1989-10-18
----- -
--,. ........---
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR HEETING
OCTOBER 18TH, 1989
INDEX
Applicant Page
Use Variance No. 98-1989 Frank Parillo l.
Use Variance No. 1001 Steven C. Britton 14.
Area Variance No. 1442 Debbie and Steven Scheibe 1 16.
Use Variance No. 114-1989 Sunset Motel1Danie1 Harris 16.
Use Variance No. 115-1989 Kubricky Construction Corp. 17.
Area Variance No. 116-1989 John Carusone, Michael 18.
Muller, Robert Mu 11 e r
Area Variance No. 117-1989 Alice Maclean James 19.
Area Variance No. 118-1989 Karen J. Witte 19.
Cathy Clothier
Area Variance No. 119-1989 James M. Weller 19.
Use Variance No. 120-1989 James M. Weller 2l.
Area Variance No. 61-1989 Linda Clark Whitty 22.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
- ------
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 18TH, 1989
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY
CHARLES O. SICARD
JEFFREY KELLEY
JOYCE EGGLESTON
MICHAEL MULLER
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
August 23rd, 1989: Page 4, Variance 94-1989, Mrs. Goetz insert asked when did she
find out this isn't the way it should be. Page 8, top of page Mrs. Goetz, last
sentence insert if we lose the appeal we will comply. Page 8, Mrs. Goetz, middle
of page sIb Asked Mr. Sicard if he was saying that he would like this done again?
Page 12, top of page 4th sentence sib reduce the possibility. Page 12, top of
page, 6th sentence sib inhabited. Page 12, top of page, 8th sentence sib regrated
sib regraded. Page 10, Mr. Buckingham sib own a little over 6± acres of land.
Page 1, 7th para. from bottom, obvious from the Healy property next store sib next
door. Page 3, 4th para. Mr. West-sib Thinks the Town should direct the applicant
to seize. Page 4, bottom page Mr. Dusek sib raise to the way it was handled.
Page 11, 3rd para. from bottom, 2nd sentence sib strict provision. Page 13, middle
of page sib Milton Barrisford. Page 17, area variance 90-1989, 2nd sentence sIb
each lot is undersized for the zone, but technically they are adding land.
OLD BUSINESS
USE VARIANCE NO. 98-1989 FRANK PARILLO ROUTE 9L AND BAY ROAD LC-42A TO OPEN THE
FORMER ELLSWORTH MARINA FOR PUBLIC BOAR LAUNCHING. THIS USE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED
FOR OVER 18 MONTHS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 23-1-19 SECTION 4.020
LOT SIZE: 24,33 ACRES
ATTORNEY JOHN RICHARDS REPRESENTING FRANK PARILLO
MRS. GOETZ-Stated on September 20th, 1989 there was a motion by Mr. Turner, seconded
by Mr. Muller to table the application at the request of the applicant because
the Warren County Planning Board didn't act on this.
MR. RICHARDS-Stated that Mr. Parillo would like to continue the boat launch on
the property in the summer months. There are no structures being added no physical
changes being made to the property. We did go before the Warren County Planning
Board and received approval. Stated for the record there is a strong position
that they shouldn't be here at all that this is a continuation of a nonconforming
marina use and is not anything that requires us to apply for a variance. If you
isolate this launch and consider this as some nonconforming use, as we started
to say last month there has been significant use of this property by persons other
than Parillo dock renters has we have more information on this since the application
this past summer and reviewed this with Mr. Dusek. Stated if you look at the map
as it's outlined on the tax map for clarification the small box that is identified
as tax map parcel 31, was purchased by Mr. Parillo in 1985. In 1989, by two separate
deeds he purchased the north parcel and also the south parcel. The north parcel
is the location for the launch that is used primarily in connection with this marina.
The 1985 parcel was purchased in 1985 from Robert Ellsworth, and the 1989 purchases
were from the estate of Allision Ellsworth separate individuals. We have an
affidavit from Frank Parillo, confirming that 1985 through today· he has launched
boats from the slips on the docks in the 1985 parcel were launched routinely thorough
the launch we are talking about the north parcel as to the best of his knowledge
Robert Ellsworth did this before him. There were always people launching boats
there that didn't rent docks from Allision Ellsworth. (Presented affidavit to
the Board) Statement from Don Arger confirming that he has seen people launching
boats there who are not renters from Ellsworth Marina (submitted copy to the Board).
Received a phone call from Peter Gaylord who confirmed that yearly from 1985 has
launched his boat there and is not a renters of any dock. Stated these launches
were not
1
---- -
-...---
supervised and were opened.
nonconforming use.
We do not feel there was any stoppage of the
MR. DUSEK-Stated he hasn't taken any kind of position on this matter.
indicated to Mr. Richards whether I agree or disagree with his decision.
Haven't
MR. RICHARDS-Stated if the Board should say this does not constitute a continuation
of this nonconforming use what we have proposed in the way of allowing the public
to launch it, want to state for the record, it is our position to not consider
such, a change in use as to take it out of that 18 month lapse period. Strongly
questioned the Boards jurisdiction that requires us to be here tonight. As far
as the variance criteria doesn't feel they have any problem meeting this. There
is no question that we're not getting a reasonable return as to the negative cash
flow of $400.00 a month. The lot is unique it's a preexisting nonconforming use
already approved. The alternation on the impact on the locality, my understanding
is the key concern of this Board seems to be the parking question. The parking
concern is that throughout the summer it was monitored and supervised at a11 times
by an employee of the marina. Check with Dave Hatin and he stated he only received
one complaint this summer of parking problems on the property. Presented photos
to Board taken August 19th, 1989 at 12:30 p.m. Presented log sheet to Board which
is kept everyday. In addition there is a lot south of the 85 Parillo parcel that
is not owned by Mr. Parillo, it is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Bunting as a summer
residence. Spoke with Mr. Bunting and explained to him the variance application.
He has indicated he has no objection to it and has signed a statement. If there
are any individuals that would be affected by the parking it would be the Buntings,
they are surrounded by the marina. This would have no adverse impact on the
neighborhood. There are 95 slips and parking for 200 cars. It was never overloaded
in the summer if it were to be there is additional space on the south parcel to
park.
MR. TURNER-Asked if the 200 cars included the trailer and is it the total parking
for the whole site?
MR. RICHARDS-Stated 150-200 cars. Stated on the reasonable return the marina income
comes in the summer. Mr. Parillo bought the property in May of 1989 what we've
done is project the mortgage payments from the tax expenses over 12 years to give
you an idea of the expenses. Does not take into account the capital expenditures
on the north parcel that we are talking about.
MR. MULLER-Asked if they have addressed the issue of the volume of how many launches
we can expect base on the performance in 1989?
MR. PARILLO-Stated when they opened the launch they hoped to have 20 launches a
day 7 days a week thinks the average is 10 per day. On weekends somedays 20.
MR. TURNER-Asked about Holiday weekends?
MR. PARILLO-Stated someday 26-27 launches.
a boat and they would stay at a residence
trailer.
A lot of times we would just launch
on the lake and take the car and the
MR. MULLER-Asked what size boats are they limited to launch at the site?
MR. PARILLO-Stated 21-22 foot boats.
MR. MULLER-Asked if there was a speed limit on their side of the bridge?
MR. PARILLO-Stated it's 5 m.p.h. and the other side is 5 m.p.h. until you get up
to the main lake.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR-I'm here with my wife this evening. We are the proprietors of Dunhams'
Bay Lodge, we would like to speak in favor of the application. Based on the numbers
of 20-25 launches a day we don't feel there is any serious impact on the environment
of Dunhams Bay, in fact we think the service offered is needed on Lake George.
It affords the person who can't afford an extremely expensive dockage on the lake
the opportunity to take their boat for the day and enjoy Lake George. Many of
these people are residents of the Town of Queensbury and this is a service I think
should be avai1able to the residents of the Town.
2
---.--
---
MR. DOUGLAS RIGLEY-resident of the Town of Queensbury and summer residences of
Dunhams Bay. I like to present to the Board at the request of Leo Loughery,
President of the Dunhams Bay Association, the remainder of a petition portions
of which were presented earlier at one of the meetings opposed to the variance.
This contains a number of pictures primarily of boats in the bay as well as cars
that are parked in the parking area and the pictures themselves will indicate
somewhat a reference to Mr. Parillo's and his Attorney's statement regarding the
number of cars that are parked. The focus of this petition as it were is that
the approval of this variance will have a even further deleterious effect upon
the bay, the quality of the water and, of course, of Lake George. The bay is small
as you will see in this brief Mr. Loughery estimates about 200 boats in the bay
exclusive of any launches or boats entering and leaving the bay. I think he's
low, I think it's probably closer to 250 including those that are now parked in
the creek and the Bay already is deteriorating as evidence by the milfoil
concentration that is one of the largest milfoil concentrations in the lake.
Therefore, we feel with the additional boats coming out of this wetland area which
is a wetland as described by D.E.C. there is going to be a further deterioration
in the quality of water in the lake especially in Dunhams Bay. Therefore, you
will also see it is almost unanimous that the residents of the bay except Mr.
Salvador are opposed to the granting of this variance.
MR. IRELAND-Dunhams Bay. We happen to be one of the first cottages as you come
under the bridge going north. To us the marina has always been a nuisance a very
expensive one to us. We had to put in several thousands of dollar of fill rock
on our banks to prevent further erosion of the shoreline. The addition a public
launch is going to further erode the land. We feel the effects of it. Many of
these boats that are brought in and launched at the public launch do not pay any
attention to the speed limits they come racing in and out under the bridge and
we personally are very opposed to it.
TOM WEST-attorney representing several people here tonight, but I'm also here
individually. As a neighboring property owner, member of the Joshua Rock
Corporation, I'm appearing tonight on behalf of my immediate family my brother
and two sisters. We own property in Dunhams Bay which is just next to the Ireland's
cottage also as a member of the Joshua Rock Corporation, which if you will permit
me to put up this map Mr. Richards has put up here as the adjacent property owner
to the north. The Joshua Rock Corporation is the property owner immediately to
the north of the Parillo property and owns much of the vacant land that is left
in Dunhams Bay. Before I begin there are several legal issues that I think have
to be clarified here. First of all, I think the map location has to be corrected.
I noted that in the statement attached to the application it talks about the property
as containing 2.796 acres and I think that the map that is before the Board very
clearly shows that there is a much greater parcel in size then two or three acres.
