Zoning Board of Appeals April 2, 2020 Minutes

Chair Douglas Purcell opened the public hearing at 7:05pm.

Members of the public in attendance: Fred Franko, Lorraine Mott, Robert Baker, Barbara Pedley

Chair Douglas Purcell: This meeting is being conducted as a teleconference in compliance with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Executive Order of March 12, 2020, Number 202.1.

Chair Douglas Purcell: James [Long, Clerk], if you would call the roll?

Clerk James Long: Douglas Purcell?

Chair Douglas Purcell: Here.

Clerk James Long: Kenneth Coirin is absent. Frank Malagisi?

Frank Malagisi: Here.

Clerk James Long: And, Kathleen Ellerby?

Kathleen Ellerby: Here.

Clerk James Long: And, John Byrnes?

John Byrnes: I'm here.

Quorum was established.

Chair Douglas Purcell: All right. I don't know if everybody's had a chance to look at the minutes from the last meeting. They’ve only been out for about 3 or 4 days, to be available to be reviewed. I've made several changes going back and forth with James to get them so they could get onto the website. If anybody has any changes or additions at this point, I'll take them. And, if not, I'll ask for a motion to accept the meeting minutes from our March 18, 2020 meeting.

Frank Malagisi: I'll make a motion to accept. It’s Frank.

Chair Douglas Purcell: May I have a second?

John Byrnes: I’ll second it.

Kathleen Ellerby: I’ll second it.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Both Kathy and John seconded it. All in favor?

All were in favor.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Any opposed?

None were opposed.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Alright. Before we start to address the open application before the board, I wanted to put on record the following zoning notices that were returned as undeliverable. For the current applications, Z2020-04, for the Baker Mott parcel, 52.14-2-23, the communication to Elizabeth J. McDonald was returned. For the application we reviewed on the 18^th, application Z2019-07, for the Bellinger's, parcel 24.7-1-41, the notice to Douglas P. Davis was returned. Both of them as undeliverable. For tonight, we are re-opening the review of application Z2020-04 by Robert Baker and Lorraine Mott, for an Area Variance to demolish the two camps and garage and rebuild two new structures and a new garage at 118/120 Webster Road. Shoreline setback, side yard setback, front yard setback, and area coverage are at issue. This application was tabled pending a review to determine if the application was for 1 or 2 parcels, and specifically how the coverage calculation was done. At that time, I asked Frank [Malagisi] to follow up with the Code Enforcement Officer. And, if you would, Frank, relate to those that are on the conference call, what you found.

Frank Malagisi: John [Duesler, Code Enforcement Officer] and I got together and he did say he calculated it as one parcel. When I checked with the county building, I checked the map, there are two parcels. My other concern was, the shed because I went back to the property, and I did some measurements, and the shed was 6 by 19, instead of 6 by 9.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK.

Frank Malagisi: John [Duesler, Code Enforcement Officer] said he’d redo the calculations as a single? How did he do it?

Chair Douglas Purcell: Alright. With your conversation in mind, I basically found the same thing that you got. There were definitely two separate parcels. I checked tax records and confirmed that the 2019 taxes were paid on two parcels. I ended up successfully contacting Victoria Hayner last night, and she confirmed the same thing, although she did indicate that it looked like an application might be in the works to combine the two lots. John Duesler confirmed that his original calculations we're based on 20,688 square feet, which is the combination of the two. He made the calculation of what that little triangle amounted to. It takes the square footage with the buildings on it down to 19,512. The current structures are therefore, 319 square feet over the 10% allowance which means that the existing coverage is 11.6[%]. The proposed structures take the overage to 1,579 [square] feet for a coverage percentage of 18.1[%]. I obviously since you and I talked, Frank [Malagisi], have not had time to confirm with John [Duesler, Code Enforcement Officer] whether or not he included that shed in his calculations. And, you said it was 6 by 19?

Frank Malagisi: Six by 19, yes.

