Loading...
1994-11-14 SP ~ FILE COpy ORIG-A~Al .~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1994 INDEX Area Variance No. 58-1994 Albert F. Chanese L Notice of Appeal No. 7-94 John A. Brock Mooring Post Marina 12. 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 I'll NUTES . · ~ ..\...... .. J' QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY FRED CP\R\lII''-1 ROBERT KARPELES ANTHONY 1'1ARESCO DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT THOI"1A2', FORD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1994 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA ALBERT F. CHANESE OWNER: ALBERT F. & MARTHA M. CHANESE EASTERLY SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ROAD ABOUT 5 HOMES NORTH OF ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOUSE AND GARAGE. SETBACK RELIEF WILL BE NEEDED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS OF SECTION 179-60. RELIEF IS ALSO SOUGHT FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED IN SECTION 179-16, FOR BOTH THE HOUSE AND GARAGE. THIS APPLICATION IS BEING REHEARD DUE TO SOME ERROR IN NOTIFICATION TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 10/12/94 TAX MAP NO. 13- 3-28 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16C CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-We have to have a resolution to rescind the varlance granted to Mr. Chanese. MOlION TO RESCIND MOTION TO APPBQYE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1994 ALBERT .._E_,,-..ÇH~NESI;., Introduced b)/ Fr ed Caì-V i n who moved fOì" i t.:::; adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopt.ed this 14t.h day of November, 1994, by t.he following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TURNER-Okay. The next procedure is to re-hear the application since t.he immediat.e neighbors within 500 feet of the project were not legally notified. So with that, we'll start the process of re-hearing the application. MR. THOMAS-The Engineering Report. from Scudder Associat.es, dated September 15, 1994, "CHANESLPARCJ;;!- DESCRIPTION: Located on the easterly side of Cleverdale Road with 60 foot frontage on Lake George, the lands of Albert and Mart.ha Chanese were acquired from the family of Martha (Jansen) in 1991 and comprise 0.24 acres. Boundary and topographic surveys were completed by this office in July, 1994. At. present an old wood frame house and garage st.and on the lot. Mr. and Mrs. Chanese int.end to raze the old -- 1 _. "-" buildings and build a new house. Paul Cushing Architect a nearby neighbor, has been commissioned to design'the new ho~e whose footprint is 26'-8" x 36'-0", or 960 square feet, excludin~ a porch and deck. The nearly rectangular lot has a depth from road to lake shore of 174 feet. The ground surface slope is about 5.8% making the elevation difference 10 feet from road to seawall. The lake surface is just a foot below grade at the wall. There are no wetlands on or near the Chanese lot. SOILS & SUBGRADE Abundant excavation experience in the vicinity of th~ Chanese lot shows that poorly-drained soils exist to a depth of at least eight feet without evidence of bedrock. Our hand-due excavations show there is no groundwater, or evidence of seasonal high groundwater, within the first three feet below grade. Percolation tests that we conducted according to the NYSDOH method yielded a stabilized result of 1" drop in 20 minutes. We know from experience that this rate is rather typical for the neighborhood of the Chanese lot, and indeed much of the land along the lake shore. ZONING The Chanese lot is in a WR-1A Zone making it a preexisting and nonconforming parcel under current zoning regulations. Area variances will be required. We believe that proposed improvements will be environmentally beneficial to the community. For example, the new home will be set back farther from the lake, and existing cesspools will be removed in favor of a new wastewater system as described below. WATER SUPPLY Wate)" vJill be supplied from an intake in Lake Geo)"g;;:-''A pump and pressure tank will be located in the house. There is no treatment required for individual private consumers, but we recommend that surface waters be disinfected for domestic use. ~ASTE WATER DISPOSAL The existing cesspools on the Chanese property will be replaced with an adequate septic tank and mound absorption system situated as far as practicable from the lake shore. A lift station will be necessary for dosing the mound distribution system. The mound will be sited at the upland end of the lot. The design standards of NYSDOH (NYCRR, Title 10, Chapter 11, Appendix 75-A9(c) govern the detailing of the mound system. The elements of the new wastewater system include a 1250-gallon septic tank, 750-gallon lift station chamber, force main and mound absorption system. BASIS OF DESIGN The new home will have modern water-saving plumbing fixtures. Table 1 of the above standards allows a design flow of 90 GPD per bedroom when water-saving toilets are installed, or 130 GPD with new standard fixtures. The new Chanese home will have three bedrooms and a den that can accommodate a guest. SYSTEM DETAILS The design daily discharge is 520 GPD. The basal area of the mound is based on an absorption rate of 0.7 GPD/SF in the in situ soils. The absorption bed area is based on a mound application rate of 1.2 GPD/SF. The mound will be charged approximately four times per day at design flow (which will not occur often) by pumping settled effluent to a pressure distribution system in the mound. A manometer is shown on the drawings which allows venting and the means to exactly control pressure head in the distribution system which should be approximately 2.5 feet of water. Crushed rock (ASTM # 67) serves to spread the effluent across the full area of ihe bed for uniform application to the filtering soils. Working drawings have been prepared with specifications on construction, materials and equipment for proposed new wastewater disposal system to serve the chanese residence. PLOT PLAN The locations o~ existing houses and garages on the Chanese lot and the adjacent sites are shown on the Plot Plan, Sheet 2 of the drawings. Setback dimensions are shown to augment those shown on the Site Plan, Sheet 1. The three existing homes are all at approximately the same setback distance from Lake George. GRADING & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The impervious area of the Ch;nese lot is currently about 17%. The)"e will be no significant percentage change in the Post-Development ratio. Excepting only roof areas, the lot is covered with lawn, and will be after the new house is built. The stormwater runoff quantities will not increase; indeed there may be a slight reduction due to the limited grading anticipated. The grade on the lower portion of the lot will be raised about one foot to match finished grade on -~- -..i ~ the adjoining parcels. Finished grade contours, after completion of the project will generally run parallel to the lake shore across the Chanese lot and those of its neighbors. FIR!;;, PROTECTION Inasmuch as there is no public system on Cleverdale, and no h\,0rants, fire protection is afforded by the r~orth Queensbury' Fire Department. The new fire house is sited on Route 9L near Cleverdale Road, about one mile from the Chanese parcel. PARKING As a rule, there will be parking spaces needed for one or t.lrw""'cars. In other situations, there I,'Jill be space across the f)"ont of the lot for some 4 0)" 5 cars. ELECTRICAL UTILITIç:S The accompanying map of a survey of the Chanese lot shows the location of existing overhead wires. At this time we do not know whether the electrical service will remain overhead or go underground to the new house. SCUDDER Associates Engineers, Surveyors & Planners Charles H. Scudder, P.E. Principal", and a Full Environmental Impact Statement is attached. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Scudder. MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, I have the applicant, Albert F. Chanese with me tonight, and also Architect, Paul Cushing. How would you like us to proceed, Mr. Chairman? MR. TURNER-Proceed on the same scale you did the last time, and we'll go from there. Explain your proposition. MR. SCUDDER-I think the report that was just read is fairly comprehensive. It explains what the project amounts to. To reiterate that the proposal is to tear down the existing house, which is an old frame house, and to construct a new home, which has been designed by Cushing/Dybas Associates. We also propose to tear down the old garage and construct a new garage, in the location shown on the site layout. Further, we propose to abandon or remove the existing test holes, which are on the southerly side of the existing house, and to construct a new Wisconsin Mound Absorption System on the upland end of the property, that would require a new septic tank and a pumping station. The issue, I guess, is whether we should be granted the variances. the Area Variances, to site the house as shown on the layout. I will remind the Board that this matter came before the Warren County Planning Board, and it came on for discussion, and that Board unanimously voted to approve the proposal. It also has been before this Board. and the rest is on the record. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. Does anyone have any questions that you didn't have the last time? Okay. Let me open up the public hear i ng . PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DIAr~E COLIN MS. COLIN-We're next door neighbors, and we're for Colin, and we live next door to the Chaneses, everything is just fine. We're all for it. it. Diane and ~'~e think MR. CARVIN-Are you on the south side? MS. COLIN-The south side. MR. TURNER-The south side. ALFRED FRITZ MR. FRITZ-I'm Alfred Fritz, part owner with Gary Long, of the property to the north of the Chanese property. We are here tonight, because we did not, either of us, receive notice of the application for this variance for the last meeting. We did not become aware of it until we saw the sign on the garage, and I inquired. As you are aware, we are now rather closely hemmed in - ? ~) '"--'" -../ on the north by the end of this Dittus house .which real ly becomes a wind bàrrier, if nothing else, and certdinly does nOL enhance our property value. The intent of constructing a house to the south of us, which will be physically considerably different than that which is there now. It's, I understand a two story house, 36 foot long. With the variance requested of 10 foot from the property line, where the present structure, which varies in size, is approximately 16 feet from the property line. It would tend to hem us in from the south. The new house is being situated, retaining the size of the lawn, adjacent on the south side without change. The additional width of the house is all being absorbed by moving the property to the north, and I would request denial of this variance and suggest that the house be built centrally to the lot, which would allow for retaining the 16 foot on the north, and giving them at least 16 feet on the south. As to the garage, the present garage is no more than a foot away from the property line, which is rather close. The request that the garage be extended and lengthened and that the rear of the garage be built even with the rear extension on our garage presents no problem, although it's likely that the garage foundation for the garage floor will be brought to grade level, and the garage grade level, plus the height of the garage, will somewhat overshadow our extension. I'm requesting a denial of the one foot distance variance, and suggest something greater than that. My son-in-law who's letter you have, in objection to these points, requests a four foot distance. I have no objection, we have no objection to locating the garage further back from the road to allow parking in front of the garage. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else in opposition to the application? ,J I M HAGAN MR. HAGAN-My name is Jim Hagan, located about 500 feet south of this proposed structure. I think, basically, maybe in myoId age I'm becoming cantankerous, but it seems to me that at least in North Queensbury, there is no longer any integrity maintained to support our zoning laws, and while I'm not against all variances, I think we should give close consideration to only those variances that are absolutely required, and in this case, I don't see any need for the variances on the side setback whatsoever. MR. TURNER-Anyone else, in opposition to the application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Mr. Scudder, would you care to respond to some of the issues raised? MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, in support of the application, I want to point out that the new building is going to be moved back from the lake approximately nine feet from its, from the front part of the house, the existing house. If you will look on the existing plot plan, I don't know if you have the drawings. MR. TURNER-It outlines the old house, existing house to be raised? MR. SCUDDER-And the neighboring houses, the Long-Fritz house, and the Colin house. MR. TURNER-Right. I don't have that. MR. SCUDDER-It's important that you see it. MR. TURNER-We may have it over here. We've got them right here. MR. SCUDDER-This is the Long-Fritz house. This is the Colin house. This is the existing Chanese house, and this house is going to be moved back from the lake some nine feet, which will - 4 - -/' "- put the porch back about where the main structure is now, and it'll put the main structure back in here some place. Relative to these two homes, this house is going to be moved back. MR. MARESCO-Further back than the other two homes? ~1f- --UDDE¡- '( a-tlv Tlìat's the front line, and that's the I' ~. ~c _ .-<- es, ex,~ I· - front 1 i ne . MS. CIPPERLY-The only change on these is the mound system has been redesigned so that he doesn't need a setback variance. MR. SCUDDER-There's a change in the setback from five feet to ten feet. Otherwise, we'd have to go to the Town Board of Health to get a variance from that. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but this house hasn't changed, the distance from the lake hasn't changed. Mf~. SCUDDER" Y es, it has c ha nged . MR. KARPELES-Since the last time you were here? t1R. SCUDDER-No. MR. CARVIN-No. They've moved it back away from the lake. MR. SCUDDER-The purpose of that sketch relationship of the three homes. is to show the MR. TURNER-Mr. Scudder, how do moving the house over six feet you respond to the question of so it's more centered on the lot? ALBERT F. CHANESE MR. CHANESE-Making the house a 10 foot setback on the one side would be typical of the neighborhood. Over the past weekend, I started at the Mooring Post and worked my way up to the Crow's Nest, and other than our house, there's only one other house that probably has a setback greater than 10 feet. Most of the properties in that neighborhood have a setback of probably five to six feet, on average. So we don't think we would be doing any detriment. One of the reasons for moving the house back an additional 10 feet from the lake is to increase the view of the neighbors, which would offset the impact of having the house extended to that one side. MR. TURNER-How about the reference to the garage? do there, anything? I,.Jhat ca n you MR. CHANESE-My alternative would be to leave the garage as it is, and place it on the existing foundation. Unfortunately, the septic tank covers most of the back yard, and dictates how far we can move away from the property line. I think putting in a new septic tank would be much more advantageous. MR. TURNER-Than moving the garage. MR. SCUDDER-I'd like to point out a couple of things. First, the minimum distance, separation distance, between the garages, based on our survey of the property, is four feet, that's toward the road, and the separation distance between the new Chanese house, if it were to be built as proposed, and the Fritz-Long house would be approximately 35 feet. That's the side line separation dist.ance. MR. CARVIN-It looks like the neighbor to the north, he's 25 feet off the property line. Is that what you were saying? MR. SCUDDER-That's correct. The Long-Fritz house is 24 to 25 _. 5 - ~ -~ feet off the property line. So, if the Chanese house were 10 feet off, that would be 35 feet separation distance between the two homes. MR. CARVIN-It's 35. Right. MR. SCUDDER-It would be. MR. CARVIN-So he's 25, and you can't move it over, you'd have a hard time moving it 6 feet, so that you'd have 16 feet from the property line? MR. CHANESE-Six would be, we're, with the deck and the extension off the kitchen, we're already extended four feet to the south. So now you're talking a total of ten feet extension to the south. We feel we're already taking. MR. CARVIN-What's this, 19 feet here? MR. TURNER-Yes, 19, almost 20 feet. If you go six more, than reduces it to 13, 14. MR. MENTER-Is there a practical difficulty in moving the house? MR. CHANE5E-It's just that over the years, the south side, that's the south side of the house, and that's where the kids (lost word). It's always been living area, outside living area. It always has been, always probably will be. We'd like to keep that living area, that's why we're giving up our view of the lake and trying to move the house back (lost word) say center the house and then go back to the original building line at the property. We felt we made a compromise on that already. Again, that first 14 feet of the house would be one story section of the house, which is a porch. The two story section of the house would actually start back 25 feet from where (lost word). ~1R. TURNER-Has got a couple discussion. anyone else got a of let te,·s to question? ,-ead, if All right. there's no You've fu,-ther CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-A letter dated November 10th, "Dear Sir: We will not be able to attend the hearing on Monday, November 14th. However, for the record we would like to express our support on the proposal for the Albert and Martha Chanese property in Cleverdale. We have no objections at all as to the placement of the house and garage. The Chanese family are good neighbors who have lived in Cleverdale a long time. We are sure that they would never do anything to harm the neighborhood. A new home will be an improvement. Sincerely, Virginia and John LaBarge" A letter dated October 25th, "Dear Mr. Turner: This is to inform you that I was not notified of the recent hearing concerning an application for variance by Mr. A. Chanese (#58-1994). I own the property adjacent to Mr. Chanese to the north, and am most directly affected by the variance requested. Ms. Sue Cipperly acknowledges that the Department of Community Development failed to notify me prior to the hearing. I object to the variance in question because I believe the proposed location of the new construction will adversely affect the value of my property. I oppose any proposal to build a new house closer to the north property line than 16 feet, the approximate distance of the closest wall of the existing house to the north property line. I am also opposed to the proposal to construct a new garage as close to the north property line as the present garage, the roof overhang of which is essentially on the property line. I believe the new garage should be located at least four feet from the north property line to ensure proper drainage between our two garages. I have no objection to the proposal to extend the length of the new garage to 26 feet, or to increase its setback -- 6 - --" ',- from Cleverdale Road as shown in the drawing faxed to me by Ms. Cipperly. Also, I have no objection to the proposed setback of the new house from Lake George of 53 feet. I'm sure you are tl t Mr T Dl'ttl'S has built a verv large new house a war e o' IV3. . . . - - .. / '" adjacent to my property on the north side. He received a variance to build his house only 8 feet from our common property line. If Mr. Chanese's proposal is accepted, my house will be squeezed in between two new taller structures. I am convinced this will significantly adversely affect the value of my property. Mr. Chanese's house location proposal essentially maintains the distance from his south property line, compared to the present house, and establishes a much closer proximity to the north property line. This results in my house being unacceptably close to two new adjoining houses. Modifications to Mr. Chanese's proposal that would be acceptable to me are as follows: 1) Move the proposed new house six feet to the south, ensuring that the north wall would be 16 feet from our common property line. 2) Move the proposed garage three feet to the south. to ensure approximately four feet from the north wall of the garage to our common property line. 3) No increase in elevation of the front yard (the yard adjoining Lake George) from its present elevation. Attached is a marked-up version of the plan faxed to me by Ms. Cipperly which illustrates the three points above. I expect you to reverse the variance that was granted to Mr. Chanese because I was not given any opportunity to voice my objection to the proposal. I further request that you require the changes I suggest above be made prior to granting a revised variance. I may be reached at the address shown above. or contacted as follol;Js: Sincere.;>ly·, GaTY N. Long" And a map is attached. MS. COLIN-It may seem like there's more room between the Colin house and the Chanese house, but our line is, our kitchen is actually on the LaBarge line. :::;0 if I;Je. ever wanted to build, you're going to end up, I mean, there's just no room to go this way. MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could ask Mr. Fritz the distance is between the north side of his house and property line, and the distance between the north side of house and the Dittus house. what his his MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Fritz? MR. FRITZ-We're 10 foot from the property line. We're a total of 18 feet from the Dittus house. MR. HAGAN-But that's got no bearing on it. extend and come as close to his property permits? The setback is 20 feet, right? Suppose t~ wants to as the zoning law MR. TURNER-Twenty feet one side, fifty total. You've only got 60 feet of lot. Can't do it. MR. SCUDDER-The lots are 60 feet wide. How are you going to do it? MR. HAGAN-Well, you bought the property. So now you're expanding it. That ':3 UlL objection, MR. SCUDDER-The point is that nobody can do anything without a va,' iance. MR. HAGAN-You buy the land knowing what the zoning laws are. MR. TURNER-Well. we wouldn't have a job here, either. then, I 9uess . MR. SCUDDER-I just want to make the point, the argument, that the Fritz-Long house is going to be sandwiched in, I believe was the 0- 7 .- term, squeezed in. If the Board grants this variance, there's going to be considerably more space on the southerly side between the two buildings than there is now on the northerly side. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any Board members have any comment? All right. Lets move it. What do you think? Any discussion? MR. CARVIN-I think we're continually building bigger and bigger houses on smaller and smaller lots out there. I don't have an answer. He's going to leave his garage where it is. MR. TURNER-You can't do anything about that, so he doesn't need relief from that. He's going to leave the garage where it is. It's already there, if it goes on the footprint. All he needs is relief from the side setback from the shoreline. MR. CARVIN-I think the neighbor to the north has got a legitimate argument. MR. MENTER-I agree. I don't have a problem with some variance, but if there's a better way to do it, I don't think this the right answer, then. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's always been the intention of the Board to grant minimum relief, and certainly we have a little bit of movement here towards more minimum. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. TURNER-Can we get the six, so that we end up with fourteen on the one side and sixteen on the other. MR. MENTER-And in this case it seems to me that five and five is less relief than 10, O. MR. CARVIN-I come up with 33 feet, so you could come up with 16 and 16 if you wanted to put it dead center. MR. KARPELES-There's no good answer to the problem. MR. TURNER-There's no good answer, no. The only good answer to it is to diminish the size of the buildings that are there, and you're not going to do it. Okay. Do you want to move it? MR. CARVIN-I'm not going to move a motion if he's not in agreement with it. I mean, what the Board is discussing here is the movement of the house a little bit to the south. It means that we'd like to try to pick up a little bit more distance than 10 feet from the northern property line. It means that if you were to center the house, you'd have roughly 15 feet from both property, from both the north and the south. In other words, what we're saying is, move the house a little bit toward the south, toward the Colin's house. In other words, you're asking for 10 feet here, and we're saying, make it 12 to 15. In other words, move the house. MR. CHANESE-So I'd be able to move forward then, so I could get my v ie~.¡ bac k . MR. CARVIN-Well, again, we'd like to get the houses back away from the lake. So if you're comfortable with 22 feet back from the lake. We're not here to trade, this is not horse trading. I mean, we're here to grant minimum relief, I guess, is what we're trying to do, and the minimum relief would basically be to center the house as close to the center of the lot as possible, in fairness to everyone. MR. CHANESE-Then we would go the two feet additional, somewhat centered. - 8 - -.../ ',,--- MR. CARVIN-I said 12 to 15. The Board is saying 15. MR. CHANESE-Well, if you went 12, you'd be extending four feet to the north and four feet to the south, so that you'd be extending equally on both sides. MR. TURNER-You're talking because of the extension of the porch? MR. CHANESE-From the existing. MR. MENTER~I see. Right. MR. TURNER-From the existing house that's there. He's talking about the ~':òxist-ing. house. MR. FRITZ-May I ask what the overall height of this house would be? MR. TURNER-What's the overall height of the house, at its highest point? PAUL CUSHING MR. CUSHING-The front of the house, as I understood, was the question, the one story building is the front of the house, and the other building, you're talking about is, 16 feet. MR. MARESCO-That's the overall height you're saying? MR. CUSHING'-That's the front, of the house. MR. MARESCO-No, the overall. What's the highest point? MR. CUSHING-The highest point? The highest point is probably going to be 26, 27 feet, which is consistent to what's there now. MR. TURNER-I don't want to belabor the issue, but I think the issue was, can you move the house so that you're 15 feet from the north property line, so you end up with the house in the center of the lot, that's the question, not in relation to the existing house, the D.§:li house. MR. CHANESE-At this point, I'd want to come back, showing the house back at the original setback (lost word), if that's what it takes, I'll be willing to go the 12 feet. I'll be willing to move the garage to a point where, leave an additional two feet where we'd have for the septic system, but other than that, I'd just as soon you turn it down, and we'll come back with the house showing from the property line, of the existing porch area now. MR. TURNER-The front setback from the porch area, or the side setback? MR. CHANESE-Well, where it says now. You know, why give up our view? MR. KARPELES-I have trouble seeing this relationship. already given up the view, haven't you? You've MR. CHANESE-I've compromised. We knew we'd be coming over to the nearby property line. MR. KARPELES-So you're bargaining again. Is that right? MR. CHANESE-Yes. MR. HAGAN-It isn't your right to rewrite the zoning laws. MR. CHANESE-There's a few things I would be willing to do, the 12 foot setback, and it would be a total of 3 foot setback from the - C.J .- -...-/" garage. I can't go any further because of the septic system. MR. CARVIN-Is it your intention, then, to come back with a proposal based upon the original footprint? MR. CHANESE-I don't know. We, unfortunately, finished up (lost word) based on last month's meeting. 