What we I re talking about as Mr. Richards calls it, is the north lot which is in
excess of 20 acres. I think that's important because it goes to the factor that
I'll discuss later as to whether or not Mr. Parillo has met his burden of showing
that's there is no reasonable rate of return. We're not just talking about the
docks and the property there because that hasn't been subdivided. We're talking
about the property that he purchased because he also bought property to the south
of this and essentially has put together several parcels. I think the economic
proof should consider all of that, so I think that correction should be made.
Even more fundamentally there is a basic error tonight in Mr. Richards presentation.
He has spent a great deal of time and put a number of exhibits before you relative
to the issue of whether the prior nonconforming use had been terminated. Frankly,
I think that's an error and it's very confusing to have it come up in this proceeding
because that was the subject of a separate hearing before this Board last summer.
I think many of you will recall I was in attendance as were a great number of Dunhams
Bay residents I think over a time we've widdled them down as most of them have
gone home for the winter or couldn' t be here. But, that very same issue was the
only issue that was before this Board was whether or not there had been a
determination of the boat launch and whether that was considered an integral part
of the marina use or something separate and distinct. My distinct recollection
is in your minutes will confirm that Mr. Richards, stood up here and conceded at
that point in time that the boat launch had not been in use for several years.
It was this Board I s determination based upon his statement and the public was not
given an opportunity to speak because it never got to that point that the boat
launch was not an integral part of the marina that it was separate and distinct
and that it had been terminated such that this variance application was necessary.
It's my further understanding, that this is not a continuation of that proceeding,
but a separate proceeding and that there was an arrangement in accordance of what
I understand is the town code that no enforcement action would be taken this summer
even though we protested on several occasions about the continuation of the launching
activities so long
3
-~
as this variance application was made. Of course, we've been here on several
occasions and that's all water over the dam at this point. But, the basic legal
point that I have to make and I think it both factual and legal is that the issue
of whether or not the boat launch was discontinued or abandoned has been heard
and determined by this Board. No appeal was taken no Article 78 proceeding was
taken within the 30 day Statue of Limitations and I think that we as taxpayers
of the Town of Queensbury and residents and neighbors have a right to rely upon
the fact that, that issue has been heard and decided. In the event that this Board
is inclined to reconsider that issue which I whole heartily disagree with I would
like to offer at this time three photographs. These photographs were taken by
my wife in the summer of 1988, August of 1988 at my direction. The first one shows
that there was a sign posted on the property RAMP CLOSED, the second photograph
is a closer view of that sign. The third picture is even more telling because
it shows not only was the ramp closed, but the area where the ramp was which is
the primary ramp that Mr. Parillo seeks to use that which is on the north corner
of the marina property facing towards the Dunhams Bay bridge actually had a boat
moored in it. I can testify before this Board, as I said I'm not only appearing
as an attorney, but I'm appearing as an individual that I drove by that slip almost
every morning and saw that same boat parked there as a summer rental and I believe
it was there for several years before. Even if this Board is inclined to totally
reconsider that issue again of whether or not there was a termination of the use,
I think you have facts before you to show you that the concession that Mr. Richards
made back in July that it had in fact been closed was in fact true. I'll clarify
one point, he said that Mr. Ellsworth made the ramp available to people who dock
at the facilities and we're not objecting to that. We're not objecting to Mr.
Pari110 continuing to use those ramps solely for the purpose of the seasonal dockers
to take their boats in and out once per season that's never been at issue. What's
at issue here is a public boat launch. I think the character of the boat launch
that Mr. Parillo has in mind is vastly different from that which Mr. Ellsworth
had back before he closed it several years before Mr. Parillo purchased the property.
My sister gave to me this summer a rate card for this particular boat launch and
I note that Mr. Parillo is advertising jets skis as one of the things that he's
seeking to establish a rate for and seeking to attract business. I think that
Mr. Parillo, does not intend to have a modest 20 boat per day slip or boat launch
operation as he contends before this board tonight through his attorney. I think
he wants to open it up to the general public and he wants to allow every kind of
vessel that will fit under the bridge to go through there and I think he wants
to dramatically change the character of our bay. On the variance issue, I think
that which is before you tonight I hesitate to calI it proof, is willfully deficient
to establish that a variance should be granted. Before I address that, I would
like to take a moment to note that my family has owned property the Joshua Rock
Corporation, and predecessors to that for over 100 years in that area so we're
long time residents. I think equally as long standing has been the policy of the
Town of Queensbury to show the utmost protection for the Dunhams Bay wetland.
I recall 10ng before I went to law school when I was in college appearing before
this Board and listening to this Board and other Boards in this town take dramatic
measures to protect the Dunhams Bay wetland in the face of propose developments.
I remember on one occasion where the Town of Queensbury, and I believe this was
in the early 1970's enacted stop gap zoning to zone that area 10 acres in response
to several residential proposals that were then pending adjacent to the wetland.
I think not only do I have a tradition and my family have a tradition of living
in Dunhams Bay that we want to see protected through strict enforcement of the
Zoning Ordinance, but I think this town has a tradition of protecting the wetland
through strict enforcement of zoning. In terms of the lega1 issues as to whether
or not the standard has been met as I noted in the beginning because the parcel
is much larger than a couple of acres and the docks and marinas because there is
a lot of vacant land out there, I think the case law is very clear and I think
your attorney will advise you of this fact that in order to show hardship Mr.
Parillo, has to demonstrate that there is no reasonable rate of return for a
permitted use in the property. There is nothing before you tonight to show that
he couldn't sell off some of that vacant acreage that he now owns, make some money
on that. Reduce his mortgage, he might be able to sell off that acreage at enough
money so he'd get the marina for nothing. There is no proof, no real estate broker,
no appraiser upon which you can base a determination that he has shown any kind
of economic hardship. Secondly, I don't think Mr. Parillo can properly put proof
before this board because it's a self created hardship. Mr. Parillo admits that
he owned the neighboring property for a number of years he knew what he was getting
into. He saw it just like we as residents of Dunhams Bay did that the boat ramp
was closed the signs posted to that effect. He knew what he was getting into when
he purchased this property, and if he couldn't make a go of it economically he
shouldn't of purchased it. This is a classic case of self created hardship so he's
failed in two of the cardinal principals of zoning variance law in that he has
not put any dollar and cents proof relative to the
4
~.-
-----'~
entirety of this property and all of his hardship even if it does exist which I
seriously doubt is self created. I like to address the issue of parking and traffic
for one second then I'm going to cal1 on somebody else to talk to you a little
bit more about the environmental issues and the impact of increasing this operation
can have on Dunhams Bay. As a resident of this area and having traveled on Bay
Road many a time including by foot and by bike, it's not a good situation with
that marina there. Again, referring to Mr. Parillo's map, if you proceed northerly
on Bay Road and your coming into the area where the marina starts, many of you
are probably familiar with the fact that there is barely room for cars to park
on that road and cars are backing out of their parking spots on occasions when
other cars are coming down Bay Road and often they don't comply with the speed
limit and it's a dangerous situation to begin with. I don't think the parking
that Mr. Parillo has there is adequate for the type of operation that this is going
to grow into. Trailers have to turn around in there when it is congested as some
of the photographs by other Dunhams Bay residence show there is really not much
room to move there. I think there is a serious health and safety issue that leads
to the inadequacy of the parking. I did not really hear a good response to Mr.
Muller's question as to what level of operation is intended. I submit that maybe
Mr. Parillo got a little bit of a slow start this year people didn't know that
the boat launch was opened, but I further submit to this Board that once word get
out that this launch is opened and that it's been approved by the Town we're going
to see a dramatic increase in that. You're going to see parking problems, traffic
problems on that road and all of us in Dunhams Bay are going to have to suffer
with increased congestion. One other minor point, I think it's worth noting the
worse offenders we see on the speed limit in Dunhams Bay are the people that come
out of the creek the people that launch their boats. No effort was made to advise
them of the speed limit very often they come out of the creek that have no idea
that it's 5 m.p.h. because it's not posted down by the bridge and their the ones
that are speeding out into the bay. To conclude, I would just like to remind this
Board again, because I think it's important and I think it's worth reiterating.
I don't think anything that's been said tonight relative to the alleged continuation
of the boat launch is properly before this board tonight nor do I think it's
factually accurate. I think that this is a simple variance application where the
applicant has failed to put before you dollar and cents proof, failed to consider
the very valuable land that he has purchased the 20± acres in the north lot whatever
the size of the south lot, I know he has the house for sale I've seen that sign
all summer. All those kinds of economic factors have to be considered by you it's
not enough for somebody to come in and just say, I want to make more money on a
piece of my land so the rest of it I can think of as having obtained for free that
doesn't meet any variance standards. And last, but not least, I ask you to uphold
the tradition of this town of recognizing that the Dunhams Bay wetland is a very
valuable jewel in the ecology of Lake George and strictly enforce the Zoning
Ordinance tonight deny the variance and help protect the Dunhams Bay wetland.
At this point, I like to introduce Dr. Carol Collins, who is a widely respected
limnologist with a great deal of experience of Lake George. She will be able to
tell you a little bit what kind of hard core environmental impacts it's not just
neighborhood impacts increasing the boat traffic in the marina can have on Dunhams
Bay.
DR. CAROL COLLINS-I'm a limnologist, which is a person who studies lakes and I'm
also a resident of Lake George, I have with me tonight my curriculum which list
my expertize of limnology (submitted this to Board). Just to give you a general
idea of my expertise in this area. I have been an expert for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency for the National Science Foundation, and the United
States Core of Engineers. I have been recognized for my contributions in this
field by Cornell University, Brigham Young University, and by N.A.T.O. I have
over forty publications in lake research in international journals. My expertise
includes wetland ecology and watershed management. I am here tonight to strongly
recommend to this Board not to grant the variance. The reason has to do with
describing to you just how valuable the Dunhams Bay wetland is to Lake George and
in genera 1 how important wetlands are to lakes in protecting them from. If
I may I like to post a map. TAPE TURNED
This is a topo sheet of the Dunhams Bay area. This area here (refers to map)
indicates the wetland which is intimately related to the wetland that is adjacent
to Harris Bay and Warner Bay. It has been described by myself as well as other
limnologist who have studied Lake George who are world renown as being one of the
most important wetlands in protecting Lake George. This wetland drains a very
large portion of the lake, and what the wetland does is it serves as a trap for
eliminating or reducing the amount of nutrients that come into Lake George. Without
wetlands this lake would be much more .or you would signs of it being much
more turbid and dirty. What it does is the wetlands traps the sediment and it
also traps the nutrients. The nutrients I'm talking about are nitrogen, phosphorus;
these are identified as the primary nutrients which causing the. . .of Lake George.
