Loading...
2000-03-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES MC NULTY MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES NORMAN HIMES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before I start with the rules and procedures, if anyone is here to talk about the Prospect Child & Family Center, they have asked to be tabled until next month. MR. MC NULTY-Next month, the first meeting in April. MR. STONE-So we will not be hearing on the Prospect School, if any of you are here for that. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2000 TYPE II SFR-1A PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER OWNER: PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER 133 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE SCHOOL’S FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A 2,740 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE “MAIN CENTER” AND A 8,100 SQ. FT. TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE “SCHOOL” BUILDING. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-2000 TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1.2/82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 3.01 ACRES, 1.44 ACRES, 1.90 ACRES SECTION 179-20 MR. STONE-And why don’t you read the attorney’s request, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter addressed to Lew Stone, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, from Jonathan C. Lapper, “Dear Mr. Stone: On behalf of Prospect Child & Family Center I hereby request that the Zoning Board table the area variance application until your first meeting in April. Last week we met with a large number of the residential neighbors and after that meeting we determined that it may be possible to purchase an adjacent parcel of property which would allow the area variance request to be significantly reduced and also allow for a larger vegetative buffer between the school addition and the existing neighbors. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until the first meeting in April, at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA WILLIAM & TERRIE MANSMANN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 19 CHESTNUT AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND STORY ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) REFERENCE: SEPTIC VARIANCE (2/28/00) SP 20-2000 TAX MAP NO. 39-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 GERARD HATHAWAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Before we start, I will note for the record, in the judgement of the Chairman, there was an error in the advertisement for this particular application. There appears there needs to be one more variance sought, a height variance of two feet and some inches, so we will have to re-advertise it and put it on the meeting for April. If there is anyone here wishing to speak on that, we can, all right. We will read it into the record. We will open the public hearing, but we will leave the public hearing open, and we will take it up again in April. MR. BROWN-Unless there’s an opportunity for the applicant to reduce the height of the building, and comply with the height requirements. MR. STONE-Is the applicant here? You are the applicant? Okay. Are you aware of our concern? MR. HATHAWAY-I talked with Craig a little bit today. I got a hold of the owner, and they are willing to reduce the size of the building by dropping the pitch of the roof to get below the 28 feet, at or below the 28 feet, but after we talked, I did have the opportunity to look into a couple of things, and I just had a couple of questions. MR. STONE-Why don’t we just start, we’ll read the application in, and then we’ll go through the procedure as we normally do. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2000, William & Terrie Mansmann, Meeting Date: March 15, 2000 “Project Location: 19 Chestnut Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a second floor addition and seeks setback relief as well as relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback and both 6 feet and 2.29 feet of relief from the respective minimum 12 foot sideline setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. Additionally, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, relief for the expansion, in excess of 50%, of a non-conforming structure is requested per §179-79,A,B & F. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand the existing structure as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The existing lot configuration and house placement may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-272 3/29/98 dock Staff Comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The subject property appears to be consistent, in configuration, with the adjoining properties. The proposed construction will not encroach on the neighboring properties any closer than the existing structure, however, the new structure may present a significant visual impact from the lake, as the elevation differential is significant. It does not appear as though a strict interpretation of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-I did not see any County. MR. STONE-Before you make your statement, let me tell the Board where I’m coming from and they may have noticed it, too. The elevation on this property, from finished grade as determined by the papers that were filed with the application, is to the highest point on the building, is 30 feet 3 and ¼ inches. The zoning for Waterfront 1A is 28 feet. Therefore, in my judgement, it requires a request for a variance. That doesn’t mean we won’t grant it, but it requires a request for a variance of two feet, three and ¼ inches. The advertisement for this hearing did not mention the height variance. Therefore, we have to re-hear it, or we have to continue the public hearing, but that doesn’t mean we can’t start, and why don’t you tell us anything more you want to tell us. MR. HATHAWAY-Okay. My name’s Gerard Hathaway. I’m not a resident of Queensbury. I work for the McKernon Group. We’re a design build construction company in Glens Falls, and I represent the Mansmanns. When I talked to Craig earlier, I hadn’t known that this was a problem. Frankly, I either missed or misinterpreted the 28 foot height difference in the Code, because I didn’t read your definition of where the height was taken from. Typically, a New York State Code, a pitched roof, the height is taken from the average height, which is about halfway up the roofline, and so I didn’t think this was a problem, and then when I went back and read the definition of the height, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) it looked to me as though you were definitely correct, and then I went back and looked at the diagram that shows how you figure it, and I just wanted to bring this up, that the owners definitely will drop the pitch of the roof. They prefer the taller pitch,, but they’d drop the pitch of the roof to conform, but I wanted to bring this up to your attention, that I thought the way it’s describing in the Code that a vertical plane from the finished grade to that highest point in the building might be interpreted a little bit differently, in that at that point where the building is the highest, there’s another part of the building lower that a vertical plane measurement down to that would actually hit another part of the building, and that with the eaves along the edges that the building may be considered to be conforming, but you may have had this argument before, and decided there’s no merit. MR. STONE-It’s funny. We’ve never had this argument before. The law’s been in effect for over two years, and I don’t think anybody, current members, members who have been on for any period of time, we have always taken as it reads, the highest point on the building at any point. I mean, it’s an infinite number of points along grade. So in other words, if you had a property like this, you could be 28 feet here, and 50 feet from here, but it’s only 28 feet from, so it’s 28 feet from finished grade at all points on the highest point. Does the Board agree with this interpretation? This is the one that we’ve always used, and I was just surprised that we didn’t do it this time. MR. HATHAWAY-Could I ask you to take a look at the diagram? MR. STONE-Yes, know it well. MR. HATHAWAY-Okay. It says the distance measured along a vertical plane from the highest point of the building or structure to finished grade, at any point adjacent to the building or structure. MR. STONE-Yes, what does that not say that I’ve said? MR. HATHAWAY-What I thought was that a vertical plane from that highest point down to grade, adjacent to the building, and that the points were this was at its highest, a vertical plane dimension directly down doesn’t go to grade. MR. STONE-No, it doesn’t go to grade, but you assume it goes to grade. That’s the interpretation that I’ve always made, and I believe the Board has always made. MR. HATHAWAY-Very good. MR. STONE-So you will stipulate, if we make a motion to grant? MR. HATHAWAY-Yes. We definitely will reduce the height of the building to get below the 28 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add about the application? MR. HATHAWAY-Not really. I think, just in general, the overall application, we did receive the septic variance, which will definitely improve the situation for the Mansmanns and the neighborhood, and we felt, as a package, it does improve the property for them, certainly, and the site situation, I sat down and showed all the neighbors the plans, and it seemed that the only one it might effect would be Aaron West, it’s behind him across the way, and he’s on an elevated piece of property, and his view is really out over his father’s two story, two, two story buildings. So that didn’t seem to be a problem with any of them. That’s all I have, really. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Hathaway? MR. MC NALLY-Could you describe for me how the construction’s going to take place? What’s going to be done to the existing structure, what about the foundation, that kind of thing? MR. HATHAWAY-Well, right now the main structure is on, that we’re putting an addition up over, is on a concrete block foundation that, as far as we can determine by driving rods down along the edge, it goes down four feet, and what we’re going to do is come through with floor joists sistered along the ceiling joists that are already in there, and form a platform, floor joist, that will span the width of the building, and we’re just going to span from foundation wall to foundation wall. It’s narrow enough to do it without supports in the middle. So we’re going to span the width of the building with that, and once we get a deck formed, we’ll do the removal of the roof and the construction of the sides, and if questionable weather is in the forecast, we might even just expose a little bit of the edge to be able to stud up for the second floor, actually put the trusses on and sheath it before we do the removal of the roof below, to make sure that we’re not going to have a problem with weather. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. MC NALLY-So essentially the first floor will remain in place? MR. HATHAWAY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s not being re-constructed? MR. HATHAWAY-No. Part of the problem here is they’ve got a nine foot ceiling on the first floor. So it makes, and a drop ceiling below that because they wanted it down a little bit lower. So actually it’s 9, 10. So that’s one of our problems with height. That’s, I think, why we kind of went into this questionable zone, is that first floor height. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re going to encroach on the lake five feet, and that’s the five feet of the existing structure behind the enclosed porch? Is that where the five feet comes in? MR. HATHAWAY-Yes, I think that’s what it was. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re not changing the? MR. HATHAWAY-No. We’re going to be only over the main structure that’s already there. We’re not going out over the porches. MR. STONE-Looking at that shoreline, do you have any idea from where the 45 feet is measured? Because it looks like there’s fill in there, and I have no idea when it went in, and I don’t know the history of it, but I mean, it looks like, 45 feet, I didn’t measure it and I don’t know where it came, but it looked very close, a close 45 feet. MR. HATHAWAY-When we measured, we went from the survey that was here, before the retaining wall was put in, the actual original shoreline is what we went from. Because we went from this older map that was the original survey. This other one was created from that map to include the stone retaining wall that was available. MR. STONE-You’re saying you think, as to what is there now, physically the rocks, that it’s more than 45 feet? Because I didn’t measure it. As I say, it looked very close. Craig, did you go up there at all? MR. BROWN-No, I measured from the map that was submitted, scaled off the drawing. MR. MC NALLY-Are you referring to the 1994 map? MR. HATHAWAY-Well, where we showed the setbacks was on the 1994 map, correct. MR. MC NALLY-And that shows 31.36 feet setback? MR. HATHAWAY-That’s to the existing porch, and what we’re saying is that our, the 50 foot setback from the lake, the full two story portion, which is the only thing we’re building over, encroaches within that 50 foot setback. MR. STONE-But we have to consider the porch, too. MR. HATHAWAY-Okay. Yes, so the existing porch is at the 31 foot, .36 inches. So you’re saying that our new construction isn’t the thing that we should have been identifying, that we? MR. STONE-Right, requires the almost, over 18 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-No, the relief is just to the new construction. MR. STONE-Just the new? MR. BROWN-Just the new. MR. STONE-I thought if it was nonconforming it all applied? If it doesn’t, fine. MR. ABBATE-Craig, please, one more time, repeat that. MR. BROWN-The relief you should be considering is for the new construction, the expansion of the nonconforming. You’re giving relief to expand it. You’re giving relief for the expansion. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. MC NALLY-And the distance that’s the second story where you will extend closer to the lake is the five feet, and that’s that distance between the porch shown on the map to the 50 foot setback line? MR. HATHAWAY-Well, if you look at that 50 foot setback line, and then just in front of that, at the same angle, is the dotted line that shows the edge between the porch and the frame. Our second story comes right to that dotted line, which we determined by measuring from the map, and where the existing corner was, that would be the five feet difference. The existing first floor actually comes over the line five feet, and our existing second floor would be right above it. MR. STONE-Craig, I’m confused, because I thought we have, in previous times, even with new construction, considered, it’s a nonconforming structure. It sits closer to the lake, and I thought we considered the relief. I’m not saying we don’t grant it, but we consider the relief from wherever the house is now. Is that, guys, am I wrong? MR. MC NULTY-That’s my recollection. MR. STONE-That’s my recollection, yes. Granted, the new area is not encroaching more, but the property, taken in its whole, because we have to look at the 50% expansion and all that, that we’re dealing with 19 feet of relief. This is not saying we’re not going to grant it, but. MR. BROWN-I think in the past, the additions, if you will, the second stories, have been over the entire structure. In this case, it’s over a portion removed from the lake, other than what’s existing. You can certainly consider it. It’s not advertised with a specific amount of relief in the advertisement. You can consider what you wish. MR. HATHAWAY-Could I ask for clarification on one item? The enclosed porch, which does have heat in it, is not considered part of the original structure when you’re saying that we’re asking for a more than 50% expansion, that enclosed porch isn’t considered part of the first floor? MR. STONE-Yes, it is. MR. HATHAWAY-In that case, wouldn’t we be not asking for 50%? MR. STONE-I didn’t do that calculation. MR. BROWN-The 50% calculation, it does include the porch, but that 50% lends itself to, prior to any expansion to the building. So at one point it was just the building of the deck, I’m assuming, and then the porch was enclosed. So you start with that beginning base house, and then that expansion of the enclosed porch, that’s above and beyond the original floor area of the house. So enclosing that porch may have already increased your floor area by 25% or 50% of what was already there. MR. HATHAWAY-Even though it was enclosed when the people, these people bought it? MR. BROWN-Yes, typically we go by the Assessment records and find out what the original square footage of the building was prior to any addition. MR. HATHAWAY-Okay. MR. STONE-Let me just read what it says here, and we can all determine what it means. “No enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling or mobile home immediately prior to the commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding”, and that’s what you’re saying, Craig, that that was, the first addition was the? MR. BROWN-Enclosure of the porch. MR. STONE-Enclosure of the porch. MR. BROWN-And even then I think you’re going over the 50%. I mean, you’ve got about 1,000 square feet there, and you’re adding another 775. So 500-ish square feet would be 50%. MR. HATHAWAY-All right. Well, we’re adding right on top of that original building. So it can be more than 50%, but we’re at 50%. MR. MC NALLY-It’s 50% of the existing floor. MR. HATHAWAY-I see what you’re saying. MR. STONE-If you were 2,000, you could have 1,000, or 999.9. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. HATHAWAY-I see what you mean. MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Hathaway? Hearing none I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anybody in favor of? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed? On the basis of Mr. Hathaway’s agreement that the height is not going to be considered, we will mention it in the motion, but we have not to be considered, then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-And we will discuss it. Any other questions before we go any further? All right. Let me start with Mr. Abbate, what do you think? MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. If we’re not going to consider the height, and the applicant, or the representative of the applicant, agrees to reduce the height below I think what was it 28 foot, I don’t have any problems with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, do you have any comments? What do you think? MR. BRYANT-After looking at the property, there are so many properties in that area that are two story, similar to the proposal, I really don’t have a problem with it, as long as they stay below the 28 feet. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-When I stood there, you can see up and down the lake, these two floor houses every 50 feet, and if this was his first application to expand a second floor on that side of the lake, I’d say, no, but as it is, I think the Mansmann’s are one of the few houses left in that area that is not two floors and has not been expanded. The five foot encroachment on the lake frontage is minimal, and the applicant is correct that the house already encroaches there, since there’s a porch closer to the lake, and five feet of the first floor already are within the 50 foot setback. There are no feasible alternatives. This house is cockeyed on the lot. It’s not even facing straight along the side lines. I could ask them to tear the place down and move it back, but I think that would be a little bit out of the question, since it’s not feasible. So, on balance, since the neighborhood already is quite congested, and already encroaches on the lake to the extent that it does, I don’t think the Mansmann’s should be the one family that doesn’t get to do that themselves. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Before I go on, I made a mistake. I should have asked was there any correspondence to the public hearing. Fortunately, there was none. At least the record will show that we did talk about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I come to about the same conclusion the other Board members have come to, that in many ways, I wish there weren’t a whole bunch of two story homes around that lake. I wish there weren’t as many crammed as close together as they are, but they are, and I don’t see where adding a second story to this place it going to make an awful lot of difference as far as the appearance of the lake, or what it’s going to do to the lake, and I think it’s better, as the applicant’s indicated, that they’re trying to go up rather than expand sideways or to the rear. So I’d be inclined to approve. MR. STONE-I feel pretty much the same way. As long we keep the height down, I am not happy with the setback, but the setback, the 19 feet, I’m glad to see that my eye wasn’t so far off that it wasn’t the 45 feet, because I didn’t think that that porch was 45 feet from the lake. It is interesting to note that while they all are two story buildings there, this building is closer to the lake than other surrounding buildings, and so I’m troubled by that, but when you consider the benefit to the applicant, obviously, the opportunity to put this new construction in and expand their house so that they can take more pleasure in it, compared to the detriment to the community, I think the detriment is basically there already, and this is going to add to it, but it’s just going to bring it in conformity, if you will, with the neighbors. So, having said that, I will call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2000 WILLIAM & TERRIE MANSMANN, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) 19 Chestnut Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a second floor addition and seeks setback relief as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Specifically, the applicant requests five feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback, and six feet and 2.29 feet of relief, as set forth in their plans, with respect to the minimum 12 foot side line setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Additionally, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, the applicant has requested relief for the expansion in excess of 50% of a nonconforming structure, pursuant to Section 179-79, SubSections A, B, & F. The proposed drawings that were submitted with the application indicated a building height in excess of 30 feet. The applicant has modified their plans such that any existing structure on the site will be within the Town Zoning Code requirement of 28 feet. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to expand an existing one story camp in an area of two story, many year round type homes. The feasible alternatives are few, given the narrow nature of the lot and the fact that the existing structure is set at an angle to the side lines. Also, the cost of having to replace the entire structure, including its foundation, in order to bring it into conformity, would not be feasible. The relief, in my opinion, is moderate. However, there will be no effect upon the neighborhood as the Board members herein have said, as all the houses in that area basically are already two story homes on narrow lots. So this simply brings the existing camp into conformity with what the norm in the entire neighborhood is. The difficulty is not self-created, as the existing lot configuration and house placement contribute to the difficulty. For all these reasons, I move the approval of Area Variance No. 20-2000. What we’re approving, pursuant to my motion, is permission, in accordance with the application, to construct a second floor over the existing first floor of the main body of the house. That second floor addition will be five feet within the 50 foot setback, and it is to be, as indicated on the plans, west of the enclosed porch over the existing first floor structure. The existing porch between the main house and the lake is, as shown on the plans, 31.36 feet from the shoreline. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Thank you very much for hearing us on the height, and we hope your client will be pleased. MR. HATHAWAY-I think they will be, and I thank you very much for your consideration. OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2000 JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR APPELLANT IS APPEALING SECTION 179-9B OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH LOCATION OF A DISTRICT BOUNDARY FOR TAX MAP PARCELS; 4-1-9 AND 4-1-11 IN A WR-1A ZONE. JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-First off, the tabling motion. There are Staff Notes dated March 15. th MR. STONE-No, that’s for two. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one for one. MR. BROWN-No, I did them for both. I apologize. MR. STONE-Yes, then we do have them. There’s two appeals, but there are Staff Notes on both of them. MR. BROWN-Yes. My apologies, John, they’re right there on the table if you want a copy. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. First off, “Motion to Table Notice of Appeal No. 1-2000, John & Kathleen Salvador, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: In view of the fact that we do not have a consensus on our Board sufficient to make a determination as to what the northern zoning district boundary is for that zone and for those two parcels, 4-1-11 and 4-1-9, one way or the other. Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone” 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-2000, John, Jr. & Kathleen Salvador, Meeting Date: March 15, 2000 “Project Location: State Route 9L Description: The applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals to establish the location of the zoning district boundary for parcels 4-1-9 and 4-1-11. Information Requested: Per §179-9, B., “… in the event that further clarification or definition is considered necessary or appropriate, the location of a district boundary shall be determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Staff Comments: As outlined in a January 19, 2000 memorandum from Chris Round, Zoning Administrator; “…the northern limit of the WR-1A zone, in the Dunham’s Bay area, is the Town Boundary…”. Establishing the district boundary, for two specific properties, along the appellant’s suggested 317.74 MSL line might not be appropriate and may institute a Town of Queensbury zoning classification upon lands which may not lie within the recognized Town boundary. Additionally, a recently filed appeal raises questions as to the ownership of parcel 4-1-11.” MR. STONE-This appeal has been before us, this is the third time, the third session, for whatever reasons. I would like to take the prerogative, as the Chairman, in the interest of time, considering this subject has had two previous hearings, to propose a resolution, which it would be up to my Board to accept or not accept. Resolution, The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, in reference to Appeal No. 1-2000, John Salvador, Jr., concludes that the northern limit of the WR-1A zone in the Dunham’s Bay area is the Town boundary. This finding in no way effects previous rulings concerning shoreline setback for any building in this zone. In other words, I am willing to say, and I will ask the Board to agree, that we are setting the zoning boundary in this area as the Town boundary. MR. SALVADOR-We are appealing asking you to locate the zoning district boundary, locate. MR. STONE-And the resolution says it is the Town boundary. MR. SALVADOR-That’s not sufficient because there’s confusion and there’s uncertainty as to where the Town boundary is. MR. STONE-In my judgment, and I hope with the concurrence of the Board, that the Town boundary is known to somebody, and the zoning boundary, therefore, is at the Town boundary, wherever that is, and that is not our determination to make, the Town boundary. We can only say where the zoning boundary is. If we say it’s the Town boundary, then this matter, you can take it to another body, but not this body. MR. SALVADOR-There’s no question that we are not asking this Board to establish the location of the Town boundary. That is not your prerogative. I understand, but because there are uncertainties, and there are inaccuracies, on the Town’s zoning district map, we are appealing, and we have a right to appeal and to ask you to locate, definitively, the zoning district boundary. MR. STONE-The zoning district boundary, per this resolution, is the Town boundary, as definitive as the Town boundary is, and I’m sure it is definitive somewhere. Because I don’t think we’re floating out there. MR. SALVADOR-Do you agree with my assessment of that location? MR. STONE-I am not taking up the matter whether I agree or I disagree. I’m merely saying that if the Board concurs, and we can take a vote. Anybody can jump in if they want. I’m not monopolizing this thing, but in my judgment, we are willing to say, I am willing to say, that the zoning boundary is the Town boundary, and as far as I’m concerned, that gets this off this table. