1995-01-04 SP
\
~
OR-tINAL
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 4, 1995
INDEX
APPEALS
Notice of Appeal No . 1-95
Notice of Appeal No 8-94
Not lce of Appeal No 2-95
Cheryl Evans
1 .
John A. Brock
Mooring Post Marina
, "1
i;.,. x
Cheryl Evans
61.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
j
I
L
...../
QUEENS BURY ZONING
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 4, 1995
7:30 P.M.
BOARD OF APPEALS
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS THOMAS. SECRETARY
Ff~[D CAF<\,III\I
THot1AS FORD
F~OBERT 1<¡6¡F<PELES
DAVID ¡VIE!'HEf~
MEMBERS ABSENT
{.'ir··1Tr·JONY 1'1AF<ESCO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY
SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR ZONING BOARD-LEMERY & REID, JON LAPPER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-95 CHERYL EVANS APPEAL BY CHERYL EVANS
OF MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR STATING THAT BASED ON HIS INTERPRETATION LETTER
DATED DECEMBER 21, 1994, THE BUILDING PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE
MOORING POST MARINA, AS PRESENTED IN THE DECEMBER 15, 1994
REVISION, DOES NOT REQUIRE A USE VARIANCE. ACCORDINGLY, AN
INTERPRETATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUESTED.
LOCATION: BOX 84, CLEVERDALE ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 IN A WR-
lA ZONE AND CEA
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, for the purposes
of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor. I'm here representing Dr.
Wheeler and his wife, and also, on this particular appeal, Mrs.
Evans. Basically, we've been before you a number of times on
this particular subject, and I ask that you incorporate all the
information that you have from your prior meetings into the
fE.'cord fortJ1L~ particular mE~eting, so that. it. isn't a necessity
to go back over each and every item. I will try to be brief, and
I will try to keep to the subject matter, and perhaps, I think we
got a little bit astray the last time we met, as t.o personal
comments, lectures and whatnot. Lets see if we can keep this on
a business like basis, that's what I'm going t.o try to do. If
you think I'm not, correct me. That is my intention. Before you
get into a question, and I think. from what I've heard of the
Board, a lot of the consideration of the Board as to whether or
not a Use variance is necessary appears to be centered around
whether or not there is an increase, the proposed increase, in
the particular use on this particular property. Before you get
to that, though, I think you've got to take a look at your old
Ordinance, and the Ordinance itself, Section 177.79, regardless
of increase, does not allow what has been proposed by the
applicant hEHe, without a U:;::>e variance. "A 1\lonconforming
Structure, or a structure containing a nonconforming use may be
continued and maintained in reasonable repair, and may not be
enlarged or extended as of the date of the Ordinance, except as
therein provided", and what's provided in there is only the
enlargement of single family homes. You've got to take a look at
the definition of even enlargement, that appears in Section
179.7, and you will see that enlargement is considered extending
on the side or increasing in height, and everybody's saying, no,
- 1 -
---
---
we've got a new building here. We're not doing that, and it
says, or the moving from one location or position to another. I
think, if you take a look at that Section, and even Section F of
179F, the very least that YOU are required to have here is site
plan approval. I did not go through A through F. I think they,
and you probably have read them in preparation for tonight's
meeting, are self explanatory. I think that you will find that
Section D says that you cannot increase a nonconforming use,
except as permitted in Section A. There is no provision, within
our Ordinance, that allows an applicant to remove a group of
commercial nonconforming structures and replace them with totally
new buildings. If you hold that the applicant does not need a
Use Variance, you must be saying he is simply continuing and
maintaining, in reasonable repair, a nonconforming structure, and
I think you've got to use common sense to get to the
determination of what lS "continuing and maintaining in
reasonable repair", and perhaps to see the import of that, you've
got to look a little bit at the history of our own Ordinance.
I've given you an attachment to what I'm speaking of right now,
which gives you the language of the 1967 Ordinance, as Exhibit A.