It traps these
5
"--~~-
----
nutrients by tying them up into via 1 mass, that it the macrophytes and plants that
are growing in the lake in the wetland. It traps them into the sediment that is
in the wetland itself, but it I S in the plant mass, in the sediment that underlies
the wetland; My comments here are not just my findings, but with the mechanismls
I'm talking about here have been studied by and studies that I've conducted at
the New York State Museum the biological survey. I might say, that the biological
survey from the New York State Museum also conducted the first studies of Lake
George back in 1942, tonight I have the findings of those reports. In that they
describe just how significant the wetland in Dunhams Bay are. The impacts I want
to talk about were also done in a study a couple years ago at the New York State
Museum, it's also been done at the University of Florida, University of Minnesota,
it's one of the most important topics facing the Great Lakes. In a big conference
that was held just recently in Albany concerning the Great Lakes, one of the primary
findings of that study is to try and protect the wetlands. One of the ways that
has to be done is to prevent or try to reduce the number of boats entering and
existing wetlands. We are finding from these studies that the boats when they
go into a wetland or out of a wetlands their stirring up the sediment. . the
chemicals that contribute to the growth of the algae and weeds in Lake George.
By stirring up these sediments all of a sudden these new weeds are available for
growth. With the river currents from the Dunhams Bay Creek, transported into Dunhams
Bay normally these nutrients would be tied up in the wetland, but with boat traffic
entering the wetland these nutrients are allowed to escape into the lake causing
the neutralphication of the lake. We have seen evidence of this in Dunhams Bay
as a matter of fact, in a recent scuba dive I did this summer, I saw and I have
photographs. We are starting to see a significant growth of. . algae (referred
to map) it is rosalina which is a blue green algae. My prediction if you will,
as this use continues even as it was in the past I recognize it as opportunity
to certainly stop a very damaging impact on the lake. As these nutrients are
transported into the bay they allow algae and bacteria to grow. I've seen
indications in Dunhams Bay that could potentially create a public health hazard.
I really feel the people of Dunhams Bay, at some point by aUowing this use to
go through the situation will have to find alternative water supplies as bacteria
and increasing in the Bay. Ilm also concerned about the erosion from the
boats as they enter and go in and out of the bay. In a report that was conducted
by the Freshwater Institute, they've been doing a continuous in shore monitoring
program around the lake since 1986. Their most recent findings where they looked
at a number of types of sites around the lake they have found that the marina sites
have continually produced the most nutrient and rich sites all around the lake.
In every instance these marinas have been sites as having a generally higher nutrient
concentration in those areas as compared to any other use around the lake. I too,
recognize a sort of change in character of this particular marina. I have seen
jet skis launched in this area and I have seen them go all the way up the creek
going as fast as a jet ski wil1 go just playing in the wetland and I can't imagine
a more disturbing impact on the wetland that the type of activity that was going
on there this summer and I see the potential for a even bigger impact as this
increases. There is also a large concern with the impact of the boats is even
greater in that wetland because the contribution of lead and other heavy metals
which is contained in the gasoline which as you continue to transport nutrients
and other sediments out of that bay those chemicals, heavy metals, and everything
will be transported into the bay as well. This is even more greatly increased
by the parking of cars on the 10t that is adjacent to the marina because of the
major contributors of stormwater runoff are parking facilities which contribute
a lot oil, gas, and heavy metals. I would like to mention one other thing, the
Lake George is a class Double A special reservoir and I think due consideration
must be given to the decrease in the water quality of the Dunhams Bay, due to
activities such as marina boat launches. I feel it constitutes a significant
impairment because of the water and the amount of nutrients that will probably
enter the lake.
MRS. GOETZ-What your opinion of the present level of boat launching that's being
done there now.
DR. COLLINS-I would have to say the present level is excessive because I see a
significant damage. Dunhams Bay has has a significant turning point. Limnologically
speaking it is approaching the point where the phosphorus level will take into
the neutrophic category. It is now considered neotrophic. Once we get into a
neutrophic category you can't easily reverse that because of the accumulation of
phosphorus in the sediment. Once that accumulation is so high millions of dollars
are spent in that regard, I think that's why in my estimation we're 100king now
towards not just trying to restore bad lakes, but trying to protect the lakes that
we have. We have now recognized that it is almost a insurmountable task to try
and restore a bad lake. I would say that any additional impacts to Dunhams Bay,
and to the wetland are categorically not acceptable.
6
----- --
-
MR. SICARD-You seem to be talking about Dunhams Bay. 11m pretty familiar with
the lake, and Dunhams Bay extends out possible l-l~ miles out to the main bay.
Were you thinking at all about the residents up there on their boats or are you
excluding them? Draining the lake up the creek wouldn't the gasoline and oil
from those boats from people who live on Dunhams Bay go up the creek also?
DR. COLLINS-I forgot to mention one thing, I'm sorry, The flow of the creek is
northward. You are saying, what about people who go up into the creek. The plans
for the future of Lake George which was completed in 1987, which many people were
involved in writing up, Dick Roberts sat in on what was an integral part of the
preparation of this manual. One of the findings of this was to reduce at any
opportunity the ingress and egress of boats into wetlands. We now know, we didn't
know perhaps in the past that we shouldn't allow boats into wetlands. The idea
here is to try to at any opportunity to correct our past mistakes. Limnologically
speaking as a scientist, it is not good to have any boats in the wetland that's
not the issue tonight. The issue is trying to prevent a further degradation by
allowing more boats to go in and out which is the issue at hand we're going to
greatly accelerate the degradation of Lake George. But, certainly I don't feel
it I S not just my opinion, but scientist all around the world are now creating
wetlands we now know how valuable these are. Major efforts are being made to create
wetlands where we filled them in or whatever we have done to them in the past we're
able to create them and not disturb them in this fashion because we know how valuable
they are in protecting them. Your 100% right no one should be allowed in and out,
but the fact is a boat launch would just add more and more to this.
MR. SICARD-Isn't it true if you can't launch a boat there
place to launch your boat as far as the lake is concerned?
through Dunhams Bay constantly and nothing was ever said about
you will find another
Many peop le go down
this.
DR. COLLINS-But, there are very few boat launches in wetlands.
MR. SICARD-Your just talking about the creek not Dunhams Bay per say?
DR. COLLINS-This is suppose to be an uninterrupted sponge that never gets broken.
But, by allowing this. .right here (refers to map) is one of the most critical
zones right at the mouth of the wetland. This is where it starts to get deep
that's where you want to make sure you contain all the nutrients for the wetland.
There are a 10t of boat launches around the lake, but a great majority of them
are not located in wetland. It is the intent of the plan of the future of Lake
George not to allow this kind of practice and try to stop it whenever possible.
MR. WEST-We're not here objecting only to the traffic issue at Dunhams Bay, that's
one of the issues. The issue is that every time you add a new boat coming in and
out of the swamp you stir up the sediments in that wetland and you reduce further
nutrients in Dunhams Bay. If the Dunhams Bay residents had their way and I'm sure
everyone of them would agree 11m not sure about Mr. Salvadore, but everyone else
we would agree to see the chain put across the bridge so that no boats go up there
this is what would be right for Lake George. What we're saying here, is every
boat that's launched there further stirs up the sediments and further sends those
nutrients out into Dunhams Bay.
MR. TURNER-Dr. Collins, what would be the natural migration for those nutrients
without any disturbance?
DR. COLLINS-There is minimal release of nutrients coming out of the bay, particularly
the spring run off. Any run off will potentially accelerate that nutrient transport
into the lake. Aside from that there is very little transport of nutrients into
the lake. As the nutrients come through, the plants readily take them up, if
you accelerate that rate or if you send sediment particles which is what happens.
If you drive a boat through there you will see that what happens is all of a sudden
you look at the water and it's all brown because you stirred up all the sediments.
This is at 5 m.p.h. with any size boats because it's so shallow in there. If
you look at any of the studies the impacts can be felt up to 15 feet deep for any
motor boat traffic, We're talking about 3-4 feet of water and much less in certain
areas. Any size boat at any speed wil1 cause that sediment to get stirred up and
it immediately flows in with the water currents into the lake. What happens is
it sits in Dunhams Bay which is getting a tremendous siltration rate. The siltration
rate is much higher than it should be. I recognize that this is new for everybody
because you haven't been exposed to all of this, but as a scientist we Ive been
talking about these things for 10 years and we have an opportunity to do something
about it. We certainly have to take the. . .when you have to try to restore what's
7
-~~.
already been done in Lake George it's impossible what you have to do is to protect
it from further degradation. I think we can do that, we certainly know how to
do that now we know where our errors are in the past, but it's an education process
of getting people to understand. You can't feel these nutrients. You can certainly
see the sediment as it's kick up, but you know that the sediment has bound to it
all of these nutrients that are released into the water. As soon as they're released
the algae and bacteria use them to grow. That presents a very significant health
hazard because what this does if you have a 10t of this go through the algae and
the water it makes the water taste funny. Sometimes it smells like dead fish,
but that's really algae in there that's making the water smell. As that starts
to grow you can't drink that water, and you really have to use sophisticated
filtration systems. In the very short term these kind of things like the boat
launch has the potential of doing 200 a day whatever you might want to pick that's
a very significant amount of. . .it can't continue for a 10ng time.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Even if you use that for annual rentals and the people who rent
there could use it in the summer, the locals. . from Dunhams Bay that may come
up in the creek with their boats or whatever, would that not do as much damage
as if you opened it to the general public? In your opinion is there a chance that
damage is already done?
DR. COLLINS-Every moment it's a dying system always changing always producing.
It's always in its process of growing and dying and as plants grow and die, a plant
just doesn't grow and stay there all summer it grows and dies and starts to decay.
Those decay compounds are suppose to stay in that wetland and be used up again
by that wetland so it's a whole thing of more is worse. We can't change everything,
but we can change the things that are important and this is fundamentally important.
This is what the whole Great Lake conference centered around this year was the
wetlands that's the most important issue right now in our nation.
MR. MULLER-Did you visit the site before your presentation here?
DR. COLLINS-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Are you familiar with the site?
DR. COLLINS-Yes, very.