50 now I'm going to have to go through the expense of (lost word). MR. CARVIN-Well, it kind of puts us in a quandary, here. if you're going back to the original footprint. In other words, if he comes back with a proposal on the original footprint. MR. TURNER-He's going to have to go outside of the footprint, at one point, so that requires a variance of some sort. MR. CHANESE-I'd still come back for a variance. MR. CARVIN-I'm just wondering if we want to table this, or just tur nit down? MR. CHANESE-I would like you to approve it, based on, unless you would need new planning. Unfortunately, we were ready to demolish, as of two weeks. Now everything is, not that it's your problem, but it's a hardship on us, because now everything is put on hold. Again, it would be moving forward based on last month's meeting. MR. MARTIN-I think there's a point that needs to be addressed, here, by the Board, as you talk about the placement of the structure, in that we're going to get into that with the next application, but I call the Board's attention to 179-83, Destruction. If an individual, it's been my determination if an individual voluntarily removes a structure from the site, there is no grandfathered right to that setback. It goes to the Ordinances requirement for a setback, only in events cited in that Section, such as hurricane, tornado or fire, something like that, if a building is destroyed because of that and has to be removed, then they have a grandfathered right to the area nonconformity, but if it's voluntarily removed, then the setbacks of the Ordinance kick in, not unless the Board interprets that differently, but that's how it's been interpreted. MR. KARPELES-It appears to me that we'd all be in agreement if we could move this back five feet, and center the house up, and I have trouble seeing your objection to doing that. MR. CHANE5E-Well, I can always come back, right? MR. CARVIN-But you're still going to bump into the minimum variance, because I'll tell you, the argument is that, if you can move the house back the 22 feet, then why should we allow it to come forward, based upon what Jim has just said? I mean, again, it's a case of minimum relief. MR. CHANE5E-The adverse affect structure would. existing structure probably has more of on the neighborhood properties than the an ne"J MR. MARESCO-Mr. Cushing is the Architect? MR. CHANESE-Yes. MR. MARESCO-Is there an architectural problem with centering the house? Is it the design of the new house that's going to be a problem? MR. CUSHING-It makes it a lot more commodious and respects more of the existing footprint than moving it to the center. That creates more of an adverse change, truly, on the total picture of - 10 - '-- ,---,,' what we are proposing. MR. CHANESE-I'll leave it up to the Board. I'll abide by their decision. MR. TURNER-You're saying, if the Board says 15 feet, it's 15 feet. Is that what you're saying? MR. CHANESE-Correct. MR. TURNER-Okay, with the same front yard setback? MR. CHANE5E-With the same front yard setback. I wish less than is, but. MR. TURNER-Fifteen on the north. MR. KARPELES-How about the garage? Are we in agreement with that now? MR. TURNER-He's going to build the garage on the original foot.pì" i nt . MR. CHANESE-At this point, then, I would want to keep the garage on the original footprint.. MR. TURNER-So he doesn't need anything there. right there. He can rebuild it MR. KARPELE5-You'd rather do that than to move it over two feet? MR. CH(;NE5E-Yo~:3. LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-Are you saying now there's going to be 15 feet on each side of the house? MR. TURNER-Yes. We're going to equal it up as best we can. Yes, essentially. We're going to end up here, 14, 9 on the south, 15 on the north. So that's 29.9, for a total of 29.9, what we had t.he last time. 50 that checks out. All right. Relief is needed for five feet on the north side now, right? Five feet, 5.1 on the south. Then we've got to have relief from the total. This deck is coming out four feet, correct? MR. CHANE5E-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. 50, we're going five feet that way. that makes that 14.9, from there to there. This will be This is going out and this is going out. According to dimension, you've got 19.9 to t.his point. 50 if you move it feet, you're going to end up with 14.9 from there over, fou," . So 15. this five plus MR. CARVIN-Well, you could lose this four feet of deck. MR. TURNER-Take that right off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What's this? This is the existing house? MR. TURNEP..·That 's the existing house. ~m . CAr~VIN··I,.Jhat ' s the distance here? MR. TUPNER-Here to here? MR. CARVIN-That's 16 feet. That's all we're asking, is to move this wa 11 . MR. CHANE5E-Mr. Chairman, whatever you (lost word). _. 11 -. '--- ~ MR. TURNER-You're not going to change it? MR. CHANESE-Not at this point. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1994 Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved seconded by Fred Carvin: ALBERT F. CHANESE, for its adoption, The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new house and garage. In order for the applicant to move forward with this proposal, he is seeking relief from Section 179-60, which requires a shoreline setback of 75 feet. The applicant is seeking 22 feet of relief from this Section. The applicant is also seeking relief from 179-16, which requires a total of 50 feet for the side setbacks, with a minimum of 20 feet on one side. The applicant is proposing a 14.9 foot setback on the south side, and a 15 foot setback on the north side, and relief of 20.1 feet is needed from the total. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to replace a structure that was constructed in 1940. He would be able to upgrade the septic and the sewer system in accordance with the current standards, and he is actually moving the house back away from the lake. It certainly would be positive to the neighborhood and the community. There would be no detrimental effect on the neighborhood or the community. The relief does not appear to be substantial as far as the application is concerned. However, because of the nonconforming nature of the lot, the actual configuration of the lot, there are no other feasible alternatives. There is no relief granted for the garage, as the garage will be placed on the existing foundation that exists there now. There's no further action required by SEQRA, as this is a Type II action. Duly adopted this 14th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 7-94 WR-1A JOHN A. BROCK MOORING POST MARINA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BOX 84, CLEVERDALE ROAD APPEAL BY JOHN A. BROCK, MOORING POST MARINA FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1994 STATING THAT SECTION 179-83 DESTRUCTION, SECTION 179-79 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES, SECTION 179-5 COMPLIANCE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE MATTER OF THE MOORING POST MARINA, BUILDING PROJECT SHALL REQUIRE APPLICATION FOR AN AREA AND A USE VARIANCE. TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 ADIRONDACK PARK JURISDICTIONAL CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 7-94, John A. Brock Mooring Post Marina, Meeting Date: November 14, 1994 "APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR - NO. 7-94 HISTORY Mr. John Brock, owner of the Mooring Post Marina, sought and received both a demolition permit (#94-602) and a building permit (#94-603) from the Town of Queensbury, for the purpose of removing 7 existing buildings and a portion of another, and replacing them with two - 12 - ~ ~ buildings whose square footage did not exceed the total square footage of the pre-existing buildings, and which would be constructed within the setbacks established by the pre-existing buildings. Permeable area on the site would have increased slightly. A stormwater runoff plan was supplied as part of the building permit approval. When the existing buildings were demolished, in preparation for construction, neighbors voiced extreme objections to the project. An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision was filed by Dr. and Mrs. Evans, and a stop work order was issued .at the request of the Town Board. Jim Martin, the Zoning Administrator, reviewed his decision and issued a new decision on November 2, 1994. He stated that both a Use and Area variance would be required. The Evans appeal was withdrawn. Mr. Brock has filed an Appeal of the November 2 decision. Applications for both types of variance have also been submitted. ISSUES 1. The major issue concerns whether the two new buildings and their subsequent use represent an expansion of a nonconforming use. The argument has been made that the increased height will allow an increase in use of the marina, by allowing a stacking system of boats. The ordinance does not appear to address cubic footage expansion, or expansion into the air above an existing, nonconforming structure. Mr. Brock has indicated that there will be no increase in the number of boats stored. There has also been mention of disagreement over the square footage figures stated by the applicant. The Board may wish to take some time to examine this issue so the record is clear. 2. 'Quick launching' of boats, is defined in the Ordinance as 'A commercial facility located within a marina, where vessels are stored, launched and stored again individually for periods of less than one week at a time.' Great concern has been expressed regarding an increase of this type of storage, predicting increased vehicular traffic, equipment traffic across Cleverdale road, noise, etc. Safety concerns over this type of storage have also been expressed. Materials submitted for the building permit indicate that the public launching portion of the business would be discontinued, and only those with storage contracts would be served. Letters submitted from various sources have stated that quick launching has been happening at this marina for many years. What appears to be happening is a shift in the proportion of quick launch versus purely winter storage customers. This is apparently a trend in the marina business, in general. 3. Expansion of the boat storage facility onto residential property has been a concern, but does not appear to be happening, other than the provision of a drainage retention area to contain unusually high flows of water." MR. MARTIN-Ted, what I thought I would do is read my November 2nd letter into the record, which is the source of the appeal. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-This is the memo to the file, from myself, regarding clarification of reasons for Stop Work Order for the Mooring Post Marina project, dated 11/2/94 "This memo is provided to clarify the reasons for issuing the stop work order on the above referenced project. Reconsideration of.the determination made to approve the building permit was done in light of the information presented by the Town Attorney at the Town Board meeting of 10/31/94., A copy of the meeting minutes from this meeting will be attached to this memo upon thsir availability from the Town Clerk. The followi~g is an explanation of the specific reasons for revoking the original approval: The project involves construction of two new storage buildings on the general location of five storage buildings which were demolished under a separate demolition permit. The two new buildings are of a different configuration than the five buildings which have been torn down. Specifically, the foot prints of the new buildings will extend into other areas of the site which were previously not covered by the old buildings. According to section 179-83 of the Town Zoning Code, structures which violate area regulations, such as - 13 - ~ setback regulations, maybe reconstructed in their original dimensions only if destroyed by unforeseen circumstances or natural forces (e.g. fire, flood, tornado, etc.). If that is not the case than an area variance is required. The old buildings were not removed as a result of unforeseen circumstances or natural forces. The new buildings are of a different configuration and extend into other areas on the site. Therefore, an area variance is required. Additionally, section 179-79 states that 'a nonconforming structure or use of a structure containing a nonconforming use may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair but may not be enlarged or extended'. The new buildings represent an enlargement of the nonconforming commercial boat storage use as boat storage in the old buildings was conducted exclusively on the ground surface area within the walls of the structures. The new buildings being approximately 6'-8' higher than the old buildings will permit expansion of the boat storage into areas previously not used for boat storage. The new buildings will be 34'5" in height and will permit three tier stacking of boats. The construction of new storage buildings under the proposed configuration is expansion beyond that of maintaining the commercial boat storage use or keeping the structures in reasonable repair. Furthermore, closer inspection of the plans indicates that the actual area within the walls of the new buildings is greater than the cumulative area within the walls of the buildings to be removed. This condition also represents an expansion of the nonconforming structures as well as the nonconforming use proposed for the structures. As further justification of the revocation of the building permit the project as proposed violates section 179-5 of the zoning code." And that was copied to the Town Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, John Brock, and Mark Schachner. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For your records, I'm Mark Schachner from the Glens Falls Law firm of Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, and I'm here representing the applicant who, in this case, is what I call an appellant, meaning he has appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to this body, the Zoning Board of Appeals. with the nature of this proceeding, I guess I'd like to, at the outset, request that we take things slowly. That we take this a step at a time, and then, Mr. Chairman, you and your fellow Board members exercise a very strong degree of control over this proceeding. There's been a lot of information flying around, and in my opinion there's been a lot of misinformation flying around, and for a variety of purposes, not the least of which is to make sure that everyone gets their full and fair shake here tonight, I must ask that we take this a step at a time, and I will request that one person only be allowed to speak at a time, and then you rule with an iron hand, as I know you don't mind doing. We have three applications before the Board tonight, but my understanding is that we're going to take them one at a time, and that's what I would request to do, and, initially, as it was just read, the application pending would be our appeal of the Zoning Administrator's November 2nd decision. It's our ,"equest that that appeal be hean::l, and if possible decided on at the conclusion of that appeal, for the simple reason that if our appeal is granted, we don't need to go through with the variance proceedings. We think our case on the appeal is determinative, and that, therefore, if you can decide that as soon as we're done, we would request that you do that. If you can't decide that when we're done, we're prepared to go forward with the other things. Now, I'm going to speak for a little bit, and I apologize if it's a little long, but there's a story here, and it's an important story, and it's a story that has to be told. The story is told, in essence, in the two short affidavits that I just submitted to you, both of which are affidavits by Mr. Brock, the applicant. They're both very short. I encourage you to request me to stop speaking at any time that you want to read them more carefully than you are reading them as we speak, and by - 14 - --..-" ',---- the same token, please feel free to stop me to ask me any tlC\l- ')1- to l',-,tAì-ì-upt with any concerns or clarifications of ques _.. J ~c::>,. _ -' - ~ , any kind whatsoever. This application is about an appeal of the Zoninq Administrator that was made on November 2nd. The property in qu~stion is the Mooring Post Marina. The Mooring Post Marina, as surely everyone in this room knows, is located on Cleverdale Road in Cleverdale. The Marina has been at this location as an ongoing operating commercial business since approximately 1906. Mr. Brock has not been the owner since 1906. Mr. Brock has been the owner since approximately 1985, when he purchased the Mooring Post Marina as an ongoing, existing commercial marina facility. During the years since 1985, Mr. Brock has owned and operated the Mooring Post Marina, and as described in a little bit more detail in the very short affidavits that you're reviewing now, he began to notice a drop off in business, if you will, and he's not unfamiliar with the marina business. He's not inexperienced in the marina business, and he knew that the Mooring Post Marina's method of storing and launching boats, which is what we call the antiquated or old fashioned method, there were a bunch of relatively old, relatively dilapidated buildings, in which the boats were Jammed in as many as possible, and I'll talk about this more in detail later, and he knows, and he knew, that in the commercial marina business, in this day and age, there's a clear evolution toward modernizing marina facilities, so that marina owners can offer their customers the protection of indoor, closed, rack storage systems. This is not something Mr. Brock invented. This is not something I'm inventing. l'1any, many marinas throughout the area and in the Country are converting over to rack storage operations. Mr. Brock's business began to drop off, and he realized that he, too. had to seriously consider this conversion. During the Summer of 1994, and by the way, this was not the first time this thought has come to Mr. Brock, and one of the things you'll hear about later is his previous application, his previous efforts at marina renovations. The efforts didn't succeed. The efforts failed. As far as we're concerned, they're irrelevant. We'll discuss it more later if you want us to, but I'm not going to dwell on it now. This past summer, the Summer of 1994, toward the very beginning of fall, Mr. Brock's facing the music and realizing that he's really got to look into a renovation plan. He then schedules, or he then begins a series of meetings with the Town Planning Staff, with Jim Martin, Scott Harlicker, the Town Zoning and Planning Staff. These meetings are a dialogue between Mr. Brock and the Town Staff, to discuss possible renovation plans for the Mooring Post Marina, and, in particular, to figure out and to decide what the applicant, Mr. Brock, can do. what I call a lawyer's term, as of right, What lawyers mean when they say "as of right" is what you can do simply by applying for a building permit, not requiring any of what we call discretionary approvals, meaning approvals from a Planning Board or a Zoning Board of Appeals. Without going into the lurid detail of each and every meeting, and again, this is all summarized very briefly in the affidavits, there are a series of proposals that are discussed, proposed by Mr. Brock, reviewed by the Town Planning Staff. The Town Planning Staff has very significant input into Mr. Brock's plans by stating, well, you can't increase your square footage because, after all, this area is zoned residential, although you are a lawful, preexisting nonconforming use, and I think this Board knows what those words mean, you can't increase your operation, because to do so you would require a variance. You need to keep your square footage the same or smaller, and you can't increase your operation. Mr. Brock made a number of proposals that were shaped, in part, by the Town Planning Staff indicating, in certain instances, yoU need to cut back a few square feet here, re-shape something there, because in addition, you can't get any closer to any property lines than the preexisting buildings were, because if you were doing so, yoU would be increasing your nonconformity in terms of setbacks. So there was some massaging around, and the bottom line is that there were meetings over a period of approximately six weeks, and approximately that many meetings, - 15 .w meaning six, that resulted in a plan that Mr. Brock was comfortable with, and that the Town Planning Department said, you can build this as of right. You don't need any approvals. In essence, it's an in kind replacement, or an in kind reconfiguration of the existing, or preexisting facility. On about October 12th, let me back up a step. Obviously, in order to do that, Mr. Brock needed to demolish the existing buildings. On about October 12th, not about, on October 12th, Mr. Brock received the demolition permit from the Town, allowing the demolition of the seven, and a piece of the eighth building, that he was going to remove, in order to conduct the renovation project. He was told, at that time, that he's all set. He can go ahead and demolish the buildings. Mr. Brock being a somewhat cautious fellow, felt that that wasn't necessarily what he was going to jump in and do until he had the building permit in hand, and he was very careful about this. He felt, I want to have the building permit in hand, so that I know everything is in shape before I go ahead and demolish the buildings. On October 13th, the building permit was issued. That's the building permit that is referred to in the Staff Notes, that allowed construction of what we call, the first plan, Plan A, Plan One, whatever name you want to use for it. So shortly thereafter, after October 13th, Mr. Brock spent a whole lot of money and signed a bunch of documents to commit a whole lot more money for the demolition of the buildings, and their replacement with the two new proposed buildings, and, in fact, the demolition was done. Eight days after the building permit was issued, after the demolition had already been accomplished, after Mr. Brock expended all this money and committed additional money to the project, on October 21st, the Town issued a Stop Work Order. That was followed, on November 2nd, by the formal revocation of the building permit by the November 2nd, which Jim Martin read into the record. The November 2nd decision is not very lengthy, and although a lot of people may speak about it and try to make it sound more complicated than it is, the November 2nd decision is not that complicated. Basically, Jim Martin's November 2nd decision revokes the building permit, and he does so for a couple of reasons, and here's what the reasons are: Number One, the Zoning Administrator says that the Zoning law indicates that a preexisting nonconforming use can be replaced if it's removed by natural disaster or unforeseen circumstance. The natural forces, he says, and he refers to fire, flood, tornado, etc., as natural forces. It's our position that although this facility or these buildings were not removed as a result of natural forces, like fire, flood, or tornado, they most certainly, and most assuredly were removed as a result of unforeseen circumstances. The first affidavit in front of you discusses, in very short terms, exactly the story I've just told you, and concludes with the following paragraph, sworn to as an affidavit by Mr. Brock: "I would never have proceeded with demolition of the buildings and this huge expenditure if I had not been assured by Town officials that I could do so and already received the necessary permits." We submit that clearly, although this is not a natural disaster, this is not a fire, flood, tornado, etc., this clearly does fall within the language in Jim Martin's memo about unforeseen circumstances. I don't think anyone, even anyone in this room, least of all Mr. Martin the Zoning Administrator, could possibly have foreseen these circumstances. If he could have, he would have told the applicant in advance. Mr. Martin never would have done this intentionally, and never would have done this in a foreseeable fashion. The next part, or the second part of Mr. Martin's November 2nd determination, he claims, or it's determined that the proposal is, in fact, an expansion, and there are several reasons that he may give, or he did give, in some cases, for why the proposal may be considered an expansion, three primary ones. Reason Number One, when Mr. Martin did the calculation, let me back up a second. Mr. Martin calculated the square footage of the seven plus buildings to be removed. He then calculated the square footage of the two buildings to replace those seven buildings, and his determination was that - 16 - '- '--- --./ J more square feet were being removed than were being replaced, and that's why Mr. Martin was comfortable in making the decision that this was ~ot an expansion, and that a building permit could be issued. Upon closer review, it was brought to Mr. Martin's attention that one of the, well, actually he knew this already, but he rethought this already, and Mr. Martin, please waive your arms, or do whatever you can do to correct me if I've mis-stated in any opinion that you've offered in this matter. but Mr. Martin refocused, or rethought this issue and found that he had included in a calculation of the removed buildings, not only the inside square footage of those buildings, but also the building, I'm sorry, but also the area under the eaves of the buildings. Now the reason Mr. Martin had included that calculation was because boat storage activities did occur in that area, and when Mr. Martin initially looked at this, he was saying, well, that was part of the commercial use. The boat storage activities are part of these, so I can include that as part of the boat storage aspect, if you will, and, again, the affidavit in front of you, I'm sorry, the second affidavit in front of you, in Paragraph Two. says specifically, this is the bottom of Page One of the second affidavit, this is a sworn statement by Mr. Brock, "Boats were stored in buildings, between buildings and under the eaves of the roofs of buildings." So Mr. Martin included that square footage in his calculation. He has subsequently rethought that and is not so sure that should be included. We submit that it should be included, because it was part of the boat storage use, and in addition, I'll get to this in a minute, the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the definition of Expansion is simply not met by this project. The next reason that was given by Mr. Martin, and, again, this is somewhat summarized in the November 2nd decision, is that the exact footprints of the new buildings are not identical to the footprints of the old buildings. That is certainly true. It's our position that, whether the exact footprints are the same is irrelevant in determining whether there's an expansion or not, for two reasons. Number One, the square footage is less. Number Two, none of the setbacks, let me back up a second. The previous seven plus buildings were in places, some of which violated current setback provisions. They, of course, preexisting the Zoning Ordinance setback requirements, but they were in violation of some of the currently existing setback provisions. Although the footprints are not identical, in each case, front yard, reaT yard, and side yards, the new buildings will be further, will be as far or further from nearby property lines, adjacent property lines, so that in each case the existing setback will either be the same or increase, and just to give you an idea of numbers, some of the numbers are very significant. The front yard, Cleverdale Road, we have a 30 foot setback already. We're proposing to keep that at 30 feet. The rear yan:l, ¡..¡hat we call the rea,)" yard, Mason Road, currentl'/ there's a building within five feet of that rear yard setback. The new proposal is 20 feet away. On the side yards, again, we've got existing setbacks of only 10 feet, and proposed setbacks substantially in excess of 10 feet. So we submit that the fact that the footprints are not identical does not determine, does not mean that a variance is necessary, and the fact that as long as the footprints don't further encroach on existing setbacks, and as long as there's no increase in the square footage, or increase in use, which I'll get to in a minute, we submit that that second reason does not require any type of variance. Now, the third size issue is the issue that we may here the most about, or maybe not, but we'll certainly hear about, and that's height. The old buildings topped out at approximately 31 feet, 31 and a half. The proposed height of the new buildings tops out at 34 and a half feet. Now, our position, Number One, is that that does not require a variance, simply because the existing Zoning Regulations allow construction of buildings up to 35 feet. In fact, you can build a house up to 35 feet without seeking a variance, and these buildings will not exceed and will not even reach the 35 foot threshold. Now, .having discussed all these dimensions, perhaps I beg the very ~ 17 -- "-, ".~ - -- ,-...........~.....--'---_.. important question, and that is, lets look at the Zoning Ordinance definition of Expansion. The Queensbury Zoning Ordinance defines the word "Expansion" in Section 179-7, as, and the first four words are, in my opinion, the most important (- ords, "any growth of activity", the rest of the definition is, "~..Jhich requires the enlargement of facilities including buildings, parking spaces, storage yards, or any other facilities which are required to accommodate such growth". Again, the first four (-Jords, "any growth of activity". If you're not a gro~..