It gives you the language of the 1982 Ordinance and 1983
Ordinance, all which preceded this particular Ordinance, and if
you look at that language, you look at how it evolved, you will
see that, initiall)-/, '''/ou could lnCì"eaSe any nonconforming
structure within the Town, up to 50 percent, but the legislators
of the TOI;Jn changed tr'lat and took out "any structur(~" and
provided only that you could increase as a matter of right,
without obtaining a variance, single family homes or mobile
homes. I think you've got to look at those Sections, look at the
history and try to determine what, in your mind, is a fair and
reasonable interpretation of the intent of the people who put
together the Ordinance. You can't expand on the Ordinance. You
can only interpret the Ordinance, and if you follow it from '67
to '82 to '83 to I;Jhat is ¡:::·re:sently the '88 version, I think
you're going to find that there's no provision in this Ordinance
that says you can simply gather together the square fo of
your nonconforming structures and say I'm going to build a new
structure of equal Slze. I've seen other Ordinances that say
something to that effect, but our Ordinance doesn't say that. I
think the zoning concept is that you try to amortize or you try
to eliminate nonconforming structures over some period of time.
You discourage them. You don't give them special privileges
within the Ordinance. They're not saying that he must
discontinue what he's doing, but they're saying that he must keep
it as it has been. He cannot change it, except to keep it in
reasonable repair and maintenance. There's even a case, and I'm
not going to go through a whole bunch of cases. I don't know if
this is the forum that wants to hear the different cases that
there are. Crossroads (lost word) seems to be a particular case
in this area, where an owner sought to tear down a lawfully
existing nonconforming gas station and put up a modern facility,
and he was denied that. He had to apply for a variance. It was
not a right to do it. He was not able to do it as of right. In
that particular instance, they also denied the variance, but you
haven't even gotten to whether or not there are merits here that
would allow you to have a variance, if a Use Variance is
required. So before you even get to the question of whether or
not there is any extension or expansion, you've got to find
something in your Ordinance that says that he has a matter of
right, even if there were no expansion, to simply pick up his
buildings, put them together, get two buildings instead of seven
buildings. If you read the Ordinance, I think you're going to
find out that he doesn't. Further supporting that argument is,
if you take a look at Section 179-83, which deals with
destruction by acts beyond the control of man, why do we have
that Section if, as of right, you can rebuild what you had there?
This is a special exception again. You've got to understand that
we're talking about exceptions to what the permitted uses are in
a particular zone. This is a special exception where you have
flood, fire, somethin9 beyond the control of man, that allows you
- 2 -
--../
',-
to rebuild a building that's destroyed, if you do it within a
certain time period. If you interpret that, because there's no
expansion here, he has the right to reconfigure the building, he
has the right to build the same square footage some place else on
that lot, ;ou're completely ignoring that Section. You're saying
that Section has no purpose. Everybody, if they rebuild any
building that's nonconforming, regardless of how it's removed,
why would we have that Section? You've got to come back to the
scheme of zoning. The purpose of the Section was to provide
specific relief if a building were destroyed or removed beyond
the control of the applicant or the owner. That's not the case h
here. You've ç,Jot., here, an ar-:::.plicant IrJho ItJis,b§...::'? to remove Uw
buildings and has made application to you, or has reported to
you, is not required to have a variance. If you look at the
common law definit.ion of "Continue to l"laintain", you look at the
whole Ordinance toget.her, you're going to find that there is no
provision in our Ordinance that says that you have the right to
simply replace a building. If you get to the question of, is
there an expansion, it's my position that there still is an
expansion, even with Plan C. I've included a graph there. My
understanding is that the applicant has indicated that his
proposed buildings will have 21,828 square feet. Now I'm using
1973 measurements. I've tried to use current measurements. I
don't have them. The last meeting, somebody indicated that a map
had been filed with the date of December 1st, with measurements
on them, and we should abide by those measurements. Those
measurements, if you look at the language of that December 1st
dat.e, are s'$caled, measurementc;. The;,)/ are not t.r'le resul t of an
actual survey. Mr. McCormack, who did a survey, who's present
here tonight, I've subpoenaed him. I would like to find out, and
I purposely left a column, in t.he fourth column, to see if I'm
right or wrong as to what the actual measurements of the
buildings are that were being removed, as he ran them through his
computer and did closures on the building. My map is, that LA is
lA, I think, the portion of the building that's being taken off
of lA, and I don't think we have, we have a map up, I guess, on
the bottom, that's on the ground. That is the portion that's
shaded, on the front of the building, this portion right here,
lA, and then they're also t.elling me that they're removing
building 3,4,5, 6,7, and 10 ,¡,s this buildinG! here. In ffiY_
calculations on this sheet, I did not include Building Number 11,
which is a garage that is up here on the residential lot, and in
the prior opinion by Mr. Martin, he indicated that if it was on a
residential lot, it would not be considered a grandfathered
commercial use, whether it was there or not there. I did the
actual math, based upon the 1973, that's what you have before you
in Column Number Two. I then, because I think if we follow just
the definition that you're going to measure a building by the
gross leasable space, you're talking about the internal building.
I presume that each building had at least a four inch stud, two
by four stud, probably even have more than that if you've got two
by fours with (lost word) on t.he outside. My old way of
calculating a board foot in lumber was that you would take one
third of a foot off for each running linear foot, if you lose
four inches of a foot, and that's a deduct of 524 feet, which
means that the buildings that are being removed are 21,469 square
feet, in this version, as opposed to buildings that are being
built, of 21,828 square feet. Now that's without getting into
any argument, and I still maintain the argument that I made
before, that this is a commercial building, and you have to
address and count all levels that are considered leasable, and on
the t.wo sides of each of these two large buildings, you have
three tiers of space that is leasable, or will be leased to
others, for dockage, and I think somebody else has some
calculations as to what that is. It creates about a 1/3 to 50
percent increase from what I'm talking about here. I do not give
up that argument, but I don't think it's even necessary to make,
if you look at the square footage. Mr. Turner, I'd like to see
if Mr. McCormack has any information available that will shed
::::orne light.
- 3 -
-'
---
¡VIP. TUF~i,!ER~'O kEi/ .
1'1f~Rf\ SCHtiCHHER
MR. SCHACHHER-Just a suggestion. After Mr. O'Connor
other people that want to speak on his behalf are done, we
to produce Mr. McCormack and address that issue, and just
through all this, I think it would be more efficient if we
t 1"'1 3. t. \¡.J a. ~~/ ~
and an}'
i nt,'? nei
t O,;:J e t
clo it
MR. TURNER-Is that all right with you?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'd prefer, Mr. Turner, to find out, I've been
asking questions from him for about three weeks. He made some
ci.:llculations for- me on De(.~ember 6. I don't know what the>' are.
MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. McCormack.
MR. SCHACHNER-Can I ma
hour?
a different suggestion, then, to save an
MR. TURNER-Go ahead.
I'll listen.
MR. SCHACHNER-My sole purpose for making that last suggestion and
for t.his suggestion is SðV i ngs of tinl("' and to keep tJ,i~;thi ng a::;;
ficient as possible. Mr. O'Connor's calculations, which of
course I don't agree with, are showing a total square footage
removal number, as I understand it, of 21,469 square feet.
C:())"- r (sc:t?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. O'Connor, by his own admission, has not
included in this calculation Building 11, which is a building to
be removed, which is a building that has been used always a part
of the commercial use, which Mr. Martin has determined, in his
decision, counts, meaning we get to count that as part of the
square footage being removed. I'm sorry, I left out a piece.
Mr. O'Connor, then, subtracts, and I'm going to assume, for the
sake of argument, that his subtraction is correct, and gets an
increased number of 359 square feet. The size of Building 11 is
greater than 359 square feet. So if t Zoning Board agrees with
1'1r. i'1artin that Building 11 does COUllt, then even if e\/er> singl,e
contention of Mr. O'Connor's is correct, and of course we don't
think they are, it's irrelevant, because we're still putting back
up less square foo than is being removed. So we can save an
hour b)' no'!::, ;1oing throu:£ih i:hat e)(erc;i~3(?, if "/ou want to make t.hat.
deter-min.ó:¡tion. It's enti'¡-el)' up to the Boar"cl. It'l1. Sa\/8 a lCit
of time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the, the only
way that I have the figures of 1973 are off of a map that was
filed with the 1973 zoning application. I don't know if they
were to scale at t.hat point. I don't know if they were closed
survey flgures. Mr. McCormack has, I understand, actually run
this through his comput.er. He has the information here tonight.
I would just as soon be accurate as guessing on that particular
point. I don't think it's a moot question. I don't know if
they're higher or lower, to be honest with you.
MR. CARVIN-Well, without going back t.hrough 9,000 pages of
minutes, but I seem to remember some place that that resident.ial
lot was not part of the consideration. Am I incorrect in that
a~:;:=:;Uiíìi:::it ion?
MR. MARTIN-Well, there's two residential lots. There's one that
the house actually sits on. The one that the house sits on, the
northern most structure there, the 18 by 36 frame house, and this
was in the corner of that lot, and it was indicated to me by t
applicant that that's used for boat storage, now, and has been.
MR. CARVIN~But that is a separate deeded lot.
Is that correct?
- 4 -
'-""
'-.--
I'1R. MARTIH-{es.