Chair Douglas Purcell: That's a, basically a 10th of a percent increase in the coverage, if it was not excluded. So, it, it adds to it a little bit but not significantly.

Frank Malagisi: Correct.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Alright. What I guess at this point, Fred, do you want to talk about the diagram that you sent out in e-mail today as a proposal for this Board's review instead of what we had been looking at? And, is that acceptable to Lorraine and Bob?

Fred Franko: That's correct. The discussion at the last meeting, if I understood it correctly, was that there was some objection to the fact that on the, second phase construction, the larger residence, the bedroom was projecting out past the line of the existing building, and the direction was that we'd be more receptive to bring that back to be in line with that closest point of the existing construction. And, so we did some reconfiguration of the building itself and was able to get it to work so that is indeed what we did. So, basically, we're more or less in line with the existing construction, on both buildings. There's a little bit of a twist on the smaller piece, but, in general, we're staying — we’re not encroaching further on the shoreline setback than the building encroaches now. The other part about that is that, yeah, we really did not realize that they were two separate parcels, and that, I believe, Lorraine and Bob are in the process of platting those together. So, that will incrementally decrease — when that gets done — the, the overage, but, you know, a percentage point or whatever.

Chair Douglas Purcell: It basically ends up being 17.1%.

Fred Franko: That's my understanding. Correct.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK. Alright. So, we'll proceed. Let me ask a question first: Can I presume that — or would at least the rest of the Board indicate to me that they've had a chance to look at the revised proposal concept for the two buildings that was sent out this morning?

Kathleen Ellerby: Yes, I did.

John Byrnes: I have.

Frank Malagisi: I have also.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK, good. Then, what I'd like to do is go back into our closed session where we talk to the applicants and their representative about any additional concerns that we may or may not have. Frank [Malagisi], do you want to go first?

Frank Malagisi: Yeah, when I went back up to the property to re-examined the site, I did run into Mr. Baker and he explained to me what he was doing with his septic. Can he reflect on it?

Robert Baker: Yes. The hope is that we would join both septics together. We got approval from our neighbor. It's legally been done. We can run the pickup over across the road into existing property they have on the other side of the road.

Lorraine Mott: And that's where the leach field will be.

Frank Malagisi: So, this is going to go away from the waterway?

Lorraine Mott: Yes. It will go up across Barber Road.

Robert Baker: The way that it was when we purchased the property was that the leach field that went right off the side of the camp. Actually, both camps and we have no idea how long it was. So we didn't like that idea, so we've tried to rectify that over time and we really think that this is going to be the best option for us to keep the waste far, far away from the lake.

Fred Franko: If I can comment for a second the actual legal agreement as well as the survey that leach field and everything was included in the main body of the application.

Clerk James Long: And that's all online.

Fred Franko: Correct. And they have secured, you know, agreement with the neighbors and it's all been legally wrought and included.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK. Frank [Malagisi], did you have anything else?

Frank Malagisi: No, I don't have any other questions.

Chair Douglas Purcell: John [Byrnes]? Unmute your phone. There you go.

John Byrnes: No questions.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Kathy [Ellerby]?

Kathleen Ellerby: I got a few things that I went over since we're all kind of confined to our houses, and I can nit-pick at things. The application for the Zoning Board of Appeals paper: The reason for the appeal, in Section B, you have the owners proposed a full-time, permanent residence. If this is a full-time residence, why do you need two separate housings?

Lorraine Mott: We're doing this in a phased approach, Kathy. We are going to work on the small one first: that will be winterized. We have sold our home in Syracuse and using the money to do that, for both the garage and, and the smaller camp. We propose to do the larger camp to be our main residence at some point, you know, year two, maybe three down the road. The reason we have two places is, we have a large family, and when they come to visit, that, that gives that extra place to house our family.

