Loading...
2011.11.30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 2011 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 4-2011 John Salvador 1. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-8 and 9 Area Variance No. 63-2011 Andrew West 1. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-8 and 9 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. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Today is November 30t". It is 7:00 o'clock p.m. here at the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. We have a very short agenda this evening. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, we do have a sheet out on the back table that explains briefly what our process is. We will call each applicant up to the table here. We will read the project description into the record, and then we will move forward with public comment where it's necessary. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2011 SEQRA TYPE N/A JOHN SALVADOR OWNER(S) ELWYN SEELYE c/o SHARON DAVIES; ELEANOR SEELYE ZONING WR LOCATION 10 & 12 JOSHUA'S ROCK ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 REGARDING THE NEED FOR A NEW APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED BOATHOUSE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 179-5- 060 OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE. CROSS REF AV 63-2011; SP 66-2011; AV 23-2011; SP 32-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.74 & 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-8 AND 9 SECTION 179-5-060 So, the first item we had on the agenda was an Appeal, which has been withdrawn. So we'll move right on to Old Business at this time. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2011 SEQRA TYPE II ANDREW WEST AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) SHARON DAVIES AND OTHERS ZONING WR LOCATION 12 JOSHUA'S ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AND EXPAND EXISTING 553 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 425 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE RESULTING IN A 575 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 589 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF SP 66-2011; AV 23-2011; SP 32-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 3.74 & 0.34 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-8 AND 9 SECTION 179-5-060 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2011, Andrew West, Meeting Date: November 30, 2011 "Project Location: 12 Joshua's Rock Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a modification to previously approved site plan with associated area variance to include the reconfiguration of dock and expansion of boathouse. Specifically, applicant proposes to renovate and expand existing 533 sq. ft. dock with 425 sq. ft. boathouse resulting in a 575 sq. ft. dock with 589 sq. ft. boathouse. Relief Required: Proposed boathouse will require area variances as follows: 1. South property line setback- Request for 20 feet relief from the minimum 20 foot setback requirement as per§179-5-060A(7). 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance? Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives would be to relocate the boathouse/dock to a more compliant location within the property line projections to the north. With extensive crib work proposed, it would appear reasonable to place the structure within the lot's shoreline at this time. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 20 feet or 100% relief from the 20 foot setback requirement as per §179-5-060A(7) may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood can be expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, NOA 4-2011 Pending SP 31-2011 N/C SFD Rennovation and expansion in CEA Approved 6/28/11 SP 32-2011 Boat house Approved 6/28/11 AV 22-2011 Setback and height relief for SFD Approved 6/22/11 AV 23-2011 Setback relief for Boathouse Approved 6/22/11 BOH 12-2011 Leachfield setback Approved 5/16/2011 Staff comments: 1. The determination of setbacks for docks and boathouses are per §179-5-060A(7) and is as follows: • Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs onshore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, whichever results in the greater setback. 2. The boathouse/dock currently exists approximately 13 feet onto adjacent property to the south. 3. A similar yet smaller proposal was before this board on May 18 and June 22 of this year. Approval with no conditions was granted at the June meeting, please see attached. 4. Planning Board recommendation provided. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required." MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Good evening. Welcome. I know this has been in front of us quite a few times. Roy read in an extensive description, but maybe you could follow up with us a little bit about what has changed from proposal to proposal. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the applicant Andrew West. Andrew's not able to be here this evening. He's out of town on business, and his attorney, Tom West, is here as well. When we were here in May and received the variance for the dock proposal it involved obviously the same setback relief that was granted. Following that approval, the applicant had discussions with dock builders, trying to get pricing for the work that he wanted to have done, and as a result of that, there were some recommendations that have changed the design slightly. This dock is a U shaped, covered dock, south pier, north pier. The south pier was determined to be in good shape, and therefore there's no proposal to, or the current proposal, the one before us, doesn't change that width. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) The original, the May approval, changed the, narrowed that width from seven feet to six feet, so that we could have a larger space for the slip, the area between the two piers. Again, based on the recommendation of the dock builders Drew had been in touch with, it was felt to leave the, the idea would be to leave the south pier as it exists and to attain the same width of slip that was desirable for modern boats, it meant moving the north pier, which was in bad shape and going to be rebuilt anyway, move that, now the two feet further to the north. Now that in fact doesn't change the relief requested because the relief requested is for that southern pier, as you remember, and I didn't re-establish this, but this is an unusual dock in that it straddles the property line. It actually exists, it fronts on two parcels. Why that is, what the history is, is unclear, except that's the way it is. The property line comes down and when you extend the property line it goes through the dock. Therefore we don't have the normal 20 foot setback that we're looking for. We're actually having a 20 foot setback relief, but it extends into the neighboring property. Unusual, yes, something that can be justified or a variance granted for, I think it's reasonable in our minds. So that was the best solution to this situation. The applicant is in the process of trying to obtain the property associated with this dock and that seemed to be the best approach in terms of getting approvals for the dock so that the restoration work and the improvement work could be done. So, if that covers the situation we're now, we were here again, obviously, in October. There was an Appeal. That's been withdrawn now. So here we are hoping to get a decision, happy to explain. I think that in the application materials the architect's depiction of the situation is pretty clear between the black line and red lines. It's pretty clear in terms of how the dock is changing. So, if you have any question, I'd be glad to respond. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Go ahead, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-It was suggested that it would be reasonable to replace the dock and put it in a compliant location, but you're saying that the south pier is in good shape, and that's the reason that would be I guess a rather expensive proposition? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it would be, yes, that much more expensive to remove that southern pier, the dock in total, really. Now, at least we're starting and working from the southern pier which is in good condition. It had work done on it you know maybe within the last 15 or 20 years it was estimated, so that that was in good shape. TOM WEST MR. WEST-If I could just address that. The southern pier is going to be left intact, perhaps with some repairs, but there will be no disturbance of the primary crib. The dock builders felt that moving the north pier to the north several feet to obtain the width that was necessary for a modern boat is not only the most cost effective, but the least impactful way to deal with this, because you're only impacting an additional two feet of lake bottom by widening that dock, and then they'll actually build it, I think, in stages, take the rocks out from the other side, put it in the new side, and then build that other side. So this not only saves money, but it reduces environmental impact by limiting the construction in the lake. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. WEST-And I just want to clarify, I think we did establish that my ancestors were better writers than they were surveyors at the last meeting, if you recall. We had that discussion, and we're kind of dealt with this hand and the Joshua's Rock Corporation that owns the adjacent property has agreed to all easements, and they'll suffer whatever burdens occur by reason of the granting of this variance. So that that would mean that anything that they would propose to do on their property would have to be at least 20 feet away, and there are no current plans for any other docks that are built there. I just bring that up to remind the Board of the discussion that we had back in May. MR. JACKOSKI-Will the Joshua's Rock Corporation be part of the building permit? MR. WEST-1 don't believe so. I think the building permit will be issued in the name of the owner, but the Joshua's Rock Corporation is contemporaneous with the sale of the property, issuing all easements and everything necessary to provide access and permanent rights to own and maintain this boathouse. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Dennis, could you maybe touch on the dimensions that we have on the most recent survey, as to what the 7.1 feet is actually measuring? MR. MAC ELROY-It appears to be the distance from the property line, the southern property line, to the corner of the boathouse structure, not necessarily the pier, because that's a difference that I picked up between this survey and the previous survey submitted. That 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) representation of 12 feet, plus or minus, was from the property line to the corner of the pier, so that that's not inconsistent, in looking at one map or one survey and the other. It's just a different point of reference. MR. JACKOSKI-So do we know what the distance is if we were to run a parallel line from the projectory of the southern crib, which is the furthest point out into the lake, and run the parallel line back to the shore to verify how far actually over into that Joshua's Rock Corporation's water this dock actually is? MR. MAC ELROY-Say that again, as far as what the point of? MR. JACKOSKI-If you ran a parallel line with the property line, which is part of the Code, to the point where the southern crib is the most extended out into the lake, how many feet off of the line is that? MR. MAC ELROY-It's 23 feet. That's what our application. MR. JACKOSKI-It's 23 feet onto the adjoining neighbor's water, correct? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-And that's represented on the variance plan that was submitted. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the tie lines show a 52.31 foot dimension, and the shoreline shows 52 feet as it winds and twists along the shore. Is this lot 50 feet or less in width? MR. MAC ELROY-From north boundary to south boundary, perpendicular to that it's 49 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Does that change the Code, Craig? Is the 50 foot mark 15 feet or 20 feet? MR. BROWN-Not for a dock. MR. JACKOSKI-They all have to be 20 feet? MR. BROWN-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-But the shoreline footage has changed from one survey to the next, correct? MR. BROWN-It appears to be the case, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we had 55, is that what it is? MR. MAC ELROY-Fifty-five plus or minus. MR. JACKOSKI-And we have 52 now. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-You took out a few curvy rocks. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I mean, that doesn't, you know, necessarily astound me in terms of one surveyor. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. High water mark changes and all that stuff. I understand. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Just to summarize that, it's the same description. It's the same parcel, one survey and the other. I think that's been confirmed. MR. JACKOSKI-It's just that we're granting dimensional relief, so I just want to make sure we have the dimensions correct. Is there anyone else at this time that would like to ask questions, please? MR. KUHL-Just so I understand this, Dennis, the only reason you're back is because you came forward with an approval you got in June, and then you went to a dock company to do the work and they changed the design that you got the approval for? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the applicant decided that what they were saying was valid and enough so that he entered back into the process. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-And it was felt that the change that was coming from that should come back before the Board. MR. WEST-He recommended the change, and the change is not going to be agreed to unless it's approved by this Board and the Lake George Park Commission. MR. KUHL-Sure. If, in fact, you couldn't get this on this property line, you'd push it north, wouldn't you, if you had to re-do the whole thing, the whole thing would be pushed north, correct? MR. WEST-You still wouldn't have the 20 feet. MR. KUHL-And you still wouldn't have 20 foot, you'd still need variances because it's just not wide enough. MR. WEST-On both sides. MR. MAC ELROY-1 looked at that after somebody commented on that. The projection of the property lines would create a situation, because it's not only the straight line projection which applies on the southerly property line, but the northerly property line would fall under the 90 degrees, the tangency. So that brings it in. You couldn't build a dock dead center on that frontage without needing a variance. MR. KUHL-Needing a variance. Yes. Okay. MR. WEST-And possibly two. MR. KUHL-Yes, but you did mention that they're trying to purchase the property, some property from the Joshua's Rock Corporation? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, this lot. MR. KUHL-The southern lot. MR. WEST-But they're purchasing the lot with the old house on it and renovating the house. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. WEST-Which was the subject matter of another meeting, but the transaction will include permanent easements to permanently maintain the dock in its current configuration and to allow it in conformance with zoning. So the reason it was drafted that way is so that if JRC, Joshua's Rock Corporation, ever comes before this Board, or the Planning Board, may want to seek to put a dock in, they're going to be subject to the Zoning Ordinance of what approvals you grant, which means they're going to have to go at least 20 feet back, even though they own property and goes to the middle of the boathouse. They'll have to start from the southern pier and go 20 feet away. MR. KUHL-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from other Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. For your record, my name is John Salvador. I'm hearing for the first time tonight this subject of a permanent easement or some kind of permission. Previous to this, it has always been spoken in terms of permission. An easement is certainly a better way to do it, and rather than an easement, why don't they just deed land, enough land to the applicant, the Joshua Rock Corporation deed to the applicant, enough land, such that this boathouse would meet the setbacks, okay, and also they would have enough shoreline to justify a U-shaped dock and a boathouse. Right now all they have is 50 some feet of shoreline. That's 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) not enough for a U-shaped dock. So they would only get a, if they were to remove that dock that's there now, as you suggested, they would only be allowed to put in an I-shaped dock because they have less than 65 feet of lakefront. So the answer to that problem and the setbacks is indeed a transfer of property from the Joshua Rock Corporation to this applicant, and with enough land such that they don't need variances, and they meet the minimum shore frontage to accommodate a U-shaped dock. In any case, my wife and I own six parcels of land in the immediate vicinity of Dunham Bay, which is in even closer proximity to this project being considered for review tonight, and I emphasize we're in the immediate vicinity because the Zoning Administrator has framed this as we are in the general vicinity, and we are more than just general in our location. As you are aware, this application was tabled at your October 19th meeting pending the Zoning Administrator's determination as to whether a new certified survey should be required, noting that the applicant could apply for a waiver from such a survey requirement, but apparently did not. The purpose of the new survey, of course, was to attest as to the rightful owner of Mellowstone and the land comprising tax parcel 239.19-1-9. The applicant has complied with the Board's request by submitting, as late as November 23, 2011, a, quote, map of a survey made for Seelye Estate. After receipt of the Van Dusen and Steves map prepared for the Seelye Estate, the Zoning Administrator must have made a determination that this new map was sufficient to render the new Area Variance, 63-2011, complete, and thus ready for review by this Board tonight. Specifically, the Zoning Administrator shall have, according to Town Code, the following powers and duties, initial review and processing of all applications submitted under this Chapter. I interpret that to mean that he has a responsibility to determine that the application is complete and that all issues of fact are before you, that is the Zoning Administrator must determine the facts before this Board, as this Board has only limited appellate jurisdiction, and can review an application for an Area Variance. As this Area Variance was deemed to be incomplete on October 19th, because the map of a survey of the lands denoted as those of Elwyn Seelye, care of Sharon Davies, and Eleanor Seelye, was not certified, so too is this map of a survey made for the Seelye Estate, even though certified, not sufficient to determine the ownership of tax parcel 239.19-1-9. The Zoning Administrator should never have accepted this map, for the following reasons. You have a copy of the map before you? The name Seelye Estate lacks specificity. Which Seelye? I know of