¡th of activity, you're not expansion under the terms of this definition in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. You'll notice, in the second affidavit of Mr. Brock's that I submitted, a very short Paragraph Number Two, the second sentence of Paragraph Number Two states, sworn testimony, "During the approximately 10 years that I have owned the Marina, our capacity has been storage of up to approximately 200 boats with up to approximately 140 quick launch customers and up to 80 boats quick launched on a given day." That's Mr. Brock's sworn statement as to what the existing capacity at the Mooring Post Marina is. Now let me back up a step and just make sure I clarify that, for people that are not in the Marina business. What we mean by "140 quick launch customers, but up to 80 boats quick launched on a given day", is you may have 140 patrons, if you will, that will seek a quick launch service some time during the season, but we are not suggesting that we, on any given day, actually, quick launched 140 boats. On a given day, and this would not be a typical day, by the way, this would be the busiest day, Fourth of July Weekend type day, the maximum daily quick launch would be 80 boats. On Paragraph Four of that same affidavit, on Page Two, Mr. Brock says, the capacity of the Marina will not change as a result of the proposed renovation. We will still store up to approximately 200 boats, and quick launch up to 80 boats, I'm sorry, and quick launch up to approximately 80 boats of 140 customers. "While the configuration of boat storage will certainly change, the number of boat stored, and therefore our volume of business and associated traffic and parking will not change from what it was several years ago". So the bottom line is, our position on the appeal is that, under the parameters of the application, under the applicable definition in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and with the sworn testimony of Mr. Brock as to what the capacity has been and what the capacity will be, this is not an expansion of the facility, of the preexisting nonconforming facility in any way, form, shape, or manner. Now, it's my belief that when this is open to public hearing, a number of people are going to come forward and suggest that there haven't been 200 boats, that there have not been 140 quick launch customers, or that there have never been boats quick launched. They're entitled to their opinion, but I do want to point out that when that public hearing, at some point during that public hearing, I've got letters and statements to submit from others, not Mr. Brock, but others, that will support, clearly support, that will state unequivocally, that those have been ongoing, not just theoretical capacities, but actual capacities that have been utilized by Mr. Brock in his existing business. The only other issue, as far as our presentation on the appeal, would be that this was not an easy decision, I don't think, for Jim Martin to make initially, and I don't think this was an easy decision for Jim Martin to make on October 21st and November 2nd, when he essentially yanked out the rug from under Mr. Brock and revoked the existing building permits. One issue that we recognize may be a difficult issue for this Board to resolve, and that's the issue of the square footage that's not within the buildings, on the old buildings to be removed, but under the eaves, and that's one of the reasons that we submitted a different plan, a second plan, a Plan B, in addition to the original plan that Mr. Martin did approve and did issue a building permit for, and it's Q1J..L positi,On that if you determine, if, our first position is clearly in support of Mr. Martin's original determination, that the original building permit was valid. It was correctly decided, and that our appeal should be granted, meaning that the decision -- 18 - -' ....,...,;- --" .-'" to revoke that building permit should be overturned. If for any reason you feel that all the other issues are taken care of, but that you don't agree with our position on the square footage issue. under the new plan, which you obviously have received and have reviewed and is before you, under the new plan, clearly, there's no argument, the square footage of what's newly proposed is less than what's been removed, and you don't have to look into anything under eaves. You don't have to make the issue complicated. There is no gray area because square footage is less, and since, under law. you're allowed to uphold Mr. Martin's determination, overturn Mr. Martin's determination, or modify Mr. Martin's determination in the manner you see fit, that would be our fall back position, that if Plan One, in your opinion, requires a variance because of square footage, then Plan Two clearly does not require a variance, because the square footage under any scenario is less. I don't think I've told you any numbers, and I'll just tell you the actual numbers. I've also not belabored you by going through real details of the two plans, but I'm assuming you're familiar with those, correct? MR. KARPELES-I. for one, would like you to review that, the two pIa ns . MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That's fine. Okay, and I'm not sure how best you want me to do this, but the Mooring Post Marina property has consisted, for many, many years, of a number of buildings, and the ones we're focusing on are the non Lake George side of Cleverdale Road, okay. So we're talking about the portion of the Mooring Post Marina that's on the west side of Cleverdale Road, and in particular we're talking about a series of buildings, most of which have been removed, because they were demolished pursuant to the demolition permit. Specifically, the buildings for which removal was sought and which were, in fact, removed, were the building that we call lA, which was a portion of Building One, up here, from which we removed 3249 square feet, I'm sorry. Right. That one has not yet been removed, Building Three, and the easiest way to do t~is is three, four, five, six. and seven, which are this entire row of buildings along the western most property line, Buildings Ten and Buildings Eleven, fairly small buildings in this portion of the property. JOHN BROCK MR. BROCK-Are to be removed. MR. SCHACHNER-Are to be removed, correct. have been removed. Three through seven MR. BROCK-~nd also the one just to the right. MR. SCHACHNER--Right, and Building Eleven, one of the two small ones, that has been removed. Those are all the bUildings that were to be removed, I'm sorry, were removed in October, and a couple of them were still proposed to be removed, and we didn't get that far. The original approved plan, by which I mean what Jim approved on October, or issued a building permit for on October 13th, is this plan, which calls for two new buildings, Building A and Building B. and Building B has what we call a wing that's about 76 feet long extending north to south on the bottom of it, and the square footages, in total, were all the buildings removed and to be removed, added up to 24,927 square feet, and the new buildings, that's Buildings A and B, including this wing, square footage added up to 24,872 square feet. Let me just point out, in stating that, that the basic idea here is to consolidate the operation from all these different buildings into the two main buildings, and internalizing the transportation function, so that with the two Buildings, A and B, and this is true under both scenarios that are before yOU, in the two Buildings, A and B, boat storage in racks only occurs in the outer thirds of the buildings. The middle thirds of the buildings, actually a little .- 19 -. more than a third of each building, the middle thirds are the drive lanes where the boats are brought in and brought out. So another aspect of this, which I think helped Jim Martin reach his initial decision, was that the actual rack storage area, under this plan, was only 13,652 feet. Previously, under the existing buildings, the boats were just jammed in their. Every square inch available was utilized for boat storage, and there are going to be people that are going to dispute that, and as I said, when the public hearing opens, I intend to submit a series of letters from other people indicating that that's the case, that that's how this facility was worked, that they were stored, jammed to the ears in these buildings. Any questions before I move to the new building? The new plan, which I Just described a few minutes ago as the one that eliminates any possible gray area about square footage, you'll notice. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, with due respect, the new plan is not part of the appeal. I think we're just going to confuse everybody if you start talking about the square footage of the new plan. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't have a problem addressing that. I'd like to addn3ss that. I thi nk I did addn3ss that already. You have the ability to not only uphold or reverse Mr. Martin's November 2nd determination, but you also have the ability to modify it, and our position is that we've submitted a plan, as part of our application, including part of our appeal, so that if you feel that his determination was correct, as to our original plan, but only because of the square footage, that we're asking you to determine now that the new plan doesn't require any variances because the square footage clearly is less than what's been removed and what will be removed. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I'm trying to keep them separate. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-The new plan is, the basic difference with the new plan, the easiest way to think of this is it does not include this 76 foot portion of Building B, what I call the wing portion, and in particular, just for the Board's information, the party who initially filed and appeal of Mr. Martin's initial decision prior to him revoking the permit, which are the Evans, basically live across Mason Road, right even with this area of the property. So one of the reasons that Plan 8, quite frankly, was submitted in this format was to reduce the square footage beyond any reasonable question, but also to provide the Evans with a better view, here, because they have lodged serious objections to the proposal, including objections based on views. They have their own counsel there. They'll speak for themselves, but that is one of the reasons for Proposal 8. Subject to what we intend to hand in during the public hearing, which are letters and comments from others about, basically documenting the fact that this is how the marina's been used throughout the last several years, that's our basic opinion on the appeal. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MR. SCHACHNER-And, of course, I'm happy to answer any questions. MR. TURNER-Anyone have any, before he leaves, right now? Okay. MR. THOMAS-I just have one. You alluded to, several times, about a quick launch facility. Do you have a permit from the Lake George Park Commission for a quick launch facility? - 20 - --./" MR. SCHACHNER-There is a Lake George Park Commission permit for the facility. The permit goes back to, I believe, 1982. At that time, the Lake George Park Commission, basically, issued permits in a much more haphazard, I'm speaking from personal experience as well as professional, very much more haphazard way than it does now, and the permit from the Lake George Park Commission is very terse. It's a one pager, and I think it really focuses only on what's on the water side, and doesn't really talk about storage. It doesn't talk about quick launch. It just talks about how many boats are at the docks. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you don't have a permit for a quick launch, per what the Lake George Commission defines as a quick launch? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we have a permit from the Lake George Park Commission for the Mooring Post Marina as it existed back in 1982. It's Q.U.L position that as it existed back in 1982, it included quick launch. In my past experience with other facilities on Lake George, and the Lake George Park Commission. part of the Lake George Park Commission, I believe, law, and I believe regulations, indicates that a facility that was in existence prior to 1982 was grandfathered. It is supposed to get appropriate permits. It's our position that it has gotten permits from the Lake George Park Commission, although we would also concede that the permit that it got from the Lake George Park Commission is very skimpy and does not contain a thorough, complete description of the activities at the property. Mr. Brock didn't O!'>Jn the facility in 1982. I don't think it's his fault that that's the case. Most of the Lake George Park Commission staff members that are present tonight and that have been present lately have not, were not part of the Lake George Park Commission in 1982, and as I said, based on my experience with other marina facilities on Lake George, it's very, very common to find the older permits not including an adequate description of the activities that were going on, but if you were ask me, Mr. Thomas, is he allowed, under Lake George Park Commission law, to conduct a quick launch operation, my answer would be, yes, because he was conducting it prior to 1982. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll now open the public hearing on the appeal. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SCHACHNER-A question and a comment. My comment is, there are a number of people here that are in support of the Marina and the application, and I think at least some of those people are prepared to speak in support of the appeal, but what I'll do is sort of ask them to express their support for the appeal, and if they're going to talk about the variance, do that later on. Does that make sense to this Board? . MR. TURNER-Yes. That's fine. MR. SCHACHNER-And then the only other thing is, at whatever time you'd like, I will certainly submit the other letters. MR. TURNER-Are yoU prepared to bring them forward at this time? MR. SCHACHNER-It's up to them, but I think Mr. Henderson wants to speak, and I think there are some others. I would encourage them to do so. BILL HEI\1DERSON MR. HENDERSON-Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Henderson, and my dad started what is now the Mooring Post, back in 1906. It was in our family until we sold it to Al Poland and Stan Grieves in 1971, and some people have questioned whether the Polands -- 21 -- -- actually ran a quick launch, and I talked to Al Poland's son-in- law. John Shahay, and he said they ran it. They had 70 quick launch customers. So it dates back a long time on quick launch. Also, I'd like to point out some figures that we had for boat storage at the time. We stored on premises, including our boathouse, which used at the time, the big boathouse and a couple of others, 191 boats, and off premises, we stored another 38. We leased barns, one in Cleverdale and one down in Jenkinsville, to take boats out, but we did store, on premises, 191 boats, but we did not have quick launch. If the quick launch facilities had been available at the time, this was before zoning, we probably would still be in business, although I might have wanted to retire before now. I strongly feel that whatever John Brock does, it is going to improve the appearance of the old buildings that were torn down. It'll be much better looking, and I think, as far as the quick launch, it is awfully difficult to put in the water, on a given day, as many as 70 or 80 boats. It just, physically, becomes almost impossible. I don't think I have anything else to say, but I sure hope that you gentlemen feel within your powers to grant John Brock his variance. If not that, at least approve the alternate plan. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if anyone has any questions. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Henderson, when did you sell the Marina? MR. HENDERSON-1971. MR. CARVIN-And the buildings that are no longer there, that were torn down, are they the same buildings that you sold in '71, or have there been improvements? MR. HENDERSON-Yes. There's one building that Al Poland tore down, what we used to call Number One Building, which was on the Lake side of Cleverdale Road, and that was torn down. That was included in the figures for our storage, was that building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So there's been no additions, just one subtraction, since 1971? MR. HENDERSON-One to, I forget the tl'''le bui ldi ng. subtraction, and Al Poland actually added on number of the building on the plan, but it was MR. BROCK-Building One. MR. HENDERSON-On the back section of that building. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and that was prior to '83, '82? MR. HENDERSON-I don't know when he did it. I don't remember. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Fred, I think it might be an answer to your question. A Use Variance was applied for in 1973 for the Mooring Post Marina for 50 percent expansion, which was approved. That expansion was never fully realized, and basically one aspect of that expansion was what is now the configuration of Building One. Building One, at that time, was smaller, and with the approval of that Variance, it was expanded to its current size that it exists in today. There was, as part of that expansion, and Ted, I think, can recall also, was a construction of a new building across the street, on the lakeshore side. That was never accomplished. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that was in 1973. since then? So there's been nothing MR. MARTIN-Except for the application that was brought by Mr. - 22 - \,,-- -.../ Brock. I believe, in 1988, that was denied, for a project to build a new building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you, Jim. MR. TURNER-Thank you, Mr. Henderson. MR. HENDERSON-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard? JOHN SHAHAY MR. SHAHAY-Good evening. My name is John Shahay. I am the person that Bill Henderson spoke about, the son-in-law of Al Poland. I was employed at the Mooring Post Marina for my father- in-law from 1972 to 1985. I left the employment for two years, and returned in '88 to '91. I'd like to maybe clear up a few misconceptions. First of all, as far as the buildings that were torn down, they did house boats for winter storage. We did have an active quick launch program. We, at one point, I believe it was in 1984, we did quick launch 70 boats. I, physically, did that myself. I can vouch for that, and also that we did store, at one point, about 180 boats on the premises. As far as the buildings go, they were very small. They were not compatible to the boats that are built today, and I believe that that was one of the big reasons why Mr. Brock has proposed this change. I'm still into the boat business today, and I can vouch that the boats are not changing. The buildings are not compatible to the things of today, and in order for a business to thrive, I think you've got to do something. Whether or not this building is going to, I think, satisfy everybody around is hard to say, but I can say that he's probably going in the right direction. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? f~nYOne else? None? Okay. Thank you, John. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, and I'm here representing Dr. D. Srilling Wheeler, and Sara Wheeler. They have asked that I appear on their behalf. They live past this site, toward the end of Cleverdale, and must go by this site every day, when they're here, to get to their home, and they expect that emergency vehicles will also have to go by. They have a real concern about what's being proposed, and maybe just to give you a flavor, we can all talk statistics. We can all talk square footage and everything else, but you ought to see a couple of pictures before we begin. There's three small pictures, if you will, and they are of the buildings that were recently removed. Our understanding of those buildings is that, at the very peak, they were 22 to 24 feet high from the ground. They were old sheds. At one time, I understand, they were used as stables for people who have had homes on Cleverdale, before Mr. Henderson began using them for boat storage. Many of those sheds had dirt floors, at least in some of the information that we had. We also have some comparison pictures to the building that's proposed, and this is an actual building of the actual size which is unusual. This is the quick launch building that is constructed and, in that picture is a picture and placard of Dr. Evans standing by the doorway, just to give you an idea of the proportion of what we're talking about. Also, there is a long, narrow picture there, I believe, which shows Dr. Evans standing next to a telephone pole which measures about the height of the building that's proposed. Many times you're asked to make technical interpretations. I think, also, you're asked, in this instance, as in others, to look at the intent of the Ordinance, all the purposes clauses of the Ordinance, and if you think those 22 to 24 foot buildings are the same as that 34 foot high building with its broad width are the same, then I really don't understand your idea of what is the same, and what is not an -, 2:3 -- --"" enlargement, what is not an expansion. The appeal, as I understand it, revoked the original building permit, and there was an issuance of a Stop Work permit. That starts a whole new ballgame on the question of the appeal. I heard some discussion about what expenses have been made, what has been done, but I think you now have counsel, and counsel will tell you that what I.oJe're tal ki ng about, at this poi nt of the eveni ng, is simply, \'Jas Mr. Martin right or wrong in making the determination on November 2nd. What happened to the people because of that decision is not part of your decision as to whether or not he was right or wrong. There are some points that I will try and touch on, and I will try and touch on them briefly, if I can. We talk about a new footprint. Unfortunately, we don't have an overlay of the buildings that are proposed on the November 2nd determination, but if you take a look at them here, these are the buildings that are proposed. These are the buildings that are being compared to. There's no building here, no building there, no building there, and no building there. That's the major significant change. You now are putting buildings where you did not have buildings. If you look at Section 179-83, I think you're talking about structures which violate area regulations may be reconstructed only if destroyed by nature or uncontrollable forces. It's a unique argument that Mark has made this evening about the type of unforeseen circumstances, but the intent of that Section clearly, and the intent of the Zoning language to that effect has nothing to do with whether or not somebody makes a determination that is in error, in issuance of the permit. I think the landmark case is a case in the City of New York where a building permit was issued. Somebody constructed 12 stories on the top of a skyscraper, and it was found that the building permit was incorrect, and they told him to take the 12 stories off the top of the skyscraper. The new buildings represent an enlargement because the old buildings did not permit stacking. If you take a look at the peaks in those pictures, you're talking 22 to 24 feet. It's hard to imagine, in any of those buildings, stacking of boats, maybe canoes, maybe rowboats. If you get into outboard motors or outboard craft, it's hard to imagine how they were doing it or how they did do it. I don't believe that they did do it, although I understand that they actually used all four square corners of each building. The actual area is greater. I'm not sure where everybody has come up with their map, but there's a history on this property, beginning with a survey and a zoning application that went with that, back in 1973, and unless the buildings grew, and we just heard Mr. Henderson say he knew of no addition except for Building One, and we heard Mr. Poland's son-in-law say he knew of no addition, I believe, except for Building One. Unless the buildings grew since the survey of 1973, something is afoul here. I've got the 1973 application with me, and using that survey, it's my understanding that the buildings being removed equal 21,517 square feet, on this proposal, the buildings that were within the commercial zone and the commercial use lots. The proposed building, I think was admittedly, 24,872 square feet. The new building, if you use the least argumentative comparison and just the ground floor square footage, is 16 percent greater in square foot. Building Three, which is this building in the back, in 1973, was shown as being 30 by 96 feet. In 1988, somehow it grew to 30 by 98 feet, and that's a separate application that was before another Zoning Board of Appeals. I think Mr. Turner's the only member of that 1988 Zoning Board of Appeals, when there was an application to build a similar type building as is proposed tonight, that was denied by that Clost word) Zoning Board of Appeals. Building Number Four, 1973, was 43 feet by 92 feet, or 3956 feet. Somehow, again, it grew from 43 by 90, to 92 by 44. The next Building, Building Four, was again 3956 feet. It grew again a little bit. Building Six is 2576 feet. It was 28 by 92. That building was identical, in the later submissions, and even this submission, the calculation. It's the only building that stayed exactly the same. Building Seven, which is this building here, was 42 feet by 132 feet, for 5544 feet. They show it as 132 by, - 24 - ....-' '--"" they show 5800 feet, a difference of 300 feet. Building Number Ten, which is a frame garage, we show, by the calculations in 1973, 391 feet, which is, they show as 452 feet. I think somebody has to make some measurements and find out why they're different than they were in 1973. Now I guess lA or lB, which is this building here, we have that as 27 by 82, for 2214 feet. Now they talk about removal of, this would be six buildings in full, a portion of this building here, and apparently they're talking about removal of some of these buildings up here, and asking the Board to consider that as part of the square footage, but one of the points that we have is that in 1988, it was determined that the northeast corner of this lot was residential. It was single family residential. We even have a letter that somebody sent on Mr. B~ock's behalf in 1987 acknowledging that that could not be included in the Marina property. Part of the whole problem here is if you look at the submittal, and you talk about 2.436 acres. ThatJs not all used for residential. It wasn't used for residential when the application was before the Board in 1988. No variances have been granted since then. There's been no change of zoning since then. So I don't know how it all of a sudden becomes commercial, how it becomes part of the variance application. You even look at the new application. They talk, then, about three acres. I'm not sure where they're coming from, but what has been presented is misleading at best. There was another whole scenario of figures that were submitted which had the buildings measured by eaves, which was not really discovered until a comment was made on that, why are you going to building eaves. There's also a change, and I'll get to this in a minute, that when you have a substitute building, there are plenty of provisions within the Ordinance that says it must conform to the setback requirements. Here yoU have a property that fronts on two roads. Section 179-30.1 says that each road shall be considered a front yard. That's a 30 foot setback. It's not a rear yard. It should not be considered a rear yard. You also have a provision, here, when you talk about new buildings, substitute buildings. One principal building is allowed for everyone acre. I think you have, probably proposed on the November 2nd application at least four principal buildings, again, without variance, but, again, a reason for the requirement of a variance, which is what this first argument is about, was Mr. Martin correct in saying they needed variances? If you look at the tax map, we have that. I also have, I have the 1973 map here. We've got the building that's indicated. We've got the actually sizes of the building, and I will submit that to the Board, and I'll submit it to Mr. Schachner. He can look at it. If you take a look at the tax map, this parcel is broken up into four different parcels, or three different parcels within Cleverdale Road and Mason Road. They are Parcel 13-2-21, which I believe is the Marina, and Parcels 20 and 19, which are the single family residences. That, in 1988, was determined to be single family. It's included in this proposal here as being part of the Marina. I'll give you a copy of the tax map so you can take a look at that. The question also even, I'm curious as to why, in the notice for the appeal, all the parcels were not noted. I would think that this would affect all of the tax map parcels. If you look at the proposal that's put forth, they also are talking about parcels that are on the east of Cleverdale Road. Those parcels were not all noted by tax map number in the Notice of Appeal either. One of those, I believe, is the applicant's residence, and one of v,¡hich is used partially, or used within the Marina operation. The square footage of the residential lot which has, and as I understand is used as residential, is included. That's included in the comparisons that are made, as to what is the permeable soil, or portion of the premises with the buildings and without the buildings. The same thing as the residential lots that are to the west of Cleverdale Road are also included in those calculations, if I understand Mr. Martin's memo of the square footage and whatnot. The other area that I think he was correct, and he didn't necessarily have to specify, I don't think, every reason for -- 25 .