MR. MULLER-How deep is it where the wetland goes under the bridge?
DR. COLLINS-Approximately 5-6 feet.
MR. MULLER-How deep is it about 10 feet out where Mr. Parillo's main launch is
the one that was pictured?
DR. COLLINS-It depends on exactly where you are, but it runs about 10 feet shallower
as you go towards the edges.
MR. MULLER-What about the picture that you offered to the Board here is that taken
in Dunhams Bay by his boat launch?
DR. COLLINS-In Dunhams Bay on the Dunhams Bay side of the bridge.
MR. MULLER-It's not a picture near his property?
DR. COLLINS-It's on the other side of the bridge.
MR. MULLER-The picture on the south side of the bridge?
DR. COLLINS-The bridge is about right here (refers to map).
MR. MULLER-Okay it's on the north side. That picture would not be by his property?
DR. COLLINS-No. As a matter of fact, because the amount of transport that's going
on right there and the stirring up you don't see a lot. You probably wouldn' t
see a lot of. . algae right there, but more towards the sides you would not see
right underneath the bridge.
MR. MULLER-This is a designated wetland?
DR. COLLINS-Designate as a wetland.
8
'----------
-'-~
MR. MULLER-What classification?
DR. COLLINS-It's the highest classification of wetlands.
MR. MULLER-Do you know what classification it is, you did the study?
DR. COLLINS-I don't know what classification it is.
MR. MULLER-Profess ignorance here, I don't know what a macrophyte is.
DR. COLLINS-A weed like milfoil.
MR. MULLER-You indicated in your presentation there had been a study done and that
the marinas on Lake George some of them are the most highly nutrient rich sites,
what's the name of that report?
DR. COLLINS-The final report of the Lake George Inshore Chemica 1 Monitoring Program,
I can submit that.
MR. MULLER-Can you tell us what it says?
DR. COLLINS-It doesn't say anything about this lake it's talking about marinas
in general.
MR. MULLER-You indicated that Lake George is a class double A special reservoir,
again tell us for the record what that is?
DR. COLLINS-It's the highest classification of water in New York State.
MR. MULLER-Who does that New York State?
DR. COLLINS-New York State.
MR. MULLER-They classify it?
DR. COLLINS-Right.
MR. MULLER-Because it's a source of drinking water?
DR. COLLINS-It's a drinking water reservoir.
MR. MULLER-I guess I want to get on the issue of what Mrs. Eggleston I think was
trying to ask you, because I sit here and I'm trying to figure out if we're making
a very bad situation worse or if we have a bad situation there and it's not going
to get worse. How many boats are docked there?
DR. COLLINS-I don't know off hand.
MR. MULLER-I like hear to her answer because she did the study.
DR. COLLINS-I didn't go count the boats.
MR. MULLER-I think that would be important that we know how many trips are being
made in and out of there so we can make some determination.
DR. COLLINS-There is about 100 boats there. Certainly when they're sitting there
they're not having as great an impact as when they're being launched on a daily
basis in and out of a marina.
MR. MULLER-If you have 100 boats there essentially you have 200 trips a day, one
out one in.
DR. COLLINS-That's much greater impact than 50 boats that are in the marina right
now.
MR. MULLER-I presume, I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that not everybody
goes out everyday and comes back in everyday. They have the potential of having
100 boats go out and 100 boats come back without the launch facilities there.
The applicant is proposing 20 boats that are going to be launched and his highest
number was 26 one day.
DR. COLLINS-I guess, I would question that value.
9
"'----
-----
MR. MULLER-And, I might also.
DR. COLLINS-I would be willing to discuss 50 or 100 with you. I don't think that's
really reasonable because I've seen what goes in and out it can be very high.
MR. MULLER-Do you have anything that can particularize any day that 50 boats went
out at the launch?
DR. COLLINS-In the past I remember seeing the parking 10t full all the time. They're
probably using it to go in and out.
MR. MULLER-A dead give away would be a trailer behind their car. Ever see 50 trailer
there?
DR. COLLINS-I'm not sure at this point.
MR. MULLER-The other report that you held up you indicated Mr. Roberts was on it,
what's the date of that report?
DR. COLLINS-1987.
MR. MULLER-I think the sense of it that you lead us to understand was that; we
can do all that we can to prohibit any sort of intrusions into the wetland, Do
you know if the Town of Queensbury has posted that wetland so people are prohibited
from going out to the wetland?
DR. COLLINS-At some point you can't go up further into it past the chain.
MR. TURNER-With a power boat, You can go through with a canoe or row boat.
MR. MULLER-There is a point that you can't go up.
DR. COLLINS-Right.
MR. MULLER-Who do you see that's going up there now?
DR. COLLINS-Past his chain?
MR. MULLER-I don't know where the chain is.
DR. COLLINS-Any part as far as I'm concerned. Anything beyond the bridge is
significant. Who do I see, the people that go and out of the marina. I've seen
jet skis go up around the first bend on several occasions not going there to watch
just driving by.
MR. MULLER-Jet skies are all over the lake.
DR. COLLINS-Boats do that as well. I just feel that's the way to try to protect
it. Sometimes you can't teach everyone the idea is to set the example. The example
is obvious here not to let them go.
MR. WEST-If I could just clarify for the record, Mr. Muller. The topographical
map that is depicted here shows where the marina is and then there is one ful1
bend where the creek comes back towards Bay Road, that's where the second set of
dock are owned by Mr. Parillo. It is just south of the second set of docks that
there is a chain. I think the chain was put up by D.E.C., but I'm not sure about
that, but it's been up there for a number of years to restrict motorized traffic
beyond that point. I can assure that if people in the. . had their way and if
it weren't for those marina operations they put the chain down by the bridge.
MR. lRELAND-I could answer the question on the number of boats that might possible
be in the creek. There are 66 docks all but two of those docks could handle 2
boats so that would be a total of 130 boats that could conceivable be docked by
the season. I don't think there all owned by Mr. Parillo. Incidentally, of all
of those docks I only found 10 of them that had a D.E.C. permit on them.
KATHY VILLMAR-Lake George Association. We hope that you oppose this variance.
I can't help that notice that Mr. Muller doesn't know that Dunhams Bay is a double
A special wetland and is protected by New York State.
10
'- -
~-
---
MR. MULLER-It's a deep water wetland that's what it is.
~ollins didn't know that. TAPED TURNED
I was surprised that ùr.
MS. VILLMAR-The Park Commission developed this as a critical environmental area
500 feet around the lake. What this does is say, anything that happened wi thin
that area or on the lake has effect on the water quality of the lake. What they
did your familiar with your SEQRA act, and within that 500 foot area they gave
responsibility to Planning Boards and Zoning Boards when it deals with use variances
to take a critical environmental 100k at any activity within that area. Your looking
at a use variance and noticed under the application there was only a short EAF
form. There are questions about the impacts to the wetland from this activity
which is going to be a greater use than what was there when Ellsworth had it then
you should require the applicant to fill in a Type 1 environmental assessment form
and conduct a SEQRA review. The criteria for your area variance I found as Mr.
West pointed out, the applicant has to prove that there is significant economic
injury $4,600 in relationship to whatever Mr. Parillo paid for the property you
do have to determine whether this is economic injury. What the Board has to remember
I worked for the Lake George Planning and Zoning Department for eight years so
I'm a lit tIe familiar about the criteria and SEQRA planning and what the Board
has to look at being coached by lawyers. What you have to remember here the question
is whether not the property will be worth more if the variance were approved.
Obviously this is a continuation of a nonconforming use that Mr. West, and Dr.
Collins has proven this was discontinued more than 18 months it was held up by
your own administrator. There is no question about it that he has to prove that
there is injury. I don't believe the public has the opportunity to see any of
the figures (submitted to Board). As far as character of the neighborhood you
just heard a presentation by Dr. Collins of the impacts of the wetland. I know
Dr. Collins, very well and she knows her stuff. Mr. Parill0 has not proved that
this will not impact the wetland or the character of the neighborhood. The
LGA strongly opposes this application and hope that you deny it. Thank you.
MR. SALVADORE-I like to comment on the subject of the double A special quality
of Lake George water. It's my understanding that we come by this double A special
designation in that the New York State Legislature in the early 1940' s passed a
law that said that Lake George water quality shall always be double A special.
I don't know if it was double A special then, I'm sure it's not double A special
today. New York State Health Department does not allow a commercial enterprise
on Lake George to pump water from the lake without treating it without both
filtration and chlorination and they don't advise that anyone else do it. Thank
'you.
DR. COLLINS-That's one of the stipulations of a class double A special water is
that you can drink only with chlorination. This puts it into that category that
is the Department of Health definition of class double A special.
MR. SALVADORE-It is not D.E.C. definition of double A special.
DR. COLLINS-They have the same laws.
MR. TURNER-Let's not debate the issue.
DR. COLLINS-I would like to comment about the water quality of Lake George. I
studied lakes around the world I can name you 10 of them that I studied under an
international biological program, and I've seen an extraordinary amount of work
for the U.S.P.B.A and Core of Engineers. This lake is extraordinary every scientist
who has visited this lake to see it they can't believe why we don't take all measures
possible whenever possible to protect this lake. They have never seen water quality
of this magnitude, but they see such potential for degradation we know it's
happening. Scientists constantly say to me, why is that allowed you can go right
up into that wetland, you have to understand this water is extraordinary. Lake
Tahoe, which everyone knows to be this wonderful lake is now reaching the same
type of water quality as Lake George, so we have to protect the one we've got.
MR. RICHARDS-I would like an opportunity to comment on some of these things. I
would just say first off we've never conceded anything on that issue; all the
information we had we handed to you as soon as we had it. As far as the launch
being closed. If that were permanently closed that would mean that no one from
the slips launched as well. Obviously this wasn't the case. I can't explain the
photo taken before Mr. Parillo had the property, but, certainly it couldn' t of
been permanently closed or they wouldn't have had a marina to operate. One aspect
that I would comment on quite strongly is the allegations of Mr. Parillo's intent
here. There was not any scheme involved in his permit with the Lake George Park
Commission which he
11
does have to operate the marina. He put in there that he expects about 20 launches
a day it hasn't even been that amount. We have log sheets which I would like to
show the Board. for example there is a week in August, the type of weather is noted
on the top you can see that the launch has never came near an average of 20 a day.