Kathleen Ellerby: It just seems to me that it's really two separate houses and if you could just combine and make one large one, even if you went with your proposed square footage for the proposed residence, add in the proposed porch, and the garage, which is also listed like a playroom, which you could actually put a couple of futons in there if you needed the extra bedrooms. It would bring that percentage down where now the new square footage, with the smaller parcel out, which I also found that it's two separate parcel, would give you a little over 11%, which I think is more feasible then. I have a large family, too and I don't see a reason why I need to have two different housing units. And it would also eliminate a kitchen and an extra bathroom which would put less stress on the septic and the well. Those are just ideas I came up with.

Lorraine Mott: Yeah, we definitely want to keep the two: we’re grandfathered in for those two. We definitely want to keep those.

Fred Franko: I think that also the point would be that is kind of a nice part about the grandfathering phase of this, and they are expanding it a little bit. But, of course, it would never be anything that would be, you know, rented out or anything like that. It's strictly for family use. I believe that Lorraine and Bob, your plan was to basically have that winterized in the short-term, but not have that occupied in the winter as a general rule. Is that correct?

Lorraine Mott: Well, once it’s winterized, it’s winterized, correct?

Fred Franko: Yeah.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Yeah, but you don’t have to heat it as much.

Lorraine Mott: Correct. Correct.

Chair Douglas Purcell: I mean, you have a place winterized, you keep it around 50 and if you're there, then you're obviously not paying as much to heat it as you would to keep it at 65 to 68, or something like that.

Lorraine Mott: Yes, correct. I mean, in the winter, definitely, we would just be in one residence.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Do you have anything else Kathy [Ellerby]?

Kathleen Ellerby: No, that's it.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Alright. I want to go back to a point that I raised during the March 18th review. And, it’s with regard to the structures that I found behind the existing buildings: What I call the well and what I believe to be either a holding tank for the camp. From what I can tell, those things are going to remain when this work is all done?

Lorraine Mott: I think the well will probably disappear. It's not a well that is being used. We will be drilling — our plan is to drill a well over near where the Pedleys have drilled a well.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK.

Lorraine Mott: The well, it's behind that large camp. We've never used it. We don't even know how to use it.

Chair Douglas Purcell: What is the other concrete structure behind the, the smaller camp?

Lorraine Mott: The smaller camp, it’s a septic tank.

Chair Douglas Purcell: And, you're going to leave that in place?

Lorraine Mott: Yes.

Chair Douglas Purcell: But…

Fred Franko: I believe they're bringing the whole thing up to code. I mean that's the whole purpose of bringing the leach field way back away from the water.

Chair Douglas Purcell: That's how they’re going to connect to the other septic system is through that tank?

Lorraine Mott: Correct.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK. The only reason I ask is that if those structures were removed, it does give you space, to allow the expansion project to move towards the front of your property. But, some of the expansion that was going towards the lake side has been taken care of with the new diagram. The other point is that I saw on that, deals with the garage and the way you have the garage oriented. What, we've talked about this a little bit during the meeting on the 18th, and one of the reasons why the garage is as close to what, what I call road but it's really not road. It's how the other neighbors on the other side must be accessing their property. It — because you're entering the garage from what I'm calling the left-hand side of the garage. I was wondering you oriented it to be perpendicular if you wouldn't be able to move that a little bit further away from the road, but I'm not seeing that as being a big deal right now. When you do all of the demolition, is everything going to be done at the same time?

Lorraine Mott: No, our plan is to demo the garage and the small camp first. So, once those are done then, you know, if we did that, first, we wouldn't be able to get to the little one and we do need a place to live. So we're keeping one while the other one is being done and vice versa.

Chair Douglas Purcell: I had that feeling and I just wanted to make sure.

Lorraine Mott: Otherwise, we’d have to use Pedley’s garage or something.

