SEQR Referral to PB.07.22.92 QUEENSBURV ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REOIWt MEETING
JULY 22M01 1992
7:30 P.N.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY
FRED CARYIN
CHARLES SICARD
MEMBERS ABSENT
NARIE PALING
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1992 TYPE I WR-IA ,OWN L. POLK, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY
POINT APPLICANT REQUESTING AREA VARIANCES FOR 3 MAT SUBDIVISION. ACTION IS TO DESIGNATE LEAD AGENT
FOR SEQRA REVIEW. (MAPPER COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. b3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION 179-15(C)
179-600)(1)(C), 179-70A
008 STEWART. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
MRS. EGGLESTON-Warren County Planning Board recommends that the Queensbury Planning Board be the Lead
Agent for SEQRA Review.
MR. TURNER-Since this application has to have that review, then I would move to have the Planning Board
become the Lead Agency in the SEQRA Review process. After that review comes back, then we will hear
the variance request.
MR. STEWART-Can I be heard on that? I'm representing the applicant.
MR. TURNER-All right.
MR. STEWART-There is some confusion with the Staff because this particular project is not subject to
SEQRA Review. It's an excluded action because absolutely nothing is being done to the land or to the
buildings whatsoever. Not a board is being nailed or a tree planted or a dock built or anything.
It's just a change in the form of ownership. As such, by definition, it's excluded from SEQRA because
whatever development of the Tend is to be done was done 40 or 50 years ago before SEQRA existed. So
that confusion arose, and when we got before the County Planning Board last week, they were told that
your Staff had told them to pull it off the table because they had to make a ruling on Lead Agency,
which they pointed out that they'd never done before. So, we lost that meeting, over my protests,
but we don't belong under SEQRA. SEORA has no relevance whatsoever to this particular procedure.
MR. TURNER-Are you aware of the Section in the Subdivision Regulations Page 18310 A183-6 Paragraph
3? Do you know what it says?
MR. STEWART-No, i don't.
MR. TURNER-An Environmental Assessment, describing the potential environmental impact of the proposed
subdivision on the adjoining area of the Town of Queensbury including an Environmental Assessment Form
and proposed actions to minimize potentially adverse impacts shall be submitted. Additional
environmental information may be required in accordance with SEQRA.
MR. STEWART-Okay. Now, if you say that when I go before the Planning Board for the subdivision, they
will ask the question, that's fine. but I'm not under SEQRA. SEQRA simply, the roles and regulations
of SEQRA do not touch this application. Now, we were asked to file the Long Form Information and we
did, but all you can say is just, no, no, no, no, because there 1s no work to be done on the property,
which is obviously the reason why it's excluded.
MR. TURNER-It's a division of land, but just because the buildings were there, you're going to divide
the property up into different ownerships?
MR. STEWART-Right. See, normally it's the other way around. Normally, you get approvaT for the
subdivision with the thought that once it's approved, you're going to start building buildings and
develop the land. This is reversed. The land has been developed for 50 years. It will have to go
to the Planning Board in any event, because if you grant an area variance, then we're asking them to
grant a three lot subdivision. So, they will have to look at it, but they've got the same situation,
In essence, you do that there is just nothing to be done to the property, no change whatsoever is
involved.
1
MR. PARISI-If I may, I'd like to ask you A question. What you're saying, essentially, is that the
way the land has been used for the last 50 years is going to be the way it's going to continue to be
used under a three lot subdivision/
MR. STEWART-Right.
MR. PARISI-Now is it being used currently?
MR. STEWART-It's being used a three lake front cabins with docks.
MR. PARISI-I assume that, currently, it's under one ownership?
MR. STEWART-That's right.
MR. PARISI-Okay. So, you're looking to have the opportunity to break these into separate ownerships?
Mt. STEWART-Exactly. The form of ownership is what will change, not the use of the land.
MI. PARISI-It's still subject to SEQRA.
Mt. STEWART-No, it's rat, sir. If you'll look at the definition of excluded actions in your SEQRA
manual, you will see clearly that it is exempt. Now, I called Lee York and discussed this with her,
and she said she'd get back to me, but she never tailed me back, flat out excluded that. In E2, if
anyone has the SEQRA Reg's here available, is under the definition of excluded actions, at the beginning
of the Section.
M. TURNER-That's what I'm looking for, but I'm not sure I have the right,. Categories of Actions
Excluded says it's action undertaken, funded, or approved prior to the effective date of SEQRA,
grandfathered.
M1. STEWART-And of course the definition of action is the activity surrounding the property, and the
activity surrounding the property was done 40 our 50 years ago when the camp was built. and the docks
were built, the septic was put in, and so on.
MR. PARISI-Excuse me. Breaking this into three lots, possibly for year round use. is not keeping it
in the same use, and it never has been seen that way by the courts. This is not an exempt action.