As far as the great jet ski conspiracy is concerned there is not one jet ski launched
in this week period and that was listed along with a lot of other canoes there
and some of the other smaIl crafts. I don't want to necessarily belittle all the
information we heard about the novelty I guess of the lake or aspects of the wetlands
involved here. I think it's getting off the course of this Board and off the purpose
of this hearing this is a Zoning Board of Appeals not the Lake George Park
Commission. We're dealing with water qualities and applicable waterways which
New York State has the responsibility to maintain. The Department of Environmental
Conservation itself maintains three boat launches on this property three public
launches, two which are all season 10ng. I think what your getting down to is
you've heard it several times tonight the objection seems to be not so much to
the launch as to the marina/traffic in general. This is the kind of situation
where we I re all right because we're on the lake, but no one else can come in and
drive by. Unfortunately this is an ample waterway and you do have to allow the
public to use it. Probably the best solution for everyone here including the Dunhams
Bay residents is to remove their camps and their septic systems, and their big
parking areas and driveways and dedicate them to a nature preserve. But, you're
dealing with a practical aspect here that's what I'd like this Board to consider.
I would say also, no one is here is expected to be a milfoil expert, no one here
is expected to be a wetlands expert. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals the zoning
district is actually at the shoreline. We have a very restricted limited variance
application here. I would like to ask this Board to address it and not get side
track to the complex and inapplicable issue of boat traffic on Lake George, it's
not the providence of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to monitor.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning approved. (on file) Earlier petition submitted by Mr.
Loughrey. Letter from Lito Abrams, Lockwood NY. August 20, 1989 (on file) Mrs.
Goetz, read numerous petitions that were presented from Leo Loughrey, President
of Dunhams Bay Association strongly opposing use variance no. 96-1989, Frank Parillo.
From: Daniel Norton, Nancy Clark, Anne & Richard Lennox, Lenton and Barbara Simms,
Charles Eagle, Edward Seeley, M.D., Mr. & Mrs. Ireland,
Judith & Edwin Brown, Mary Ewasco, Winton Williams, Elizabeth Williams, Bonnie
& Stephen Lapham, William & Mary Green, Clark Squires, Julius Kochmann, Richard
Raucher, Doug & Ginny Wrigley, Leo Loughrey, Henry Mitchell, Harry Reith, Andrew
Morehouse, Mayron Rapaport, Dick Waldron, Annette Barber. Not in opposition
Elizabeth Boehm, John Salvador, Jr.
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DUSEK-Stated Mr. Richards had presented him with some of the same briefing
that he gave to the Board this evening and I had not indicated to him one thing
or the other. I had indicated to him I wanted some time to think about it. There
are really two issues that the Board is faced with. One issue is that is a variance
needed or not. Second question being if the variance is needed has the proof been
presented to this Board. Thinks this is important because some of the information
that has been presented to the Board such as Mr. Richards indicated earlier is
a variance needed or not. He has presented evidence indicated that there was some
use of the facility before his client bought it. Reason why I think this is
important is because this Board has made some consideration previously relative
to the need for a variance application the Board did consider this and I would
encourage the Board to take a 100k through that and decide whether or not in the
first instance the issue of does he need a variance or doesn't he need a variance
has been in some fashion addressed by the Board. If you feel it has been there
is really only one way to re-open that issue and that by motion by some member
of this Board, to be approved by a majority of the Board to re-open that for further
consideration. This is pursuant to the Town Laws governing the Zoning Board.
If the Board chooses not to or does decide on that issue then you also still have
that secondary issue and that is, if you want to address it and say if he needs
a variance for whatever reason then the proof has to be analyzed by the Board and
then you should enter, of course, the reasonable return, unique circumstances,
the character of the neighborhood. There is one other element the Board may want
to consider that if the fact that if this is the Board or primary jurisdiction
for which this matter comes which seems so and if this project is in a critical
environmental area if would seem that the law would require a long environmental
assessment form be filed. This
12
----
would be considered a Type I action, therefore a short environmental assessment
form would not be sufficient.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she finds this unusual to be considering the question,
need a variance because we already made a motion saying they did.
do we
MR. DUSEK-Stated if he understands what the applicant is asking I don't know if
he is really asking the Board, but by his actions I think the question is more
less been put does the Board want to reconsider that previous decision. Wanted
to point this out to the Board because some of that proof seems to go to that
question is a variance needed. If the Board feels satisfied that they answered
the question once and doesn't want to have a rehearing then at this point you can
disregard that part of his proof and go directly to the issue and that is has he
offered sufficient proof to support his application for a variance.
MR. MULLER-Asked Paul, if the Board wanted to open up the matter that has already
decided fair public comment has to be heard on this and there has to be publication?
MR, DUSEK-Stated the procedure on that would be if the Board decides to go into
this there would have to be a motion to re-open it, it would have to be voted upon
and then there would have to be a further motion made to direct a notice be sent
out and proper publication be made then the issue would be decided at a subsequent
meeting.
MR, MULLER-Agrees that if it is in a critically environmental area then a long
form would be necessary. Read Page 77, Section D of the Zoning Ordinance. Asked
if they were to grant any relief in a form of a variance and say, it's okay you
can now use it, we've approved a hard surface that's within that perimeter and
it still might require site plan. Asked for council's opinion on this?
MR. DUSEK-Stated his understanding of the project is that the boat ramp in question
is already there.
MR. MULLER-Stated it is.
MR. DUSEK-Stated this hard surfacing unless the applicant is in some fashion planning
to change this other than what currently exists I don't think he is adding anything
to it.
MR. MULLER-Stated some people present would argue that he is changing the use of
it. He is allowing dockers to use it.
MR. DUSEK-Stated he would read it that you can't fill or put a hard surface in
some fashion on an area within 50 feet of the lake. Thinks the Board would grant
a use at the choice of the Board doesn't think it would trigger this section.
MR. MULLER-Thinks that there is an environmental concern in this area would like
to see Mr. Parillo's answer on this aspect.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if it would be improper to ask the building inspector what
facts he used?
MR. TURNER-Thinks he already stated this by letter.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated he doesn't say it never went on, but they ceased operation for
over 18 months.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked what does he base this on?
MRS. GOETZ-Stated maybe he could be present at the next meeting.
MR. MULLER-Stated he could make this part of his motion.
MR. WEST-Stated if they are going to re-open this that proper public notice be
given.
MR. RICHARDS-Stated they have no objections to this will pay for the advertising
costs.
MOTION TO GO WITH THE STATUTE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM:,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Eggleston:
13
,--,"-
This will be held over at the request of the applicant for a two month period,
(third Wednesday in December) that we can have the submission of the EAF form.
We make as a part of this motion that David Hatin, Queensbury Code Enforcement
Officer be present to substantiate the facts upon which he felt the public launching
facility had ceased for more than 18 months. Applicant will pay for the
re-advertising.
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. MULLER-Stated on the discussion of the motion thinks it's only fair that we
make some decision this evening that we are not going to open it or open it. If
we are not going to open it then we're certainly not going to hear anything about
the additional proof. We will let the applicant stick with the earlier decision
of the Board. If we are going to open it, I think it's only fair to let everyone
know about that. Asked council's opinion on this.
MR. DUSEK-Stated his action was that when it was reintroduced to me and when he
showed me, I hadn't considered these things that he was showing me which Dave Hatin
and I looked at when these things started. Whether my advise to Dave Hatin or
whether Dave Hatin's decision would have been different, I can't say. I can say
that I obviously saw more today then I did see when Dave Hatin and I discussed
this.
MR. MULLER-Asked Paul if this would have lead him to a different decision?
MR. DUSEK-Stated he couldn't say. First of all, it's Dave Hatin's decision I only
advise Dave. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with Dave. I can talk
to Dave Hatin and we could come back to give the Board an opinion of what he thinks.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated she feels the Board make a decision.
MR. TURNER-Stated he thinks they made a decision on lack of evidence by the
applicant.
MR. KELLEY-Stated they now have additional information that they didn't have before.
MOTION TO HAVE A COMBINE HEARING TO RRRRAR APPEAL AP-189, MR. FRANK PARILLO AND
INTERPRETATION ON DECEMBER 20th, 1989 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced
by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner:
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mrs. Goetz
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DUSEK-Asked if there are any other involved agency?
MR. RICHARDS-No.
USE VARIANCE NO. 1001 STEPHEN C. BRITTON SR-30 APPROVED JUNE 21, 1985 SOUTH SIDE
OF CRONIN ROAD APPROX. 800 FT. FROM RIDGE ROAD FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS
OF THIS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE.
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY MR. TARANTINO NOT PRESENT
MRS. GOETZ-Read the minutes of June 19, 1985 as follows:
ZONING BOARD MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1985
VARIANCE NO. IDOl-Stephen C. Britton - to expand a nonconforming use in suburban
residential 309 zone, property south side of Cronin Road.
Represented by Attorney Tarantino -Mr. Tarantino said that this is a concrete block
building previously used for light industrial and Mr. Britton is planning to use
this just for office space. He mentioned that this is a group licensed in the
area of explosive supply. This particular area is not intended for the storage
or manufacture of explosives of any kind. There will be a substantial improvement
to the building.
14
-,~..-'/
MR. BEHR-questioned corporate vehicles.
MR. TARANTINO-said there will be corporate vehicles but no storage of any kind.
He introduced Mr. Britton owner of the business.
MR. BRITTON-explained that it is against the law to store explosives on a truck
over night, there are very strict laws against this.
MRS. GOETZ-asked where the trucks would be stored and Mr. Britton answered to the
rear of the building there is plenty of room avai1able.
MR, BEHR-asked if the trucks would have any painting on them to indicate explosives.
MR. BRITTON-explained that by law his trucks have to have it displayed that they
have explosives on them.
Question was asked if the building would be demolished and Mr. Britton said the
building will stay basically the same way it is now all they are doing is to improve
it.
MR. TURNER-questioned the septic system and Mr. Britton said that whatever has
to be done will be done.
MR. TURNER-asked if there was a water problem.
KEITH HENDRY-present owner of the property, said there is a sma11 drainage problem.
MR. MULLER-asked when the last tenant vacated the property and Mr. Hendry said
just a couple of months ago.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
JAN BISHOP-spoke opposed to their request.
BRIAN CLEMENTS-northerly side of Cronin Road, questioned the possibility of
explosives on trucks there during the day.
MR. BRITTON-said that he couldn't say there wouldn' t be explosives on the trucks
at all. The trucks would have no explosives during the night but might stop during
the day.
