On Thursday, January 25, 2018 Chairman Bassett opened the Public Hearing for Haun Welding Supply,
Inc. at 7:23 P.M.

PRESENT:
John Bassett, Chairman
Emma Conway, Board Member
Kevin Miller, Board Member
Michael Steurer, Alternate Board Member

Also attending: Brody Smith, Stephen Rake, Tony & Linda Nicholas, Steve Lerner, Rich Naull, Erick Haun,
Anne Brockenauer, Jason MacDonald, Joseph Crandall, Francesca Nwati, Lyubov Tkachenko, Buzz &
Cheryle Harbour, James Grenier, Kirk Montanye.

Brody Smith, Esq. with Bond Schoeneck & King representing Haun Welding Supply, Inc. gave a
presentation on the operation and types of supplies offer to the public by Haun Welding Supply, Inc. in
their store.

They are looking to move from their existing location at 566 Broadway to a portion of the building at 240
Broadway (the former Nicholas Auto Building) for a better location and store front.
At the most recent meeting, the applicant made an appeal to the Board for an Interpretation of the
Code Enforcement Officer’s denial of the permit.
The applicant presented their case as to why they believe the denial was inappropriate and exactly
where they believed the Code Enforcement Officer incorrectly applied the restrictions outlined in the
code. The Board agreed that the applicant present a strong case that the code was applied incorrectly in
two of the three sections cited for denial. Specifically:

1. Section 169-11. Schedule A Uses; Unsafe and Disturbing Uses Prohibited
The applicant provided evidence that appeared to demonstrate that they operate their business in a
safe and professional manner.
In particular, this operation has been in operation for several years at another location in the Village,
and this firm has been in operation since 1958, with 19 stores and no major fires/explosions ever.
The Board agreed that the restrictions appear not to apply in this case.

2. Section 169-45. Schedule A; Schedule of Uses Permitted in each Zoning District.
The applicant made the case that their business operates as a Retail business. Although the code
does not define “Retail”, the applicant clearly demonstrated that they operate a retail business in
their current location, and in-fact, one of the main reasons for them to relocate was to increase the
square footage for their storefront. In addition, the applicant cited case law which noted, in the
absence of a strict definition of “retail” in the Code, the word must be given its ordinary meaning”.
The Board agreed that the applicant clearly demonstrated that their business in indeed a Retail
operation and, as such, is a permitted use in a T5 District.

The Board had additional questions regarding the third reason for denial:

3. Section 90-6. Restriction on Storage of Flammable Liquids
Part A of this section of the code clearly outlines that the storage of Flammable liquids in the above
ground storage tanks are strictly forbidden in all districts except Heavy Industrial Zone. As this is a T5
District, Flammable liquids are not allowed to be stored in above ground tanks on this property. The
tank in question will be used to store liquid oxygen. As was presented by the applicant, Oxygen in the
liquid state is not considered “Flammable”. I verified this with additional research after our meeting.
However, Liquid Oxygen does in-fact greatly intensify fire and causes combustible materials to burn
much more rapidly. The best way it was described to me was through the following example:
If you lit a long-stick match (the kind used for fireplaces) and had some way to drop it into the
tank, the entire match and stick would “flash burn” and would be gone in a split second. But the
liquid oxygen would remain in the tank, unchanged (it would not catch on-fire).

Alternatively, if a truck was parked next to the storage tank and the truck caught-on-fire, and
the tank ruptured so as to leak the liquid oxygen toward the fire, it would greatly intensify the fire on
the truck. The tank itself would not cat-on-fire, but the escaping the Oxygen would make the fire
accelerate greatly.

The restriction is clearly citing Flammable liquids, but we are not sure how that definition applies in
the case. A direct read of the definition of the word seems to indicate that Liquid Oxygen could infact
be stored in an above ground storage tank in a T5 District. However, the example above, we are
unsure of the intent and purpose of this particular restriction in the code.

Setback of Tanks from Lot Line
Additionally, one item that was not specifically noted by the Code Enforcement Officer, but was
presented as evidence to the ZBA revolves around the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and
a decision received from the NYS Division of Building Standards. The applicant noted that NYS
reviewed the proposed site plan and concluded “…the location of the tank was acceptable pursuant
to the Uniform Fire Prevention & Building Code …” The applicant noted this was specifically related
to the requirement that” …tanks must be located 30 feet from a lot line…” and “… the Building &
Standards Division noted that the 28-foot setback proposed in Haun’s plan was safe and acceptable.”
The proposed plans that were presented to the Board indicate that the tanks would have
considerably less setback than 28-feet. In fact, it appears as though the setback to the property line
form the tanks is less than 20-feet. We questioned the applicant on this and they stated that the
information presented in their written appeal and presentation contains an error. The applicant
claims that the actual requirement applies to something along the lines of the “…part of the
operation that deals with flammable operations, not the tanks…”. In this case their claim was that it
applies to the building itself, not the tanks,” … because the only part of the operation that is working
with flammable and/or potentially hazardous operations is with the building structure…”
We asked that the applicant present the correspondence related to this official review so that the
Board and the Codes Officer could understand better what the NYS Division of Building Standards was ruling upon.

The final decision on the interpretation of all of the items was tabled until the applicant could come
back with further information on the setback issue noted directly above and so that the ZBA could
review the information presented at the meeting and receive advice from counsel on items above,
including the storage of flammable liquids.

It was agreed that the Public Hearing would be continued on Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 7:00
P.M.

The Public Hearing was closed at 8:46 P.M.

Haun Welding Public Hearing continuation 2/26/18

Chairman Bassett opened the reconvened public hearing at 7:05 P.M.