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, help me clear something up. Your comments are referring to 4-1-9 and 4-1-11, is that correct, parcels, basically. MR. STONE-Basically, I mean, Mr. Salvador has attempted to educate us, and very well, over 200 years of history of the boundaries of various lands and waters in the area, known as Harris’ Bay was it, or now Dunham’s Bay, and whatever other names. He has done a very good job. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. My point is this. According to the Staff Notes, and help me out on this, will you, Craig. Am interpreting 1-2000, where it says that a recently filed appeal raises questions as to the ownership of parcel 4-1-11. Is that accurate, that statement, that last sentence? In other words, let me re-phrase it. Are you indicating to us that there’s litigation, current litigation? MR. BROWN-Pending on parcel 4-1-11? Yes. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Chairman, based upon that, I suggest we take no action until this litigation is cleared up. MR. STONE-Well, that’s the second issue. As far as I’m concerned, it’s in the Staff Notes, but that is not germane to the zoning boundary and the Town boundary, because it makes no difference which parcel we’re talking about. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. MR. MC NULTY-It would be my feeling, if we were to pick a specific geographic location for the northern boundary of the zone, and that should happen to be north of where the Town line is, that would mean that that determination would be invalid, because we certainly can’t zone beyond the Town line. MR. SALVADOR-Right. I’m not asking you to. I understand. MR. MC NULTY-So I think that the Chairman’s suggestion, that if we declare the zoning boundary to be the Town boundary, that leaves us with a valid determination as far as zoning goes, and it’s another bodies problem to, where the Town boundary is. We can’t set the Town boundary. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-But is the Board willing to vote on this resolution? MR. MC NALLY-My comments are on the record, but I can see the wisdom of putting it at the Town boundary and then leaving it to other people to decide what that is. That would, essentially, include all of Mr. Salvador’s property, as far as I’m concerned. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s what the applicant’s concern is, to know where the boundary is as to his property line. MR. STONE-Right, and that’s what we’re telling him. MR. SALVADOR-If you were to do this, how would we handle the inaccuracies that would exist in the Town zoning district maps? There are inaccuracies. That’s why we’re here. There are uncertainties. That’s why we are here, in the zoning district maps. MR. STONE-As far as I can determine, common sense says that if we’ve got a WR-1A zone, over the waters of Dunham’s Bay and all along the shoreline, and anywhere else you want to be, and that’s where the Town ends, that the zoning goes to the Town line. I don’t think there’s any uncertainty at all. There may be uncertainty where the Town line is, but that is not our call. If you want to talk about 317.4 as the Town boundary, that’s a different story, but that’s not our call. MR. SALVADOR-But that is, that becomes defacto the zoning district boundary, by definition. MR. STONE-And someone can determine that and plot it on a map, but not us, because, if I get concurrence, and it sounds as if I will, that the zoning boundary is the Town boundary. I mean, it’s very clear, and that gives you clarification, Mr. Salvador. It tells you, now if you had to know where the Town boundary is, don’t come and ask us because I can’t tell you. 317.4 is fine. I don’t understand it, but it’s fine. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. We were able to show that because there are inaccuracies in the location of the Town boundary that that resulted in inaccuracies in the zoning district boundary. That’s all, but that doesn’t relieve this Town of a responsibility to have an accurate and complete zoning district boundary map. MR. STONE-And with this decision, we are putting the Town on notice that wherever the Town thinks its boundary is, that’s the boundary of the zoning. MR. SALVADOR-It’s not a question of thinking. It’s a matter of law. MR. STONE-Fine, then somebody can go out, we have lots of surveyors who can tell you where the Town is, and when they find the Town line, the WR-1A zone goes right up to it and includes it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, all these surveyors haven’t done a very good job up to this date. MR. STONE-That may very well be, but I would like to call the question, if I. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. SALVADOR-I think you’re oversimplifying the situation with regard to the Town boundaries and the situation on Dunham Bay. We’ve conducted a survey, and we can show, I have a map here tonight. I can show you that the difference between the zoning district boundary shown on the Town’s maps and where I say the zoning district boundary is 118 feet. MR. STONE-Well, I doubt that answer, because I don’t think the Town goes out, but, wherever the Town goes, that’s where the zoning goes, and having said that, I will move that we pass the following resolution, and I’ll read it again. THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, IN REFERENCE TO APPEAL NO. 1-2000 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR CONCLUDES THAT THE NORTHERN LIMIT OF THE WR-1A ZONE IN THE DUNHAM’S BAY AREA IS THE TOWN BOUNDARY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. SALVADOR-The Dunham’s Bay area. That includes the east and west side of the Bay. MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. SALVADOR-That’s Dunham’s Bay. MR. STONE-Do you have a problem with that, Bob? If you do, let’s talk about it. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I just wanted to understand what Mr. Salvador said a moment ago. You said that the difference in your calculation from the zoning boundary was a matter of 118 feet? MR. SALVADOR-118 feet, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And is that the difference between the mean shoreline of the 317.74, and the northern boundary of your lots? MR. SALVADOR-No, not at all. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. How is that measured then, sir? MR. SALVADOR-It’s measured along the northern boundary of lots 11 and 12 of the French Mountain Tract, an extension of that line onto the Joshua Harris Rock Corporation. MR. STONE-It’s possible that your lands go into the Town of Bolton. MR. SALVADOR-No. No question our lands do not go into the Town of Bolton. MR. STONE-I can’t see how you could get 118 feet. MR. SALVADOR-Bear with me. I’m measuring essentially in an east/west direction. MR. STONE-You’re going east/west. MR. SALVADOR-All right. MR. MC NALLY-What was the dimension, the metes and bounds dimension, of the northern boundary of your two lots? MR. SALVADOR-The length? MR. MC NALLY-No, what was the direction. MR. SALVADOR-North 80 degrees west I think it is. Is that the direction you want? MR. MC NALLY-That’s the same direction and the same boundary as lots 12 and 11. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, they’re contiguous lines. MR. MC NALLY-What I’m just asking, then, is your 118 feet, then, is the difference between that line and the actual shoreline at 317.74, as I understand what you’re saying. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. SALVADOR-We’re saying that there are two planes, two datum planes, 317.74 and 320.2. The Town is using 320.2. I’m saying it’s 317.74. If you measure the distance from the intersection of this datum plane with the bed of the lake, to the intersection of this datum plane with the natural ground, you’ve got 118 feet. MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re saying. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-But for my mind, though, Mr. Chairman, all right. I have no objection to your proposed resolution, because I don’t see it in the same way as Mr. Salvador does, and I’m satisfied that the northerly lines of the two lots 11 and 12 refers to are within the Town of Queensbury boundary, and therefore, the proposal, if the zoning goes beyond that to the boundary line of the Town is fine with me. MR. SALVADOR-I have done a lot of work to prepare a statement, and I’d like to have it into the record. MR. STONE-I realize that, Mr. Salvador, but you’ve taken up two other meetings of this Board, and this is the third one. MRS. SALVADOR-Only because you needed more time to study our research. MR. STONE-And that was the February meeting, and it was still, there was feeling to do it again, and that’s why I tried to shortcut this thing, because I believe we have discussed this thing thoroughly, and I think this resolution cuts to the point that, in our minds, there is no difference between the zoning boundary and the Town boundary in this area, and I leave it to you to argue the Town boundary. You can get into the argument, and you can sit down with engineers and talk 317.74. MR. SALVADOR-No, this Board, according to the Ordinance, the Ordinance says, when there are uncertainties and inaccuracies, you must make a determination as to where the location, it says location. MR. STONE-The Town boundary is a location, in my book MR. SALVADOR-It doesn’t say a description. MR. STONE-In my judgement, the Town boundary is a location, and that you can challenge, but I am willing to state my position that the Town boundary is a location. Having said that, do I have a second to the resolution? MR. BRYANT-Before you get a second, Mr. Chairman, I think, really, the motion is relevant to all the Town, and you should probably strike “in the Dunham’s Bay area”. MR. STONE-The only reason it says that, I agree with you, is because the appeal is very specific, and appeals are very specific things, and this is what we have to address. MR. SALVADOR-But according to the Code, I have the right to appeal any and all, any and all, okay. MR. STONE-Okay. You want me to say it extends to the Town boundary, the adjacent zoning, but I don’t want to do that because I haven’t seen the kind of history that you have given us. You have done a very good job here, and I appreciate that, and on the basis of this, I say in this area. You’re right, Allan, I mean, we could do that, but I don’t think we have to. Craig, we’re talking about a particular appeal, right? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re also talking about a northerly boundary, which is what the appeal refers to, with respect to the zone in this location. There are other waterfront places in the Town. MR. SALVADOR-As I read Mr. Round’s notes here, I’ve just seen them for the first time. I don’t think Staff understands the problem. I don’t think they understand the problem, and I don’t think you gentlemen have a grasp of what we’re talking about. It is not as simple as what. MR. STONE-Would you agree that your two lots run basically north and south? MR. SALVADOR-The land. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-Two properties, 4-1-9 and 4-1-11 run basically northerly and southerly, they run north south? MR. SALVADOR-No. Excuse me. The lots themselves run east and west. I mean, as a rectangle. MR. STONE-Well, they’re rectangles. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STONE-But you have never talked anything except the northern boundaries of this. MR. SALVADOR-Right. MR. STONE-So we’re talking the northern boundary. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-The northern boundary is the Town boundary, and I have no problem with that, and I don’t think my Board does. MR. SALVADOR-But, the northern boundary of our land encompasses more than just the length of that lot, of those lots, the Great Lots. That’s what I’m trying to, the point I’m trying to make. MR. STONE-You’re saying the northern boundary runs east and west. MR. SALVADOR-That’s right. The direction of the line is basically east and west. MR. STONE-Fine. I’m still saying the northern boundary is the Town boundary. You didn’t ask us the determination of your lot size and the size of your lot, and we can’t do that, but we can determine that the zoning boundary is the Town boundary, in that area, and the Town boundary is basically east and west, and I will call for a vote. I’m sorry we’ve talked about it long enough, Mr. Salvador. It’s gone on and on. Listen to what the Board says. We have a resolution before us. Maria, would you call the vote. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-So our determination is that the Town boundary and the zoning boundary in this area are the same. MR. SALVADOR-In the area of Dunham Bay. MR. STONE-That’s what I said. MR. SALVADOR-Dunham’s Bay has, this is Dunham Bay. This is an area like this. MR. STONE-The northern limit of the zone of Dunham’s Bay is the Town boundary. It’s very specific. MR. SALVADOR-This is Waterfront One Acre right here. MR. STONE-We didn’t talk about that. You asked us lots 9 and 11, John. That’s what we talked about. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, read the Code. There is no question that I have a right to appeal any district boundary in this Town. I don’t have to list. MR. STONE-And you did, and in this particular case, you can come back to us, no problem, but in this particular case, the appeal is denied. The determination has been made that, per your request, that the Town boundary and the zoning boundary are synonymous in this particular case. They run together. That’s what you asked us to do. MR. SALVADOR-Will you agree, as was suggested, that that holds true for all? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-The item before us was very limited. Remember, appeals are very limited. If you want to put an appeal in to talk about the whole Town, that’s another day and another dollar. MR. SALVADOR-I have done that, Mr. Stone, read the Code. May I please? MR. STONE-The matter is closed, as far as I’m concerned. MRS. SALVADOR-Were we not invited here tonight to state our case, our appeal, and not just listen to your resolution? MR. STONE-You’ve stated your case twice before. MR. SALVADOR-You didn’t even hear one of them. How can you make a judgment? You weren’t present for one of those two. MR. STONE-I wasn’t here for, I read what you submitted to us. MR. SALVADOR-The second time? Did I submit anything the second time? MR. STONE-I read what you submitted in January. I read it. MR. SALVADOR-That’s right, and you determined that you needed more time to review. MR. STONE-I didn’t determine that. The Board determined it, and I’ve now circularized the Board on this thing and they agree that this position is the one we’re taking. I mean, it’s very clear and simple. MR. SALVADOR-Have you received any public comment on this at all? Any public input? MR. STONE-None. MR. SALVADOR-Have you consulted with your Town Surveyor on this subject, professional input? We have a Surveyor on contract for this Town. Has he been consulted in this regard? Does he give testimony? MR. STONE-Our job was to determine one thing, and we did. That’s our determination. It may be unsatisfactory to you, but it conforms to the Code, the Town Code, and it conforms to what you asked us, and we told you that the zoning district and the Town boundary are the same, in that area. That’s all there is. That’s what you asked. MR. SALVADOR-And it includes the whole of Dunham’s Bay. MR. STONE-The matter is closed, as far as I’m concerned. Let’s go on to the next one. Which happens to be Appeal No. 2-2000. MR. SALVADOR-Was the public hearing ever closed on that, on our, the zoning district boundary? Was the public hearing ever closed? MR. STONE-Was it left open? Then the public hearing was closed. I’ll close the public hearing. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2000 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPELLANT SEEKS INTERPRETATION REGARDING AN OMMISSION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTERATOR RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH TAX MAP NO. 4-1-11 JAMES MORGAN & SHIELA GALVIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Are there two appeals here or one? There’s two pieces of paper in there, but they’re slightly different. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Well, I was away at the time in the process of filing appeals, and I didn’t know whether Chris Round would make a decision one way or the other. So I filed two notices of appeal with instructions to throw one in the basket if it doesn’t apply. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-But they didn’t get that. MR. STONE-So which one is the one, in your judgement, that applies? MR. SALVADOR-He has omitted. MR. STONE-You’re talking about the omission one, okay. MR. MC NULTY-And we’ve got a letter from John to Chris Round. Should I read that, too? MR. STONE-The letter talks to the omission or it talks to the fact that the docks are there illegally? MR. SALVADOR-Both. I appear here tonight with Counsel. Mr. Morgan is here with me, and his partner, Ms. Galvin, is also present, and they will take over any questions and answers you might have. If I can add clarification, I’ll be glad to do so. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I’m just trying to figure out what to read into the record. I think we’re here on an appeal from the omission of failure to issue a building permit for the structures, the two docks in question. I think I can clarify the underlying legal issues. That’s open for comment. MR. STONE-All right. Well, I guess the letter does talk about not getting a building permit. So read the letter. MR. MC NULTY-That would be the safe way to do it. This is a letter to Mr. Chris Round, Director of Community Development, from John Salvador, “Dear Chris: Further to our discussion on Friday concerning the Building Permit Application submitted by Frank J. Parillo on April 21, 1998, I failed to mention that the application shows the location of the project to be on Tax Parcel 4-1-10. In fact, Mr. Parillo constructed these commercial docks on Tax Parcel 4-1-11 to which we continue to hold title. Mr. Parillo’s claim to a portion of the lands comprising Tax Parcel 4-1-11 has not been conclusively determined nor is it likely that the future rights to the lands in question will be finalized before, or even during, the coming boating season. In the meantime, the record shows that we are the owners of the land upon which Mr. Parillo has erected the two commercial docks without receiving proper approval. Mr. Parillo erected these two commercial boat docks in anticipation of receiving a Building Permit as required by the Town of Queensbury. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he cannot be granted a Building Permit as long as there are unresolved issues of the ownership of the land. He should be made to remove these commercial structures as their erection proceeded without consideration as to the need for zoning variances by the Town of Queensbury. This alone makes their construction a nullity! Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to your early determination in this matter. Yours truly, John Salvador, Jr.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2000, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: March 15, 2000 “Project Location: State Route 9L Description: The appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals; alleging an omission by the Zoning Administrator. Per §179-98, the Zoning Board of Appeals is charged with hearing appeals regarding actions, omissions, decisions or rulings made by the Zoning Administrator. Information Requested: The appellant wishes to appeal the fact that the Zoning Administrator has not acted on a building permit (98-172) filed by Mr. Frank J. Parillo. Staff Comment: A 1988 survey map submitted with building permit (98-172) appears to depict the dock reconstruction to be on lands in possession of John C. & Kathleen A. Salvador. A NYS Supreme Court ruling appears to have awarded Mr. Parillo ownership of the land in question. Further, Mr. Salvador has appealed the same. Common practice of the Building Department is to confirm property owner permission prior to issuing a permit. In this case, where there are uncertainties as to the ownership of the property, it is impossible to issue or act on the request for a permit. The Zoning Administrator has requested a copy of the current court order and will refer the matter to counsel for review and comment.” MR. MC NALLY-Did we ever get a copy of the current court order? MR. MORGAN-Yes. John submitted that, I believe, several days ago. MR. STONE-Did we get a copy of the court order? MR. BROWN-I don’t think it was a copy of the court order, was it? What was it you submitted? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. SALVADOR-It was a stay, and all of that was submitted last year. MR. BROWN-It was the notice that you had filed on appeal. MR. SALVADOR-Counsel has all of that, last year. By the way, these docks were built almost a year ago. MR. STONE-We understand that. MR. MC NALLY-Is there a judgement? Is there an order? Is there something you can show us? MR. MORGAN-There is a judgement that is currently on appeal, back to the Appellate Division. It’s been to the Appellate Division, Motion for relief to appeal denied, remanded, another decision made. That’s what’s currently on appeal. That appeal will be perfected, probably, by May, and is, I think you could agree that it will take four to five months for the Appellate Division to make its decision. So the ownership of the underlying property, it’s not the whole parcel. I want to make that clear, because there were statements in the previous appeal that the ownership of the whole parcel is not in dispute. It’s a portion of the parcel that we’re talking about, and I think what we’re reacting to is the fact that structures were put up in April of ’98, I believe, when the original decision came down from the Appellate Division, before all the subsequent legal developments, whereby John removed two docks from the disputed lands, even though he had fully intended and did in fact perfect appeal therefrom and we’re still acting legally on that, and the two new docks were constructed without a building permit, and that’s what we’re saying, there’s been no determination whether a building permit should be issued or not. It’s still, they’re illegal structures. What we’re dealing with here is a situation. I think it’s analogous to where if a person had a parcel of land, and they entered into a lease purchase agreement with someone, and someone else, the person who was going to lease the structure constructed the building on the land, it was owned by someone else. If there was no building permit issued, either to the owner of the property or the person who was the lessee of the property, you still have an illegal structure, and that’s the reason we’re here. Because there are two structures that have been built, in existence for over a year, in fact, it’s approaching two years next month, around the 28 of April, I believe, of ’98, when this all took place, and there’s been no th building permit, and those structures basically are illegal, and we’re asking this Board for a determination to direct the building and code administrator to issue a determination whether he feels the building permit is appropriate to be issued or not. That’s what we’re seeking. MR. MC NALLY-So these are two docks? MR. MORGAN-These are two docks, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And there’s a dispute regarding the land that these docks are on? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Is there a judgement of the Supreme Court determining who owns it currently? MR. MORGAN-There’s a judgement of the Supreme Court determining, this is on appeal, but determining that the two docks are situated on a portion of land that the court says belongs to Mr. Parillo at this point. MR. MC NALLY-And Mr. Salvador has appealed that, and that appeal is now pending? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That appeal is current, active and pending, right? MR. MORGAN-Yes, and there’s also a stay, because we put an undertaking in to stay the effective judgement. MR. MC NALLY-Did you bring the stay with you today? Do we have a copy of it anywhere? MR. SALVADOR-Mark Schachner has that. MR. MORGAN-I discussed the matter this morning with Mark. MR. MC NALLY-I’m just asking Craig, though, if he happened to have a copy of it. MR. BROWN-I can grab the building permit file, and I’m sure there’s some documentation in there, if you give me a couple of minutes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-Well, I did have a discussion with Counsel today, though, and I can tell you where I’m leaning, on the advice of Counsel. MR. BROWN-Mr. McNally, is that something you want to see? I’ll run and get it. MR. MC NALLY-If they can tell me what the stay says, then maybe you won’t have to run out and get it. Is it a very detailed stay or? MR. MORGAN-It’s a stay that stays the effect of a judgement to transfer the ownership, as well as there were some damages involved, and there was an undertaking paid in the Supreme Court that will be resolved when the Appellate Division makes a final ruling, either it’ll be reversed and Mr. Salvador will own the property again, or it will go back, you know, stay in Mr. Parillo. MR. MC NALLY-But does the stay effectively prevent Mr. Parillo from claiming ownership? MR. MORGAN-The stay is in dispute. The stay prevented the effectiveness of the judgement to which awarded the ownership to Mr. Parillo. So, technically, the underlying ownership would remain with John and Kathy Salvador. MR. MC NALLY-So current title is with Mr. Salvador, based on that stay, is what you’re saying? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And the advice of Counsel that I received today, and I want to read a statement that I put together, is it doesn’t conflict with what you said. It absolutely confirms what you’ve said. The Zoning Board of Appeals understands that there is current, active, pending litigation involving the subject property. It further understands the Appellate, in this proceeding, has appealed the stay by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the ZBA does not intend to make a determination in this matter until the final court decision is rendered. If the Appellate so chooses, we can open a public hearing tonight. However, we intend to leave it open until the said court decision is made. MR. MC NALLY-When was the stay issued? MR. MORGAN-The stay was issued August 23, I believe was the effective date. rd MR. MC NALLY-When were the docks constructed? MR. MORGAN-The docks were constructed in April of ’98, I believe it was April 28. What I’m th saying is this matter has been hanging fire, and you have two illegal structures sitting there. MR. MC NALLY-And why were no building permits required initially anyway? MR. SALVADOR-They were. MR. MC NALLY-They were required, all right, is that what you’re saying, that they were required? MR. MORGAN-That’s the point. What happened was the day after John Salvador had removed the docks, pursuant to an Appellant Division decision, in full compliance with the law, the two new docks were, construction was started and they were completed. There was no building permit in place, that we’re aware of. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Salvador, did you remove the docks? MR. MORGAN-He removed the ones he. MR. SALVADOR-We had our docks on this small portion of land, our docks are there, okay, and as soon as we received the Appellate Court decision, remanding this back to Supreme Court, for determination, because they overturned Supreme Court. MR. MORGAN-Which had awarded ownership. MR. SALVADOR-We prevailed in Supreme Court, on the adverse possession. MR. MC NALLY-This is the second time, then, that it’s been to the Appellate Division? MR. MORGAN-Yes, that is correct. MR. MC NALLY-There was a remand from the Appellate Division to the Supreme Court? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-For a determination as to ownership? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that ownership is decided, now it’s on Appeal again? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So when it was remanded, you removed the docks, before a determination from Supreme Court was made? Is that what happened? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I removed them, vacated the land because it was in question. MR. MORGAN-John’s docks have been on that property for over 10 years, and the question, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court before Judge Moynihan, and so the matter remained in dispute, but again, what you’ve had is construction without a permit. MR. STONE-No, we understand that, but the ZBA, of course, is not an enforcement body, and we can’t make Mr. Parillo take them down. We can’t make the Zoning Administrator give him a building permit or enforce the fact. We can’t do that. MR. SALVADOR-Back to some of the questions Mr. McNally was asking. Prior to my removing my two structures, I went to the Building Department and filed an application, a demolition permit, okay, and I was told by Mr. Hatin I didn’t need one. In fact, my money was refunded to me because I paid the fee, and it was returned to me with my fee, everything said, you don’t need a demolition permit. Okay. I went ahead and I took them out. MR. MC NALLY-These are your own two docks? MR. SALVADOR-These are my two docks. MR. MC NALLY-And at the time you had title to them. So that’s separate and apart from what we’re here for today. MR. STONE-When he took them out he didn’t have title. The courts had ruled against you. That’s why you took them out. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I see. MR. STONE-He took them out when the court said it wasn’t his land. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but they’re your docks? MR. STONE-When the court remanded it back to Supreme Court for establishment of the boundary line, okay. MR. MC NALLY-You removed them before the determination that’s currently on appeal? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-All right. So the court hadn’t reached a point where they said it’s Parillo’s land yet? MR. MORGAN-They had said that a claim of adverse possession had been established by Mr. Parillo. Concurrently, on the other side of the same parcel, there were two docks that were situated there, that they said that had been prior to Mr. Parillo, Allison Ellsworth, but right now Mr. Salvador’s, they sort of made a very strange decision. It sort of takes a rectangular lot and moves the boundaries, okay, but in response to the express finding of the Appellate Division John, upon legal advice, removed those docks to be in full compliance with the law, and our position, I have a question for the Chairman. If there were a structure, be it a dock or a building, that you became aware of, wouldn’t you expect your Code Enforcement Officer to issue a cease work order, or the equivalent, in your Code? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-As a citizen of the Town, I would expect it. As the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I have no call one way or the other on it. As a citizen, yes, I would like to think that certain things are enforced, but we are not an enforcement body. MR. MORGAN-No, but your Code Enforcement Officer is, and we’re appealing from what we’re alleging is a failure to act, an omission, which is a permitted appeal before this Board. I don’t believe that matter’s in dispute, and what we’re respectfully requesting is a decision. MR. MC NALLY-So Parillo came in, after these docks were removed, and built two new docks? MR. MORGAN-That is correct. MR. MC NALLY-And he didn’t get a permit for that, you’re saying? MR. SALVADOR-What I did, I informed Dave Hatin that he was on our land, building docks. Dave Hatin went to Mr. Parillo and said it was necessary for him to get a building permit, and he filed, after the docks were built, he filed an application for a building permit, and it’s been sitting in Chris Round’s office ever since. It hasn’t been approved. It hasn’t been denied, nothing. MR. STONE-But it is an active, current, pending litigation case that is going on over the ownership of this land, and they may be on your property when we get all done, and you’ll be in violation you didn’t get a building permit to put them there. No, but seriously, there is a case going on right now, and I am saying, on advice of Counsel, I don’t want the Board to act on this thing until it is resolved. MR. MORGAN-But how can you have a building permit application pending for nearly two years, structures put on it without a final determination? There’s nothing to seek review of. There’s nothing to raise an issue with. We’re seeking equal protection of the law. MR. STONE-Because to whom do you issue the building permit? That is the question. MR. SALVADOR-The builder. MR. STONE-Who is the owner? MR. SALVADOR-It’s not the builder, is our point, nor did he have the permission of the owner. MR. STONE-I understand, and that’s why we are in a territory where current litigation is going on, and we, any action that the Zoning Administrator or the Code Enforcement Officer takes gets in the middle of this case, and the Town does not wish to get in the middle of this case. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Salvador, you’re saying that you’re the owner and he did not have permission from you, as the owner? MR. SALVADOR-Exactly. MR. MC NALLY-All right, and, Craig, Chris didn’t issue a permit because the issue of ownership was up in the air? MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding, yes. MR. MORGAN-But there’s an argument that (lost word) would apply to the inaction, that if you hold an application, you, in effect, deny it. That’s a principal from other areas of law, and this Board, you sit with a 60 day time limit. Sometimes you extend it by agreements with the parties, etc. We’re all familiar with that. I’ve sat on a Zoning Board of Appeals for seven years myself. So I know the dilemma you’re in, but at the same time, you’re setting a very poor precedent for the fact that there’s no determination, and that’s what we’re seeking. MR. MC NALLY-Something else I’m curious about. These docks were built in April of ’98, right? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-And this appeal was filed in January of 2000. Isn’t there supposed to be a 60 day period from the time of decision not to issue a permit is made, and the decision was not to issue a permit, presumably. When was the application filed? MR. SALVADOR-For what, now? MR. MC NALLY-For the docks. When did he file a building permit application? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. SALVADOR-It was April or May of ’98, was it? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I’m just thinking out loud, but it seems to me that the Zoning Board, not the Zoning Board, the Zoning Administrator decided, at that time, not to issue a permit, for whatever reason. MR. MORGAN-But he didn’t deny the application. There’s been no official act. It’s held. That’s my understanding of Mr. Brown’s notes. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think it’s fair to say that Mr. Round made a determination with regard to the building permits. His omission is, in any case, whoever, if Mr. Parillo is successful, eventually, he’s got to go to the Zoning Board for his variances. These are commercial docks in a residential zone. They are a nonconforming use. There are all kinds of restrictions on dock building. He has to meet those tests. MR. MC NALLY-Are they currently being used? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-For commercial purposes? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-Illegally. MR. MORGAN-We take the position that without a properly issued building permit, those structures are illegal, and therefore the time for the nonconforming use, it’s been over 18 months, has expired. He’d have to apply for a new variance, even if a building permit, if the Appellate Division affirms the currently holding, and the property is Mr. Parillo’s, we believe it’s a legal issue that he would then have to apply for a nonconforming use and whatever other specifications the Town requires for a dock. MR. ABBATE-You’re basing this, sir, on default, then? MR. MORGAN-Failure to act, default, omission, yes. MR. ABBATE-That’s your case, you’re basing it on default. MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just wanted it clear in my own mind. SHIELA GALVIN MS. GALVIN-If I may, my name is Sheila Galvin, and I’m one of the members, I also am a refugee from a Town Zoning Board. So I understand the difficulties of your position, but one of the points that seems to be being missed with all of this is the underlying issue, which is the docks were illegally constructed. No application was made until after they were constructed, and no application has been granted or denied at this point, therefore, the existence of the docks is, in and of itself, illegal and in violation of the Zoning Ordinances of this Town. As part of the function of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals reviews determinations or non-determinations, in this case, of its enforcement officer. Therefore, it is within the purview of this Board to make such a determination as to whether or not the existence of those docks is in conformance with the Zoning Code, regardless of ownership. The docks were built before a permit was even requested, much less issued. We don’t have to go any further than that. They were in violation the day the first piece of wood went in. There was no permit. There was nothing. Regardless of who owned the land, the person who did the work was in the wrong, and it’s the duty of this Board to make a determination as to the legality of the docks, as they went in and continue. MR. STONE-That being as it is, I still feel that this whole matter, and it’s all part of the action. I’m sure, in your appeal, you talked about this land is being used illegally. I don’t know that, I don’t have a copy of that. MR. MORGAN-That’s not an issue that’s before the Court. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-It’s not an issue, okay. So it doesn’t say anything about having put docks in without building permits or building docks on your property? MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. It does not, we didn’t raise those issues. It wasn’t properly before the Court under underlying ownership issues anyway, because they’re after the fact. The underlying action was brought by Mr. Parillo, a number of years ago. I believe it was ’96 when it was commenced. MR. STONE-It is your opinion that the statement that we can’t make the Zoning Administrator issue a building permit or institute an enforcement action is not true? MR. MORGAN-I believe you have the authority to direct your Zoning Administrator to issue or deny or act upon a building permit. You have that authority as a Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. STONE-And what if the Zoning Administrator says, I hear you, and I will wait until the appeal is heard and a determination made? MR. MORGAN-That doesn’t alter the fact that we’ve made a legal argument here, and I understand you’re acting on advise of Counsel. I spoke with your Counsel earlier today, to explain our position. I did not have the courtesy of a phone call back to hear his position, but, be that as it may, I believe you’re setting a very bad precedent, because any other construction, despite who owns the land, that took place without a building permit, there should have been a cease work order issued. MR. STONE-I would be the first one to agree with you, if it were a simple case of somebody building on their property, uncontested property. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I don’t think property ownership is an issue. I think what they’re trying to establish is whether or not those buildings, as they exist, are even legal. Would this Board approve that kind of variance for those buildings. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BRYANT-So, who owns the property is (lost words). MR. ABBATE-Really not the issue. Craig, may I ask a question, please? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Are there currently two commercial docks on this piece of property in question? MR. BROWN-I believe so, yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and have you determined whether or not there is commercial activity at the present time? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-There is. So there are two docks, currently, with commercial use, without a permit. Is this correct? MR. BROWN-So far, so good. MR. ABBATE-I think these gentlemen have a point. MR. MC NALLY-I think the use is not an issue, but the (lost word) of the building permit is, whether or not the use is acceptable in this area is not before us. MR. STONE-That’s a variance thing that we would have to get into if they appeared before us. If they came to us with clear title, and wanted to put in two docks, in a nonconforming zone, we’d have to talk about it. MR. BRYANT-I think, yes, under normal circumstances. Because of the abnormal circumstance of this whole issue, they’re not asking for a permit or a variance to get a permit. What they’re asking for is a determination. If they ultimately end up with the ownership of the land, those docks could be legal. I mean, I think that’s what they’re asking. MR. STONE-And that’s what Counsel has said to me this afternoon, that until we know who owns the land, he would advise not ruling on it. It doesn’t say we can. We have that option to do it. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. ABBATE-Yes, but your point is well taken, but in the meantime the Town, this is hypothetical, in the meantime, the Town condones illegal activities? Is that correct? In the meantime the Town will allow illegal activities, pending litigation, finalization of litigation? That doesn’t make sense to me. MR. STONE-That’s one way of putting it. MR. ABBATE-That’s one way of putting it. You want to put it that way? In other words, then, the Town condones the fact that illegal operations can occur in the Town of Queensbury, and will not be satisfied until litigation is completed? Regardless of the illegalities? Something’s wrong here, unless I’m missing thee point. MR. MORGAN-No, you have the point. MR. STONE-Well, your point is well taken. What we do know, there are illegal buildings in the Town of Queensbury. There are illegal buildings or constructions, fences I’m talking about. We know they exist. The problem is there are a lot of constraints upon enforcement, and I’m not going to go into them, just manpower and time and everything. You’d love to do everything, and I’m not condoning the fact that we don’t enforce, but in this particular case, if, let’s just go back to a totally clean situation. If the owner of a property came before the Zoning Administrator or the Building Department to get a building permit on a piece of land that was in dispute, at that point, without the court, without any rulings, if there was a dispute, then the Zoning Administrator would wait until that dispute had been taken care of. MR. ABBATE-In other words, then the Town is willing to accept any type of liability during this illegal activity? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think the Town has much liability, to be honest with you. MS. GALVIN-These are commercial docks. MR. ABBATE-You’re talking about commercial docks. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but the Town is not going to face liability for any damages or negligence out of the commercial usage, though. MS. GALVIN-If there were an injury they would. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely they’d be responsible. Guaranteed. MR. MC NALLY-On what grounds? MS. GALVIN-On the grounds that you’re allowing an illegal structure to be used within the Town with the knowledge of this Board. It is now come before, not only has it been before your Zoning Administrator, who’s failed to act. It is now before this Board, and you’re on record notice of an existing illegal structure, which was constructed, regardless of on who’s property, it was constructed without even applying for a building permit. This is the basic issue. Forget the ownership. Forget everything else. Go back to the fact that the docks were constructed without the person doing the construction even bothering to apply for a building permit. They may be relying on the Town’s lack of enforcement, but this has now been brought before the Board. So you’re on notice. MR. STONE-That is a separate issue. That can be issued as a separate issue. I agree, that if someone came before us and pointed out that a house, came forward to the Town and said, here’s a house that was built without a building permit, what are you going to do about it. MS. GALVIN-And that’s what we’re saying. What are you going to do about the two docks? MR. SALVADOR-Not only that, Mr. Stone. There’s a letter on the record from Mr. Morgan, August 22 of last year. That’s where it started. nd MR. STONE-Okay, but you are not, the appeal is not a request of the Zoning Administrator to tear this thing down because it was illegally built, or to make a determination. You’re asking us to get in the middle of a decision made by the Zoning Administrator or not made, that because of the litigation involved here, that doesn’t want to confound the issue. MS. GALVIN-The issue is, are the docks legally constructed, having been built without a building permit. If the answer to that question is, they are not legally constructed, then it’s the duty of this Board to direct its zoning enforcement officer to have those docks removed. That has nothing to do with who owns the land. It’s a matter of law. Were they legally constructed, yes or no? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. ABBATE-I wouldn’t say have the docks removed. I would modify it to say take appropriate action. MS. GALVIN-Or take appropriate action is perfectly acceptable, but the issue is, has nothing to do with the ownership of the property. MR. STONE-Okay, but appropriate action could be I will do something when it is. MR. SALVADOR-That’s not appropriate. MR. STONE-That’s the definition of whether it’s appropriate. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question? At the time of the building application, the permit application, what was the climate, was it already in litigation? MR. BROWN-I think they had just received their first Supreme Court decision. MR. MORGAN-No, it was the second. It was the Appellate Division decision that resulted in John’s removal of his two docks, and the construction of new docks, and that’s been, as I said, it’s rather a convoluted proceeding. MR. STONE-All right. Let me go back to chronology. You thought you owned the land, and you had two docks that you had built on the property, and you were using those docks. MR. SALVADOR-We prevailed in Supreme Court, and so the docks were okay. MR. STONE-I’m not arguing that they weren’t okay. I’m just saying, I’m just trying to, they were there, and you thought you had title to the land, and you had building permits to put the docks in. MR. SALVADOR-Way back, yes. MR. STONE-That I know you do, and I have no question that if there’s rules to follow, you follow them. MR. SALVADOR-Within the zoning district boundary. MR. BROWN-I guess to answer your question, Mr. Bryant, at the time Mr. Parillo filed the building permit application, he was under the belief that he owned the property. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-The only reason that he built that, why did he build it without a permit? MR. BROWN-Well, he re-built them after Mr. Salvador removed them. MR. MORGAN-No, he removed completely, and the new docks were located in a slightly different location. MR. STONE-They were gone. I wouldn’t have any problem with that. The question that I don’t have an answer to is, why, at that time, with the, well, I know why, he immediately appealed the Supreme Court decision, therefore title was still mired in dispute. MR. MORGAN-We went through an extended period of negotiations, attempting to resolve the underlying matter. That’s why nothing, no other issues were raised. We did, during discussion, say that the docks had been constructed, there was no building permit issued. That had been discussed, but the grin and the grappament of that is not before the court. The underlying ownership is the issue before the Court, and what we’re saying is, both Sheila and I sat on the Town of Bethlehem, Albany County, Zoning Board of Appeals. John Flannagan was the Code Enforcement Officer there. I think maybe Craig has heard of him. He was President of the State Association for awhile. We had a number of instances where there were fences or other structures. He would issue the appropriate orders, and the appeals would come before us to make a determination. As to legality, fences were taken down as a result of those orders, and were upheld uniformly in Supreme Court. So I understand the questions of manpower and all this, but we’re saying, right now, you have two illegally constructed commercial docks in operation. Now I’m not saying this is as a fact. I’m saying, what if they were faultily constructed and injury occurs? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question, because I’m new to the Board. I hope you’ll bear with me. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-In this matter, we’re all new, quite frankly. MR. ABBATE-Yes. My question, basically, is this. Does the Zoning Board of Appeals have a responsibility to take action on any reported incident of illegal commercial operations? That’s my question. And I don’t know the answer. MR. MORGAN-We believe the answer is affirmative. That when illegal activity is brought to your attention, if someone brought, what is your Zoning Ordinance on fences, is it four feet and above that some open space? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MORGAN-Okay. If someone came to you and reported that my neighbor has put up a six foot fence, I asked him about a permit and he said no, what action would this Board take? MR. STONE-We can bring it to the attention of the Code Enforcement Officer, and that’s all we can do. We can make the Code Enforcement Officer or the Zoning Administrator do anything. MR. MORGAN-I disagree, because I believe the Zoning Board of Appeals, we used to be able, in the Town of Bethlehem, for example, when the Code Enforcement Officer issued an opinion, that was appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We also gave him direction on enforcement. Okay. MS. GALVIN-But you give direction on enforcement, in effect, in every condition you put in each granted permit. Each time you grant a variance, and you have restrictive language, that is a direction to your zoning enforcement officer. MR. STONE-Technically, it is, but it is not a direct. We’re not saying, go out today and make sure that this fence comes down. We’ve never done it. Maybe we have the power. We have not done it. MR. BROWN-I think you have the power to say, you’re right. There’s a violation of the Ordinance. The Ordinance reads, this is the fence height that you’re supposed to maintain, and affirm the assertion that there’s a violation, and beyond that, I don’t know. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying. That’s where we can go. MR. MC NALLY-The issue has to come to us on an appeal, though. MR. BROWN-Right. MS. GALVIN-That’s what we’re here on. MR. STONE-You’re on an appeal. We understand. MR. MC NULTY-And the way their appeal is worded, it leaves some leeway, because they’re appealing the omission of a decision. It doesn’t say decision on building permit or decision on legality of docks or whatever. It just says omission of a decision regarding the docks. MR. ABBATE-May I quote something here? It says here that “the Board of Appeals is vested only with the Appellate power of review and revision of the Enforcement Officer’s decisions”. MR. MC NULTY-There’s another section that talks about omissions, though. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Powers and Duties of the Board. MS. GALVIN-It’s under the omissions. MR. SALVADOR-It says that I can appeal an omission. MR. STONE-Yes, it does. MR. MORGAN-And if you uphold such an appeal, that means you’re giving directions to your zoning enforcement officer, to act. You’re not telling him to act yes, no or whatever. You’re telling him to do something. We’re not asking for your determination on the underlying ownership or anything of that nature. We’re just dealing with what you can and cannot do, and we believe you can direct your Code Enforcement Officer to act. MR. STONE-Do you guys want to give me a reference? I’m having trouble. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. MC NULTY-179-98 is the one that they refer to. MR. ABBATE-An interesting, I just had a little sidebar here, and I would feel a heck of a lot better, and I’m certainly not questioning the integrity of anybody here, if I had some photographs, if I had something to say, look, these are the docks that we’re referring to. Right now, as far as I’m concerned, we’re talking about hypothetical, because I have nothing. I have nothing, and I’m sure what you’re stating is correct, but I need something substantial to take a firmer stand. MS. GALVIN-I believe that they should be within the building permit that was filed with the Town. MR. ABBATE-In 1998? MS. GALVIN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-I have no documents back from ’98. MR. STONE-Would you argue, and I don’t want to put arguments in your mouth, but would you argue, I’m talking about the 60 days here. Would you argue that continued reluctance to take these docks down, there’s continuity there so it can be 60 days from any point, as long as the docks are up? Because otherwise we’re talking, this decision was two years ago, by your own statement. MR. MORGAN-But there was no decision. MR. STONE-Well, it says omission. It says appeal from an action, omission or decision or rule by him regarding requirement of this Chapter may be made only to the Zoning Board of Appeals within 60 days of such decision or action. MS. GALVIN-It’s still continuing. MR. STONE-I’m asking you if you want to say that. MS. GALVIN-At the present time, it’s continuing. However, at the point in time that Mr. Salvador filed his appeal, he commenced the time running on an omission. MR. MORGAN-And it’s been brought to your notice, and the time would run from that date. MS. GALVIN-And those docks are in violation of the Zoning Ordinances of this Town every day t that they stay there. MR. MORGAN-When you’re talking about a failure to act, until there’s a demand, the Statute doesn’t run. MR. STONE-Correct. Okay. That’s what I wanted to hear you say. Because I mean, I can buy that part. MR. SALVADOR-If we were to sue Chris Round for dereliction of duty, in State Court, they would accuse us of not exhausting our administrative remedies without having come to you first. They’d throw us right out. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re requesting in this appeal, let me just read the statement here. Well, I’ve got to read the whole statement. We’ve read it into the record. So you would like Mr. Round, you’d like us to tell Mr. Round to either issue a building permit or have the docks taken down. Well, what do you want us to do? MR. MORGAN-He has to make a determination whether it’s appropriate to issue a building permit. That, if he says no, that makes the docks illegal. What an enforcement action is, you’re correct. That’s up to him after that. We’re not asking for that. We’re asking for something to be done on the pending permit that’s been pending for two years now. MS. GALVIN-What the issue is, quite frankly, is we’re asking for a determination as to whether or not the docks, as they currently stand today, are legal. That’s a yes or a no question. MR. STONE-You both have mentioned two different things just then. One talked about a building permit. The other said, whether the docks are legal or not. MR. MORGAN-If the building permit should have been issued, then logically and legally, they’re illegal. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-Okay. We can direct, I guess we can direct the Zoning Administrator, if we so choose, to make a decision on the building permit. He can say, you have to have one, or you don’t have to have one. That’s one decision he can make. Two, if he says you have to have one, then he can say, why didn’t you have one, and therefore issue an enforcement action and take them down, or but that’s where the problem comes in. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Hatin determines whether or not a building permit is going to be issued. In the process, it’s necessary for him, according to the procedures of the Town, and correct me if I’m wrong, Craig, it’s necessary for him to go to the Zoning Administrator to be sure that, from a zoning point of view, the way is clear to issue a permit. That’s why it’s sitting on Mr. Round’s desk. Dave Hatin’s done his work. He’s reviewed the application and he’s passed it on to Chris Round. Chris Round has not made a determination as to whether or not the process can. MR. STONE-I understand that. So we can say, we could pass a resolution that says, ask the Zoning Administrator to make a decision. MR. MORGAN-To address the issue? Sure. MR. STONE-Very simply, and he can ignore us if he wants to, but we can say that. MR. MORGAN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-The other thing is, two things. First, you’re objecting to his not acting upon a building permit. As a Board, do we get involved in building permits, or just zoning issues? MR. STONE-Zoning issues. No, we get involved in any action that comes under the purview of the Zoning Administrator. MR. MORGAN-May I answer your question in this fashion. In this case, we’re dealing with structures that everybody agrees are in place. There’s no building permit. Now, in this context, the zoning code administrator, when he’s looking at any building permit, checks things, as to what we’ve heard earlier in your variance applications, side line setbacks, setbacks from the shoreline, etc., to make sure it’s appropriate. He does not issue the permit if a variance is needed, and in this case, if a variance is needed, it’s part of his determination, and it has to be in the context that he makes that determination. We’re dealing with a situation, over 18 months after construction, and if that construction, our position would be that construction was illegal. MR. MC NALLY-For the sake of argument, you’re right, no building permit was issued. MR. MORGAN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-My question is, we’ve always dealt with variances, use variances, area variances. If there’s a problem with a building permit, do we stick our nose in that? I don’t remember ever doing that. MR. MORGAN-I think a denial of a building permit is perfectly appealable to this Board. MR. STONE-It would if the Zoning Administrator puts his stamp on the decision not to grant one, yes, it would. MR. MC NALLY-If we asked Chris to go ahead and make a decision, Mr. Parillo’s attorney can ask for a stay, can seek Supreme Court assistance, whatever he pleases. Why are we interjecting ourselves into this? MR. ABBATE-Let me answer the question. Because it has been brought to our attention that there is illegal activity being done on a commercial basis. That’s why I think we should be involved. MR. STONE-Well, one could argue, let me ask you a question, Mr. Salvador. When you put those docks in, did you get a variance for setback, side setback? MR. SALVADOR-I didn’t need it at the time. MR. STONE-You didn’t? There was no side setbacks for docks then? MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. MORGAN-You’re talking about, I believe, ’76. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-’76 there wasn’t, okay. MR. MC NALLY-If this were, like Mr. Salvador has said, if he were Joe Blow, and his neighbor put up a dock, and this dispute between him and Mr. Parillo didn’t exist, if he had a complaint, and the Town Zoning Administrator didn’t act upon it, he had a right that he could come to us and ask for enforcement. Just like any other neighbor. It’s Mr. Parillo’s misfortune that he’s involved in litigation, and it’s Mr. Salvador’s misfortune that makes it more difficult for the Town to (lost word), but a building permit would never be issued if he didn’t own the land, and they would never have done it, and they should not have. They should have denied it. MR. STONE-Well, they would be perfectly happy if he denied the building permit. MR. MC NALLY-Sure, that’s what they’re looking for. MR. STONE-And made him take it down. MR. MC NALLY-Of course. If his attorney had half a brain, he’s going to go and get a stay from State Supreme Court, or the Appellate Division, in order to have a (lost word). That’s his business. MR. SALVADOR-That’s his business. MS. GALVIN-But the issue, in that regard, is not tearing down the docks or not tearing down the docks. It’s equal enforcement of the laws with respect to all persons who come before the Board. MR. ABBATE-Because one could argue right now discriminatory practices, and make a good case of it, if we don’t do anything. MR. STONE-We’re not being antagonistic here. I hope you realize that, because this is a confusing issue to all of us. MR. MORGAN-Yes. Could I point out one section of your Code that’s applicable here. Section 179-92, expiration of a variance, “Unless otherwise specified or extended by the Zoning Board of Appeals, decision on any request for a variance shall expire if the applicant fails to undertake the proposed action or project, to obtain any necessary building permit or to construct and proposed new building(s) or change any existing building(s) or to comply with the conditions of said authorization within one (1) year from the filing date of such decision thereof.” MR. STONE-That’s correct, but no variance was sought. Therefore, there’s no one here. MR. MORGAN-Well, there’s been no determination whether there should have been a variance, but we’re here about that. We’re asking for a decision on that issue, or requesting that you, within the limit and scope of your authority, request that your Zoning Administrator make a determination on what’s sitting on his desk. MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got two issues I think we’re looking at with these docks. One is they shouldn’t have been built without a building permit. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-Two, there’s a question about the use. It sounds to be like, beyond the building permit, perhaps they should have been in for a Use Variance, and we need to act, I think, somehow on it, because we shouldn’t let this kind of thing continue, regardless of who owns the land and who built the docks. MR. ABBATE-Who owns the land right now is not even an issue. MR. MC NULTY-No. If we’ve got, basically, an illegal operation, illegal commercial operation going on, some action should be taken. MR. STONE-What action do you suggest? MR. MC NALLY-I think that’s the problem. I don’t think the Zoning Administrator can sit on an application for years and let something go by. Just because there’s a dispute between the property owners. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-There is the Supreme Court to take care of their respective rights, and our Code requires a building permit, and if Mr. Salvador’s aggrieved, you know, he’s been, he’s got his personal 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) vendetta, I’m sure, don’t get me wrong, but he is an aggrieved neighbor, separate and apart from that, and I think he’s got the right to say. MR. SALVADOR-The Courts have referred to Mr. Parillo’s activities in this regard as self-help, and it’s not allowed. MR. STONE-It’s complex and yet simple at the same time. Obviously, if the other party had gone in to get a building permit for the docks, and said, well, I understand why you don’t want to give me one. Therefore, I won’t build the docks. I mean, that could have been, not a denial. That could have been an understanding of sympathetic appealings to the Zoning Administrator, let’s not get involved in a legal action. He could have done that, but he didn’t do that, and you have a very valid point. He did an “illegal act”. I’m not a judge to rule on that, but he certainly built a structure within the Town of Queensbury without the required building permit, as so stated by the Building Inspector. You’re saying Mr. Hatin said he needed a building permit. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So he was told he needed a building permit. He never got one, and therefore, but he went ahead and built two docks, on whose ever land that was, and on that simple issue, I would think we could say something, without getting involved in the litigation that’s going on. We could say it has come to our attention that there are illegal structures in the waters of Lake George, namely two docks, and we can describe them in any way we want. Maybe you can help us, that were built illegally, and we would ask that some enforcement action take place. That we can do. MR. ABBATE-Your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. I think we have to add something to that. Mr. Chairman, I think if we add to that that it’s been brought to our attention that there are commercial activities, current commercial activities currently going on, that is the most important part of it all. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but that’s not in front of us as an issue. I agree with you. MR. ABBATE-He just brought it to our attention. MR. MC NALLY-But the appeal is to whether or not a determination should be made on the building permit. You’re right, that it’s an important issue. MR. ABBATE-And we should address it. MR. MC NULTY-Well, the appeal doesn’t say what kind of a decision. It just says decision on the Parillo docks. MR. STONE-I mean, we could put that in, would that be, Craig, I don’t think that goes against what I was told today. I think we can say that, very clearly, that it’s come to our attention, we have been made aware, we are not ruling on, and since we’re not ruling on the appeal, we’re ruling on something, that we have made a determination that this ought to be looked into. MR. MC NALLY-Why don’t we direct the Zoning Administrator to make a decision, with respect to a pending building permit application, or to otherwise act with respect to the two docks. MR. STONE-Two illegal docks. MR. ABBATE-Fair enough. That’s a good. MR. STONE-Why don’t you make that motion. MR. MC NALLY-If there’s no building permit pending since a year went by. MR. ABBATE-Make the motion. I think you’re right. MR. STONE-I mean, when I see lawyers talking to their client to be quiet, I worry a little bit. MS. GALVIN-We don’t want to complicate things. MR. BRYANT-I just want to ask one more question, Mr. Chairman. Craig, the disposition of the property now is according to the court action, Parillo owns that property where the docks are? MR. MORGAN-It’s been stayed, yes, but that’s the last determination, yes. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. BRYANT-It’s being appealed. Why hasn’t the permit been acted upon, if that’s the determination? The fact that it’s being appealed. MR. STONE-Because of Mr. Salvador’s continuing action. That’s how it was stated. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but there’s already been a determination. So the permit can be either granted or denied, based on the fact, whoever owns the property. MR. MC NALLY-Actually, it’s in limbo. So Parillo probably has title to it. The stay prevents the enforcement of that judgement. So it’s kind of like, yes, Parillo’s got title, but you can’t act on it. That’s what the stay basically probably says. MR. MORGAN-It’s like a deed’s been drafted but it hasn’t been filed. MR. ABBATE-It’s like a stay. MR. MORGAN-Right. That’s exactly what it is. It’s a stay with an undertaking. MR. MC NALLY-Probably they’d leave the status quo as it is. That’s what I would do if I were the judge and someone came to me, but that’s beside the point. Let them decide. Are you ready for a motion? MR. STONE-Well, I’ve got to open the public hearing. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing. Anybody here willing to speak in favor of this, whatever we’re talking about? Anybody opposed? On the basis of a tentative motion, in prior discussion, I will close the public hearing at this time. MR. BROWN-Correspondence? MR. STONE-Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-There was a faxed correspondence in there. MR. MC NULTY-There’s a fax mail from John. MR. BROWN-No, there’s something that came in today. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Yes, there is something. This is a fax letter, directed to the Town of Queensbury, Attention Craig Brown, Code Enforcement Officer, from Robert L. Sweeney “Dear Mr. Brown: Please be advised that this office represents Frank Parillo. It is our understanding that no action has been taken on the Parillo building permit application pending final resolution of all litigation with respect to Tax Map Parcel No. 4-1-11. At the present time, there remains one appeal by the Salvadors pending in the Appellate Division, Third Department. In the event that the Zoning Board of Appeals views the status of these matters differently, we would respectfully request an opportunity to be heard at a meeting date subsequent to March 15, 2000. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, SHANLEY, SWEENEY, REILLY & ALLEN, P.C. Robert L. Sweeney” MR. ABBATE-I want to take a look at that. MR. STONE-I do, too. Okay. The letter seems, to me, to obfuscate the matter a little bit more, because it doesn’t, he says the matter’s pending, and I think in my mind, what we’ve done is found a way around the legality of the situation, and I don’t know whether he really should be given a chance to be heard. Because I believe the way we’re talking about drafting this, we’re going to say, it has come to our attention, blah, blah, blah, that these docks are illegal, and that we think either that a building permit should be issued, or enforcement action taken, and I don’t think that is, I don’t think. You guys, am I reading that wrong? MR. ABBATE-I think we should take action on what has been reported to us this evening, not on ownership, but on these activities, period. We have a responsibility to do that. MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s in our discretion as to whether we want to keep the public hearing open to allow him an opportunity to be heard. He’s got a firm. He’s got a dozen attorneys. He says, if you don’t agree with us, let me have another night to be here and argue. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-I don’t know whether we agree with them or not. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s within our discretion, though, whether we want to keep it open. I’ve got a sense that you’re not terribly fond of that idea. MR. ABBATE-Well, no, because I’m not, well, let me say this. He certainly has a right to be heard, but something has been brought to the attention of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which must be reported immediately. Anything other than that is an aside. MR. MC NULTY-And we’re not proposing to direct the Code Enforcement Officer or anybody to accept, deny, or whatever. We’re just saying take a look at it and do something. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-But we’re not telling him what to do. So we’re not telling him to act in favor of one or the other. MR. MORGAN-And what you’ve been told has been confirmed by the contents of the letter, the appeal is pending, and Mr. Brown has confirmed the issue of the docks exist, and therefore it’s commercial activity. MR. STONE-That’s why I say, it’s a different issue than the appeal even in a sense talks about. MR. MORGAN-Right. MR. STONE-I mean, it’s not getting, I’m not sure what he could say, in light of the fact that no building permit has been issued for these docks. They have been built without the permit or the necessary variance, which almost certainly would have had to have been sought. This has nothing, I mentioned four things. I don’t get property ownership in this at all. I’m not unhappy if we close the public hearing and make a motion to the effect the way we’ve been talking. Is that the consensus of the Board? MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. MR. BRYANT-I agree. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-And I think we’ve talked enough about it. Bob, you’re the, do you want to try again? I hate to put you on the spot. MR. MC NALLY-I’ll make it very simple. I move that we grant the Appeal No. 2-2000 of John Salvador, Jr., by directing the Zoning Administrator to either move or make a determination with respect to the building permit application. MR. STONE-Let me stop you. I’m not even sure I want to get the appeal in there. I don’t want the appeal. I want that it’s come to our attention, based on, as a result of hearings on the appeal, it has come to our attention, a separate matter, if we can keep it that way. MR. MC NALLY-I’m doing the motion. We’ve got an application in front of us. We have to make a decision one way or the other. We just can’t just pick it out of the air that we’re going to tell this guy to do something. MR. BRYANT-Well, it can be relative to appeal number such and such. MR. STONE-As a result of the appeal, it has come to our attention. Now we’ve got the appeal, but we still haven’t ruled on it, in a sense, but we’re making a suggestion. MS. GALVIN-You have the authority to act su esponte on anything that’s brought to your attention that’s in violation of the Zoning Code of the Town. MR. MC NALLY-I feel more comfortable with acting upon an application. MR. MORGAN-Right. The application is here, and I understand your position. It’s just whatever your consensus is. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. MC NULTY-Well, the appeal is just saying that the Zoning Administrator hasn’t acted, and he should. MR. MC NALLY-Right, to move on the application, or otherwise enforce the Zoning Code with respect to those two docks. MR. STONE-Try again. MR. MC NALLY-When I mentioned the appeal number, all I was doing was making a reference to the application. MR. STONE-Okay. I heard more than that. So try again. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I would move that we grant appeal no. 2-2000, by Mr. John Salvador, by directing the Code Enforcement Officer to either take action, with respect to the building application now pending before him, with respect to the two docks at issue tonight, or otherwise enforce the Town’s Zoning and Building Code with respect to those two docks. That’s what I was thinking of making the motion for. MR. ABBATE-Is this going to be a separate issue? MR. STONE-I think it’s almost too simple, Bob. MR. ABBATE-I didn’t notice anything in there about illegal activities. MR. STONE-Well, just the illegal activities. MR. ABBATE-How about commercial activities? MR. MC NALLY-My point in making it that simple was, you can’t actually get a building permit unless you show that it’s an appropriate use. You can’t get a permit unless you’ve got the site variances, setback and what not. You can’t get the permit unless it’s built according to the building code, and on and on and on. So a permit would never be issued if you don’t meet those things. They would call for a variance for construction in accordance with the Code. MR. BRYANT-The issue of the commercial use, now that it’s been brought to the attention of the code enforcer, it’s really up to him, at this point, to enforce it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-By being here at this hearing, he’s put on notice that there’s illegal activities. MR. ABBATE-As long as we report it. That’s the important thing. Fine. I don’t have any problems with that. Do you want me to second the motion? MR. BROWN-Actually, I had a question on the motion. You directed the Code Enforcement Officer to act on the building permit. Did you want to say Zoning Administrator? MR. MC NALLY-Who, normally, would be that person? MR. STONE-The Zoning Adminisrtrator. MR. MC NALLY-He’s the head of the Department. Dave Hatin is an inspector in the Department. MR. BROWN-He’s the Director of Building and Codes Department. MR. ABBATE-It probably should go to the head of the Department, don’t you think, in protocol? MR. STONE-Well, that’s the only thing the appeal, the Zoning Administrator. We can’t talk about anybody else. MR. BROWN-The appeal is directed at an omission by the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Then I would amend my motion to refer to the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. I’d be happy to second that. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-Does everybody think that’s clear enough? Have we separated this enough? MR. ABBATE-Just make sure. Say it one more time. MR. MC NALLY-All right. My motion is that we approve. MR. STONE-See, that’s the word that sticks in my craw, the grant or approve. Because I don’t think that’s what I want to do. I want to bring to the attention of the Zoning Administrator that we are now aware that no building permit has been issued, and that there are illegal docks there. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I agree 100% with you. MR. STONE-That’s what I really want to say. MS. GALVIN-You can act on the pending application. You don’t have to say grant or deny. You can say you act. MR. MC NALLY-Would the applicant be happy if we use the word “act”? Okay. My motion is amended, then, to direct the Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-We act on the basis of Appeal No. 2-2000. MR. MC NALLY-To act on the appeal 2-2000 by Mr. John Salvador, to act on the application now pending in the Department with respect to these two docks, or to otherwise move with respect to enforcement, with respect to these two docks. However the Town otherwise normally would. Okay. MR. ABBATE-We’re going to assure that we have the word “commercial” docks in there? Because I think that’s important. MR. STONE-It can be in there. MR. MC NALLY-That there is an opinion that these are being used in a commercial fashion, and the Town should examine that issue to determine whether or not its appropriate. MR. ABBATE-That’s fair. MR. STONE-Okay. Does everybody understand what he said now? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Second? MR. ABBATE-Second. MOTION TO DIRECT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO ACT ON APPEAL NO. 2-2000 BY MR. JOHN SALVADOR, JR. TO ACT ON THE APPLICATION NOW PENDING IN THE DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO DOCKS, OR TO OTHERWISE MOVE WITH RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO DOCKS, HOWEVER THE TOWN OTHERWISE NORMALLY WOULD. THERE IS AN OPINION THAT THESE ARE BEING USED IN A COMMERCIAL FASHION, AND THE TOWN SHOULD EXAMINE THAT ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT’S APPROPRIATE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. BROWN-That may take a little re-drafting and revising. Just be prepared. MR. STONE-I think the important word in there is to act on an appeal, because that gets the onus off of the, we didn’t grant the appeal. We acted on the basis of it. We got information, and we said, and I think it gets outside of the legal action. MR. MORGAN-Right. That’s what we’ve tried to do, requesting the relief. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) MR. STONE-Well, you weren’t as helpful as you could have been. Anyway, we thank you very much. MR. MC NALLY-Did we approve any of these minutes? MR. STONE-I don’t know which ones we haven’t approved, quite frankly, not having been here. MR. MC NULTY-Most of them. MR. STONE-Most of them we haven’t? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think since September. MR. STONE-We have, too. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a September 22 one here. nd MR. MC NALLY-That’s the first one. MR. STONE-I got one, but I thought we approved it. September 22 we did on February 16, ndth guys. I think you did. I wasn’t here, but I think you did. September 22, October 20, October ndth 27, November 17, November 18, and December 15. thththth MR. MC NALLY-Was it on the agenda? MR. STONE-That was on the agenda. MR. MC NALLY-We didn’t have enough people to do it because we didn’t have the right people on. MR. MC NULTY-Even though we put it the first thing on the agenda, we never did it. . MR. MC NALLY-Every time we’ve tried to do it in the last several months, it’s impossible. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. We need them all. I’ve got them somewhere, too. Because we have to know who was here. MR. MC NALLY-We can’t do September 22. There’s only three of us here. nd MR. STONE-That’s right. So we can’t do September 22. So what’s next? nd MR. MC NALLY-October 20. th MR. STONE-Let’s see, one, two, three of us here. We can’t do that either. What do we do about guys who are off the Board? I mean, they’re never going to be here. MR. BROWN-I think you’re going to have to have Bob, Jaime, you and Chuck here. MR. MC NALLY-The four of us here. MR. MC NULTY-If one of us quits before you do it, you’re stuck. MR. STONE-And we can’t do the 27 of October. We can’t do the 17, I’m sure. The same three thth people. MR. MC NULTY-November I wasn’t here. So that makes it worse. MR. STONE-And in November we had three of us here, a different three, but three of us here. December 15, we can do it. Could I have a motion to approve the minutes of December 15? thth CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 15, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 1999, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: th 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. MC NULTY-We’re never going to be able to do the November ones. MR. MC NALLY-Can we actually approve them if one of the members says that they weren’t there, but, based upon our statements that they were accurate, he approves it? MR. STONE-I have no idea. MR. BROWN-I think if you, ultimately, get in a position that you just don’t have enough members left over, you’re going to have to default and approve them, yes. MR. MC NULTY-You don’t for November, because I wasn’t here in November. So you’ve only got three of you that were here. MR. ABBATE-They’ll be approved by default. MR. BROWN-You’ve got no choice. MR. STONE-Okay. February 16. Motion to approve the minutes of February 16, 2000? th MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2000, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. MC NULTY-You’re going to have to do November’s three plus somebody else. MR. STONE-We’re never going to have everybody? MR. MC NULTY-You’re never going to have everybody, because I wasn’t here in November. So you’ve got Jaime, you, and Bob. That’s all you’ve got. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Let’s move November 18, 1999 minutes, recognizing that there are only three members of the Board who were present, and whoever will have been present. MR. BROWN-Do you want to wait for Jaime, or just do it now? MR. STONE-Jaime was absent. MR. BROWN-Jaime was absent. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. There’s only three of us, and that’s the only three that’s ever going to be. MR. MC NALLY-Wait a minute. Someone’s going to have to say yes, and not abstain, even though they weren’t here, okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll say yes. MOTION TO APPROVE NOVEMBER 18, 1999 MINUTES, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/00) Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 34