MR. BEHR-asked if he, Mr. Britton, could live with approval but with no trucks
on the premises and Mr. Britton said he couldn't under those conditions.
Another gentleman whose name I could not understand also spoke against the request.
Queensbury Beautification Committee disapproved.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Griffin, all voting affirmatively, it was
RESOLVED THAT Variance 1001 be approved as fo11ows: No trucks to stop at any time
with explosives on, must meet with the Queensbury Beautification Committee and
abide with any request.
Approved.
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. TURNER-Stated the issue is corporate vehicles, and the other issue is that
he was granted a variance for an office. Permission was given to park the trucks
only dealing with the explosive business. Explained that what now exists is an
office, blacktop yard, all kinds of construction equipment. There is a shop that
exists on the side of the building which they work out of day and night.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated that what he is doing is in violation.
MR. TURNER-Stated he was granted a variance to have a office for his business to
park his trucks there. He wasn't granted a variance to park any construction
equipment or was he granted a variance to have a shop there to do any work on his
vehicles at the site. Stated at the side he has front end loaders, backhoes, logging
trucks,
15
-------~
air compressors, a truck mounted rotary drill, which he wasn't granted variances
for nor did he ask for them.
MR. Muller-Stated it sounds like he is doing light manufacturing outside the
warehouse.
MOTION TO CLARIFY USE VARIANCE NO. 1001, STEPHEN C. BRITTON,Introduced by Mr.
Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
In reference to the corporate vehicles. The corporate vehicles at the time of
the request were described as trucks to carry dynamite that might be parked at
night and other trucks during the day and night that might stop to pick up delivery
slips. As to the use of part of the building for a repair shop this was never
requested or granted. As to the use of the property for use of storage for
equipment, such as air track drill, air compressor, truck mounted rotary drill,
backhoes, front end loaders, log trucks and other miscellaneous equipment this
was neither requested or granted. There was only a request for an office.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1442 DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL OFF OF ROUTE 9L IN THE BEHRENS,
DURANTE, AND RIFFE SUBDIVISION LR-3A TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR PERSONAL
USE ON THE LOT. THE HOUSE WILL BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE
TABLED BY PLANNING BOARD
NEW BUSINESS
USE VARIANCE NO. 114-1989 SUNSET MOTEL DANIEL HARRIS HC-IA ROUTE 9 (WEST SIDE),
120 LAKE GEORGE ROAD, BETWEEN lIT. ROYAL MOTEL AND CAR WASH (TOP OF MILLER HILL)
HC-lA FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND CONCRETE SLAB AS A
DECK AROUND THE POOL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 70-1-8 SECTION 4.033
LOT SIZE: 2.79 ACRES
DANIEL HARRIS PRESENT
MR. HARRIS-Stated he owns and operates the Sunset Motel and had owned the Mt. Royal
Motel. Ran the Sunset Motel as an annex to the Mt. Royal, once they sold the Mt.
Royal the pool went with the Mt. Royal. Now they need to put in a pool to operate
the Sunset Motel successful.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning approved. (on file)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. TURNER-Suggested to Lee York, that this be changed as an allowable accessory
use.
MRS. YORK-Stated they could do this.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 114-1989, SUNSET MOTEL, DANIEL HARRIS,Introduced
by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner:
The applicant has presented the pIan written statements that all of his neighboring
motels have pools. This is a financial hardship he can I t compete without a pool
16
~..--
~
this is the hardship in answer to the question of reasonable return. The property
is large enough to put the pool in the rear of the property it wi11 not be visible
from Route 9. No negative impact on the neighborhood. This reserves the property
right and wi11 not be detrimental to the HC-IA zone.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the fol1owing vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr, Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
USE VARIANCE NO. 115-1989 KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. 265 BAY ROAD, ACROSS FROM
C.R. BARD, INC. AND NEXT DOOR TO REALITY WORLD (MARCH ASSOC.) LI-lA TO RENOVATE
THE EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX
MAP NO. 107-1-25 & 27 LOT SIZE: 2.56 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N
GREG BESWICK PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Asked if this was going to be the main office and if the other office
was going to be moved?
MR. BESWICK-No.
MR. TURNER-Asked if this is associated with the concrete business?
MR. BESWICK-Stated this is going to be a new professional office and land surveying
office. We are seeking this use variance to renovate the existing house. The
house contains 1,264 square feet presently. The footprint of the house will not
change as the result of the change in use. The only changes in the property would
be to demolish the barn at the rear of the house and to relocate the driveway from
the north side which is between Marcy Assoc. and the property. To place the driveway
on the south side to provide access to the parking area proposed in the rear.
MR. TURNER-Asked if there would be a move later on to update the building with
the newer building on the same lot?
MR. BESWICK-Doesn't anticipate this at this time?
MR. SICARD-Asked if some of this property was in the wetlands?
MR. BESWICK-Stated maybe in the back.
MR. SICARD-Asked if they would be subject to getting permits for the wetlands being
on the same property?
MR. BESWICK-No. Stated they are only proposing to go back approximately 140-145
feet back from Bay Road.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning approved. (on file) Queensbury Beautification Committee
approved.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. KELLEY-Referred to the first paragraph of staff notes.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated they have granted other variances on this size lot. Feels that
there is a need for light industrial to be kept opened in the Town.
17
,
-------
MR. MULLER-Stated he feels what is being proposed is practical for this area.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 115-1989, KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Introduced
by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Muller:
The hardship being that the building is a residential dwelling in a light industrial
zone. It couldn' t be used as a residence with offices all around. No adverse
effect on the neighborhood. The neighborhood is changing to offices. No
neighborhood opposition, you already have a blend of professional offices with
residences in the back and on Homer Avenue.
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. TURNER-Asked if this was going to be a separate entity by itself and is it
going to blend in to the rest of this property?
MR. BESWICK-Stated it is not. Stated this parcel was purchased after the field
was purchased and was subdivided at the time of purchase.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AREA VARIANCE NO. 116-1989 JOHN CARUSONE, MICHAEL MULLER, ROBERT MULLER SFR-lA
250 BAY STREET, WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, SOUTH OF RAILROAD TRACK TYPE: UNLISTED
A PROFESSIONAL LAW OFFICE IS ALLOWED BY A VARIANCE INITIALLY GRANTED JULY 1988.
SINCE THAT DATE, AND PRIOR TO FINALIZING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT,
THE NEW ORDINANCE IMPOSED GREATER RESTRICTIONS AS TO STREAM SETBACK AND REQUIREMENTS
AS TO PARKING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 106-3-9 SECTION 7.072 (1),
7.012 (A) 3 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES
JOHN CARUSONE PRESENT
MR. CARUSONE-Stated that with respect to the water setback we would like to center
the building around the sewer district. Stated that with the parking lot
application, the application reflects a turbo charge square footage possibility.
When I looked at square footage of our building when you eliminate storage, we
do have storage in the back and a unfinished attic, if you eliminate that and
eliminate bathrooms we're under 3,000 sq. ft. If you add the storage I don't think
this would require the 28 parking spaces. We made a promise to the neighbors that
we make this as residential in character as we could. Know that our needs for
parking spaces at 15 spaces would be high. At present office space we have
approximately 9 parking spaces there we never had a complaint. Trying to keep
this as residential as we possible can apply the promises that we made to our
neighbors. Dr. Eisenhart was present in support of the application (submitted
letter to Board).
MR. SICARD-Asked if the setback was stilI going to be the same?
MR. TURNER-Stated the only thing that has changed is the size of the building.
MR. CARUSONE-Stated it's a two story building. Have a shed roof of the back for
storage.
MR. SICARD-Asked if this was going to have an elevator?
MR. CARUSONE-Stated it has provisions for access to the handicapped.
have an elevator.
It wi 11
MR. KELLEY-Asked if there was an alternative plan that could satisfy the setback
from the water?
MR. CARUSONE-Stated if they put the building off center and put the parking to
the south the answer would be yes. But, then we would violate the condition the
Board placed on us when we got our variance in July.
MR. KELLEY-Asked if they looked at alternatives for the parking?
MR. CARUSONE-Stated if they had 20 spaces including handicapped this would be more
than we would need.
18
----
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning approved. (on file)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 116-1989 JOHN CARUSONE, MICHAEL MULLER, ROBERT
MULLER, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan
Goetz:
There are two area variance to be considered, one is 7.072 (1) off street parking.
The applicant has demonstrated the 29 parking spaces as excessive based on the
type of business the law practice. They have proposed fifteen 10 ft. by 20 ft.
required size parking spots this is ample to meet their needs. In testimony the
building shows 4,300 sq. ft., the actual office space is closer to 3,000 sq. ft.,
which would require twenty parking spaces this would also be excessive. The section
of the Zoning Ordinance 7.012 (A) 3 shoreline setback requirement this part of
the ordinance calls for a 75 foot stream setback there is not much of an alternative.
The proposed placement is 55 feet and this is reasonable considering the public
facilities and the proposed pave parking area this will not be detrimental.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:Michael Muller
AREA VARIANCE NO. 117-1989 ALICE MACLEAN JAMES WR-lA TYPE: UNLISTED PILOT KNOB
ROAD, WARNER BAY, LAKE GEORGE, 1/4 MILE FROM 9L ON PILOT KNOB ROAD, SECOND CAMP
ON LEFT TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, MAINTAIN EXISTING FLOOR DIMENSION,
ADD A SECOND STORY, AND SMALL PORCH. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 19-1-29 SECTION 9.011 B, 9.010 LOT SIZE: APPROX. 5,544 SQ.
FT.
APPLICANT NOT PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Stated that the application was disapproved by the county.
MR. KELLEY-Stated what is proposed is an overuse of the property.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 117-1989 ALICE MACLEAN JAMES, Introduced by Michael
MulIer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
To deny application for lack of information.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
AREA VARIANCE NO. 118-1989 KAREN J. WITTE CATHY CLOTHIER TYPE II MR.-5 WEST SIDE
OF BAY ROAD, ~ MILE SOUTH OF THE TOWN HALL TO CREATE A LOT THAT IS USABLE; A VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 75FT. SETBACK FROM HE BROOK IS REQUIRED. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT
A BUILDING FOR COMMERCIAL USE (INTENDED AS A DOG TRAINING CENTER). (WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 60-7-4.1 SECTION 7.012,3 LOT SIZE: 1.79 ACRES
TABLED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT
AREA VARIANCE NO. 119-1989 JAMES M. WELLER HC-lA TYPE: UNLISTED SOUTH OF WALKUP
CUTOFF ROAD, SOUTHWEST OF INTERSECTION OF BAY ROAD AND ROUTE 149 FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A STORAGE BUILDING WITHIN THE 50 FT. BUFFER ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 48-1-26 SECTION 4.020-L, 7.079 LOT SIZE: 11.25 ± ACRES
MICHAEL HUPENCE REPRESENTING JAMES M. WELLER
19
- ----
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
MR. TURNER-Referred to the minutes of the Planning Board. It was discussed that
this was a construction business this is why they need variance from the buffer
zone. Stated the Bombards who are neighbors to the south did not have any objection
to this.
