Staff Notes
Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Appeal No.: 4-2011
Appellant: John Salvador, Jr.
Project Location: Joshua’s Rock
Meeting Date: November 30, 2011
Information requested:
Appellant has filed an appeal application relative to a September 9, 2011 Zoning
Administrator determination regarding the need for an Area Variance.
Staff comments:
Standing:
Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party
aggrieved?
The application was signed on September 19, 2011 and filed with the Town on
October 19, 2011.
The appellant has not demonstrated that he is the property owner, immediate
neighbor or a party of interest in the subject property. However, the appellant
does lay claim to underwater lands at the foot of Dunham’s Bay roughly 900 ft
south of the subject parcel.
The appellant is a property owner in the general vicinity of the subject property and not a
property owner of the parcel in question, nor is he an immediate neighbor. Merely being
subject to the same code as the owner of the property of interest does not create standing.
It is unclear how the appellant is aggrieved by the determination at hand. Specifically,
what special injury or damage to his personal or property rights does or will the appellant
suffer from the decision which requires West to seek an Area Variance before this board?
While the appeal paperwork does reference a specific Zoning Administrator decision, the
requirement to prove standing and any demonstration of an aggrieved status has not been
submitted. As such, it appears as though the filed paperwork is unfounded.
There does not appear to be adequate standing for this appeal to move forward.
Applicant: Salvador
Date: November 30, 2011
Page -2-
Merits:
The Zoning Administrator determination of September 9, 2011 requires West to seek an
Area Variance and Site Plan Review approval from the Town.
The Appellants Notice of Appeal argues that new applications are not required.
Apparently, the Appellant’s position is that the Planning Board and Zoning Board of
Appeals should reopen the previous applications and rehear the matter based on the old
applications. This logic is flawed for two reasons:
First, the applications at hand are for a different structure than what was previously
approved. Therefore, new applications are required as has historically been the procedure
of the Town in these instances.
Second, the Appellant’s position to reopen and rehear would require both Boards to set
aside their existing decisions and reconsider the project however, the Appellant has
offered no sound reason why this should be done. Procedurally, this board would need to
entertain a motion from a Board member to rehear its previous decision on this matter and
this motion would then need to be unanimously passed in order to proceed. While this
approach may be legally permissible it is unwise to disturb any decision without good
cause as such an action may expose the Board to a weakly defensible challenge from the
affected parties.
If the Appellant was unsatisfied with the previous decision of the Zoning Board of
Appeals on this matter, there was an alternate legal proceeding that was available to him
within 30 days of the previous, June 22, 2011 decision.
L:\Craig Brown\2011 Staff Notes\NOA 4-2011 Savador.doc
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes