the Pruyn House and Apple Inn.

Ms. Kane suggested having the weddings be performed inside the house.

Chairman Lesniak opened the public hearing 8:55pm

Patti Southworth said that she has a concern with the decibel impact because it is a quite neighborhood. Ms. Southworth said that this is a state road and children skateboard and with an increase in traffic would impact the road.

Ellen Brown said that she attends events at the high school and the noise would be greater than what is generated at the events. Ms. Brown also said that the property is located in the Ballston Lake Water Shed and has a concern with amount of cars.

Mr. Reilly suggested to the applicants return with notification from neighbors who favor the proposal.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner 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: Ms. Kane made a motion to table the application until there is enough information to satisfy the Board. Mr. Groves seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Johnson asked for clarification from the Board of what is needed form the applicant. Mr. Lesniak said a scaled map, information on number of parking spaces.

Application tabled.

Steven Zarelli, 17 Palmer Avenue, Ballston Lake, NY 12019 for an Area Variance pursuant to section 138-8.1 for the construction of a front porch. Mr. & Mrs. Zarelli were present to present the case to the Board. The applicants are proposing to remove their existing front porch and construct a new

porch. The variance that is being requested is a front yard setback is 40ft. Mr. Zarelli said that the porch will be 2ft. close the road and will not change the property and will improve the curb appeal.

Chairman Lesniak opened the public hearing.

Patti Southworth said that she is favor of the new porch to set on and enjoy which would add pleasure with neighbors.

Mr. Rogner said that the Zoning Board has to grant the minimum variance. Mr. Zarelli said that to make it any smaller it would not be a usable porch.

Mr. Groves 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. Zarelli replied no.

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. Mr. Zarelli replied no.

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

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

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. Zarelli 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: Ms. Bell moved to issue a Negative Declaration, with the basis that there is not a potentially significant environmental impact. Mr. Kane seconded the motion. CARRIED.

MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion to approve the 40ft. front yard setback variance at 17 Palmer Ave. for the construction of step replacement. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Steven Zarelli, 17 Palmer Avenue, Ballston Lake, NY 12019 for an Area Variance pursuant to section 138-8.1 for the construction of a garden shed. Mr. & Mrs. Zarelli were present to present the case to the Board. The applicants are proposing to construct and 8’ x 10" storage shed.

Ms. Bell asked if the storage shed will store hazardous materials. Mr. Zarelli replied no.

Chairman Lesniak opened the public hearing 9:10pm.

Chairman Lesniak closed the public hearing 9:11pm.

No one wished to speak.

Chairman Lesniak waived the five criteria of an area variance.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner 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: Ms. Bell moved to issue a Negative Declaration, with the basis that there is not a potentially significant environmental impact. Mr. Kane seconded the motion. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner made a motion pursuant to section 138-8.1 for the construction of an 8’ x 10’ shed with a 1ft. side yard setback variance. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Terry Emerich, 41 Woodside Drive, Burnt Hills, NY 12027 for an Area Variance pursuant to section 138-8.1 for the construction of a shed. Ms. Emerich was present to present the case to the Board. Ms. Emerich is proposing to construct a 12’ x 20’ shed and will require a 20ft. side yard set back variance.

Ms. Emerich said that the proposed shed will be used to house the large trailer, garden tractor and snow blower. Mr. Lesniak asked what the trailer is used for. Ms. Emerich said it is a construction trailer for hauling yard equipment and mulch.

Mr. Rogner asked if the neighbors had a problem with the proposed shed. Ms. Emerich replied no.

Mr. Groves asked if the door was on the 12’ span or the 20’ span. Ms. Emerich replied the 12’ span.

Ms. Emerich distributed pictures of the proposed area and proposed shed to the members.

A discussion was held on placement of proposed shed on property.

Mr. Groves suggested shifting the proposed shed closer to the tree on the property.

Ms. Emerich said that she felt this could be accomplished.

Mr. Rogner asked if a smaller shed could be constructed.

Ms. Emerich replied no, because then the trailer could no fit.

Mr. Rogner asked if the proposed shed would be used for living quarters. Ms. Emerich replied no.

Mr. Rogner asked if the proposed shed would be for a business. Ms. Emerich replied no.

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. Ms. Emerich replied no.

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. Ms. Emerich replied no.

3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Ms. Emerich replied yes.

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

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. Emerich replied no.

Mr. Reilly said that this is not self created.

MOTION: Ms. Rogner moved to issue a Negative Declaration, with the basis that there is not a potentially significant environmental impact. Mr. Kane seconded the motion. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Bell made a motion pursuant to section 138-8.1 for the construction of an 8’ x 10’ shed with a 1ft. side yard setback variance. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rogner made a motion to approve the variance pursuant to section 138-8.1 for the construction of a 12’ x 20’ shed at 41 Woodside Drive, with a 15’ front yard setback variance, with the

following stipulation: no living quarters, no business to be run out of the shed. Ms. Bell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

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

Meeting was adjourned at 9:40pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman

Enc.