~- '-"' which a variance should have been applied for, and this Board certainly can agree, disagree, or can add reasons for variances to what was found, but as I understand our Ordinance, in addition to the one principal building allowed for everyone acre, there's a requirement of a parking space for each one and a half boats stored. In past experience, we've talked about the capacity at the docks, and the capacity upland. Now we've heard figures all over the ballpark so far, as to what the present usage is there, and I'll get to that in a little bit, but if you take even their most conservative figures that they're putting forth, you take the 500 feet that they pay for dockage and divide it by 25 feet, there's no place, you'd have to stack the cars on top of each other to park them on this site. This is, in part, a legal question and in part a factual question. You have to determine, as to the appeal, what can be done as of right, just by permit and without a variance. You begin with Section 179-128, and that provides that except as hereafter provided, no building or structure or land shall hereafter be used or occupied and no building or structures or part thereof shall be erected, moved or altered unless in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is to be located, and remember I said or altered. They acknowledged that they're altering one of the nonconforming buildings by structurally detaching a portion of it. Section 179-16, Waterfront Residential, which is the district that we're talking about, does not, as of right, permit a Marina. It does not, as of right, permit a Marina as an accessory use or under Site Plan Review. 179-12C(3), and I'll be honest with you, folks, I spent half the weekend reading this Ordinance. I come here often, but by trying to go through, I don't mean to confuse you, but trying to go through and relate to the various sections, (lost word) what is applicable and what isn't applicable, if you read most of that Ordinance, you have a real oddity here, when you have a nonconforming use in a residential neighborhood. The Section I just quoted talks about nonpermissible uses. Any use which is not a permissible use by right or by site plan review in a given zoning district, or which is not an accessory use to such a permissible use or site plan review, shall be a nonpermissible use, and shall be deemed prohibited in that zoning district. So, if you have no right to have a Marina as of right, it has a right to exist only if it were a nonconforming use, and I acknowledge and the neighbors acknowledge that the Mooring Post is a nonconforming use, a Marina, and thus it does exist as it was, as of right. However, you have to look at the Ordinance. That's not a carte blanche right to do whatever you want on that property, as though you were fully zoned for that particular use. It's limited. It must be in compliance with Section 179-79. That's the whole gist of the appeal. You probably can read two paragraphs of 179-79 and decide whether or not you think Jim Martin is correct. 179-79 provides a nonconforming structure or use or a structure containing a nonconforming use may be contingent. That's not an issue, and maintained in reasonable repair. Again, that's not an issue, but may not be enlarged or extended. When they say enlarged or extended, they don't say whether it's horizontal or vertical, and how we come to this concept that it has to be horizontal, although I think it is horizontal, I'm not sure. I think it applies to either an enlargement vertically or horizontally. The Section allows some change, and it says, nonconforming uses may not be changed except as follows: A, Single Family dwellings. We're not talking about that. Band C really are also not applicable. D, except as cited in Subsection A, which was single family residences, any nonconforming use may be increased only by variance granted by the Z8A. That is what gives you absolutely control. Increase, you've got 16 different ways that this is in some way increased, and I think that is what brings you back to the decision that they do need a variance. Actually, I think you've got an increase in the square footage and, intentionally, I think, if you take a look at the pictures. Tell me that's the same thing. That's the purpose sections of our Ordinance. Existing - 26 - ',,--- -.../ structures which violate only the area requirement may be enlarged, that's another provision of the Ordinance, but it says, which violate only the area requirement. Those structures violate the use requirement because of what they're used for, as well as the area requirements of the Ordinance. Look at 179-79, F says, site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for any enlargement or extension. We use, interchangeably, different words, but we use the word enlargement with extension. sometimes we use just extension. Any is used in front of the word enlargement. Again, it doesn't limit itself to just horizontal enlargement, I think, in []lZ. interpretation of it. The Town Board, by its resolution on 10/21 said the proposal was an enlargement or extension, and pursuant to 179-79 F., at the very least, needed to be reviewed by the Planning Board. I think those minutes are available as part of your packet that you have. The point I make is that, at the very least, this has to be considered an enlargement or an extension which is prohibited without a variance, but another point that I make, which I think is just as relevant, is they have admitted that the preexisting buildings have been torn down, and that the applicant wishes to erect new buildings as substitutes. Nowhere in the nonconforming Section does it say you can substitute. It says you can maintain. It says you can repair. It doesn't say you can substitute, and I think that that is a clear distinction. If you go back to the beginning Ordinance that we had in 1967 through (lost word) and you look at all the nonconforming Sections, there's been a change. Thera's been an evolution. I think people have been burned with this very exact thing. In a commercial, there is no right to substitute buildings as of right. It's a distinction from what you have commonly seen as the single family residences on lake frontage property, where there is even a square footago provision for expansion that's given. Section 179-128(1), as I said, permitted new buildings must be in compliance with this district, and that's what you've got. You've got a new building here. Much has been said of the present circumstances of the applicant, and I hope that you would put aside what would be a natural tendency to sympathize with the applicant. Now I say this in fairness, I think, to the neighbors who are affected, as much as the applicant. Much of what exists here was self-created by the applicant. The property was owned and operated by the Henderson family until 1972. In 1972, the Polands took over, when zoning was then in effect. When the Polands purchased the property, it was a nonconforming use. In 1973, a Use Variance for 50 percent expansion was granted. Now this was under a different Ordinance, and you've got to go back and look at that Ordinance if somebody wants to make a comparison, but the language there said that any, not just residential, any nonconfoì-ming use 0," [::;.uilding or structure may be enlarged subject to Z8A. Not more than 50 percent of the floor area or the lot area, and that was taken out. This provided for expansion of nonconforming commercial buildings. The 1982 revision, the 1988 revision of our Ordinance, it's gone. There's got to be some intent. There's got to be some reason that the change was made, and if yOU go back to 1973 law, you will also see they had a kicker there. It said the enlargement may be used only once. This property as a nonconforming property has already had its bite out of the apple, if you will, and if the present owner used due diligence, and searched the past history of this property, I think it would have discovered that variance and its terms. In 1982, the Ordinance was revised. Their Article IX, I think it was 9.10, provided a nonconforming structure or a use, or a structure containing a nonconforming use may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair, but it may not be altered, enlarged, or extended, and if you look at "altered", we've got a definition of "altered". "Altered" says even raising of height. It did provide that, except for single family, and they were getting into this, and I think this is the first step forward in this part of the legislation, that except for single family, any nonconforming use may be increased only by variance. Alteration is applied to a building or structure, -" 27 - means a change or rearranging of the structural part or an enlargement of or relocation. The applicant purchased the property in 1985 and should have, with due diligence, discovered the above. In 1988, an Area Variance, Area Variance 1401, and Use Variance 1402, by this applicant, was submitted for variances to do principally what he is thinking that he now has the right to do, as of right, an admission on his part that variances were required. Those variances were turned down. There he wished to build one building, 163 feet by 205 feet, and the only difference here is that there's a small alleyway between the two buildings. If you'll notice, the flow is the same. If you pushed those two buildings closer together by 10 feet, you'd have one large building as opposed to two buildings. If you look at the minutes of 1988, I think you will get a good idea of whether or not there has been an expansion of this property. I think that's an important part, because there the present applicant made many statements as to this use, and I think that's factually an issue before the Board, as to whether or not there's expansion, unless you're just going to go on the dimensional requirements, the inclusion of the residential lots that weren't included before. You want to get into the actual use as it was then in existence. The ZBA, which was Chaired by Mr. Turner, and Paul Dusek was the advisor, voted unanimously for denial, concluding that the proposal is an overburden on the property and equals expansion. The same whole scenario that we have here tonight. If you take one look at what's there, in particular, they talk about parking 24 vehicles. Now they're talking about parking of 148 vehicles on one of these maps. I don't know how we grew without obtaining variances. Those are statements that Mr. Brock made at that time, with that particular application, and in a general sense, back to, again, the issue of sympathy. There's a statement in Anderson, the Section 633, or 639, Page 269. Nothing is added to the owner's right to alter his nonconforming building by an illegal issued permit to remodel in excess of the limits imposed by the Ordinance. Even a large expenditure on the faith of an illegally issued permit does not gain, for the nonconforming user, a right to an occupancy. What we're talking about here is not simply an increase in volume. We're talking about a shift of business purpose, which is kind of (lost word). We're talking about a change in facilities to accommodate the shift. If he changed from the winter storage that he had in the past, or Henderson had in the past, to quick launch, without changing the facilities, I don't think (lost word) say anything about it. That's a natural evolution of business. but when you start changing your physical facilities to accomplish or to accommodate the actual change in business, that's when you get into whether or not a variance is required. In my map of the proposed, it's 24,872 square feet, versus 21,517 square feet. I also ask you to make a determination of what square footage to assess because of stacking. That's another issue. I understand that for the boat rack area, they are speaking of three levels for commercial, for, with stacking. For commercial buildings, in our Ordinance, the size is uniformly measured by gross leasable floor area, and I understand he's talking about leasing all three levels. We're not talking about just leasing out the first floor area. I really think that you have to take the stacking area and multiple that by three. Our Ordinance, when it speaks of maximum density for a commercial building, speaks in terms of one story buildings and multi story buildings. Floor area is defined in Section 179- 7, and again, I'll tell you I think I read this whole thing, but there for commercial or industrial, the total square area, total area in square feet, within the exterior walls of a building or structure, and when applicable, the sum total of all floor areas of this principal and accessory buildings or structures under single ownership are counted. It's not simply the ground floor. I don't know how we got into analyzing this building (lost word) stacking building for boats. I'm looking at just the ground floor area of the building. My calculations would give those two new buildings something like 74,000 square feet, if you accepted my premise, that you should look at it as a commercial building, - 28 - '-- -../ you should look at what they are benefitting from, as far as use. The idea of measurement of the building was to find out what impact it had upon the land, what impact it had upon the neighborhood. If they're renting out space for one level, it certainly is going to generate less cars, less trips. If they have three stacks in there, it's a different impact. I don't think you can look upon this building as being a simple single floor residential house, if you say what's the area within the exteriors of the building. You have to remember and look at those pictures again. what was removed were the one story buildings. We tried to allocate space in those buildings, and I think we came up with approximately 92 boats, and that was being generous as to square footage. In this building here, I think you're talking 144 boats, and you're talking about an additional 24 boats in the wing area. So you're talking about a total of 168 boats, as opposed to 92 boats. When you look at parking requirements. you talk about the horizontal area within the exterior walls of several floors. This Ordinance it talks about commercial property, it doesn't talk about just this square footage, and I remember, I think we were before this Board often, some of the members of the Board, with the Docksider application. There we talked about the total square footage. We talked about all uses within the building. We didn't simply use a square footage and run around the outside of the building. We brought that building into compliance with parking requirements because we were seeking to obtain Site Plan Review and variance in a Critically Environmental Sensitive Area, which this is. Maybe I should have mentioned that earlier on. This whole Point is designated Critically Environmentally Sensitive, and you get away from the issue of, was he correct in asking for a Use Variance, I'll sum up quickly just the Area Variance requirements. 179- 76C, development of any nonconforming lots of record existing outside of subdivisions shall comply with setback requirements of this Chapter unless the ZBA grants a variance, and here you're talking a minimum of 20 feet on the Mason Road side. Some of the other requirements, you're talking 65 percent permeability. I don't think you have it. Section E of that provision, development of nonconforming lots in a Critical Environmental Area and/or park shall be in accordance with the minimum setbacks, permeability. It repeats it all again. Section 179- 67(1)[b], Accessory Structures, if somebody claims these not to be the main buildings and they're just accessory structures, if you're in excess of 300 feet, it's a principal building if it's commercial. Accessory structures must comply with setback requirements applicable to the principal buildings. Section 179- 72, Buffer Areas. Now that was an issue in 1988. I haven't heard anybody mention it here tonight. This is a commercial use adjoined, and I think surrounded on all three sides, by residential. That requires a 50 foot buffer. If you actually drew a map. and you look at the envelope that's created when you go 50 feet around the northerly end of this property, you're going to find that there isn't a great deal left. This was a 1971 survey which shows the perimeter of the property. It shows some of the buildings. Some of the buildings aren't shown correctly, but I Just rough did, this is one inch equals fifty feet, and the buffer zone is fifty feet. I've just sketched in the buffer zone. The buildings that I put in there that are yellow are the buildings that I understand are being removed that were part of the Marina process, and not part of the residential process, just for education. The buffer area is an unpaved natural area without buildings designed to reduce the possibility of adverse impact on land and/or conflicts used between two or more areas. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects associated with the use of the property are permitted. Everybody has said we're not talking about extension or enlargement of existing buildings. We've got new buildings, and you go back to the other Section and say when you have new buildings, you come into compliance with your setback requirements. The buffer zone is one of those setback requirements. It's a super imposed setback for residential ...,. 2(? -- -' versus commercial. Principal buildings within the APA is 179-7 E, each commercial structure in excess of 300 square feet (lost word). You've got four being proposed here. 179-16 WR-l. The question I have, too, I guess, is I'm not sure what the (lost word), but even if you look at the applications, and Mr. Schachner has asked you to look at the application as part of the appeal, to say maybe you would modify his determination to go in accordance with the applications that are submitted, but the applications are confusing, in that there you're talking about two to three acres, or something like that. What's on this side of the road, which you have in front of you, is at best, according to the 1988 information, 1.96 acres. That's 13-2-21. That's that tax map. 13-2-19 and 13-2-20 are residential lots. They're not commercial. The question was asked to quick launch. We did a little study of some advertising that was done for the Marina. In fact, we've got all the advertising from '58 right up through the current. I don't think, and you can correct me as you go through it, I don't think that they started talking about a quick launch until 1987, some 20 years after the Ordinance, and quick launch is a lot different than storage for winter, which is what Mr. Henderson, in most part, did there. I think that's something you've got to consider, if you look at what you're actually doing here. You're facilitating quick launching by the change that you're doing, as opposed to continuing on the existing business. I'll submit these, I'll submit all the yellow pages. That's where we got all that information. One other thing that was interesting in the Ordinance, too, which you may want to consider, down the road, not necessarily, maybe on the question of the appeal or not, but if you look at the commercial residential zone, I think for aesthetics and maybe for fire safety, and maybe for other reasons, there's a requirement there that all commercial buildings have a minimum of 50 feet of separation, and there's no such thing right here. You've got almost a total wall, 34 feet high, that is going to be facing the neighborhood. Again, on quick launch, there's nothing on their permit, Mr. Thomas, from the Lake George Park Commission or the DEC prior to the Park Commission, with quick launching. In fact, there's a letter outstanding, I don't know if it's been answered, but there's a letter outstanding from the Lake George Park Commission to the applicant that says that there is no quick launching provided for in his permit. The permit is based upon two docks that do not have boats stored on it on a regular basis within 500 some feet. I think there's a separate charge, and I think other people have touched on that, for permits for quick launch. So there might even be a question of legality of some of the uses that are going on right now in that, it's going to be argued both ways. I mention it simply because, your counsel can either correct me or not, you do not get any nonconforming rights if you begin something illegally. If you begin something illegally, it's fine, but you have no preempted rights to continue that. The same thing as the fellow that had to take his 12 stories off of the building down in New York City. I've got with me, in full, the '88 Appeal, if you want to look at it. I've got the '73 Appeal, and I've got all that information, and whatever you would like, we will make available to you. There's a lot of side issues here. Thank you. Do you have any questions of me? MR. TURNER-Anyone? MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. BILL L.JETHERBEE MR. WETHERBEE-My name is Bill Wetherbee. My wife and I live on Mason Road in Cleverdale, and I'm going to follow, basically, the text of a letter which I had submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, because at the Town Board meeting on October 21, 1994, to review this matter, the Deputy Supervisor of the Town of Cueensbury who presided at the meeting stated "Just let me say .- 30 .- ---- this, Caroline, there's a slew of correspondence regarding this issue, and I'm not going to read it. I'm going to enter it into the record to include in your memo". So to make sure what my wife and I have to say, I will impose upon your time, although it is late, to read our letter. This is written to express our profound and unqualified objection and opposition to the proposed Capital Facilities Expansion projects advanced by the Mooring Post Marina of Cleverdale, New York. We understand that the applicant has submitted varied plans for consideration. Depending upon the direction of events at hearings scheduled for November 14th. Regardless of which plan might be the subject of study, the facts remain unaltered. These proposals would impose conditions and hardships which would be both destructive and irrevocable upon those of us who own property and reside in the vicinity of the Mooring Post. Our property and permanent year round residences are located virtually adjacent to the Mooring Post Marina. Separated from that business only by Mason Road, which I think most of you realize is about a 30 foot expanse. When we purchased our property over 30 years ago, we were well aware that a Marina business was in full operation in close proximity to us. We recognize and accept that reality today. However, an expansion of this business, of the scope and magnitude of that being proposed in this residential and Critical Environmentally Sensitive zone is both excessive and indefensible. Moreover, it serves to ignore and deny the legitimate concerns and rights of nearby property owners, including us. The level of business expansion which would result from this project is extraordinary. Section 179.79 of the Zoning law of the Town of Queensbury identifies both structure and use as determinant factors in limiting changes where an already nonconforming structure or use exists. The proposals to be considered on November 14th would occasion a most significant increase in both quick launch and off season storage service levels over those which heretofore have prevailed. This expansion will produce major growth in Marina business, services and activity. The need for substantially increased parking spaces in an already congested area. Sharply irrtensified traffic on an already overused roadway. An alarming increase in the storage of exceedingly volatile fuels on the site, both in the summer and in the winter, and even greater demands upon a location which the Town of Queensbury has already classified as a Critical Environmental Area. These outcomes clearly constitute both enlarged and extended use of this nonconforming business in a residential zone. In addition to these major increases in business and business related activity, we and our neighbors will be treated to massive expanses of sheet metal as a replacement for what, until now, had been views of the mountains to the east. As your examination of the applicants plans has revealed, the proposed structures will rise from a height of approximately 30 feet at the perimeter to a view proof elevation of 35 feet at the peak. Now demolished structures were 25 feet at their peak, and sloped to approximately 9 to 10 feet, notwithstanding the earlier comments of counsel for the applicant. The impact of this construction on both the aesthetic and monetary values of our property would be both dramatic and permanent. The exploitive nature of this proposal would deny us of a segment of that which we have committed our resources to maintain and preserve. We, hence, assert that there is no justification for the approval of this proposal, nor, more importantly, for the price which those impacted by it would be compelled to pay. Section 179.2 of Article I of the Town Zoning Code states that the purpose of the Town Zoning laws is to "protect the property values and aesthetics of the community by channelling and directing growth". The growth which the applicant proposes in these matters would emphatically and conclusively depreciate and devalue our property, as well as that of our neighbors in like circumstances. Just as we knew what the conditions of the Marina business near us were when we acquired our property, so, too, did the present owner of the Mooring Post. To alter these conditions to the degree proposed simply to accommodate the owners current plans to - 31 - -' expand his business would be totally unresponsive to those of us who live approximate to the Marina. If I may respond or comment further, I would be most willing to do so. Thank you for your consideration. I would like to raise two concurrent points. Number One, as Mr. Schachner correctly indicated, there will be many indications of numbers and capacities, and how much of this, and how much of that can be accommodated in the various sheds which have now been demolished. I hope you listen carefully to the testimony and the affidavit and to the two ex-employees and/or managers at the Mooring Post, and heard them consistently say "on the premises". They never indicated how many boats could be stored or served for quick launch out of the now demolished facilities. They always indicated "on the premises". In the case of Mr. Henderson, with all due respect, a very sizeable shed was razed some 25 or 30 years ago, and no longer exists on the premises. It was on the waterfront, or lake side of the road. Therefore, I hope you paid some attention to those comments. We do not believe, as long time residents, that the capacities for either quick launch QL storage equal the numbers that you eaì-lier heard. In that respect, if I could have just a moment, since everybody is throwing numbers and ideas around, I have prepared, here, which I will share with you in a moment, a rough schematic of one of the sheds drawn to scale. It happens to be the shed of which there was a twin. There were two of these sheds. These are the medium sheds of the five that have been demolished, and their square footage, using the expanded figures which more recently have been contrived by the applicant and his representatives, totals 44 by 92, or some 4,000 square feet. I have done exactly what Mr. Schachner suggested. I have taken Mr. Brock's medium proportions for a boat. I asked him what would reflect, to scale, the medium proportion of a boat. So I didn't make my own. He told me about 19 feet long, and he gave me the width. I designed a template, and I did exactly what the counsel to Mr. Brock suggested. I jammed the boats in there. I put them in so close, I will let you see this more closely, that it would be difficult to imagine how they could be so jammed. Once again, there were two sheds of exactly this size. Using Mr. Brock's own indication of what his medium boat size was, I got 18 vessels in this shed, lB. There was another shed exactly like this. That brings the number to 36. There were two sheds that were smaller, one shed that was larger. I think I would be generous, therefore, to multiple the 18 by 5, and arrive at 90. That's winter storage. Think about that in the terms of a quick launch operation, t.