MR. HUPENCE-Stated the Bombards were present at a previous meeting of the Planning
Board stating they had no opposition to the building. The location of the proposed
building is proposed to be within 25 feet of the property line. The second drawing
shows the structure. The open bay area would not be facing Mr. & Mrs. Bombard.
MR. TURNER-Asked if the building is going to be used to store the construction
trailers?
MR. HUPENCE-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Asked if a shop is going to be constructed?
MR. HUPENCE-Stated the shop is existing.
MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the construction is going to be similar to the building that
is facing Bay Road?
MR. HUPENCE-Stated the propose building will look like a garage.
MR. TURNER-Stated this is a preexisting nonconforming use.
MR. KELLEY-Asked if there are other alternatives or a reason why they can't put
it in the back?
MR. HUPENCE-Stated this is where they already have some existing bays for the garage,
the shop, and material storage area. It would be more accessible to have the
building located close to the material.
MR. TURNER-Asked what was planned for the other land?
MR. HUPENCE-Stated he doesn't know what is planned for the future.
MR. TURNER-Asked if they've had any problems with vandalism~
MR. HUPENCE-Stated there may have been a couple of incidents in the past and this
is why Jim wants to enclose the area. Have included this information.
MR. KELLEY-Stated from a security standpoint this seems reasonable. Asked if the
area in the front is opened?
MR. HUPENCE-No doors will be on the front it will be opened. There will be 6 bays
post and beam construction.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DICK KILMARTIN-I can down to speak for Jim Weller. He does keep a nice clean place
and I don't see any reason why he can't put up a storage shed like he wants.
MR. TURNER-You don't have any concerns over any expansion of the business?
MR. KILMARTIN-Absolutely not. My brother-in-law lives across the road, I tried
to talk him into coming down tonight.
MRS. GOETZ-What is his name?
MR. KILMARTIN-I'll tell you his name.
MR. MULLER-You get along with him real well.
MR. KILMARTIN-Yes.
MR. MULLER-You can't remember his name.
20
-----
MR. KILMARTIN-Pratt is his last name. We always call him Fatty because he is a
big guy.
MR. EGGLESTON-I thought you said he was your brother?
MR. KILMARTIN-My brother-in-law.
MRS. GOETZ-Fatty Pratt?
MR. KILMARTIN-Yes, that I s his nick name. He said he didn I t have any objection
either. I don't see any reason why Jim can't do this. Like you said, it's for
closeness, security reasons. We've never had any problems in the neighborhood,
but you never know.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board approved. Mentioned any recommendations by the
Queensbury Beautification Committee would stand.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Letter from Robert Eddy to Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals, Queensbury Planning Board, Warren County Planning Board,
dated 10/13/89. (on file)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 119-1989, JAMES M. WELLER,Introduced by Mr.
Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
To construct the storage building within 50 feet the buffer zone this is a
preexisting nonconforming use. The practical difficulty is to place the building
in another spot this would cause security problems and they would like to place
the building within the concept of the other buildings. No neighborhood opposition.
The building will be placed 25 feet within the buffer zone this is the relief.
They should live within the suggestions of the Queensbury Beautification Committee
regarding the south side of the building. The short EAF form shows no negative
impact.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
USE VARIANCE NO. 120-1989 JAMES M. WELLER TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA SOUTH OF WALKUP
CUTOFF ROAD, SOUTHWEST OF INTERSECTION OF BAY ROAD AND ROUTE 149 FOR EXPANSION
OF A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 48-1-26
SECTION 4.020-K LOT SIZE: 11.25 ± ACRES
MICHAEL HUPENCE REPRESENTING JAMES WELLER
MRS. GOETZ-Stated the present use and the proposes uses are the same as the previous
application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. KILMARTIN-I support the expansion for James WeIler. He is going to put a decent
looking expansion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning approved, same comments were made on the previous application.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 120-1989, JAMES M. WELLER,Introduced by Mr.
Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
21
--
To expand the preexisting nonconforming use. The use will minimize the impact
of this property on the neighbors which is in keeping with the spirit and objections
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. MulIer, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1989 LINDA CLARK WHITTY WR-lA ASH DRIVE, GLEN LAKE FOR
MODIFICATION OF A VARIANCE WHICH WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 16TH, 1989. A VARIANCE
WAS GRANTED FOR A BACKYARD SETBACK OF 8 FEET. THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENCROACHED
TO 7.85 FEET ON THE EASTERN END. THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE ENCROACHMENT. (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 39-1-58.3 SECTION 4.020, 7.077 LOT SIZE: .286 ACRES
LINDA CLARK WHITTY PRESENT
MRS. GOETZ-Read comments attached to the application.
MR. TURNER-Asked if this was discovered as a result of a survey?
MS. WHITTY-Stated after the survey was done.
MR. TURNER-Asked how far they have proceeded with the house?
MS. WHIITY-Stated the roof is on and windows are in.
MRS. GOETZ-Stated this is minimal relief.
MR. SICARD-Asked if it was previously surveyed?
MS. WHITTY-Stated she employed Raymond Associates to plot out the house so that
I would be insured it would be put in the right place. After the foundation was
put in they came back and did the survey which is when the bank requires it to
be done. When they notified me when the survey was complete that is when they
notified me the house was in place.
MR. SICARD-Stated then the bank wouldn't accept it.
MS. WHITTY-Stated the board's paper work must match the banks survey they won It
release any funds until it's correct.
MR. MULLER-Asked if Mr. Raymond measured from the concrete block foundation to
the property line?
MS. WHITTY-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Asked that when you go up you extend the house even further?
MS. WHITTY-Stated the 9 feet is from the foundation block to the line. The roof
line hangs over and I allowed for one foot. From the roof line to the property
line it's 8 feet on the one end.
MR. MULLER-Asked if they are 8 feet from the corner on the northwest side?
MS. WHITTY-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Asked about the northeast side?
MS. WHITTY-Stated it would be 6.8 feet from the roof line over.
MR. MULLER-Asked what was said that she could have?
MR. TURNER-Stated 8 feet from the roof line over.
MR. MULLER-Asked if everything was all right on the northwest side?
MS. WHITTY-Yes.
22
--...-
--..-'
MR. MULLER-Asked if there were any protrusions in the back?
MS. WHITTY-No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WALTER LAW-I represent Herbert Tyrer. Herb Tyrer is the neighbor. To some extent,
I feel I might be wasting my time because most of the things I wanted to talk about
concern what you did back in August which I think was unreasonable. The
unreasonableness from August has been compounded now. I've read the minutes of
the June meeting, and August meeting. It's my recollection that Mr. MulIer was
very clear in stating to the applicant that the measurements were going to be made
from the drip line off the roof. For someone to come in now and say, "whoops excuse
me", I think it's. I would like to know what day the survey was ordered.
I would like to know what day the foundation was started. I think that you really
have to investigate as to whether or not this was something that was done on purpose
or not. If I can, I like to go back to the very beginning of this thing. I think
you people missed the boat in June, and August, I don't think you've addressed
Article 8 of your own ordinance which deals with mergers of lots. At that time,
as far as I can tell this lot was merged with the neighboring lot that was owned
by the same person at the time that is the clause. In reading the minutes, I wasn't
here but, from reading the minutes I see no reference whatsoever nobody raised
the question as to the effect of merging the two lots. If it's in your ordinance
which it is, I think it's a question you should have addressed. It came in here
as a nonconforming preexisting lot, I think you took that at face value the only
thing that is before you is the sketch of the 10t in question I think it's 58.3
of the tax map. Nobody said, well if Article 8 applies what is the size of the
adjoining lot, what are the effects of the merger? I think you made a mistake
in doing that. I also think you made a mistake in accepting the argument that
the house could not be placed 20 feet from the line. The only reason that I was
able to see from the minutes is to why the house was not placed 20 feet from the
line was the driveway that comes in off the right-of-way. The fact of the matter
is, even if the house were place 20 feet off the line it wouldn't be on the driveway.
The lame excuse was, well it would be kind of close to the house, well so be it.
Number two, if you look. .at the area the driveway isn't necessary at all it
happens to be there, but it's not necessary. The access to Birch Drive, nobody
addressed the questioned at all you just took it at face value that there is a
driveway and the driveway was necessary. In June, three members of the Board decided
in the minutes as saying; (a) This is not a good proposal. (b) This is a lot of
house. (c) This is small 10t. I said to myself in reading the minutes in June,
well there are a lot of people here that feel this is too much house for a lot
of this size. I read the minutes in August and it is if the whole world had turned.
Why, because 200 odd square feet was chopped off the house. The house is over
2,000 square feet all of a sudden nobody on the Board is no 10nger questioning
the size of the house. If you just take the 200 odd feet off you still have a
substantially larger house than what is warranted for a lot of that size. Nobody
addressed this question at all and everybody seemed grateful that they cut 200
feet which is minimal off the house, I think this was a mistake as well. The problem
is what's going to be done about it now? I think that your taking the position
of "oh well the house is up," oh well is right. There is a case in the Court
of Appeals that some guy put up 12 extra stories in a house and the Court of Appeals
didn't say, oh well. I think it was wrong to grant the variance in August, I
think it is wrong to allow a violation of your own variance today, I think it's
a big mistake.
MR. KELLEY-One of his question was what was the date that the foundation was started?
MS. WHITTY-The foundation was started. . .
MR. KELLEY-Can you give me an approximate date?
MS. WHITTY-I cannot give you an exact date. They came in and plotted the foundation
the surveyor did. He had it wrong. When I got home from work half the hole was
dug and I said, it was too far to the side, fill it in and let's get the surveyor
out here again and have it re-surveyed. They did so when it was re-surveyed they
continued to dig and I assumed at that time it was in the right place. The bank
requires that the foundation be placed completely before the official survey is
done. I had them come out on a Friday, they were there they did the survey, I
called them on a Wednesday and waited all week. On Tuesday I didn't hear from
the surveyor I called them Wednesday and this is when I found the house was off
by 1.2 feet.