Chair Douglas Purcell: When you look at it and say, well we're going to demolish all these things, I'm sitting there thinking: what are they going to do this year? And that's kind of what I finally figured is: They're only going to demolish the garage and small camp and then go into the big one for this year. I have a question about the garage. The garage doesn’t a detailed diagram like the other two buildings do and I was curious as to why the garage needed to be almost 80% larger than the size of your current garage?

Fred Franko: Can I go ahead?

Lorraine Mott: Go ahead, Fred.

Fred Franko: The current garage is pretty small: just barely 14 feet across. And it's, as I say, that's a pretty tight fit for your average pickup truck and whatnot these days. We want to have enough room in there so that you'd have a little walk around space and potential room for workbench and whatnot in the garage itself, and because of the way that we put the original plan together, we wanted that to create a courtyard between the two buildings.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK.

Chair Douglas Purcell: And, I'm going to come back to the same point that Kathy was making earlier. Basically, since that coverage is increasing some 55%, I went and looked at the entire thing, and I estimate the living space — and I did all this before today's came out — to be roughly 3,100 square feet. The two structures, the two kitchens and two laundry rooms. There's 137 square feet involved in the second kitchen and the second laundry room, and I was actually surprised to see, and Lorraine, you may come to regret this someday, the kitchen’s bigger in the small camp than it is in the main residence.

Lorraine Mott: Yes, I agree with that.

Chair Douglas Purcell: And, I say that because I know when we did the expansion on our existing property, we had a very small kitchen and we have a very nice kitchen that looks out on the lake. Previously, the kitchen looked out on the road, which was not very ideal when my wife was preparing meals for, for friends and family, and everybody was over in the living room looking at the lake, and she's there looking at the road. But anyway, the other thing that I noticed is that, with the open space that you have, all the living spaces, in both buildings, you're losing 850 square feet of living space. I don't know if some of that is because you're expecting to use some of the heat coming up through that, to help heat the second floor, is that the thought, Fred, or is it just the Adirondack design?

Fred Franko: I hate to say that’s it, but that's exactly what it is. The only thing that, on your second floor, you'll have some kind of a sense of the views out to the water.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK. And again, everybody's got their own way of looking at things. Basically, if you were taking out the well, and if you were taken out to septic system, and if you combined the buildings, I came up with — I acknowledge you've basically got 24 feet of depth between the waterline and the front setbacks. So there's nothing that you can do, short of having a very narrow, long building that isn't going to have to encroach one way or the other. No matter how you look at it. I did figure that, if you wanted to, you could come up with about 2,300 square feet of property, inside the setbacks, to work with. And it would still allow you the scheme, but I didn't realize you're going through the septic tank to get to the other septic systems. I guess you've answered all my questions and concerns, then I'm going to give the rest of the board one more opportunity to ask any questions if they want.

[Silence.]

Chair Douglas Purcell: Hearing none, from what I can tell, we need to do the SEQR review. The first step of a SEQR review is to determine the classification to the type of action. I went to the SEQR manual to look to see what type one action was. From what I can tell, this project doesn't meet the threshold of any of the type one actions. The next step is to review the project to see if it — how it falls into the type two actions, and from what I can tell, it really doesn't meet the requirements to be a type two action on the basis of section 617.5c(2), which states that replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structural or facility in-kind on the same site, including building, upgrading buildings to meet building energy or fire codes, unless such action meets or exceeds any of the thresholds. And because it's a little bit bigger, in my mind, I thought that made it an unlisted action, which would require the short environmental assessment form, which Fred has completed and submitted. So we need to go through the Short Environmental Assessment Form impact assessment to determine whether or not we can proceed. There's a series of 11 questions. We need to review the materials that were submitted on the Short Environmental Assessment Form and answer the questions to determine whether what we're looking at has either no or small impact, either moderate or very large impact. First question is: Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulation? I don't feel it does. Does anybody disagree with that?

Frank Malagisi: I agree.

Kathleen Ellerby: I agree.

John Byrnes: I agree.

Chair Douglas Purcell: The second question: Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? No to small impact at best, agree?