-¡hen you can't jam pack, by thei r own admission, such vessels into this kind of a facility. So once again I would return to the point. 1 think the pregnant and cogent point here is, how many boats could be stored in the now demolished facilities, not on the premises? Lastly, during the earlier portion of the appeal, counsel for the applicant made reference to destruction and area nonconformity, and if I understood him as I listened, he made continual reference to "uncontrollable circumstances" when referring to part 179-83. I may have an outdated and irrelevant copy of the Town of Queensbury's Zoning Regulations, but I cannot find, in either Subsection A or B, any reference to "uncontrollable circumstances". My reading of it simply says, "any structure which is nonconforming due to a setback violation or in the case of a multi family housing, due to a greater intensity than would be allowed by this Chapter, which is destroyed wholly or in part by fire, flood, wind, hurricane, tornado or other act beyond the control of man shall be allowed to reconstruct. I fail to see where uncontrollable circumstances thus becomes a valid consideration. Subsection B makes the same provision. Thank you for your time and your consideration. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Who wishes to be next? KATHY VILMAR MS. VILMAR-Hi. My name's Kathy Vilmar. I'm here representing -. 32 - ~ the Lake George Association. As Mr. O'Connor pointed out, the Town Zoning Ordinance has many sections that could be reasons why there needs to be Area Variances for the project. I also analyzed the Zoning Ordinance in the project and found many. The Ordinance is clear in defining this project, this Marina, as a commercial use. It's a legally preexisting nonconforming use. It's property that has on it preexisting nonconforming structures. The new proposal does meet the Zoning Ordinance's definition of expansion, which is any growth of activity which requires the enlargement of facilities, including buildings, and then it says parking spaces. In 1982, DEC issued a permit for the facility. In the application for the permit, in 1982, the applicant, Mr. Poland, wrote down that the Marina pr6vides 50 parking spaces on that site. The current proposal, the Area Variance, says that the applicant is providing 148 parking spaces on the site. The Lake George Park Commission application, found at the Lake George Park Commission Office, which is only for information only, it's not an application, says that there's 150 vehicl~ parking spaces and 25 boat/trailer spaces, for a total of 175 spaces. So there's two current information, one for 175 spaces, and one here before you for 148. That's clearly an expansion as defined in your Ordinance. The Ordinance is also clear in that structures that violate the area requirement, which does, the structures are preexisting and nonconforming are permitted to be enlarged, expanded and altered according to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, as long as the enlargement meets all area setbacks. Now, I don't want to repeat what Mr. O'Connor has said, but it's a good thing for everyone that the structures will be less nonconformingK Tf,e proposed setbacks 8'-8 less imposing, but they're still not there yet. They still do not meet what the Ordinance says they need to meet. Our research (lost word) DEC and the Lake George Park Commission, as I said earlier, there is no Lake George Park Commission permit for the Mooring Post at all. There is a 1981 or '82 DEC permit issued to Mr. Poland. I'm not speaking for the Park Commission. It's just what I found. His permit menti6ns no quick launching facility, and even if what Mr. Henderson says, there is 70 quick launch at the site, now the applicant says there's 140. The Lake George Park Commission Regulations say, "No permit shall be issued for the operation of a quick launch facility for which no permit was issued prior to the effect date of these Regulations", which was 1988. There is no valid permit. So the applicant would need a variance from the Lake George Park Commission for that quick l~unch, also. It's clear that the Town Board and Jim Martin, in their decision to revoke the building permit, did the right thing. People are human and they make mistakes, and the Town is acknowledging its mistake, and the LGA commends them for having the courage to correct it. I think everyone would like to see the Marina area and site cleaned up. I don't think there's anyone here in this room who objects to cleaning up the site, but everyone, no matter who it is, needs to follow the rules set up by the Town to protect this residential area, and to protect Lake George. So the LGA asks the Zoning Board to please follow the Zoning Ordinance, and require the applicants to get the proper permits. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Kroetz. KARL KROETZ MR. KROETZ-My name is Karl Kroetz of Cleverdale. I, too, have prepared a letter that I would like to read to you, but before I do, I'd like to say that I think Jim Martin is correct in revoking the permit. He simply wasn't given all of the information with the application. This letter is directed to Chairman Turner and the Zoning Board Members. "As a year round resident of Cleverdale for the past 28 years, I am opposed to the planned expansion of the Mooring Post Marina. The existing Marina is a nonconforming commercial use of property, consisting of nonconforming structures in a Waterfront Residential area. As - 33 - '--- -- such, it cannot be altered or enlarged except by variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now I was told, a little while ago by Mr. Schachner, that this might not get to the Zoning Board of Appeals, if this permit is re-enacted. That's why I thought I'd use all my ammunition now, because, if that's correct, we want to all say what we think before you vote. Now in the area of building areas and uses, a study of the building plan submitted with the application, now these are the plans with the original application, shows that two new buildings will have about 4,000 square feet, or 14 percent more area than the total square feet of the buildings demolished or to be demolished. However, this does not tell the whole story. Boat storage in the demolished building was only on ground level. Boat storage in the two new buildings is on three separate levels. Three boats stacked vertically, one above the other. When the three levels are taken into consideration, the boat storage area in the two new buildings now becomes 74 percent more than the total area of the demolished buildings. Now figures have been thrown around here, and everybody can talk. I did not give you the exact square feet. I can tell you that it was calculated by me separately. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to do this. Even an engineer like I can figure square foot areas. Somebody else did it completely separate from me, and came up with exactly the same figures. So I'll repeat to you, again, what I found out after careful examination. When the three levels are taken into consideration, the boat storage area in the two new buildings now becomes 74 percent more than the total area of the demolished buildings. If you don't take into consideration the three buildings, or the three tiering, folks, it already was 14 percent more, but when you consider the tiering, it's 74 percent more storage area. This means that the new building can store 144 boats for both winter storage and quick launch service in the winter. Now, listen to this. This does not even take into consideration the 50 foot wide by 110 feet long vacant access aisle in the center of each building. This is a big area. Fifty-five feet by one hundred and ten feet wide is inside the center of each of these buildings. This large area in each building could also be used to storage a large number of additional boats for winter storage. Building appearance. Each of the two new storage buildings are 110 feet long by 102 feet wide, and 34 foot 6 inches high, and are positioned parallel to Mason Road. This results in an unattractive wall, 34 foot 6 inches high, and more than 200 foot long for the residents of Mason Road to look at. Sewage facilities. The expansion of winter storage, and especially quick launch storage will attract more people to use the Marina. This will lead to an increased demand on the present sewage facilities. Are they adequate even now, and will they be able to handle the increased load in the future? Stormwater runoff. The large roof area of these buildings also create a concentration of stormwater runoff that did not exist before. It is therefore very important that adequate stormwater control also be made an important consideration for any building on this property, in order to prevent further stormwater pollution in this already sensitive Waterfront Residential area. Lake pollution. The Mooring Post Marina is located in the southern part of Sandy Bay which is a Critical Environmental Area. The proposed expansion of the Marina will significantly increase the number of boats launched, which will have a detrimental effect on the water quality of the lake and to the residential area. I respectfully ask that you carefully consider my comments, and that you will not grant variances which permit the expansion of the Mooring Post Marina to occur. That concludes my letter. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any, for Mr. Kroetz? None? MR. KROETZ-I'll give you copies of the letter. ~lIKE SMITH - 34 - '~ --/' MR. SMITH-I'm Mike Smith. I don't know whether the project 1S good or bad. All I'd like to say is this, first of all, Mr. Brock, nobody's given him a chance to actually really totally speak. He already has said that he only wants to do a certain number of quick launches. Second of all, relative to the gal from the APA that says that we don't have permits, or he doesn't have a permit from the Park Commission, they don't mind taking a heck of a lot of money from us. It's their responsibility, the Department of Environmental Conservation, to issue the permits from the Park Commission, and if they did not do that, it was an en-Oì· on their paì-t, not Q1!.L paì-t. l,Je've follOl'Jed up. We'\le qone to the meetings. We've talked to these people on several ;ccasions and I think there's a few gentlemen here tonight that have the gift of the silver tongue, make some very good points, but they're smoking up a lot of numbers. I think if you give Mr. Brock a chance to at least explain to you the numbers that he wants to do, they're the same numbers that he did in the late 80's, before things started falling off. There's nothing different. Also, we also ought to think about, you know, we keep building these bigger and bigger houses on Cleverdale. Everybody complains about them. Nobody does anything about them. We've got one across the street from the Mooring Post that is five times the size bf what it originally was. Now I ride my bicycle on Cleverdale. It offends me that I can't see the lake, because I go down past this house, I can't see the lake from my bicycle. I think that's blocking a heck of a lot more view than what the Mooring Post is like. JACK CUSHING MR. CUSHING-Good evening. My name is Jack Cushing, and I have a home on Cleverdale on Mason Road, which is past the Mooring Post, and I have to, every time I go there, either go by the Mooring Post on the main road, on Cleverdale Road, I'll go by it on Mason Road. Cleverdale is, as has been mentioned before this evening, an extremely environmentally sensitive area, and it's getting more so every single year, and as we look what's going on at the lake, people in the Town should be concerned with, and many times they are not, with several very, very important things. First of all, the sewers and the discharge to the lake. Secondly, the stormwater drainage to the lake. Thirdly, new construction that cuts down tremendously on the permeability so that the water runoff creates floods in that area. Whenever we get a heavy rain, there is flooding in the area of Cleverdale. Overly large construction that blocks the view of both the mountains and the lake, and the crowds that come into the area, more people and more congestion. With more construction and expansions of existing businesses, this means that more vehicles are going to enter Cleverdale, and with Cleverdale having only two main streets, they absolutely cannot handle this increased traffic. Now some Town Officials do not seem to be very concerned about these problems, and if they and this Board are not visionary about this area of Queensbury, and I'm speaking about Assembly Point and Cleverdale, we're soon going to have an area that is undesirable and detrimental to an environmentally sensitive area, and I say. don't let it happen. Because we, ourselves, living there in Cleverdale were the victims of a new building next to ur Cleverdale property this past year, which we feel has not been addressed properly. as far as use is concerned, we are opposed to any construction in North Queensbury, and that includes, again, Cleverdale and Assembly Point, in that area that expands upon a preexisting business or use, and that, in addition, will cause more congestion, and that will lessen the permeability of the area, and will also have the cause and effect on noise and public safety. We ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the rules in Cleverdale and in that particular area of Queensbury, because it is environmentally sensitive, evenly, fairly, and with the spirit that our zoning and building rules cannot be taken lightly, but must be upheld. So, therefore, we oppose this appeal. Thank you. ~..- 3~) ~ - MR. TURNER-Anyone else? ROBERT EVANS DR. EVANS-Mr. Turner, Members of the Board, my name is Robert Evans, and I'm a neighbor immediately adjacent to the Mooring Post. I represent myself and also a number of immediate neighbors. We are universally opposed to this project, and there are signatures of people most affected that are certainly here tonight and are opposed to the project. I've been a resident. and I've been to the Zoning Board myself many times, and YOU'v~ been tough but fair to me, and I ask you to be tough and fair tonight. We're residents, certainly, of Cleverdale. We love it. We pay a lot to be there, and we want to preserve it. In the winter there are, perhaps, hundreds of people. In the summer, there are thousands. My presentation is not a personal affront on John Brock. It's just the plans were unacceptable to the neighborhood. If John were to rebuild his buildings or modify them, we could all go home right now. We're willing to compromise, but we're not willing to accept these giant warehouses and his business expansion. John, you've divided the neighborhood. You've created a civil war. The people that drive by from the San Souci look at it quickly. We have to live with it, 35 feet of metal in our back yard. The neighbors on the property, again, we're universally opposed to this expansion. You were defeated in '88, and you've blitz krieged this through the Town and through the neighborhood. All summer long, you lobbied to different neighbors showing them different plans to different neighbors, different things. We had no idea what you were doing. We respect Jim in regards to revoking the permit and call on his decision. We feel that there's quite a bit of misinformation on those applications that really needs to be looked at. We do have information that John actually paid for and purchased the building in Boca Raton Florida well before he was ever issued a permit. Yet he's created his own hardship. He's ordered the buildings well in advance of the application and permit being produced. He really has nothing to hold over the Town, in regard to his application and the permit. He's created his own problem. It's a problem that we in the community feel, and you as the Town should not bear. It's not fair, and it's unacceptable. Mark Schachner is a good lawyer. He usually rides both sides of the fence. That's the sign of a good lawyer. He can counsel the citizens of Lake Placid (lost word) Walmart to size and magnitude and aesthetics, and yet he can put a Walmart in our back yard, ramming it through the development committee. However, we're here to stand against it. We do not want a walmart in our back yard. Cleverdale is an aesthetically beautiful community who's property values, traffic congestion, parking, emergency vehicle access and congestion of Sandy Bay are definitely in question. Sandy Bay in the summer, if you've ever been up there on the weekend, is wall to wall boats. Do we need more boats there and more congestion? Absolutely not. We need to slow this project down and take it out of the fast track, which it's been on. We have to look at it. It should go through SEQRA. We need to look the environmental impacts, many of which you've heard tonight. There are many questions which need to be answered here, which have been smoke screened. I'm very concerned in regard to the fact that Mark Schachner is an employee of the Town and he's working for Mr. Brock, and there are possibilities of litigation here, I'm sure, in the future. I feel it's a conflict of interest, and I feel that, in terms of his Code of Ethics, it needs to be looked at. It's a point that you at least, as a Board and the Town should be considerate of. We are very concerned that aesthetics and preserving our environment, and certainly the nature of the community we have, we don't feel that we need to support an expansion of a project like this. I thank you for listening, and I would like you to vote tonight as if you were to have three and a half stories of met.al goi ng up in your back yard, and feel the way we are, as immediate adjacent neighbors to this. Thanks for your - 36 - "'-- --" consideration. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? MR. HENDERSON-Thank you. I have a couple of things that I wanted to bring out. One was that we stored a number of boats outside, between the buildings and behind the buildings, in front of the buildings, and on the piece of property that is zoned residential. Now this was back, we didn't do it all the time, but we had, on the average, about a dozen boats outside in the winter time, and somebody made the remal-k that the buildings were used for some other purpose before we used them for boat storage. We built the buildings. My dad built most of the buildings. I built two of them, and they were never used for anything, except one building one summer was used as a grocery store, and other than that, they've always been boat storage. I think that covers what I wanted to say. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Henderson, we have a question. boats do you have there during the summer? HO!;J ma ny MR. HENDERSON-In the summer? We didn't have quick launch. The Mooring Post, after we sold the business in '71, Al Poland put in a quick launch. I'm not sure what year, '72 or '73, and he had as many as 70 boats on the quick launch. MR. CARVIN-You made a comment, there, that boat storage was about 191, with about 38 off premises. MR. HENDERSON-Yes. We rented what is now, well, it's the barn that used to be a shore acres. It's still on the property, a shore acres, and we rented Casabianca and we rented some of our neighbors garages, and we rented the barn in Jenkinsville, and that turned out to be too far away to work out. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Of the 191 boats, now I'm assuming that all of these were stored on this particular site. MR. HENDERSON-Some were stored in the boathouses down in front. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How many were in the boathouses, approximately? MR. HENDERSON-I think there were 18, in total. MR. CARVIN-In the boathouses? MR. HENDERSON-We had one large boathouse, two smaller ones, and another medium size one, and another one which was torn down when we changed our dockage, but the total is about 18 boats. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the balance were all outside? MR. HENDERSON-No. We had, I had one on Buildings Four and Five, which Bill Wetherbee brought up. It would only hold 18 boats. We stored every year almost 24 boats in each of those buildings. MR. CARVIN-So that's approximately 120, five buildings, six buildings. MR. HENDERSON-Number One Building, which is the building which we tore down, or the Polands tore down, we stored nine. Now the Number One Building on the maps you might have, we call Number Eight Building, and we had 12 boats in that. Number Two building which is going to come down, we stored 12 boats, Number Three, 20, Number FOU1- ,and Five 24 eac;h. Number Six, 9; Number Seven, which is the longest building, 36; Number Eight, which was the building the showroom was in, we stored 12. We double decked boats in the back of that building, too, by the way. We had two tiers of four boats each, and outside we had about a dozen and we have five in the garages that we had, and the boathouses 18, a ~. 37 ~. -" total of 191, and off premises we had 38, but those boats all went on Lake George. I don't remember whether we stored them or they had them somewhere else. MR. TURNER-I think I missed one. because I got 142. MR. O'CONNOR-You say 113 plus nine. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to ask, I don't think it's appropriate, at this time, for Mr. O'Connor to be asking questions directly of the commentor. If the Board wishes to, that's fine. I have nothing to do with this commentor. I've never met him before tonight. MR. TURNER-Okay. you. You're remarks are respected. Okay. Thank LILLIAN ADAMSON MRS. ADAMSON-My name is Lillian Adamson. I live on Assembly Point. I'm a lakeshore owner, not Cleverdale, but Assembly Point. Mr. Cushing did bring up, too, the fact that all of us on the lake are concerned. One of the things that I wanted to mention, I know there's always a lot of concern for a hardship for a particular person, and Mr. Brock might be able to claim a hardship because he does have a difficult situation here, but one of the things that I like to point out is that there's a lot of hardship involved for the families who live around there, too, and the fact that the Town may have made a mistake in first granting the permit, I don't know, but if it were to be said that they made the mistake, and therefore Mr. Brock should be allowed to do this, I don't think that's right. I think that once a mistake has been made, we don't simply make another mistake. We correct it, and we go on from there, and we recognize the rights of all the people who would be hurt if this were allowed to go ahead as it is. I think that the concerns of many people take precedence over the rights of one person, and this is something that I hope that the whole Board will consider. We like to recognize all the growth that goes on on the lake, and it is a concern for all of us. The large homes that are a concern for all of us, and the hope is that this \¡-Jill be something that v.Jill be taken into account in the future, too, I'm sure it's something that this Board has to listen to. I've haven't been coming to these meetings in a long time, but I used to follow them fairly closely, and I remember attending one, some number of years ago, where simply because the Town had made a mistake and it was felt that it was a hardship to the person involved, and he had expended money, therefore, they would just simply have to give him the right to do what it was that he had proposed to do, and I think that was a big mistake at that time, and I think it should be recognized as a mistake, and I hope that you don't repeat a mistake of that magnitude again. Thank you. MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN MS. MERRIGAN-My name is Mary Ellen Merrigan. I live, not out on the Cleverdale peninsula, but on Seeley Road, next to the Castaway Marina, and I would like to point out that the inclusion of the residential lots in this diagram that's up here is not one that's received a great deal of focus there tonight, but I suspect that it's receiving a great deal of focus by the owners of the other Marinas. I don't know if you're aware that the Castaway Marina has been able to purchase the two residential lots that border it. I don't know what their plans are, but I think that their plans will be affected by how you respond to the residential lots that are included here, and I ask you to consider that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? - 38 - '- ---- CHERYL E'v'ANS ~1RS. EVANS-MY name is Cher y 1 Evans. I 1. i ve right acr ass the street from the Mooring Post on Mason Road. We basically just got these plans as of Monday. We really didn't know too much about the project before the first Stop Work Order. We basically found out, we carne home on the 17th, on Monday, and found these buildings being demolished. We talked to Jim and were wondering what was going on. We didn't hear what was going on, and basically the point I want to make is, here's a map of Cleverdale. It's like a finger. It's broken up into two, and right now the green states the homes that are year round, and the yellow are the homes that people just basically have left since October. So you have a lot of people that aren't even in this area at this time. We just basically, you know, we're just informing people, as they've heard through the grapevine, they were wondering what was going on with this project. We tried to get them as much information about this project as we could. Not really telling them what to think, but just by giving them the numbers, they understood what was happening here, and I think the big thought, the thought in mind here is these buildings are massive. The volume is incredible. First, to start out, I would like to talk about the volume of these buildings. We are talking about 204 foot long building at a height of 34 feet, also 109 feet J,.Jide. That's a big building. I've done my research on these buildings, just to be fair. My first reaction to the size was they were big. I know a lot of people couldn't see this because it looks great on paper. The place was going to be neater. The boats were going to be placed inside the shed. I feel I was the only one able to visualize the size. So then I took a step further and I actually put myself side by side of this building, just to be fair and see if I could rationalize this building. The building that I showed you tonight is of a Command Performance up in Bolton Landing. I actually stood next to this building. Every time I went up there, it was just massive. You've seen the building already, just to get the feel of it. I put somebody actually by the building so you could get a feel for the height. That's basically what I just wanted to point out, just the volume of the building. We're not objecting to his business in any way. It's just the building that just doesn't work in Cleverdale. It's just too big. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EVANS-I also have a petition here for just the immediate people in Cleverdale around the Mooring Post. MR. TURNER-Okay. Would you give it to the recording Secretary. Anyone else wish to speak for the first time? ELIZABETH WARD MRS. WARD-I'm Elizabeth Ward, and I'm a property owner on Cleverdale, further out on the point, beyond the Mooring Post. My question or concern centers on the fact that in 1988 Mr. Brock put forth a proposal very similar to the one that we're looking at tonight. At that time, there were public hearings. You heard from many of the residents of Cleverdale and surrounding areas. I feel, therefore, that this definitely is something that, at this point, should have a public hearing and should, the thing that we're talking about now, the issue of whether the permit should have been rescinded. I'm very supportive of that, and I think you should give people, and not only people who are there year round, but people who live further away. I came up from Albany tonight to attend this meeting. There are a lot of people who live around the lake during the summer months, who can't get here on short notice, and who are having no input into this process at all, and I think that therefore there should be more public hearings on this before anything is approved. Thank you. -. 39 -. - MR. TURNER-Anyone else, the first time? Okay. Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not comment before when I was up here on the affidavits or the information that has been submitted to you this evening. I have not seen that, so I don't know the contents of it, but I don't want it to appear on the record as though I had gone without comment on whatever was submitted to you. I have no idea what's in those affidavits. I do have, for your record, a copy of a letter dated May 18, 1987 from the Mooring Post Marina to a customer, telling people that they had to get off what was just referred to as the residential lots, and that they could no longer be used as part of the Marina proposition. I also have a copy of a letter of the Lake George Park Commission dated October 20, 1994 with regard to the question that has been raised as to the quick launch legitimacy of what you have before you. For information purposes, I also have a copy of the 1994 permit that was issued to the Mooring Post Marina by the Lake George Park Commission, and a copy of the 1993, and some place on here you're going to see, I was talking 500 feet. It actually shows 589 feet of dockage for berthing purposes, which you get into when you get into your calculations for parking. The other thing that I have in front of me is the Marina Permit that was issued in March of 1982, with the present zoning, in substance, in place for the permit that was issued to Mr. Roland who was then the owner, as I understand it, of the Mooring Post Marina, and there the description of the Marina was sale or rental of marine products and water craft, and accommodation for 25 boats. This is a statement submitted by the then owner under penalty of perjury. "I hereby affirm that the information provided on this form and all attachments submitted herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief". MR. TURNER-Mark, do you want to make some further statements in rebuttal? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, if everyone else has spoken. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me see if I can run through this kind of quickly. What I'm going to do is, roughly speaking, only respond to the comments that I think may have caused some concern among the Board members. If there are others that you want us to respond to, please ask, and I'm going to sort of do them roughly in reverse order. I think I can do most of them pretty quickly. The issue about the Lake George Park Commission or DEC permit, it's my understanding, based not only on my experience with the Mooring Post, but with other completely unrelated facilities, that the 1982 focus of that permit was what's in the water. Twenty-five boats is what's in the water. We've already heard from one prior owner of the Marina, as well as a prior employee of the Marina, and they obviously had way, way, way more boats stored in the buildings on the non lake parcel, and, obviously, the permit that was issued in '82 doesn't address that. In my experience, that's not unusual with DEC/Lake George Park Commission permits, and the reason I refer to them as DEC/Lake Ge01"ge Park Commission pe,"mits is because it's IJlL understanding that back in 1982, the Lake George Park Commission was, in essence, a part of DEC. Technically, that may still be true. I'm not sure if there are people here who know this better than I, in the back row, but the bottom line is, in 1982, it's my experience that it's very common for the permits to (lost word) on what was in the water, and that's my understanding of that issue. Obviously, Mr. Henderson has already testified to what was on land. We're not talking a difference of a boat or two. We're talking 25 being in the water, and all the rest of it being on shore, and it was not mentioned in the permit, as I mentioned earlier. There's been some confusion, actually there's been a heck of a lot of confusion thrown about here, and I'm going to try to clear up some of what I believe to be the confusing - 40 - \ "- --...-" issu.es. First, as to the "inclusion" of residential lots, there is absolutely no commercial use that's proposed as part of this application on any residentially used portion of the property, period. There is no commercial use proposed as a result of this application on any portion of the property that's not already beina used for commercial purposes. Some of what was outdoors in the -past, the area Mr. O'Connor referred to as between the buildings, 1S now proposed to be covered over and inside the buildings, but there is a concern expressed that, it would be a very legitimate concern if it were the case, that because we've described the property with its total acreage, that we're trying to push new commercial uses onto residential parts of the property. That's simply not the case. Some of the Town application forms and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act Environmental Assessment Form specifically ask you to put the total acreage of the property on, regardless of which part is being used for something. So that's a, it would be a valid, a very important concern, if it were fact0ally accurate. There is nothing like that happening here, no pushing a commercial use onto a residential part of the property. Mr. Evans made two very unusual comments, and I'll dismiss them very quickly. The first is, he credited me for being the attorney I,>Jho, I believe the vJOrd he used ~·Jas, rammed I,.Jalma'rt through the Town application process, and I feel compelled to give credit to where it's due. If anyone should be credited with that, unfortunately, it would be Mr. O'Connor, not me. Mr. O'Connor did a good job, regardless of what I think about Walmart. MR. O'CONNOR-I think were opposing (lost that. was speaking about Lake Placid word). Vou ought to also tell ~.Jher e you the Board MR. SCHACHNER-That's absolutely true. I don't see what the relevance of it is, and I can assume Mr. O'Connor is kidding with that comment, but that's absolutely true. I represent a group of people in Lake Placid opposed to a proposed Walmart. What that has to do with the issue at hand, I can't imagine. I think we've already given it too much time, and secondly, I in no way, shape, form or manner am an employee of the Town of Queensbury. Moving back to Mr. Cushing, he expressed some concerns about traffic and permeability. The fundamental premise of this application is that we are not increasing use of the property. Mr. Cushings' comments and concerns are well placed. We are increasing the use of the property, but we have specific, sworn representations from Mr. Brock. I'm about to submit a slew of letters from others, that indicate what the past use of the property has been, and you've heard Mr. Henderson's description of it, as well as Mr. Shahay's. Since we're not increasing the use of the property, we're not increasing traffic and we're not decreasing permeability. In fact, as is depicted in your application materials, we're increasing the permeability on this lake, because we're replacing the removed building with less square footage. Mr. Kroetz mentions a concern about stacking, and does some impossible arithmetic calculations. I thought I mentioned earlier, but perhaps I wasn't clear. The new buildings have huge drive lanes in the middle of them, so that, if you calculate the actual storage areas, and you don't include the drive lanes, and the drive lanes in the new buildings can really be analogized to the drive areas in the old plan, what Mr. O'Connor called the between the buildings, but now they're covered over, and they're part of the new buildings, but if you do the actual arithmetic, and yOU talk only about the storage area, then you've got storage areas and rack storage of under 15,000 square feet, in fact, under 14,000 square foot, in terms of the new buildings. 13,652 to be exact, and you've got old storage areas, the old buildings, of almost 25,000 square feet, 24,927 to be exact, and we heard Mr. Henderson's pretty good description of how jam packed some of those old buildings were and, in fact, that a portion of them there was even some minor stacking, not along the lines as currently proposed, but some stacking. The main focus of Ms. -'" 41 - '-- -- Vilmar's comments, on behalf of the Lake George Association, had to do with the parking, and the fact that we must be expanding because we had previously been required to have only 50 parking spaces, and now we're showing 148. The only reason we're showing 148 is because the Town Planning Staff said, hey, you better sho~ that you have enough parking for the usage, because that's one of the factors that the Town considers in its review. We're not showing any more parking spaces than have currently been existence on the property, nor are we proposing to do anything fancy or formal to make them parking spaces. They're not parking spaces like on Walmart or any other commercial use with a paved parking area. We simply show that there is room for that number of cars because somebody, earlier, did mention that there was a Zoning Ordinance requirement, I believe, for a parking place per one and a half boats. That's the only reason that's shown in the application, but again, it's not an increase in parking, and lastly, as far as the non attorney commentors, Mr. Wetherbee, who made his very eloquent comments first, referred, among other things, the fact that he, the phrase, he sort of picked on my use of the phrase "uncontrollable circumstances", and is leading the Board to believe that I picked this out of thin air. He accurately recited the Zoning Ordinance, but the phrase "uncontrollable circumstances" expressly and specifically appears in Jim Martin's November 2nd letter as one of the things that would allow replacement of buildings. He uses the phrase "uncontrollable circumstances", and since what we're appealing, after all, is his determination, naturally, we used his language. Mr. O'Connor did a superb job of leading us through many, many provisions of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and finding each and everyone that could possibly be taken in the abstract and hypothetical and construed to be contrary to what's proposed here, and I don't really propose to refute each and everyone of them, because I think the key issue is that, his exercise is an abstract, hypothetical exercise that has two fundamental premises, neither of which is true in this case. Number One, this is not a new use of the property. All the lengthy quotations that Mr. O'Connor read to you from the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, every single one of which, as far as I can tell by the way, was accurate, many of them refer to or mean, they apply to new uses. For example, the requirement for a buffer, an extra buffer when you're abutting a residential zone. The requirements of setbacks. The requirements of separation of buildings. The requirements that deal with how many principal buildings on a lot. All of those requirements refer to if you have a vacant piece of land and you come in to see Jim Martin and his Staff and you wish to put something on that land. Jim Martin and his Staff take out that Code book, and those are the requirements that they apply. All of those requirements outlined in here is artificially putting blinders on and pretending that we don't have the preexisting nonconforming use. For example, just to pick one, and this is illustrative of all of them, on the issue of principal buildings, obviously we will have less principal buildings on the property now than we had in the past. Nobody can dispute that. We can argue about their size, their shape, their height, and whether, as some people believe, they're ugly or they're pretty, but nobody could dispute that there is a decrease in the number of principal buildings. Are there more principal buildings that would be allowed if this were a brand new location with a brand new business on undeveloped land? Perhaps. Many of Mr. O'Connor's contentions are equally valid, if we pretend that the past doesn't exist and that we don't have a preexisting nonconforming use, and if you wear those blinders, many of his contentions are accurate. Obviously, it's ludicrous to wear those blinders, and many of those contentions completely fall by the way side because we're dealing with a preexisting nonconforming use. One that's been conceded to be a lawful preexisting nonconforming use. The second fundamental premise of all the rest of the comments made by Mr. O'Connor, everyone of them, falls on this premise, that we are increasing, expanding, or enlarging the facility, and this is why there is an - 42 - " '-/ ~ interpretation request, or an appeal mode, in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. It's not crystal clear. Mr. O'Connor, again, is correct in indicating that certain concepts are not literally discussed in the Zoning Ordinance. If they were discussed in black and white, this would be an easy decision, and we'd all be home asleep now, instead of haggling about this in front of you, appealing Jim Martin's decision. Our contention is that, in every way, shape, form and manner, we have demonstrated, and with the submission of the letters I'm about to supply to you, we have demonstrated that the ongoing use of the property has been for storage of up to 200 boats, for quick launch of up to, not 140 boats, but up to 80 boats on a given day, but for 140 customers, and that none of that is proposed to change. We have sworn testimony from Mr. Brock, and by the way, to ease Mr. O'Connor's conscience about the affidavits. we've been through every paragraph of them in our presentation earlier. There's nothing else included in them. We've demonstrated that that is the sworn testimony and I'm about to submit a bunch of letters, and we've also heard from Mr. Henderson, that that was a use of the property for many, many years, and our fundamental premise is, we're not increasing it. If you, as a Zoning Board, and you're allowed to do this, by the way, in your interpretation mode, want to enlist certain understandings, stipulations or conditions as part of your interpretations, you're allowed to do that, and if you want to limit use of this facility to the prior capacity and to the prior use, at the levels we've just described, we have no trouble with that. Whether you do that or not, that's all we can do, by law, because if we exceed those prior capacities, and if we exceed those prior uses, then there's an argument that this is expansion of a prior nonconforming use. So in order for us to stay lawful, we are hereby stipulating, and we've done this already, that we're going to stay at those levels. Mr. Turner and members of the Board, what I will now submit to you is a series of correspondence from a whole slew of people, and I'm not going to read every single one of them, because I don't think it's appropriate to do so. Many of them are redundant. Many of them say exactly the same thing. I'll just give you the highlights. I'm going to submit nine letters from former employees, former customers, not only former, some current, and patrons of the Marina, each of which documents the usage of the facility for storage of up to 200 boats, quick launch of up to 140 customers, if you will. We have, for example, just to pick one, a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Jason Kepper, that says, and I'm summarizing, not, I'm not, I'm quoting. "We have kept our boat in Mooring Post Marina for 18 consecutive years, During that time, \·\Je have allrJays had quick launch facilities." It then compliments Mr. Brock on how he runs the facility, but that's, in my opinion, irrelevant. We then have a series of letters from both present and former employees of the facility, all of whom say that, during the time of their employment, they can attest to an average of 120 to 140 quick launch customers, and an average of 180 to 200 boats for storage. This is nine letters all together. These go back to, I think, well, some of these, as I said, the first one goes back 18 years. I'm not sure what that would be, about 1976, I suppose, that there's been quick launch going on the whole time. I will also submit to you two letters from Richard Rose and Daniel Comiskey that discuss the fact that the boats were crammed into the buildings, because one of the eX01·cises that one of these speakel-s went thl-OlJgh, again, ve,-y eloquently, was his calculation showing he couldn't fit them in there. Now I guess our position is, it doesn't matter what people can sketch on paper to say what they can fit in there or what they think could be fit in there, because we're not dealing with a make believe situation. We're dealing with a practical reality. We have empirical testimony from the people that were involved and customers and patrons that says, this is what happens on the property. Similarly, one of the comments that I think Mr. O'Connor made, or somebody made, was that there's this discrepancy in some of the building sizes. Why don't we go measure them, somebody actually said. That is the ultimate -- 43 - ~ comment made with blinders on. The buildings have been removed. Why were they removed? I've already discussed that initially. It's not important to discuss that again. I will say that our position is that in 1973, 1984, 1988, and all previous data that Mr. O'Connor has produced is irrelevant. We have a current application which is sworn to by the applicant. It's also based on a survey map, in fact, it's the same 1985 Coulter and McCormack Survey Map that Mr. O'Connor used to mark off to show the 50 foot buffer. All the buildings in our current application, dimensions, were taken by Frank Hardick, the engineer for the applicant, who's here, from the Coulter and McCormack 1985 survey map. So if somebody made mistakes in 1973, 1984, or 1988, we don't know and we don't care. Even if they did, it's irrelevant. The application stands on its own merits. The two letters I started to refer to earlier, from Mr. Rose and Mr. Comiskey, Mr. Rose says that when he went to get his boat, when it was stored in the building as it was, and I'm quoting, "buried so deep behind other boats and the other boats were packed in so tight, I could not even get to my boat for the things I need". Mr. Comiskey says, he worries that his boat will get damaged due to the way "they're packed like sardines" in the storage facility, and I'll submit those letters as well. There's an attempt here to lead the Board, I think, to believe that Mr. Brock is kind of sitting here alone with absolutely total universal condemnation, hatred, whatever you want to call it, but opposition, I guess is the fairest word, from the entire Cleverdale community and his entire neighborhood, and we heard representatives, or people who said they were representatives of others indicate that the entire neighborhood is universally, I think was the word they used, opposed to this. Here are the facts. I'm also going to submit to you a petition, with a total of approximately 82 names on it, a petition in support, there are two petitions, in support of the proposed application and not objecting to the proposed application. The vast majority of signatures are on the petition in support. A few of the signatures are on the petition not in opposition, but the names of 82 people, not just from Cleverdale, but from the immediate proximity of the neighborhood to the site, and I'll also submit to you, and I think Mr. Brock should, we should now show you that we have taken a tax map and actually colored the property represented by each of these 82 people, or as many of them as we could figure out, and show you where the property in question is, just to alleviate the impression that the entire neighborhood is against this project and that Mr. Brock sits here alone. Mr. Turner, I don't mean to harp on this because, quite frankly, this should not be a popularity contest, but I did want to dispel the notion that seems to be portrayed by others that there is no support for this. In fact, as we see from those tax maps, there's a very significant, not only number of people that favor this application, but if you look at where it's shaded in pink, their location of many of them is very, very nearby to the property in question, and I will submit, as I said I would, the petition, the nine letters, and the other two. The, two people, Mr. O'Connor and one of the commentors, tried to make this a mountain out of a mole hill, in terms of the stacking and the boats, and again, I can go through the arithmetic with you if you like. I don't think it's imperative to do so, but the notion that stacking of the boats means that we should somehow multiply the square footage by three is absurd. I mean, that same reasoning means that if any other commercial use that stacks products of any size, and you can make ludicrous analogies where Shop N' Save stacking God knows how many things, to more reasonable analogies, where large products like motors and things are stacked on shelves. To suggest, even for a moment, that, therefore, we triple the square footage is absolutely ridiculous, and again, I'm just going to mention that there are a number of factual discrepancies that have been thrown out. The lack of quick launch prior to recently is obviously ridiculous based on all of our testimony. One of the commentors talked about, I believe Mr. O'Connor, actually talked about our boat total as - 44 - ~ --/ being up to 168 under the old plan, and in fact it's 144 in total, and it's only 120 under what I call Plan B. So, the numbers are much smaller than what he lead us to believe. He talked a lot about the use of the residential property. The use of the residential property is simply not at issue here. He also talked about inclusion of the east side of Cleverdale Road, the lake side. Again, the Environmental Assessment Form asks you to include in your discussion all the property owned by the applicant, but we're not proposing anything new, anything different, anything larger on the east side of the property. meaning the lake side of Cleverdale Road, and I think I really hit the rest of it, being our figures are based on the January 29, 1985 Coulter and McCormack Survey, and in conclusion we think that Jim Martin made the right decision based on the fundamental premise that although this is a reconfiguration of buildings, no question about it, in fact, a consolidation because you have a lot of drive areas that are now coming under cover, and you have boat storage buildings that are separated that are now becoming one or two. The bottom line is, we're not increasing our size, except in height, and we're not going over the allowed height of the Ordinance. You could build a house in there as tall as the proposed building is. We're not increasing the boat storage capacity or use. We're not increasing the quick launch capacity or use, on a seasonal basis or daily basis, and we think that those were the fundamental premises on which this application was decided originally, and we think that that's what should be the right decision, and I missed one letter, from a Dan Strickman, who has been keeping his boat at Mooring Post for 15 years, all during which there was quick launch service. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll put it right in the file. Okay. Are you done, Mr. Schachner? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I just have a question. Some place on the table here there's the picture of the boat shed. Would this be a fair representation of the buildings that you are planning to build? MR. SCHACHNER-The best we can answer that question is similar in style, but not exact. I, myself, have been at facility actually probably a dozen or so times, but I don't its dimensions, and Mr. Brock's not sure of its dimensions. similar in style. it's that know It's MR. TURNER-Each tier is what, in height? MR. BROCK-of depending on three high. the building we're proposing? That'll vary, the boats. In some cases, you may be able to go In other cases, you'll only be able to go two high. MR. TURNER-All right. So a three tier deck is how high? MR. BROCK-A three tier deck is normally, in order to function with a three tier deck. you'd have to have about 30 foot at the eaves. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think, were you the one that presented those photos? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have the measurements, do you know? I don't remember if you said that this. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that this testimony that what is in those pictures is identical to what has been ordered by Mr. Brock, at least that's what the building manufacturer has told Mrs. Evans. - 45 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now it's identical as to the same measurements? MR. O'CONNOR-Why don't we ask Mrs. paraphrasing what she has been told. Evans, instead of me MR. TURNER-Okay. Just, can you come to the microphone, or take the microphone and address it right from there? MRS. EVANS-That building is the same width of the building he's proposing. MR. TURNER-How about the height? MRS. EVANS-It's also the exact same height of the building that he's proposing. MR. BROCK-I'm not disputing that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I guess my trouble only is that we don't know what the, you know, it may be true, it may not be true. We just don't know. We don't have the basis for the comment, but it's certainly similar in style. MR. O'CONNOR-Why don't you say how you know that knowledge, or have that knowledge. MRS. EVANS-The reason why I know this is because the same company that built this building is the same company that's building the building for John Brock, and what they have done is bought this building. Then they have Gold and Stock from Fort Edward, they're going to actually build it for them. They're going to weld it and do the production. So it's exactly the same building. It's not the same length, because he broke his up into two, but that's exactly the, I needed a reference to really get in front of this building, to feel it, and see what it was all about. MR. CARVIN-Okay. dimensions? So this building actually is larger, total MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, it's one building all the way back. It's not broken up. As I understand it, the building that the applicant has suggested that he's going to build is principally the same building. It's serviced from a service alleyway that runs this L",¡ay and goes all the way through. That building is the same practical building. You look at the same front, except it doesn't have the separation. This is the separation of the building. I don't know why he bought two buildings as opposed to one building, maybe because in 1988 the one building concept was turned down. I don't know that. t1R. SCHACHNER-Now for \lJhat it's wOì-th Q..YL understanding of this facility, and this is, I believe, Bolton Landing Marina, is that it houses 160 boats, whereas our proposed building only houses 120 boats. So somewhere along the line, ours is smaller. We can't tell you where, but we can tell you it's smaller. In fact, if it's an issue, we actually have a letter from Bolton Landing Marina, which we'll be glad to give you, testifying that they have 160 boats there, but our capacity that we're proposing is 1.20. MR. O'CONNOR-With the wing on, and I don't want to cause confusion, but my understanding is that the main two buildings are 144, and that the side building is 24, not that the manufacturer (lost word) is that standard that they say, as far as capacity. MR. BROCK-It's 120 boats in the two larger buildings, and 24 in the wing. It's calculated by a boat every 10 feet, okay, and - 46 - \ ""- -../ then three high, that's if you use boats that you can go three high on. You could have the maximum capacity, and I'm saying maximum capacity would be 60 boats in each one of those two buildings, and 24 in the wing. If we use a boat, such as a 24 or 5 foot boat that happens to have a radar arch on it, or anything raised, you'll only get two boats in that bay, instead of three. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And since we have it, we'll just submit for your record the letter from Bolton Landing Marina that we happen to have, in fact, it's addressed to you, Mr. Turner, that they indicates that they hold up to 160 boats. MR. TURNER-We'll put it right in the file. Okay. You gentlemen are done now, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Only to say in conclusion that if, I think I had mentioned this earlier, but in case I didn't, it's our position that Jim Martin's initial determination was correct, and that the building permit was validly issued. If you feel that because of square footage, that was not the case, then it's our position that his decision should be modified, with your interpretation that Plan B, the new plan, does not require any variances, and lastly, I think it's important for this proceeding that if you determine that a variance is required, obviously from our perspective that would be an Area Variance, not a Use Variance, the reason being that Use Variances, as defined in the Town, in the New York State Town Law, deal with using a property in a way that's not allowed, and in this property is already a preexisting nonconforming use as a Marina. So if you decide to uphold Mr. Martin's determination that variances were required, it's clearly our position, and we think this is clear, that the type of variance required be an Area Variance, on those setbacks, and not a Use Variance. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-My intent is just to try and cover the new material given by Mr. Schachner in his rebuttal, and not to go over the whole thing. The issue as to whether or not a Use Variance is required, you have to look at our Ordinance. Our Ordinance does not provide for any commercial nonconforming uses to be expanded. They allow them to exist. They allow them to be maintained. They allow them to be repaired. If you deem this to be an expansion of a nonconforming use, and that is why Mr. Martin and I have indicated, legally, that you do need a Use Variance. The petitions, I agree, this is not a popularity contest, but if you take a look at the signatures, you're going to find, I think you're going to find that the signatures of the people that are immediately adjacent to this property are the people that are on the petition that was signed by those that were presented by Dr. and Mrs. Evans. The issue of being ludicrous to ask you to apply the buffer and the other setback requirements of a new building to this particular application is a follow through on what we think is the law. It's also the same procedure that was followed by the applicant in 1988. He applied for a variance from the buffer requirements, the same buffer requirements that we have in this present Ordinance. We're not inventing something new when we take a new building, it has to be treated as a new building, as opposed to a repaired or maintained building. More importantly I think, I don't know how they dismissed so quickly the survey of 1973 and the footprint measurements that are clearly in the ledger of that survey. I just don't understand that, but if you want to take a look at the 1973 total, you can also take a look at the 1988 total, which is the map that they referred to, without the eaves. They still are talking about removing only 22,388 square feet, using their figures, and in the plan that was submitted, upon which Mr. Martin made his determination, they're creating new buildings of 24,872. Now an increase is an increase. You can look at it in any six ways you want. -. 47,- ~ MR. SCHACHNER-Can I just make one comment on that numerical comment, please? MR. TURNER-One more. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm glad that I was able to see both the numbers Mr. O'Connor cited, because I have those same two numbers on my worksheet, but he's mixed apples and oranges. The 24,872 foot total proposed new building which you just referred to is what Jim Martin approved after calculating removal of 24,927 square feet. That would be a decrease, not an increase, of 55 square feet. The number that Mr. O'Connor just referred to as the removal number, which is the 22,388 square foot number, that's the number under the new plan, and under the new plan what we propose to build is 22,372 square feet, again, a decrease of 16 square feet. So all he did, and I understand what he did, but all he did was he took instead of apples and apples, apples and oranges. That's all. He took one number from the old plan and one number from the new plan, instead of comparing both numbers on the old plan or both numbers on the new plan. MR. O'CONNOR-If you'll put the old plan uP. I'll show you how we arrived and both those numbers from the old plan, the October 12th. MR. CARVIN-I think I'd like to ask Jonathan one question. I think it kind of gets to the crux of the matter. What is the definition of a footprint? In other words, is this an aggregate that, can we move a footprint? In other words, can we just can of shift this allover, we have five buildings, can we melt all of these into one building, and use the definition of "Footprint"? MR. LAPPER-I've got a list of issues that I'm compiling, that I think the Board's going to have to address, and that is one of the biggest areas which is going to be a determination. It's not, it's a gray area, as was mentioned. It's not specifically addressed in the Ordinance. So in terms of whether or not it's an increase when you take X number of square feet in five or seven buildings and make it X number of feet in two buildings, whether or not that is an increase, is something that, or whether that's permitted for a prior nonconforming use is a determination that this Board is going to have to make on this project for the first time, apparently. MR. CARVIN-I don't think so. other determinations. I think we've made a couple of MR. LAPPER-Okay. If that specifically has been addressed, we should look at that, but that's a determination that this project is going to require. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing on the Appeal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Now it's up to the Board, and I think at this point, with all the issues raised and all the numbers thrown at us. MR. MARTIN-Ted, I just want to remind you, you have a number of letters in the Correspondence file. MR. TURNER-I know. I just want to get these guys thinking on something. The number of issues raised and the number of numbers thrown at us, that we will have to have another Special Meeting to answer just the Appeal process, and this Board is not in a position tonight to render a decision on this Appeal, based on the information received in respect to this application. So just get thinking about that. - 48 - ',,- J MR. WETHERBEE-Have you been to the residences of the are going to be materially affected and impacted by Iv)\/,~n't seen any of you in []l':i. back yard. people \lJho this? I MR. TURNER-I drove right by your house Sunday. MR. WETHERBEE-You drove by? You're welcome to come down to our house, Sir, and take a look, rather than a drive by, Did YOU close the hearing because you concluded there were no more comments, or because you wanted no more comments? MR. TURNER-No. I concluded there wasn't any more comments. MR. WETHERBEE-Both my wife and I still had our hands in the air. t-1R. TURNER-All your comment:::;, right. I'll briefly open it up for you to make and that will be the end of the public hearing. JUDY WETHERBEE MRS. WETHERBEE-I am Judy Wetherbee, and I live on Mason Road, and I've got about three comments, and one of which I was told by the Grievance Board, the Board of Assessment, that I had a view to the east and the west and I was going to be assessed because I had that view in both directions. There is no way, with a 34 foot high building, I am going to be able to see out of the back of my house, from the area that I sit on our patio deck, what I could see before. I'll see a metal building. I will not be able to see what I am now being assessed for. That's Point Number One. I believe that petitions are, it shouldn't be a popularity contest, but we did, both of us, signed petitions, only after the other one of the people that were in agreement with Mr. Brock, which they have every right to be, started a petition. We limited ours to people who were directly involved. We did not go and have people who live in the Town of Fort Ann, for instance. We know of four people that live in the Town of Fort Ann that signed the petition. Of the 28 properties on Mason Road, there's 28 different owners of properties on Mason Road, three of them said that they thought it would be okay to let Mr. Brock go ahead and do what he wished. I think, I'm not sure how that shows on there, but I know that, in checking, I have found that some people called in their objections, one person called in her objection because she's blind and couldn't write. I was told that that would not be made a part of your record tonight. I think it should be. I think that woman should have as much of a say as those of us that can write or that could get here. We were not able to get a hold of three people because they live either Florida, one man, even the Town didn't seem to know where he lived, but as I said before, of the 28 pieces of property, only three people, locally or on the other petition, said they were in favor of this, and I just wish, again, I have to say, I wish you people would come and sit in my yard, or sit in my home, in my kitchen table and look out and see what I will no longer be able to see if the buildings are allowed to go as suggested, and then, there's been so much confusion about this, and as I say, I went to all these different Departments today, and nobody had all of the letters. There were some here. There were some there. There were some that they just couldn't find them, and we know that they were sent, and then the other thing is, Mr. Schachner says he is not employed by the Town of Queensbury, which may be true, but if that's the case, someone should tell the Supervisor, because he told us that Mr. Schachner was employed by the Town of Queensbury. So maybe somebody should acquaint the Supervisor with that fact that Mr. Schachner is not employed, if he isn't. Thank you. MR. WETHERBEE-Once again, I'm Bill Wetherbee, and I would just like to piggy back on what my wife, Judy, said, because some people may question hearsay evidence. Mr. Fred Champagne, on November 3, 1994, said to me, and I am now quoting, "Mr. . 49 .- -,? Schachner is an employee of the Town of Queensbury". Therefore, although it may be irrelevant, it does speak to the matter of credibility. The Ethics Code for employees of the Town of Queensbury, Part 14.1, is as follows: "No Official or employee shall", and I repeat, Mr. Champagne identified Mr. Schachner as "an employee of the Town". The Ethics Code says, "No Official or employee shall receive or enter into any agreement, expressed or implied, for services to be rendered for a third party in relation to any matter before any agency or Board or Queensbury Economic Development Corporation of the Town of Queensbury." I think it speaks to some of the confusion, duplicity and confusion and uncertainty which we have tried to struggle with since this matter first surfaced about four weeks ago. I would conclude by revisiting one point I made in my comments. You continue to hear a weltering number of numbers thrown about. Nobody has yet established that the capacity of the new buildings will be as low as the capacity of the now demolished buildings. We've heard 120's. We've heard 140's. We've heard 160's. They all surpass anything that could be rammed, crammed, or Jammed into the buildings that have now been demolished, and nobody has really brought that to a head. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to put on the record what I do with the Town of Queensbury or not? It's up to you. MR. TURNER-No. Letters? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have letters. CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-I have an envelope addressed to Councilwoman Betty Monahan, received from Mrs. Thomas A. Rave of Richmond, VA. The letter has been lost, but Mrs. Monahan has stated that the letter opposed. To the Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Board, from Joe Roulier, regarding Mooring Post Marina, "I am not opposed to Mr. Brock running a successful Marina, the Mooring Post Marina, since the Marina has operated for many years in Cleverdale. I am, however, opposed to any further expansion, not only by this Marina but by any Marina currently operating on Lake George. It seems that the local Marinas are constantly pushing for expansion, either subtly or not, without any regard for existing property owners. The need for these expansions are no doubt fueled by the ever increasing size of boats sold and serviced on Lake George. The Mooring Post Marina current proposal which represents a major change in: 1) the overall height of the structure, 35 feet, versus approximately 16 feet and, 2) the overall useable square footage, approximately 5,000 square feet, 20,000 square feet versus approximately 25,000 square feet, warrants a Use Variance as outlined in the Queensbury Town Ordinance. Therefore, I would like the following concerns addressed. 1) Will there be an increase in the quick- launch capability of this marina? Answer in number of boats please. 2) Will there be an increase in the parking area of the marina, and will the parking be limited to the marina property only? 3) What are the Queensbury Ordinance requirements regarding parking and the overall percentage of permeability of this property? 4) What is the current and future capability of the sewage disposal system? 5) What will be the overall effect of both increased vehicular and boating traffic? 6) What are the safety hazards? For example, increased fire hazard, and boating while impaired, and/or driving while intoxicated ramifications in our neighborhood. I hope that these concerns will be carefully evaluated, and as a result that the Mooring Post Marina be limited to its current size and service activity. Sincerely, Joe Roulier" A letter with no date, "Dear Mrs. Monahan: As a resident and taxpayer residing on Mason Road for 17 years, I want to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of the Mooring Post Marina. The area of Mason Road is completely residential, with the exception of two businesses that - 50 - \.,., . .-..-' have existed for years, and everyone has accommodated to their present operations. However, the proposed expansion will house two large buildings, 35 feet high. These buildings are in an area where people have improved their residences in recent years, and will completely block any view of the beauty around Lake George. The entire area has been improved. Many people are full time residents. To permit such an unattractive expansion is unconscionable. Our neighborhood standards will be lowered. We have always, in the past, been notified, by mail, of any expansion or additions in Cleverdale. What happened to our line of communication? Several years ago, the Mooring Post faced an intended expansion. This was rejected. The Town Board should stop this expansion and request a public hearing for a full review. A Queensbury Taxpayer, Mrs. John Lee Tabner, Cleverdale, NY" A letter dated November 14, 1994, regarding Mooring Post Marina Expansion "I have no idea whatsoever as to how an expansion of any kind can at all be entertained. By way of introduction, my wife, Mary Ellen, and I have owned the above referenced cottage since 1971, and year by year we have seen dramatic increases in both automobile traffic on Cleverdale Road and boat traffic in Sandy 8ay. The resulting congestion is very difficult to tolerate, for what should be considered a residential/resort area. The current levels of air, noise, and water pollution are excessive. These levels are a severe detriment to swimming in the lake, drinking the lake water and attempting to sit out on one's deck, while inhaling fumes and attempting to converse in normal speaking decibels. More and more I have refrained from using our facilities and have chosen to remain at home, since I am not in a position to do any week day recreating, at which time there is some reduction of all the aforementioned annoyances. As a businessman, I can sincerely sympathize with the Mooring Post and their .business goals. Indeed, we have a plant location in a commercial zone, at Fonda Road, Colonie, NY. At the time the property was acquired and put to business use, the area was unzoned. Subsequently, it was zoned commercial, but we were absolutely forbidden to expand at all. Although we were grandfathered in, roads were posted, a nasty and protracted lawsuit ensued, and the end result was that we were allowed to continue operations on precisely the same scale we began, that is no expansion whatsoever. This action limited our potential for increased profits through more volume/activity. Nevertheless, we have had to be satisfied with remaining a business/operation at that location. The fact that the Mooring Post Marina is in an area designated by the Lake George Park Commission as a Critical Environmental Area, a special designation given to your areas around Lake George where land use activity is likely to have an impact on the water quality of Lake George absolutely speaks for itself. It, therefore, should be of immeasurable concern to everyone. If you fail to receive all these pages, or if either machine faults, please call Darlene as soon as possible. The information contained in this facsimile message is intended for use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privilege and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, yOU are hereby notified that any decimation, distribution, copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If yOU have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Frank Clemente and Mary Ellen Clemente" A letter dated November 14, 1994 "Ladies and Gentlemen: A few years ago, I, along with dozens of Cleverdale residents, attended a hearing concerning Mooring Post Marina. The owner proposed to build a 35 foot high 35,000 square foot building backing up to Mason Road. This structure would rise in height to the top of the telephone poles, thereby totally eliminating any view of our beautiful mountains to the east and casting a shadow over my property until noon. At that time, the project was defeated. Once again, our civic leaders have ruled in favor of their commitment to maintain the natural beauty of the Adirondack Park. However, in the early --51 ,.. --- '--' morning hours of the third week of October, we awoke to the sound of buildings being torn down. The residents of Cleverdale were astounded. I cannot believe that this project was approved with absolutely no notice to the residents of Cleverdale that an intended plan had been presented and approved by the authorities. For several obvious reasons, reduce property value, reduced tax base, negative aesthetic impact, negative environmental impact, this project must not be approved. At the very least, an extensive comprehensive study of this outrageous proposal must be implemented before any further discussion can take place. Joseph A. Herrigan, Jr. Mason Road, Cleverdale" The Town of Queensbury, from Drs. Robin and Gary Inwald "This letter is written in response to a call received from a neighbor advising us some building activity on Cleverdale Road that is of great concern. We have lived in Cleverdale ever summer since 1981 and owned the house and barns located on Cleverdale Road near the road that turns off to Rockhurst. We have not been informed of any major commercial construction on Cleverdale Road, and purchased our property in order to have a quiet and noncommercial surroundings in a country atmosphere. We understand that Mr. John Brock is attempting to construct two large buildings, each 110 feet wide, 102 feet long, 34 feet high, in which to run a greatly expanded commercial boat launching business. We have also been informed by a neighbor that he is using residential land for part of this Marina. We are very concerned about the increase in traffic that is already loud and continuous on summer weekends, on a country road that has no sidewalks. As it stands now, increased traffic on Cleverdale Road has created a hazard for neighborhood children, including our three, who often walk or ride their bikes to visit friends. Many cars do not obey the speed limit, and any increase in commercial traffic would be a serious disadvantage. By allowing these expanded buildings to be constructed, there also may be increased pollution from the greater number of boats being stored and launched, as well as the potential for an unattractive group of large buildings that will devalue property and decrease the appeal of the neighborhood. For these reasons, we strongly object to the project being allowed to continue without full neighborhood input and further information. We plan to make Cleverdale our main home in the future, and it is essential that the full impact of any large project be fully explained to those who clearly will be affected by their completion. Thank you for your consideration and prompt action. Drs. Robin and Gary Inwald" And the letter is dated November 13, 1994. A letter dated 11/11/94 To the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals "Firstly, we object to Mark Schachner representing Mooring Post Marina, as he is the attorney for and advises Town Boards of related items as to the Mooring Post project. This is a conflict of interest and raises a question of ethical conduct. The location of my lot is within 150 feet of the project. We oppose any expansion or change in the use of the proposed project for the following reasons: Proposed Objections, 1. Environmental Impact, Lake George drinking water was once more to suffer. Runoff from 200 parked cars and boats. We demand and Environmental Impact Study as how it affects Lake George. 2. Expansion. Since we have lived here eight years, most of the sheds have contained broken down engines, cradles and junk. Very few boats have been stored in these sheds, and there has never been a quick launch operation from this location on the property. Parking. Where does the applicant intend to place 200 cars without causing congestion problems in the area? 4. Neighbors views and property value are lost. For the QBA to allow this project to go ahead would be nothing less than devastation for the Mason Road residents and surrounding areas. As you are aware, Lake George is important to all, and if a decline in her quality is allowed, it will be a great loss for future generations. We implore the Board to act in its infinite wisdom and decline this project in its entirety. Respectfully, Peter Lewin, Lorraine Lewin, Christine Lewin, and Jacqueline Le~..¡in" A letter dated November 9, 1994 "Dear Sirs: I am writing you due to my opposition to Mr. John Brock's Mooring Post - 52 - "- , '--"" project on Cleverdale. Mr. Brock's Marina is located in a densely populated neighborhood in Cleverdale. I feel that these buildings being proposed, due to their height and size, will not fit with the existing neighborhood. The building would be visible from the Lake, a real eyesore for all. A three tiered quick launch and storage building? Come on! Mr. Brock must have realized from the time that he bought the property that he was in an area where change would not be tolerated by most. The last time he tried this project he was turned down. I realize that the Marina has been in operation fór 90 years. For those years, it has fit in aesthetically with the surrounding area. Why not rebuild what was there originally. Cost effective? Maybe not. I'm sure some compromise could be worked out. Mr. Brock wants to expand his quick launch service from 25 to 140 boats. Can a peninsula, Cleverdale, handle this? Where does he propose to park the trailers and cars? What will happen to the additional traffic and runoff into the lake? Is the lake going to be protected from foreign parasites carried on the hulls from other boats from another lake? Has the environmental impact study been done? Has a traffic study been done? Residents drink the water and have been for 90 years. I live on Assembly Point and watch more and more condos being built at Green Harbor, and the thought of a skyscraper in Cleverdale appalls me. The construction of uses around the southern basin of Lake George have to be stopped. The deterioration of this great State resource has got to stop. Lindy Ol'4en" A letter dated November 10th, regaõ"ding Mooring Post Marina "I represent the Kenney family on Mason Road, Cleverdale, which we have owned since 1957. Our property is directly west of the Mooring Post Marina, on the opposite side of Mason Road from the Marina. The old buildings, which were all taken down, ran along the full length of the Marina property on Mason Road. Our property, which is 120 feet along the road, would be entirely blocked from any views to the east, and the new buildings would be about 10 feet higher than the old ones. We upgraded our property to a year round residence, and feel that the new buildings would downgrade our property, which is valued at over one half million dollars. We also believe that the new buildings would increase the Marina business, which would mean more boats, mOTe people, mOTe runoff, more pollution, more traffic in an already congested area. The size of the buildings would also stop our mountain breezes from crossing the Cleverdale Peninsula. As property owners, we object to this. Edward N. Kenney" A letter dated November 10th, regarding the Mooring Post Marina Expansion project "As a property owner on Cleverdale, I wish to express my concerns regarding this project. This area is a residential area, and although I appreciate the need for grandfathered considerations, I believe that this project goes well beyond such a consideration. The replacing of several small boat sheds with two large high rise structures is inappropriate, to say nothing of the adverse visual effects. In addition, the increased storage facilities will only further take away from the residential nature of the area. Since the Mooring Post anticipates a substantial quick launch service, this expanded facility will increase the difficulty in parking as well as increase traffic on an already heavily travelled road. Aside from these items, the larger storage capacity, and quick launching facilities will only add to the already crowded Sandy Bay. Lake George is a jewel. Lets all of us try to retain its beauty. Sincerely, Robert D. Cohen" A letter dated November 10, 1994 regarding proposed expansion of Mooring Post Marina. Recently we have become aware of a proposed demolition and subsequent expansion of boat storage buildings at the Mooring Post Marina on Cleverdale, NY. This expansion raises several important concerns as to the impact of such expansion on Lake George, the Cleverdale community, as well as legal issues. As a long time resident of Cleverdale and my home since 1976, I have watched the community for many years. However, this project stands out as the single most intrusive expansion that will disrupt this quiet and serene area of the Adirondack Park. I wish to express my disdain for this proposal, and request of you, -" 5,3 - ,~ as Chairman, to consider the seriousness of such expansion. Therefore, I will outline specific items that must be addressed before any such expansion is considered. They are as follows: 1. The Mooring Post Marina is located on Ripley Point, a waterfront community in Cleverdale, NY, inside the Adirondack Park system. This is an area that has been designated a Critical Environmental Area by the Lake George Park Commission. Will the proposed buildings conform to the regulations currently imposed, and what future impact will they have on the immediate area? 2. Stormwater runoff. A recent concern by the United States Environmental Protection Agency which has enacted specific rules and regulations regulating such, is of great concern. Additionally, the Lake George Park Commission has enacted local rules on this subject. What steps are proposed to conform to these rules? 3. Currently, the Mooring Post Marina has a 2,000 gallon sewage/storage tank on the premises. This system has aged and is in doubtful that it will be able to accommodate the increased usage from the expansion. What steps will be taken to test the current system to prove its adequacy, or in the event that it does not pass, what requirements will be needed for installation of a newer, more modern system? 4. Currently the Mooring Post Marina, on a daily basis, traverses a public highway to transport its vehicles, trailers and boats with unregistered, unlicensed, and uninsured vehicles. These vehicles obviously do not conform to any State legal requirements. No assurance of liability protection, operator capability or public safety is given, nor will increased activity do anything to mitigate this escalating situation. The numerous children in the area, one of which is my own, a serious consideration must be given to this item. I suggest to you that this matter be forwarded to the Warren County Sheriff's office for further investigation. 5. Is the present North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Department equipped and capable to handle any large scale disasters at the proposed new Marina? This would include a fire and ambulance emergency services. Has an emergency plan been formulated to limit danger to the local community in the event of such a disaster. 6. Additional consideration must be given to the re-sale value of the surrounding homes. with escalating taxes and now a large scale commercial operation being proposed in what is a quiet and respectable community, home values will plummet, forever changing Cleverdale and providing a barometer for the rest of the Lake George basin. 