PRESENT:
John Bassett, Chairman
Kevin Miller, Board Member
Emma Conway, Board Member
Stephen Rehfuss, Village Attorney

ABSENT:
Michal Steurer, Alternate Board Member

Also attending: Erich Haun, Brody Smith, Steve Rake, Tony & Linda Nicholas, Jason Ma——, Kerry & Matt
Wroblewski, Anne Brakenauer, James Grenier, Sheila Hyatt, Monica Sharpe, Joseph Crandall, John Fil,
Joyce O’Brien, Beth Harbour, Robert Schanz, Daniel Stimac, Matt Sleck, Kevin Murphy, David Ognan,
Justin Jones, John Stangle, Joseph Kelley.

This was a continuation of the review of the application from the previous ZBA meeting (held
1/25/2018) in which the applicant is seeking an interpretation of the Code Enforcement officer’s denial
of the permit based on three separate sections of code. The purpose of this continuation was to get
clarification on some specific questions the Board had proposed to the applicant and to allow the board
members an opportunity to review some of the information provided at the previous meeting.
Atty Brody Smith, representing the applicant, provided a brief overview of presentation that was given
at the previous ZBA meeting.

The questions specifically raised by the ZBA members at the previous meeting, concerning the definition
of “Flammable” and how it relates to the sections in the code were discussed at length. Brody Smith
provided additional information and references citing how the oxygen tanks in-question relate to the
safety concerns voiced by a number of the citizens who attended this and the previous meeting.

Attorney Rehfuss asked for clarification as to when Haun Welding purchased the business located at 564
Broadway. Erick Haun stated that Haun Welding Supply purchased the business July of 2017. It was
previously a welding supply store which they bought out.

It was confirmed by Brody Smith that Haun will be moving the existing tanks from the 564 Broadway
location to the new 240 Broadway location. The tanks contain oxygen, argon, and nitrogen.

Concerns were raised by the property owners along Brookside Ave that the setback from the property
line was only 12 feet.

S Rake (representing Haun) stated that there will be no traffic along the back or side of building. Trailers
will back into the tanks from the front of building parking area. And will not need to drive between the
tanks and the property line.

The question was raised again asking Haun how many of their 19 stores abut a residential area like in
Menands location.

B Harbour inquired if the tanks will be filled during business hours.

Haun stated these thanks would be filled between 9 – 5. They reiterated what was noted at the
previous meeting, that this building will not be open late hours and it will be open during standard
business hours to accommodate their main customers – those in the welding business

J Grenier asked what types of gases will be stored presently there is no sprinkler system and the building
originally was built as a grocery store.

Property Owner M. Sleck noted he works with gases like these on a regular basis as part of his job.
Speaking as a concerned property owner, and not a safety expert, he noted particular safety precautions
his company adheres to regarding these types of gases and questioned if this property could meet those
same requirements. He also noted combustible materials that are nearby which could increase the
potential for a fire, such as the tree canopy located on the property line. He provided an example of a
possible (though not probable) scenario where the tank could fail and where these nearby combustibles
could ignite. Mr. Sleck continued on with additional statistics he believed were relevant to the
discussion.

Several property owners voiced their concern about the property values and the impact of this proposal.

B. Harbour asked if the tanks could be relocated to opposite side of building.

D Stimac stated that in the past there have been problems with trucks running and the exhaust
destroying lawn furniture. Trucks would be left idling 12 – 2 – 4 A.M. during the night which was a real
struggle for them.

A question was asked if the power went out how it would affect the tanks. Haun’s reply was that
oxygen is kept in a double wall jacket and no power is need to keep the tanks cold.

Residents inquired about the types of gas and quantities to be stored inside the building:
Acetylene 2000 cubic feet
Hydrogen

The gases will be stored in flammable gas room which has a 3-hour fire rating per the requirements of
the Uniform Fire Code.

The residents of Brookside Avenue are concerned about their property values how will these 20’ tanks
be concealed? Representatives of Haun stated the tanks are 19’ high, which is the same as the height of
the building. Brody Smith noted that a natural screen exists, and that fencing or other screening could
possibly be installed to conceal the tanks.

Several property owners raised individual questions regarding similar concerns on safety and the impact
this proposal would have on their properties. It was also asked if the tanks could be relocated to the
other side of the building. Brody Smith noted that Haun is willing to work with the Village Planning
Board during the site plan review process, if the project reached that stage. Responding to one specific
question, Mr. Smith stated that state law only requires a 5’ setback from the property line for oxygen
tanks. He also noted that their business will operate 9 to 5 and will be mostly be foot traffic or low
traffic this is specifically a retail operation. Mr. Smith also provided responses to many of the individual
questions raised by the property owners.

It was also noted that Haun Welding Supply will be purchasing the property, not leasing it. As part of
the renovations, hey will be installing a new fire wall and sprinkler system. The existing business will
remain in the building.

Chairman Bassett noted to those in attendance that the role of the ZBA in this application is to provide a
ruling on the Interpretation of the Code Enforcement officer’s denial of the permit. He stated that the
Village Planning Board is responsible for dealing with specifics related to site plan approval,
requirements for “screening” and other items that related to some of the concerns raised at this
meeting.

Anthony Nicholas made a personal statement about business history in Menands and feels that Haun is
fighting to do business in Menands and they have a great record.

E Conway, ZBA Board Member made a comment to the audience regarding the ZBA Boards dedication
to the Menands business community. She stated that the Board is committed and diligent with their
decisions of all request that come before them.

The Village Attorney stated that the ZBA Board has 62 days in which to give a final decision in writing.

The Chairman hearing no further questions on comments closed the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. all in
Favor.

Cheryl Lyon
Secretary

---