three Seelye Estates that have been probated in Warren County and at least three in Westchester County, and so this map needs to identify which estate. They all have different terms and conditions, and you know how that goes. Map reference number one and two do not mention a location where said maps can be found. I think the law requires that if you mention a map, if you reference a map, you have to tell people where it is. They have to be able to find it. A deed reference number two mentions the three Seelyes, Dr. Edward E., Eleanor J., and Elwyn E. the Second, to James West dated April 17, 1982, and filed in Book of Deeds at 645, Page 1096, references map reference two dated March 5, 1982, which was dated to be filed simultaneously herewith, but never was. So what we have here are map references to that deed transaction that was never filed. Van Dusen and Steves obviously has copies of those maps. They should be made available. There is no evidence that the revised map was filed. The question is which version is the Seelye Estate based on, the original map or the revised map as you see noted there? The Seelye Estate map does not have the mean high water mark and the mean low water mark of Lake George charted. Both are needed for the Lake George Park Commission review, and also for Town review. The Town boundaries are not noted on this map. The zoning district boundaries are not noted on this map, and I ask you if this is approved, what happens to the other applications, both before the Planning Board and before your Board, that have been approved, that were based on the uncertified map that was before you before? On November 15th, I wrote a letter to the Town Supervisor, as the Chairman of the local Board of Health, because that Board had approved applications for wastewater for this project, and they have approved those applications based on the ownership of the property being in the name of Sharon Davies, etal. This doesn't say Sharon Davies, etal. This says Seelye Estate, and we don't even know which estate. So I wrote this letter to the Town Board and I copied your Board on this, and I copied the Zoning Administrator, but I find that this letter is not in your file. So I would like to read it into your record. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador, I mean, we generally have a time limit. I mean, how much longer do you think? MR. SALVADOR-Well, it's a one and a half page letter. MR. JACKOSKI-You can make reference to it. I don't know that you need to read it to us, but if you'd try to wrap it up, I'd appreciate it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it goes to the ownership of the property, and that's the issue. I think you will agree that any of these Town administrative boards cannot issue a permit, it's not a valid permit, if it's not issued to the property owner. Anybody can make an application, I understand that, but the permit has to go to the property owner, otherwise it has no meaning, and that's the issue. Who owns this property? This map doesn't tell us. This map doesn't tell us, and any 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) easements that we talk about, that might be proposed, should be on this map. They should be before you, so that we understand what's going to happen. In any case, you've got copies of this letter, and this is a system of conveyances back and forth, and you really don't know who owns the property, who has the right to convey the property. Maps are not filed. The record is lousy, and it's very conflicting. I'll leave it there. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them, but this map doesn't do the trick. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Staff, I do believe Town Counsel has reviewed the title, the chain of title on this parcel? MR. BROWN-Originally, during the time that the septic variance was going on that Mr. Salvador referenced, the Town Counsel was asked to review the ownership, and they did and they found the information before them was acceptable. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Yes. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one else in the audience, if you would come back to the table. I am going to leave the public hearing open at this time. If the applicant wouldn't mind maybe trying to address some of the points made, we'd appreciate it. MR. WEST-I'd be happy to, thank you. First, let me just clarify, relative to the property ownership issue, as Mr. Brown has noted, that issue was raised in a previous proceeding. We supplied a chain of title to the Town Attorney, to demonstrate ownership of the property being in the Seelye Estate, and that issue was resolved. Mr. Salvador has not taken an appeal from that determination, and so he's barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, from bringing it up in this proceeding. It's an issue that's been decided by the Town. He never took an appeal in the timely manner, and it's done. That's Issue Number One. Secondly, there is no confusion. The property in question is the property of my grandfather and grandmother, and their estate is still open, to the extent that a life estate was granted to my uncle to occupy this property, so long as he was living, and since he passed away a number of years ago, we've been trying to figure out what to do with this old property, and it wasn't until my son stepped up to the plate, about a year ago, that we've had any hope of being able to restore it, and I think we've been through that with this Board, but there's nothing wrong about the references here. It's not uncommon for a survey to include deed references to establish boundary lines. In fact, the adjoining property, now or formally of Williams, was in fact, owned by my brother, James E. West, at one point in time. The property in question is currently owned by the Seelye Estate. My sister, Sharon Davies, is the executrix of that estate, which is why she is a co-applicant in this proceeding. So there's nothing wrong with any of these documents. I find it most interesting that Mr. Salvador would come in and nitpick about things being purportedly missing from the map, given his track record in Dunham's Bay. I've spent most of my career opposing his projects in Dunham's Bay, even before I became a lawyer. When he started the process of building wall to wall docks at the end of Dunham's Bay. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, I understand, but can we maybe try to stay focused on this particular project in front of us. MR. WEST-I'll stay focused on it, but suffice it to say, he does not live in the immediate vicinity. He's across the Bay, down at the end of the Bay, and he has a notorious track record in the Bay for causing environmental problems. Now, given these facts, that we already have the property issue determined, that this is a certified survey, that nothing has changed from the prior determination of this Board in May regarding the south boundary of the pier, the only difference is there's a slight change in design to reduce costs and reduce environmental impact, we respectfully urge that this appeal should be granted, or this variance should be granted in favor of the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-I have a procedural question. Town Counsel approved this survey for Area Variance 23-2011, right? It wasn't for this application, it was for a different application. MR. BROWN-The new survey that's in front of you right now? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. BROWN-No. Town Council hasn't reviewed that. This, we were just supplied with this last week. MR. URRICO-So what did Town Counsel actually? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) MR. BROWN-The issue was raised over ownership of the property when the previous variance with the older survey and the septic variance and the site plan, those applications were alive with the Zoning Board and the Planning Board and the Town Board. As Mr. West said, they supplied an abstract I think it was. It was a document that was about an inch thick that showed a chain of title. Counsel reviewed that and found that the ownership was resolved and it was accurate, but now we have a new application, a different number. Does that approval automatically transfer to the new map? I mean, does the ownership that we reviewed previously transfer to a new application? MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't have that abstract in front of me, but if that abstract says the owner of the property is the Seelye Estate, that's who they're saying owns the property now. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BROWN-So, yes, I think it would transfer. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy. Is there anyone else who'd like to ask any questions? MR. CLEMENTS-I'd just like to make a clarification. Not having the previous variance in front of me, I assume that there's no difference in the relief with this variance than there was for the one that we had already approved. Would that be true? MR. WEST-That's correct. MR. BROWN-Are you asking me? MR. CLEMENTS-Craig. MR. BROWN-That's the one question, the only question that I have outstanding, not that you asked me if I have any questions, but the comparability of this current survey with the previous survey and the site plan developed by EDP, you know, how do you tie them together? Just to make sure that the numbers are accurate, we asked Mr. MacElroy to maybe get some setback information on this current Van Dusen and Steves survey map, just so we can confirm that the numbers shown on his September drawing are accurate, based on this November survey. So they may very well, but I haven't seen proof that ties them together, to confirm that the numbers are the same. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. MR. BROWN-Does that help? MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from Board members? We did leave the public hearing open. At this time, I'd like to maybe poll the Board members and get a feel for what they'd like to do with the application, given public comment, and where we stand with comparing it to the prior approved variance application. So, I'm going to start off with Brian if I could. MR. CLEMENTS-Actually, from what Craig has said, I was under the assumption that there was no difference in the relief that was required, and I was ready to say that I would approve this variance. However, I think having the information that's needed to know exactly what the relief is would be important. So, at this point, I think I would be against approval. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. MAC ELROY-Mr. Chairman, could I just make a clarification? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-The survey is the same boundaries as in the previous 2003 survey. When we submit information on an application, it's represented in a site plan or in this case the variance plan, in terms of what the setbacks are. The setbacks aren't shown, necessarily, on the survey. The survey is the base information for the property. We then take that and make it as part of the variance plan, and in this case, the variance plan won't change because the survey information is the same. So there's no difference in the amount of relief requested, because it's the same boundaries. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-We understand that you want, I mean, you want 100%. You can't change 100%. Whether the dock is tilted more to the south or not, it's still 100% relief. I think we all understand that. MR. MAC ELROY-But the dock is the same, in relationship to the boundaries, on a 2003 survey or on a November 2011 survey. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't disagree, except we do have a shoreline discrepancy. I mean, there are measurement discrepancies from the prior survey that we saw and this one. MR. MAC ELROY-Measurement discrepancies? MR. JACKOSKI-There's 55 shoreline feet, I believe. I don't have that old one in front of me. MR. UNDERWOOD-The old one was 55 along the shore. MR. MAC ELROY-1 wouldn't characterize that as a discrepancy. MR. JACKOSKI-It's because we deal with dimensional relief, because we are so, we pay such close attention to the numbers. I think also the southern boundary line dimension changed. So I think it was higher before. Is that correct, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think that stayed the same, and I think that's the point that Dennis is trying to make is that the southern property line is set. I mean, the only difference in this one is the interior dimension going to the northern one. That could have been because they measured the actual raw shoreline as opposed to a tie line going straight across. That may be where the difference in the discrepancy is, but I think what he's trying to say is that the southern pier is going to be where the southern pier currently exists, and I think that that's sort of the goal post. It's not going to be altered. It's not going to be changed, and so the dimensional relief, as far as intruding into the neighboring property to the south there is going to remain as is. The difference in this application that I see is that the interior relief increase a little bit more because the dimensional relief went two feet further, the new pier that's going to be constructed on the north side of the dock is going to be two feet further to the north, to create a wider space for a wider, modern boat to fit inside. That's the only difference from our last time that we approved this. MR. JACKOSKI-But the last time we approved it wasn't it suggested that the north pier was going to stay basically where it was? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 believe it was going to remain as is. MR. JACKOSKI-So there was discussion that because of that non-disturbance of the lake, there was a reason to provide a granting of that variance, now that we are going to be moving that pier, is that offset, or is that balance as important as it was before? So, let's continue on if we could, and continue polling the Board, and we'll go to Roy. MR. URRICO-1 appreciate the applicant's attempt to make this a more fiscally sound maneuver or change. However, when I look at this, I see some big issues still, and I can't, at least from my standpoint, agree to approve, Number One, 100% relief. Two, especially when there are some feasible alternatives. I understand the cost, and I'm sorry that's the case, but I can't, in good conscious, go ahead and say to allow this at this point. I think the difficulty has been self- created. When I look at the test, I see the majority against granting this application, the variance. So I would have to say no at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-During your last application for the dock I voted in favor of the variance, and I look at it today and say the physical arrangements which will result in the Dunham's Bay are not unlike those that have been there for 50 years or longer. The reference point for the variance, the southern dock, appears to me to be unchanged, relative to the request. There's no doubt in my mind that 100% relief is severe relative to the Ordinance, but it's existing, and if they chose only to repair the dock today and move nothing, just repair the dock, it wouldn't change the density in the Bay. It wouldn't change the physical arrangement of the southern dock relative to the adjoining property, and I don't see that, just in my own rationale, I don't see that, even though I do think 100% variance anytime is severe, the impact on the physical conditions of the neighborhood are really non-existent. There is no impact because there is no change, and because I see no change, I would vote in favor of this variance, not thinking it's ideal, just thinking it's fair. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with John. We approved it, the southern boundary hasn't moved, and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. This is what we had before us before, and while I did for a while think about the expense, that maybe that was the consideration, I do think that, and I do recall now we talked about this, that the environmental impact of moving that southern pier would be considerable, and we are really giving a variance for something that has been there, and so I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Last time we went through this I think everybody was acting in good faith, as far as the application went, and I think that the southern pier is going to remain as is. Dock piers are periodically replaced on Lake George, in the neighborhood of probably 10's, if not 100's of them in any decade, and I don't think that the changing of that pier is going to have a negative effect on the environment of Dunham's Bay or the rest of the lake for that matter. I think that the only dimensional relief that we're seeking here, the difference in this application, is that two feet that is going to extend further to the north, and at this point in time, since we previously approved this, I don't think it's a great enough change that it's going to alter my perception that it's going to have a negative effect. So I would vote in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I'm still consistently going to vote against it because of my belief that a feasible alternative would be to simply move that southern crib to be more in conformance with being in front of the property instead of over into the other one, and so I was consistent with that in the last vote. So, at this time I think I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. WEST-Could I just address the survey issue, please? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. WEST-1 just want to make it clear that nothing has changed on the survey. The lot is 49 feet at the line, which is the westerly line. The course and distances haven't changed. The only thing that's changed is the interpretation by the two different surveyors for the approximate, and I say approximate because it's 52 plus or minus feet and the other one is 55 plus or minus feet, interpretation of the shoreline. It reminds me of environmental testing or blood testing. I just went through a circumstance where my doctor changed labs, and my blood test came out substantially different. We went back to the old lab, it was the same. You get this type of interpretative differences with these types of sciences, and this is nothing more than an estimation. So I don't think anything has changed from the prior approval, as was said, and I appreciate the people who commented. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other thing I would add, too, is that the impact of the southern pier is currently on the family members, the Seelye Estate to the south there, and at the same time, even though this is 100% relief and it's over and above what we would permit. If there were no dock there we obviously would say no to this, but because the dock is previously pre-existing, in this instance, I think that has some merit. At the same time, if that lot in the future is sold off to some other party and they want to create a dock or a boathouse, there's adequate shoreline to offset it, so it's not going to be like right next to this one, and they're going to need relief. I mean, there's plenty of shoreline along that inside dimension to the south there. So I think it's reasonable to presume that a boathouse that currently exists that's been there for 50 plus years is not going to have an impact, if it's replaced with a modern version of what already previously exists. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So, now, at this point, now can I close the public hearing? All right. We're closed. Do we have a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'll take the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2011 ANDREW WEST, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) 12 Joshua's Rock Road. The applicant is proposing a modification to a previously approved site plan with an associated area variances to include the reconfiguration of the dock and expansion of the boathouse. Specifically, the applicant proposes to renovate and expand an existing 533 sq. ft. dock with a 425 sq. ft. boathouse resulting in a 575 sq. ft. dock with a 589 sq. ft. boathouse. The proposed boathouse will require an area variance on the south side for property line setback and that request is for 20 ft. from the 20 ft. which is 100 percent relief. Although the Board recognizes that 100 percent relief is substantial, we don't feel that there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The nearby property that will be most affected by this variance will be still owned by family members and they propose to request easements for the dock and permanent setback relief. Whether the benefit could be sought by the applicant by a different means - obviously at least, almost half of the Board feels that the boathouse could be moved to a more reasonable location but even if it's centered on this lot it's recognized that the lot would still need dimensional relief from the side line setbacks on both sides in that case instead of just one side. We do consider that the request is substantial but there will be no adverse effects on the physical environment even though the pier will be rebuilt to the north side and be 2 ft. dimensionally farther to the north and where it was previously granted relief for. We do not feel that it will have any long term effects on the lake. And although the difficulty is self-created it is also created in effect by the narrowness of the lot which is 52 ft. plus or minus along the shoreline. Duly adopted on the 30th day of November, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt NOES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You're all set. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thanks very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of your surveys back? MR. MAC ELROY-Please. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador has asked to address the Board this evening under Other Business. I don't believe there's any other business. So, Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I addressed a letter to the Lake George Park Commission, the Chairman of the Lake George Park Commission, and it deals with municipal boundaries, and particularly this letter deals with the municipal boundary between the Town of Bolton and the Town of Queensbury, and I'd like to just go over this briefly with you. There's an 1859 statute, 1859 statute that defines the municipal boundaries for the whole State. It's that thick, and in that statute it talks about the boundary of the Town of Bolton, excuse me, let's talk about Queensbury first. Queensbury's Town boundary, quote, running northerly along the bounds of Caldwell, that's the Town of Lake George, and then along, quote, the east shore of Lake George to the bounds of the County, that is the Warren/Washington County line. So the Town of Queensbury only goes to what you might term the east shore of Lake George. Likewise, the Town of Bolton is defined as, if I can find it quickly, I think it says to the east bank of Lake George, the east bank of Lake George. The Commission's regulations talk about the, reminds applicants receiving the Commission's construction and operating permits, that the municipal zoning approval may also be required. That's what you're doing here tonight. Initially the Commission allowed the granting of its permits to precede those of local government. Lately the Commission has reversed, not taking action until the towns have given their approvals. That's what you're doing tonight, and you heard Mr. West say they still have to go to the Park Commission. In this regard, the Commission has accepted approvals issued by the Town of Queensbury for projects consisting of the construction of boat docks and the operation of Class A and Class B Marinas, which are actually, according to statute, in the Town of Bolton. The importance of the east shore boundary issue came into sharper focus in 1998 when it became necessary for us to re-route our underwater marina utility services. This operation required us to utilize public land, that is land outside the boundary of our ownership. Underwater land which was outside the geographical bounds of the Town of Queensbury. With respect to the legal requirements of both the New York State Office of General Services and the APA, we were compelled to issue a quote, local government notice to the Town of Bolton regarding our pending application to occupy underwater lands known to be within that Town's statutory boundaries, and we finally got permission and an easement from the OGS, and that is on file at the County, in the Town of Bolton. Okay. The point here is that in the case of this application, 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) as they go beyond the mean low water mark, and that's why I suggested and mentioned the fact that the mean low water mark has got to be on the map. That is the extent of their ownership, and beyond that, it's the public land, but between the mean low and what you might term the east shore of Lake George is in the Town of Bolton, and that's where their boathouse and boat dock is located. So, I've prepared this and I've attached copies of the statute and all, and I'm making distribution of it to various boards and all. The Warren County tax mapping agency has, if you look at the tax map of the Town of Queensbury, you'll see that they have the Town of Bolton along the shore. Okay, and so I think, and the Commission, the Commission, and they have, in their regulations, the definition of a parcel of property, and it says it's any real property shown on the latest County tax roll as a unit. The latest County tax roll shows the land underwater beyond the mean high water mark to be in the Town of Bolton. MR. JACKOSKI-The public lands in the Town of Bolton. MR. SALVADOR-The public lands are also in the Town of Bolton. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's where these docks would be. MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. JACKOSKI-What you're suggesting is these docks are in the public lands in the Town of Bolton? MR. SALVADOR-No, these docks are, if they are located beyond the mean low water mark, they're on public land. MR. JACKOSKI-That's right. I understand. MR. SALVADOR-But you have this zone between the mean low and the mean high, okay, which is private property. It's private property. The littoral landowner takes title to the mean low, okay, on navigable lakes, takes title to the mean low. So between the mean high, which is the east shore, which is the west bank, and all, you've got that zone which is in the Town of Bolton. MR. JACKOSKI-Will you give us copies of the letters? MR. SALVADOR-I'll give you copies. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Okay. There are no minutes to approve at this meeting, but we do have a request to discuss at this time the 2012 officer roster, and the potential for making a recommendation to the Town for their January meeting. So Staff has asked that we have a discussion about how we want to move forward with that. Mr. Secretary, what are your thoughts? MR. URRICO-It looks good to me. MR. JACKOSKI-So, we have two things, we have, well, we actually have three things. We have the meeting calendar, which I think is acceptable at this point. Mr. Garrand has joined us at the small table. Thank you, and then what about the officers and the recommendation to the Town Chairmanship, etc.? MR. URRICO-I move that we approve the same officers we had this year. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any discussion about that? We have a second, we have no discussion. So as far as officers are concerned, to reiterate Roy as Secretary and Rick as the Vice Chairman. Correct? MR. KOSKINAS-Is there no discussion? I have a question. MR. JACKOSKI-Sure, please. MR. KOSKINAS-We went through this exercise when I was first on this Board, and when you go back and look at how this really works, it's the, I'm not sure what we're doing as a Board. The Town Board says who the Chairman is. MR. JACKOSKI-We didn't discuss Chairman. We only discussed the officers so far as Vice Chairman and Secretary. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. I'm with you. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-But we certainly, according to Staff. MR. GARRAND-We made a recommendation when you first came on the Board, for Chairman. We, as a Board, made only a recommendation. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So why don't we, we have a motion to continue with the existing officers of Roy and Rick. Do we have a second to that motion? MR. KUHL-I'll second it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. Anymore discussion on that? MS. HEMINGWAY-Wait a minute, Mrs. Hunt seconded it. MR. JACKOSKI-She seconded it. Sorry. So could we vote? The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has, by a unanimous vote, decided to not make a recommendation to the Queensbury Town Board for Chairman of the ZBA during the year 2012. Mr. Urrico MOVED TO APPROVE THE SAME OFFICERS AS YEAR 2011 FOR THE YEAR 2012; RICH GARRAND AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS YEAR 2012 AND ROY URRICO AS SECRETARY OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS YEAR 2012, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 30th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Koskinas NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And then as far as the calendar of 2012 meetings, do you need us to approve that as well, Craig, as a motion? MR. BROWN-Yes, either meeting or next month. It's just something you should keep in mind in case you see any dates you might want to change or try and alter, but we've tried to miss all the holidays. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, plus the Planning Board's calendar as well. So do we want to put a motion forward now to approve that calendar? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. Do we have a second? MR. CLEMENTS-I'll second it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian. Any discussion? Call the vote. MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2012, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING DATES, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Duly adopted on the 30th day of November, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And then to continue with John Koskinas' discussion concerning Chairman of the Zoning Board, I understand that it has been practice to submit a recommendation to the Town. Is that what this Board would like to continue, or? MR. GARRAND-1 think it's a moot point. MR. JACKOSKI-So there's no need, you think, to make a recommendation? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/30/2011) MR. GARRAND-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So I don't believe we're going to make a recommendation to the Town concerning the Chairmanship of the Zoning Board. Okay. I believe there's no additional business. MR. KUHL-I will not be here for February or March meetings. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Mr. Koskinas. MR. KOSKINAS-1 already marked my calendar. MR. JACKOSKI-Very good. Thank you. Mr. Koskinas is so notified. Any other discussion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to make a recommendation to get another alternate? Because, usually in the wintertime we get into sickness. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm very confident that the Town is fully aware that they are working on it and if there is a viable candidate that they're comfortable with that they will make that nomination. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-But I do know that they're working on it. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MRS. HUNT-Motion to adjourn. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Second it? MR. KUHL-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-All those in favor? Opposed? Thank you. MR. KUHL-What does January look like? MR. BROWN-1 don't know. If it's anything like next month, pretty slow, one meeting next month, for December. So probably the same at least for January. MR. KUHL-Okay. When are we meeting next month? MR. BROWN-The 21St MR. KUHL-The 21St On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 14