7. Currently, there is no information available to determine exactly what the current activities of the Marina are or what the proposed changes will increase of those activities. Has a business plan been formulated to show a before and after picture of the Marina operations, and what steps will be taken to assure the local citizens that there will be no increased impact, either environmentally or in the quality of life. 8. Lastly, and perhaps the most important point of this letter is the pollution impact on Sandy Bay and the surrounding area. As a former summer time employee of the Mooring Post Marina, 1981 to 1984, I have seen first hand the effects of Marina operations on the lake. Pollution, whether purposeful or incidental, is still pollution and is causing a general decline in water quality, as documented by the Renesselaer Fresh Water Institute. We have residual oil on boat outdrives, gasoline spills from an overfilled tank, cigarette butts and ashes tossed carelessly into the lake, or a leaky underground storage tank, it all impacts the lake over time. Do we, as dutiful citizens of the Lake George basin, want to have our hands in yet another possible source of damage to our lake? I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to review this case with the utmost scrutiny, and if there's any doubt as to the validity of this project, as I have stated above, or as others have opposed this venture, that you disallow such an expansion. The lake has given us what we have today, and to squander such precious resources and remove forever a legacy for those to come is something we will suffer for. I thank you for reading this letter and for your concern, and sincerely hope the proper decision will be made. Chad F. \landette" A letter dated November 9th. "Dear Mr. Turner: As we - 54 - '- J are unable to attend the meeting on November 14th regarding the Mooring Post Marina expansion, we are voicing our concerns with this letter. As summer residents, we are very concerned with preserving the quality of Lake George and the surrounding area. An expansion of a marina in a high density residential area must have the highest and most critical scrutiny available. We trust the Board will exercise the strictest interpretation of all regulations pertaining to this matter, as they relate to water quality, environmental impact, and the character of the surrounding area. As in all matters regarding growth. there must be a consideration for all issues on all sides. However, when potential liability exists fOT irreparable damage to one of our greatest natural resources, the margin for compromise is very limited. In closing, we would request that the Board keep the interests of Lake George in the forefront as the most critical determination in resolving this most difficult, threatening issue. John and Kathleen Tarrant" A letter dated November 9, 1984, regarding Mooring Post i"1<Hina. ''(is ta>:payers of Mason Road, tax map no. 523100-13-1-20, we are opposed to the above Post to expand his business in a residential area. We're requesting an environmental impact study due to all cars being parked on the lake road, which could effect the drinking water quality of Mason Road. Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Katherine Abbott and Mary Abbott" A letter dated November 8, 1994, regarding the Mooring Post Marina, "We are writing this letter in reference to the proposed variance the Marina is going through the Town of Queensbury. As a resident of Cleverdale, and as adjacent property owners since 1983 and '84, we are very concerned about the new proposal the Marina plans to take regarding a quick launch business. Our first concern is the size of the two metal buildings proposed. ThE) second concer n is the cha nge in use of the Mar i na in goi ng from storage sales, restoration of boats, to a full blown quick launch business. To start, the size of the new building, to date, is 109.8 by 102 square feet, with 34 foot height each in size. The roof has a four foot pitch. The size of this building is compared reference to the building in front of Command Performance Marina on Lake George in Bolton Landing, NY. Please note the volume. These two buildings will house 140 to 144 boats for quick launch alone. The number of quick launch pertains to the new proposed building. There is another building on the lot that is big enough for quick launch, but wasn't used for that purpose, referencing to Building Number One. So, for the record, 144 plus boats will be used for a quick launch business. Perhaps a history of the Marina dating back to 1973 when Al Poland owned the Marina would be helpful. On record, he went for a variance to enlarge a nonconforming facility by demolishing a building, moving his home from one end of the property to the other, and by building another building across the street, building referred as Number One today. With this permit, it allowed Mr. Poland to expand his business for storage repair and sales of boats, on record. See application for a Special Use permit dated 1973. This was passed by the Zoning Goard of the Town of Queensbury. This was the last record of information we could find pertaining to the use of the Marina to date. Our personal observation of the Marina over the past five to six years is as follows. The Marina has not used the two lots zoned residential, 13-2-19 and 13-2-20, for any Marina purposes until the permit was issued in October 1994. Also, Buildings Number Three, Four, and Five were not used, to our knowledge, for storage or quick launch purposes. We are not sure if Building Number Eight was used for quick launch or Building Number One was used for quick launch, but at no time did I note any quick launch racks on the premises. A past employee, John Shahay, manager of the marina stated that while employed, Mr. Brock had 25 to 30 quick launch during the summer, and 100 boat storage in the winter. We have no way to confirm the quick launch business. Please see configuration of boat storage business section enclosed with this letter. When was the Mooring Post Marina licensed as a quick launch business? To conclude, the Mooring Post Marina appears to be expanding and ,- 55 -- ~- ../ changing the use of the facility, with the result is overburden of the property, the lake, and the neighboring community. We feel that an Environmental Impact Study should be presented here due to the fact that there will be an increased amount of traffic, and most likely an increased parking placed on the waterfront property, which is our main source of drinking water. The runoff will affect the quality of the water. Thank you for your time and appreciate consideration and action in clearing up this matter. Dr. Robert L. Evans and Cheryl C. Evans" A letter dated 11/7/94 "Dear Mr. Turner: I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed construction at the Mooring Post Marina, Cleverdale, NY. Concerning the size of the two buildings, they may have approximately the same total square footage as the original ones, but their volume, cubic footage, is probably at least twice as great. Making them so huge not only creates an eyesore for every resident of Clever dale, but it would block the view of the immediate neighbors, and would lower the market value of all properties in the vicinity. These monstrous structures would be incompatible with the basic residential nature of Cleverdale and an anathema to the community. When possible, compromise would involve the 10 foot excavation with basement for each building. This would allow the same storage capacity as the proposed structures, and permit a concomitant lowering of their roofs. The increased cost of the excavation, foundation and sump pump facilities would be partially offset by reduced building costs. Concerning use, formerly, the buildings were for dead storage. Now the proposed use is a quick launch. As I understand it, this means that stored boats would be loaded with gas and oil for retrieval by forklift when requested by the owner/user. Such a use for 150 to 200 boats stacked three high would create a dangerous fire and explosion hazard. One spark and one fire could result in a cataclysmic confligation and chain reaction explosion like a string of gigantic firecrackers. The forklifts and other handling equipment used are probably not spark proof, and it could ignite a fuel spill quite easily. In addition, each boat retrieved would have to make two trips across Cleverdale Road at a time of the year when traffic is at its peak. Another obvious impact on traffic and parking would be accommodating all the cars associated with the 150 to 200 boats. There is not enough parking now, and as you know, no parking is permitted on Clever dale Road. The additional cars would create an impossible situation and seriously impede the passage of emergency and fire vehicles. In summary, the buildings are proposed are contraindicated because of their huge size, their view blocking nature, their detrimental effect on the residential character of the area and the lower market value and lower assessment that will be experienced by all property in the area. The change of use from dead storage to quick launch should be permitted under no circumstances because of the tremendous increased danger of fire and explosion. The traffic hazards associated with carting hundreds of slow moving boats across Cleverdale Road and in the absence of adequate boat owner/user parking would be detrimental to traffic flow and public safety. Richard H. Meyer, Jr." A letter dated November 6, 1994 "Dear Mrs. Monahan: I have received several clippings from a friend about a proposed new building of the Mooring Post Marina. I have a house on Mason Road. I would hate to see the small rural community of Cleverdale become uglified by the addition of two tall metal buildings. I wasn't too perturbed at first, until I thought of the Castaway Marina. This is on the main road, Ridge, and at the end of Kattskill Bay. However, something that size, arising in the very middle of Cleverdale, would be a total sore thumb. In one of the clippings, it is said they would be 10 to 12 feet higher than the present ones they are replacing. Mr. Brock said that they would be only three or four feet higher, according to the paper. I do not see how 4,000 additional square feet equates to only three or four feet in height. Also, I am concerned about the increased usage of quick launch boats on the traffic congestion this will bring. I certainly think his plan should be reviewed thoroughly, and should have been before they - 56 - -.......- ~ got this far. I certainly object to the urbanization of Cleverdale and two high rise buildings right in the middle of it would be detrimental to our very small community. Helen Jones- Englander, Mason Road" A letter dated November 4, 1994 II De.3r Mr. Champagne: My wife and I are very concerned about the critical situation involving the Mooring Post Marina and its Cleverdale neighbors. We have been property owners on Mason Road since 1980 and have not objected to the Marina's boat storage facilities built long before we arrived. We can understand why the owner of the Marina wishes to replace these old storage buildings. We strongly oppose the Marina's plan to increase it's storage capacity to accommodate additional boats. We feel this would increase traffic and put a strain on Mason and Cleverdale Road, as far as parking is concerned. We understand the Marina plans to increase its capabilities for quick launch, which, again, means more boats, traffic and parked vehicles. We strongly oppose this. Our most serious concern is safety, fuel remains in the boat's gasoline tanks. We hope the permission to expand the Mooring Post's boat storage facilities is denied. Yours truly, Thomas A. Burke" MR. TURNER-How many more have you got? MR. THOMAS-Probably 25. MR. TURNER-Why don't you just go down through them and note who's against and who's for, and just read their name. i'1R. THOMAS-Oka>'. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, could I suggest, maybe, that you leave the public hearing open and just read them at the beginning of your next session? MR. TURNER-We've probably got 25 more. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they should be read into the record. Each one seems to have a little different outlook on it. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's true of the letters in support also. I would think noting pros and cons would suffice. MR. TURNER-Just note the pros and cons. MR. CARVIN-Because again, this is just on the determination. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's all. MR. KARPELES-Maybe we could get copies of those circulated to us. MR. THOMAS-There's 27 left. MR. LAPPER-I think copies of all the letters for the Board members would be a good idea. if they're not going to all be read, so everybody can have them and take a look at them. MR. SCHACHNER-I assume that would be true of the letters we submitted as well? MR. TURNER-Absolutely. Just highlight each one, for or against. Just read their name. MS. CIPPERLY-As the letters have been coming in, I've been keeping track of whether they were pro or con, and trying to do it by Tax Map Numbers on a map. MR. CARVIN-I think if we just read the names of the folks into t.he record. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. We just kind of got inundated today. So t.-Jhat .- 57 -- ._-, I have is not updated. MR. CARVIN-I think Just the names. MR. THOMAS-Just the names? MR. Cf~RVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated November 4th, signed by J.L.R. Pyle, Jr. and Eloise Pyle. A letter dated November 4th, opposing, from Ted Arnstein. A letter dated November 3rd, signed by Peggy Bullard and John Bullard, opposing. A letter dated November 3rd, opposing, signed by Margaret Schroder. A letter dated November 2nd. signed by Peter Lewin, opposing. A letter dated November 1994, opposed, signed by Katherine Abbott and Mary Abbott. A letter dated October 21, 1994, signed by Judith Hay, opposing. A letter dated October 27, 1994, opposing, signed by James P. Merrigan, Ph.D. A letter dated October 26, 1994, in favor of, signed by Susan Hewlett, Cleverdale. A letter from Lake George Association, opposing, signed by Kathy A. Vilmar. A letter dated October 20, 1994, from Cheryl Evans. It doesn't say in favor or opposing. It just has figures on it. I imagine it is opposing, since the others were. A letter dated October 20, 1994, appalled by the decision, Donald Billings Wheeler. A letter from the Lake George Park Commission, discussing Marina expansion. and required parking, signed by Molly Gallagher, Environmental Analyst. A letter dated October 20, 1994, opposing, signed by Tom and Chrissy Dittus. A letter that I think has already been read, dated October 20, 1994, from William Wetherbee. MR. WETHERBEE-That one has not been read. I'd like the record corrected. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated October 20, 1994, from William Wetherbee, opposing. A letter dated October 20, 1994, from the East Side Property Owner's Association, signed by Lillian Adamson, President, opposing. A letter dated October 20, 1994, from Lawrence and Christine Lacino, opposing. A letter dated October 19, 1994 from Kathleen Tarrant. opposing. A letter dated October 18, 1994, opposing, signed by Peter Lewin. A letter dated October 18, 1994, opposing, signed by Dr. Robert and Cheryl Evans. A letter dated November 13, 1994, to Ted Turner, concerning the number of boats the Bolton landing Marina quick launches. A letter with no date, from Dr. and Mrs. Jason A. Tepper. that they had kept their boat at the Mooring Post Marina for 18 consecutive years. A letter dated October 21, 1994 from J. Waterman, stating that he was an employee hired in February of 1986, as the Parts and Service Manager, position held until January of 1989. A letter dated November 11, 1994, signed by J. Whitford, stating that he was employed by John Brock at the Mooring Post Marina as a boat mechanic. During the time of my employment, I can attest to an average of 120 to 140 quick launch customers and an average of 180 to 200 boats for storage. A letter of the same wording dated November 11, 1994, signed by William Pliscofsky. A letter with the same date and the same wording, signed by Robert Dosty. A letter dated November 11, 1994, "I have been employed by John Brock as Office Manager of the Mooring Post Marina for over 10 years. One of my responsibilities at the Marina is to handle all dockage, quick launch and storage contracts. During the time of my employment, I can attest to an average of 120 to 140 quick launch customers and an average of 180 to 200 boats for storage. Signed by Linda t1artin" A letter dated October 31, 1994, stating that approximately 200 boats were easily stored in the buildings during the winter with ample space for upward of 110 to 130 boats for quick launch. Signed by Fran Heisler. A letter dated November 11, 1994 "I have been employed by John Brock of the Mooring Post Marina, also stating 120 to 140 quick launch customers, an average of 180 to 200 boats for storage. Signed by Donald Kalinkewicz. "To Whom it May Concern:" Dated October 29, -- 58 - '\....- / --../ 1994 "I am writing on behalf of John Brock and the Mooring Post Marina as to the number of boats in the storage buildings. The same as the others. It's signed by Mark A. Fowler. A letter dated 10/31/94 "To Whom It May Concern: I have stored my 18 foot Browning boat at the Mooring Post Marina over the past years. Last ·year, after my boat was winterized and stored, I found it necessary to go to the Mooring Post to pick up something I left in my boat. When I got there I found my boat was buried so deep behind other boats and other boats were packed in so tight I couldn't even get to my boat for the things I needed." Signed by Richard M. Rose. A letter dated November 4, 1994, from Daniel Comiskey, stating he had been a quick launch customer and an inside storage customer for eight years. A letter dated November 14, 1994, signed by Dan Strickman, stating that he had been a customer of the Mooring Post Marina for 15 years, and that the Mooring Post had provided quick launch service during the boating seasons and indoor storage during the winters. A letter dated November 14, 1994, opposing, signed by Karl Kroetz. I think that letter was read into the record by Mr. Kroetz. A letter dated November 1994, that one's already been read in there, from Kathleen and Mary Abbott. That's it. MR. TURNER-Okay, gentleman, if we leave the public hearing open, we don't have to deal with the time frame, if we close it, we've got 60 days. If we leave it open, (lost word) any new information. Next time around, we'll hear that. We'll hear that, and then we can render a decision as to the appeal. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, if you leave the public hearing open, this proceeding will never end. On behalf of the applicant, I would request that it be closed, if at all possible. MR. TURNER-I'm just suggesting the options. If we close it, then we make our decision the next time. MR. CARVIN-I think it becomes a time problem. put us to January. Sixty daY:3 will MR. TURNER-That's only on the Appeal, not on anything else. MR. MENTER-That's all we're hearing. MR. CARVIN--I,..Jell, I guess the question rises, in ffi.Z. mind, is if 4'Je hear the Appeal and the Appeal falls into the Use Variances, do 1,.Je postpone that an addi tional timeframe? MR. TURNER-No. Then J think we can schedule a meeting and hear the Use Variance, and the Area Variance. MR. CARVIN-Does it have to be re-advertised at that point? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think it would be. MR. LAPPER-Are you thinking about scheduling it so that determined that a Use or Area Variance or both have obtained, that those hearings would be on the same day next meeting? if it's to be as the MR. CARVIN-That's our thinking at this point. problem with that? Is there any MR. LAPPER-It would probably be good to notice it. You're basically adjourning, but it would be good to notice it for that, so that everybody's aware. MR. O'CONNOR-A Use Variance of this nature, in a Critically Environmentally Sensitive Area, would be referred to the Plannin~ Board for SECRA? ~1R. TURNER--I..Je do if 1,.Je decide. If the A ;)peal goes your "'Jay, then - 59 - ~ '- '..-' yes, but if it doesn't. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I'm just saying that out loud. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, can you help me out on that? This is not an issue that involves Planning Board jurisdiction. The Planning Board is not an involved agency. So, therefore, the Planning Board is not eligible to participate as a lead agency in SEQRA . MR. TURNER-I think what we're saying, if this goes to a Use Variance, if the Board decides that this becomes a Use Variance, then it goes to SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-SEQRA is applies, that's right. MS. CIPPERLY-What's normal done is the Zoning Board refers SECRA determinations to the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-The SECRA review to the Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-If the Planning Board is not an involved agency, that's illegal. MR. LAPPER-I guess, we have to take it one step at a time, and the next thing is to make the determination on the Appeal, and the results of that will determine what has to happen next. If, for the sake of expediting this, the Board feels that you'd like to notice it so that there's a possibility that if other hearings are required, they would happen the same day, then you should do it that l;Jay. "'1R. SCHACHNER-I think that makes sense. MR. MARTIN-In response to the comment about the Planning Board, I think the Planning Board is going to be an imlolved agency if a Use Variance is determined to be required, because that would then warrant the need for Site Plan review and approval by the Pletnning Board. MR. TURI'.IER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I better state for the record that I'm sorry to say that's directly in contrary to what Mr. Martin personally informed me in telephone conversations on Thursday, November 3rd and Friday, November 4th. MR. MARTIN-Site Plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for any enlargement or extension of a nonconforming structure or use of a structure containing a nonconforming use existing within Critical Environmental Area designated by the Town Board of the Town of Cueensbury. So, we don't have an enlaì'gement or an extension of a nonconforming structure heì'e, but we do have eotentially if a Use Variance is determined to be needed, a use of a structure containing a nonconforming use existing within a Critical Environmental Area. MR. SCHACHNER-All I can do is re-state for the Town files contain correspondence from me discussion with Mr. Martin, and that's directly I was informed on Thursday, November 3rd and 4th. That's all I can state for the record. record, and the confinning mì' contrary to L.Jhat Fr iday, NO\lernber MR. MARTIN-Okay. Fair enough. MR. SCHACHNER-Having said all that, I think Mr. Lapper's suggestion is an appropriate suggestion. - 60 - ... \ "--' ~ MR. TURNER-What's the Board's pleasure? public hearing, or do you want to leave Do you want to close the it open? MR. CARVIN-I think, from the sounds of it, what I'm hearing is that we just move on the one, and then let the Use and the Area Variance come back, at a later point, in which case, it all gets ,"e-aelverLised. MR. MENTER-In which case, the public hearing doesn't have to remain open. The sixty days is plenty of time. MR. CARVIN-No. MR. TURNER-No. It's just on this one. MR. CARVIN-In this particular situation, I'd say, lets keep the public hearing closed and render a decision. MR. TURNER-Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing. Now, the next thing is to reschedule this thing. We can't do it, obviously, this week, because we have another meeting the 16th. We can't do it next week, because we can't get the hall. We can't do it 30th, because we have a meeting the 30th. MR. SCHACHNER-Couldn't you do it at a regular meeting, since there won't be any public hearing, and all you're doing is making a decision? MR. CARVIN-It would be just a decision. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It seems to me, we were hoping you could actually do it Wednesday night, just reach your decision. MR. TURNER-This Wednesday night? MR. SCHACHNER-All you have to do is make a decision. MR. TURI\IER-No, not for me. Not this l,Jednesday night. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess all I can say, on behalf of the applicant, is that when this problem first arose, which was on October 21st, which was a Friday, the applicant was informed by the Town Board that the Town would do everything in its power to address the situation as quickly as possible. At that time, the applicant was personally told that this matter would be resolved within 10 days. Now, it's nobody's fault in this room, I don't believe, that that has not occurred, but under the circumstances, I think everyone, even those in opposition, seem to recognize that the applicant was put in a difficult position by the Town, not by the Zoning Board, obviously, but on the half of the applicant, I have to request that something be done to try to expedite this process. My understanding is, on the Appeal, all you have to do is make the decision. MR. TURNER-Yes, thatJs right. MR. SCHACHNER-So at least on that, if you could make a decision soon, then we, the applicant, have a better idea of where we're headed. I agree with Mr. Lapper's suggestion. It would certainly be appropriate to advertise for either or both of the variance applications, just to have that option open, so that we don't need to advertise some other time, but I don't know, and the applicant's right here. He's the person to whom the Town said, we're going to try to resolve this as quickly as possible. No one, I don't believe, has suggested to the applicant that the applicant acted in bad faith, here, 0'" that it was his fault for the predicament he's in. All we're asking for is some help in expediting the decision. MR. CARVIN-We're under a physical constraint, here. I mea n, I - 61 - -,-, -,../ don't know what our agenda looks like for the 30th, but I think it's pretty full. MR. TURNER-It's pretty full. MS. CIPPERLY-The agenda for the 30th has not been given to you yet, partly because we were waiting for the outcome of this meeting. It has three projects, potentially three projects, plus this one. MR. KARPELES-Why not just put it on the 30th? MR. CARVIN-Because the 30th is full also. MR. KARPELES-She said it's only three. MS. CIPPERLY-So far. MR. TURNER-So far there's only three? MS. CIPPERLY-There was a larger, more time consuming project that was removed from the agenda, so that left space for this one. MR. TURNER-All right. Yes, but we've got to have time to review the material that was given to us tonight. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to get the minutes as soon as possible, too, and the letters. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think it's incumbent that we get the minutes and we have a chance to review all the testimony that was given tonight, so that we can formulate a resolution in respect to this matter. So I would say, the 30th. Can we get the stuff so we can review it before the 30th? MS. end and you, that CIPPERLY-Apparently, we could have the minutes done by the of the week, and the letters are just a matter of xeroxing, if there's anything else that you feel would be helpful to just let me know and I'll, you know, if there's research needs to be done. MR. TURNER-All right. The 30th. The 30th of November. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, in your packet, were you given a copy of the actual minutes of the meeting of 1988? You might find that testimony to be of benefit to you. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I would like to just make a couple of general comments. I think that whichever way the Board decides, this is something that the other side could potentially litigate, because there are gray areas involved, and that we have to be very thorough in our resolution explaining the rational and addressing all of the issues which are numerous, in terms of distinguishing between Use and Area, in Jim's determination, and whether or not variances are required, one and the other, and also determining what the facts are here, because there are some issues, that, I guess, are settled, and some issues where we've got to review the transcript and review the correspondence and maybe do some further investigating. So I guess you can all digest this, and we'll talk again at the next meeting, two weeks from now, when everyone will have had a chance to get a sense of what they think is appropriate, and then we can frame the issues at that point, and come up with a detailed resolution, whichever way you decide to go. MR. TURNER-I guess it's very important that we get the minutes as soon as we can, so we can digest all the testimony and try to make some sense of it. ... 62 - .", -/ MR. LAPPER-Yes. There's a lot. MR. TURNER-Okay. with that said, I guess everything is done. Meeting's adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman .- ... 63 _.