MR. STEWART-I've communicated this to Staff. I assumed that this had been clarified, apparently,
nothing's been followed up on it.
MR. TURNER-No. Evidently, Mr. Parisi feels that this belongs in front of the Planning Board under
SEQRA Review.
MR. STEWART-Weil, I have no objection to going through SEQRA Review, except when you go down and say,
what do you plan do to do, and how will it effect the ecology, the answer is, we're not doing anything.
So, you're going to end up with a bunch of nods, but that's all right.
MR. PARISI-I'd like to clarify this. Going through SEQRA doesn't mean that you're going to get a
positive declaration, or that there'll be any Environmental Impact Statement or any environmental impact,
but all subdivisions arc subject to SEQRA, and in this case. breaking up what is currently a use that's
in one ownership into three ownerships, and obviously the possibility of year round use in a larger
density over time does not constitute something that's grandfathered or the same use, and the moment
you come in for a subdivision, any grandfathering under SEQRA is, obviously, in the past.
MR. STEWART-All right. Perhaps we can get an opinion from the Town Attorney on it and resolve it.
MR. TURNER-1 think we're going to move it to the Planning Board and you can take it from there. I
think I'd have to stand with Mr. Parisi's.
JOHN POLK. JR.
MR. POLK-I'm one of the owners of the Property. I would like you to look at the map. please. 1 do
not like the nomenclature of them being called "cabins". This cottage on the point is. like. 1500
feet. The cottages are rental cottages that we have rented for the purpose of covering our taxes.
My rain purpose in dividing this area into these areas is to make it available to my daughters, who
also am It with me. I think it is very reasonable to divide this into these lots, and when you call
them "cabins", I think It's wrong. These are cottages. One person here on the east cottage. on the
cottage on the west side has rented it for 30 years. and they call it their own cottage. and I don't
understand your views of this distribution.
2
NOTION TO HAIM TIE PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY FOR SEONA IN REFENOM:E TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1992 JOHN
L. FOLK, JR., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 1992. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Paling (7:50 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1992 TYPE II WR-lA GERALD AND WANDA BULLER OWNER: SATE AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE
ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A HANDICAP RAP AND BECK FOR SEASONAL CAMP TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR WHEELCHAIR LESS
TARN REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 144
FT. SECTION 179-16. 179-60
TIN BULDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT (7:50 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 72-1992. Gerald 6 Wanda Bulger, July 13,
1992, Meeting Date: July 22. 1992 "The applicant has an existing camp on Glen Lake which is
nonconforming. It is within 28 feet of the lake and does not conform to side yard setbacks. A site
visit revealed that the camp is being rebuilt on the existing foundation. It appears that a second
story was added. The applicant requests to construct a ramp and deck for wheelchair access. This
application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance. 1. Describe the practical
difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The
structure is currently nonconforming. The residence is being rebuilt and consideration for wheelchair
access can be made through the rear of the structure. This would not require further encroachment
on the lake. There is also a door on the east side of the house where the 4 foot ramp is anticipated
which could be utilized for access with. a side yard variance only required. 2. Is this the minimum
variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available
which mold require no variance? The applicant has other alternatives that would require no shoreline
setback variance. The reconstruction effort should take into consideration the access for personal
use. No alternatives have been provided which mold lessen the requested variance. 3. Mould this
variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the
objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? The neighboring properties have decks within 20 feet
of the lake shore. However, the 75 foot criteria was established for lake protection. The Board should
refer to Pages 16, 17, and IB of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Glen Lake and environs is a CEA
and a drinking water source. The goal of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Ordinance is to over
time achieve greater protection to the identified resource by encouraging existing properties Into
greater conformance. This request would not appear to be to line with the Thm's existing policy
documents. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5.
Is the request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The
applicant could have addressed handicapped access to re-construction. There has not been a practical
difficulty created because of the Ordinance." And the Warren County Planning Board returned "No County
Impact".
MR. TURNER-The camp that's there now, was that built on the original footprint? That's all brand new,
the foundation and everything? Is that correct? Has anybody checked the tax records to see if that
camp that existed there before is the same as the one that's on the application?
MR. PARISI-It appears to be.
MR. TURNER-Okay. I know your neighbor, Mr. Johnson, has a deck. 1 went up there, tonight, and looked
at it, before I came here, but his house sits back a little bit farther than this one.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Is the structure completed yet?
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So. how mold you address Staff's comments that, while you're rebuilding, the wheelchair
access could be made through the rear of the structure. make that part of the rebuilding process, rather
than the front, towards the lake?
MR. TURNER-The door you've got in the side, towards Doyle's, that's a 32 Inch door, isn't it? That's
a small door, or is it it a three foot door?
M1. BUL(UR-It's a three foot.
MR. TURNER-Is it three foot? It looks smaller than that.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Who is the builder?
3