23
---.--
---'.~
MR. KELLEY-At this time it was just the foundation that was in?
MS. WHITTY-At that time they had started the framing.
MR. KELLEY-You proceeded ahead from that time until now?
MS. WHITTY-Yes. It didn't think 1.2 feet was an excessive amount. Mr. Tyrer,
did not object during the first meeting that was held to the house being placed
2 feet off the property line. He also did not object to the house being placed
4 feet off the line or 6 feet. It was the Board who make the request that I change
it not Mr. Tyrer. He did not object to the size of the house at the time the
proceedings were started.
MR. LAW- If you look at the minutes of June 21st, page 5, you will see where Mr.
Tyrer is quoted as saying, "he would not object if they were to buy more land".
A person who is in position to sell them more land on the crucial side of the lot
is Mr. Tyrer. It's incorrect to say Mr. Tyrer did not object what Mr. Tyrer said
was, he would welcome an opportunity to discuss buying some land from him. The
response as I recall from the minutes was, that would be nice, but I can't afford
it. I don I t know what this house is costing, but a house of this size you can
look into, I'm not saying strike a deal, but you can at least look into the question
of can I buy more land. We're not talking about that many feet and it's also not
the most valuab1e part of the property that Mr. Tyrer.. The meeting was adjourned
from June 21st to August 16th and Mr. Tyrer tells me he thought that during that
intervening period that the applicant would come to him to discuss the possibility
of selling a piece of land; he also told me nobody ever approached him. The point
that 11m trying to make here is this application would not have been necessary
initially if she had simply approached Mr. Tyrer. That's one of the criteria that
you are suppose to look at is there a feasible alternative. In this case there
would have been at least the possibility of a feasible alternative, but no effort
was made to approach Mr. Tyrer. I just wanted to correct, Mr. Tyrer didn't say
I have no objection, what Mr. Tyrer said was I would welcome the opportunity to
discuss the sale of some land. Thank you.
MS. WHITTY-I in fact did contact Mr. Tyrer about the purchase of some land. As
a matter of fact I bought it up the second meeting.
MR. MULLER-I thought you did.
MS. WHITTY-Because of the absorbent price he asked for the land I could not afford
it. I work on a single income I do not work on two incomes. I am a single parent
and this house is being built with a lot of family help and a 10t of hard work
on many peoples part that are friends. It is not a house that wil1 be a turn key
for another 10-20 years. I think that is enough.
MR. MULLER-Do we have the August minutes in these papers.
MRS. YORK-Mrs. Goetz, I believe you have the August minutes.
MR. MULLER-It's Page 1, of the August minutes.
MRS. GOETZ-Do you want me to read the whole thing?
MR. MULLER-Yes. Then I'd like to have a discussion on whether that's the complete
discussion that we had I don't think it is.
MRS. GOETZ-This is area variance 61-1989/August 16th/Linda Clark Whitty present.
Mr. Muller-Asked if the 8 feet is measured from the property line to the side
of the propose building having taken into account the eaves? Ms. Whitty-Understands
that it is from the roof line from the base of the building it will be 9 feet.
Mr. Turner-Stated that the major problem is the size of the house on a small lot.
Asked if this was her best offer? Ms. Whitty-Stated that if she changed it any
further it would be to great of an expense. Stated the only way to get around
the expense would be if I changed it by 2 feet. Mr. Kelley-Stated the property
line has a curve through it so it couldn't come to far out because of the
right-of-way. Ms. Whitty-Stated the easement has to be written in the deed.
Motion to approve Area Variance No.61-1989, Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kel1ey: The applicant has demonstrated
practical difficulty due to the size and shape of the lot. This is a small 10t
the square footage of the propose house has been reduced by 224 sq. ft. The setback
on the north line has increased from 4 feet to 8 feet by moving the house forward.
24
---- -
----
MR. MULLER-This is a small lot with no other location for the dwelling. The septic
system is on the side, steep slope and gorge on the north, driveways on both east
and west. No neighborhood opposition. The short EAF form shows no negative impact.
They also need relief from Section 7.077 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with
frontage on a public road. We are granting the relief because it is not a public
road. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1989, by the following vote: All
unanimous. My recollection was I thought that if you listen to the tape you would
hear Linda Clark Whitty making a presentation. There was some discussion about
having investigated the opportunity to buy the additional property and her answer
is pretty much the same as it is tonight.
MR. TURNER-That was on the previous month.
MR. MULLER-I thought that the very first hearing we had Mr. Tyrer was here in the
audience?
MR. TURNER-He was.
MR. MULLER-I thought at the second meeting she made a presentation that was tested.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, she could not afford it.
MR. MULLER-Okay, that I s not here in our printed minutes, but that what was said.
We were asking her to shrink the house and there was some discussion about easements
the rights of access. There was some discussion about that there was a dirt driveway
and she wanted keep back from the dust and dirt that' s not in our minutes. On
the issue of whether or not it's a preexisting lot, I relied on completely what
the planning department said. The planning department said that the lot doesn't
need any relief from that. I have no reason to doubt as I sit here now whether
it is or it isn' t. I think it ought to be tabled and let the planning department
figure out what their position is.
MRS. GOETZ-Is that a motion?
MS. WHITTY-Mike, can I say something before you make that motion?
MR. MULLER-Sure.
MS. WHIITY-At this point I have men who have been working on this house. If I
don't get any money released from the bank these men cannot be paid. This is not
only creating a hardship for myself this is creating a hardship for every person
who has worked on this job. I hope that you would reconsider any motion that might
prevent the monies from being released at this time.
MR. MULLER-Just as a member of that Board, speaking only for myself, I would like
to point out to you that if you're in violation of some requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance or if you have exceeded some of the relief that the Zoning Board has
granted to you and that admittedly it I s the case here, if you continue to proceed
to build the house that's at your own peril.
MS. WHITTY-Your requesting that this be tabled on the basis of something that has
already been decided on.
MR. MULLER-Let me explain something. You realize the papers that you have in your
hand means that you've been sued, do you realize that?
MS. WHITTY-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Part of that lawsuit is that there is an argument being made in the
Supreme Court that says, you don't have the building lot upon which to build.
That' s an issue that has never come before this board because the planners who
accepted your application presented a fact to us which we have relied upon and
it may be true. 11m not prepared to answer for you inspite of this you can take
our advise from the planners and town council. Mr. Tyrer says, that you don't
have the lot to build on this is not a preexisting nonconforming lot. If that I s
true it's like building on a piece of property that doesn't exist.
MS, WHITTY-But, the planning people, everyone I have gone through all the necessary
channels and was told all the way through that this was acceptable. TAPED TURNED
I have gone through every channel possible.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You must admit though we really picked apart how far you could be
25
~----.-
----"_.~^
from the line tried every different way and talked and discussed and made it very
clear how far you could be from the side line. You knew enough to know when the
cellar was in your right-of-way by looking that this was not the right space so
you may them fill it in and re-dig it. We I re only talking small footage what I
find really at fault with I still think you should have known that was not the
required footage.
MS. WHITTY- I don't have the knowledge of knowing how to survey a piece of land.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But, you know how far from the line it is.
MS. WHITTY-I knew roughly, I didn't not know where the line exactly was. The
surveyors never set that up for me to measure over to the line. There wasn't a
white line drawn in the middle of the woods.
MRS. EGGLESTON-You knew the first time it was too close.
MS. WHITTY-It was so grossly out of wack and I knew there was something wrong when
I pulled in the driveway. It was just too far back.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm just saying in all fairness to the Board we did discuss in-depth
what you could do it was made very clear to you. To say that you have followed
every guideline, rule or whatever is not so because you haven't fol10wed that one
particular variance.
MS. WHITTY- I showed the intent by hiring someone to do this.
I could possible do.
I did everything
MR. TURNER-I think she relied in good faith on somebody else.
MR. MULLER-I think this Board in the passed has considered that type of information
and has under the proper circumstances having considered all of the variables the
other alternatives that might be available to grant the minimum relief in these
very cases. It's not the issue that 11m addressing. I understood you to say that
you have builders waiting for money and bank ready to release it if this gets
approved which is all well and good. There is a threshold question here that if
you continue to dwell on I need another. .less than 2 feet, I think your missing
the point. The point is Mr. Tyrer, as a adjacent owner as a neighbor takes the
legal position that you do not have a lot upon which you can build. He argues
in his papers it appears here that the Town of Queensbury has erred by saying that
you do not. This issue has never come before this Board.
MS. WHITTY-Where do I come into play in all of this? If the Town of Queensbury
has erred, the surveyor has aired, where do I come into play when I have done
everything that I was asked to do.
MR. MULLER-I didn't say to you that the Town of Queensbury erred, I said to you
Mr. Tyrer suggested that. We've had these papers as 10ng as you have, have you
read them?
MS. WHITTY-Yes.
MR. MULLER-Do you agree with everything that's said in there?
MS. WHITTY-This, I have not read these I just received these.
MR. MULLER-Nor have we. We hand them over to Mr. Dusek and Mr. Dusek will respond
to them. There are legal issue in there that are not able to be resolved by this
Board. Assuming that we said no problem here is the additional 2 feet and go ahead
you would be very foolish upon your part to do that. We have no business saying
that and we wouldn't say that, but your basically standing there asking us to say
that.
MRS. GOETZ-Could we have an answer from our Town Attorney next week?
MRS. YORK-You can have an answer from me by next week.
Dusek.
I don't know about Mr.
MR. DUSEK-I just came into this it's new to me. I like a chance to look at the
papers and obviously if at all possible I can certainly try to give you an answer.
I just don't know anything about this at the moment.
26
.---. -
--
MRS. GOETZ-So we wouldn't have to table it until next month's meeting.
MR. DUSEK-I would certainly try to give you an answer.
MR. MULLER-That's fair.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1989 LINDA CLARK WHITTY,Introduced by Michael
Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Tabled for the factual issues that we cannot make at this meeting. We in no way
want to mislead the applicant or encourage any further activity on the building.
There is a possibility you are not building in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance
this is separate from the issue being sought in variance no. 61-1989. We are seeking
legal opinion from Mr. Dusek by October 26th, 1989 Town of Queenbury Zoning Board
meeting.
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
27