John Byrnes: Agree.

Kathleen Ellerby: Agree.

Frank Malagisi: Agree.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No, I don't think so.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

Frank Malagisi: No.

John Byrnes: I agree.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a critical environmental area? I don't see how.

Frank Malagisi: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking, or walkway? No.

Frank Malagisi: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy, and it fails to incorporate reasonable available energy conservation, or renewable energy opportunities? I don't think so.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

Frank Malagisi: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action impact existing public or private water supplies? Little to no, or no.

Frank Malagisi: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: And, will the proposed action impact existing public, private wastewater treatment? No, they’ve actually got it improved by the system they seem to be putting in, in my mind.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources? I don't think so.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

Frank Malagisi: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in natural resources, for example, wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, or flora or fauna?

Frank Malagisi: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems?

Frank Malagisi: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Don't think so.

Chair Douglas Purcell: And finally, will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?

Frank Malagisi: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Alright, then we have a negative declaration. So, we can proceed and James, just for your information, I will complete those forms using the online PDF editor, print and save them and then forward them to you so you can put them with the files for our records.

Clerk James Long: Thank you.

Chair Douglas Purcell: You're welcome.

Frank Malagisi: Alright. The next step is for us to go through the Area Variance criteria. The Board of Appeals shall balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to health, safety, and welfare of the community. In so doing, the Board of Appeals shall consider, number one, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant?

Chair Douglas Purcell: The only way that the applicant can proceed with this without having to have an Area Variance would be to build exactly on the existing footprint. And, I think that they've talked about why they don't want to do that and how that wouldn't really work for them, does everybody agree with that?

Frank Malagisi: Yes.

Kathleen Ellerby: Yes.

John Byrnes: Yes.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood, character, or detriment to nearby properties?

Frank Malagisi: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: No. Alright. Whether the request is substantial?

Frank Malagisi: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: John?

John Byrnes: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: I'm going to say that it is substantial in that's increasing the coverage by about 55%. They have at least eliminated, somewhat, how much closer they’re going to the water. They’re still 40 feet away from the water front: The shoreline set back at the nearest point, which would be the corner of the small cottage, which is maybe 2 to 3 feet of build out, but not much more than that. The other reason is substantial in my mind is that we do have a variance that's encroaching four different dimensions: The size, the side yard setback, the front yard setback, and the shoreline setback.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect?

Chair Douglas Purcell: I don’t believe so. Anybody else?

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Frank Malagisi: You're going from 11% to 17.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Yes.

Frank Malagisi: That's not bad.

Chair Douglas Purcell: I agree, but it is this still another 55%.

Chair Douglas Purcell: And, finally, whether the alleged difficulty itself created, which is relevant, but not determinative? I don't think it's self-created.

Frank Malagisi: No.

Kathleen Ellerby: No.

John Byrnes: No.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Finally, if approved, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall grant the minimum variance necessary, and may impose reasonable conditions. So I guess at this point, I would ask for a motion.

Frank Malagisi: I'll make the motion that with the corrections that they've made, that we approve the application.

Chair Douglas Purcell: You want to put a contingence on it, that they do proceed with putting the two parcels together?

Frank Malagisi: No, they brought the main camp back in line, they're not going closer to the water on that.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Yeah, that's not what I asked, Frank.

Frank Malagisi: OK.

Chair Douglas Purcell: We want them to combine the two parcels into one, correct?

Kathleen Ellerby: I would think so.

Lorraine Mott: I'm already in the process…

Chair Douglas Purcell: Right.

Frank Malagisi: And, my motion was to go forward with the corrections that they've made. That's not putting the two camps together.

Chair Douglas Purcell: It's not to two camps. The two parcels, right?

Frank Malagisi: OK, I got you now. Yeah, they’re putting the parcels together, right?

Chair Douglas Purcell: So, the motion is made that we approve variance application Z2020-04, with the condition that the applicants proceed with the lot line adjustment to combine the two parcels.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Do I have a second?

John Byrnes: I'll second that.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Great. Alright. I’m going to call to vote, and a yes vote grants the Area Variance, a no vote would deny the Area Variance. James?

Clerk James Long: Chair Douglas Purcell?

Chair Douglas Purcell: Based on the information that the applicants provided for their reasoning for maintaining the two camps, two structures being separate, I vote yes.

Clerk James Long: Frank Malagisi?

Frank Malagisi: Yes.

Clerk James Long: Kathleen Ellerby?

Kathleen Ellerby: Yes.

Clerk James Long: And, John Byrnes?

John Byrnes: Yes.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Alright, with this approval, we're going to refer it to the Adirondack Park Agency. The Adirondack Park Agency has 30 days after it receives a complete referral to reverse the granting of the variance. We've been advised by the Adirondack Park Agency that in accordance with the Executive Order 202.11, Sections 806, 808, 809, and 814 of the Executive Law, Section 24-0801 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the associated regulations are temporarily suspended or modified, to the extent necessary, to suspend the statutory and regulatory time periods required for the Adirondack Park Agency to respond to request for variances, permit modifications, and otherwise process permit request. Section 808(3) is the 30-day review period for branch referrals, which is suspended at this time. Basically, all of that says, it's very likely that this could take more than 30 days, before they get back to us. Finally, if the variance is granted via the ZBA and not reversed by the APA, then building plans will be reviewed and the determination made about whether or not to issue a building permit by the Town of Caroga Code Enforcement Department. Lorraine and Bob, congratulations. We’ll hope that the APA is happy with what we're sending them and it's there's no reversal on it and that it doesn't take a lot more than 30 days. In all honesty, they turned the last one around in nothing flat. The last two were pretty, pretty straightforward, and this one's a little bit more complicated, but we wish you luck in how things work out for you.

Lorraine Mott: Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. We are very excited. Thank you.

Bob Baker: Great.

Fred Franko: Thanks so much, guys.

Chair Douglas Purcell: You're welcome, Fred. Thank you for listening to us, and giving us something better, something different to consider tonight. Alright. Before I close, I have one other little piece of business. I have some indications, from John Duesler, and that he's received some phone calls from the Bellingers, that they may re-apply. And they asked him whether or not the fee for the appeal application could be waived and it's not within his purview to do that, however, it is within the purview of this Board to waive some of the requirements for the application process. So, I guess I'm looking for input from the rest of my Board members as to whether or not we think we should make any allowances for applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals variance for the Bellingers. Thoughts?

Frank Malagisi: As far as monetary goes?

Chair Douglas Purcell: Yes.

Frank Malagisi: If they re-apply, I don't have a problem that we can waive that payment.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK?

John Byrnes: Yes, same with me.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK.

John Byrnes: Yeah, I don't see why we would make them pay another payment.

Chair Douglas Purcell: OK.

Kathleen Ellerby: They're just resubmitting it all over again, maybe making some changes, right?

Chair Douglas Purcell: Well, I think being a little bit more thorough about what they submitted was — yes.

Chair Douglas Purcell: I'll ask, James, I'll ask you separately because you got to weigh in. You’re [the town] the one that ends up having to pay for it. Alright, I think I'll get back to John and let him know that if they resubmitt, that he can waive the fee on the basis of that.

John Byrnes: How much is the fee?

Chair Douglas Purcell: A hundred. Alright. How about a motion to adjourn, then?

Frank Malagisi: I make the motion to adjourn.

Kathleen Ellerby: I make the motion to adjourn.

Chair Douglas Purcell: Two people spoke, so we got a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye.

All Board members said aye.

The meeting adjourned at 7:38pm.

Respectfully submitted
James McMartin Long
Town of Caroga Town Board Member,
Zoning Board of Appeals Clerk/Secretary

Copyright © James McMartin Long 2017–2024