MR. CARVIN-Then I would assume that that
situation, if it's a separate deeded lot.
gut reaction on that. So why would we
9rand totals?
is not a grandfathered
I mean, that's just my
include that into the
MR. MARTIN-Because it was part of the marina operations.
MR. O'CONNOR-When, though? I have a 1971 survey that shows the
outside of the Scott Henderson Marina.
MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, what was
information is that that has been used for
part of the Marina operation.
provided to me as
Marina storage. It's
MR. CARVIN-But it's also been used as a residence.
corn~ct?
Is that
MR. MARTIN-The hous~ has been.
MR. CARVIN-Yes. See I've been under the impression that that lot
was out of the calculations.
MR. MARTIN-The house was never included. The Building Number 11
IS.
MR. CARVIN-Was Building
property, in other words,
Number lion the property or
off the deeded lot?
off the
MR. MARTIN-It's clearly on the lot of the house.
that, but the use of the building has been
associated with the Mooring Post Marina.
I don't dispute
for Marina use,
MR. SCHACHNER-And not the residence.
MR. MARTIN-The other nebulous phrase of the Zoning Ordinance is
that. f01- zoni ng.
MR. CAF<VIN-It's not a Marina. It's a residential lot. I mean,
that's a house with an outbuilding that's being used for boat
storage. It could be sold as a residence.
MR. MARTIN-The other rather nebulous phrase in the Zoning
Ordinance is that, in nonconforming lots in the APA, for zoning
purposes, lots of the same ownership shall be treated as one, for
zoning purposes.
MR. O'CONNOR-For density and for subdivision purposes.
MR. MARTIN-It says for zoning purposes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I can show you deeds, Mr. Chairman, t.hat go back and
show that when this whole operation became nonconforming, that
was not part of the Marina operation. There's never been a
variance which would allow it to be included since that time, and
if it was not grandfathered in 1967, so that if somebody started
putt.ing something in there, and there was no enforcement, is
immaterial. If there is a use that is illegal, it never gains
the standing of legality or nonconformity. I have, here, a map
by Mr. McCormack which shows it to be, if I understand the same
building, not the first garage you come to, but the second garage
you come to. Outside, there are actually three 50 foot lots that
adjoin this property that are now owned by Mr. Brock. This is on
t.he rnJ(:LçU_ª of those two 50 foot lots. It's not the 50 foot lot
that's most adjacent to what is the showroom. So unless, maybe
Mr. Schachner can tell me how this became part of the Marina
operation, by variance, tell me how it became part of the Marina
operation since 1967 when I can show it was owned by people
unrelated to the Marina, or show me a varIance I've missed some
- 5 -
..-
place. I'd like to proceed with the questioning of Mr. McCormack
if I may".
MR. CARVIN-Do you want to resolve this,
it's instrumental to the square footage.
an answer on this separate lot.
I mean, because I think
I think we have to have
MP. TUR \IEP~·'(e23.
MR. SCHACHNER-We can focus on that issue from our side, too,
right now.
MR. CARVIN-I think it's instrumental. I don't know what the rest
of the Board feels.
MR. KARPELES-I don't feel real strongly one way or the other.
MR. TURNER-Do you want to hear his calculations?
1"1R. (¡t.¡R\,IIN-Yes.
MR. MENTER-Yes. I think we have to address both issues, here.
'()U hal,je to hear both, an)/vJay'.
MR. CÞiR'·,nN~·\'es.
MR. THOMAS-Hear the calculations.
MR. TURNER-All right. Okay.
come to the microphone.
Mr. McCormack, would you please
Tor"! MCC::Of?t"iACI<
MR. MCCORMACK-This deals with these buildings. As a last effort,
we showed some of the square footage of these other buildings.
(lost word) the total of removed, to be removed, and the amount
of ne'v.) con~3truction.
MR. TURNER-Total removed or to be removed, 22,120.
MR. CARVIN-Outside, right?
MR. TURNER-Yes, new construction, 21,828, which IS a different of
292 square feet.
MR. CARVIN-What about 15, is that part of it?
MP. SCHACHNER-No, we're not counting that.
MR. CARVIN-The only building in contention IS Number 11. Is that
c:I:)r r -23C:t?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don't believe it's of contention, but as far as I
know. The numbers that you want to be looking at, well, that's
the total numbers. I'm trying to point Fred to the specific
numbers. The ones here that have square footage numbers next to
them, in other words. you asked about 15. See how it doesn't
have a number next to it?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Are we different than what's on that map?
MR. SCHACHNER-Then what's on, I don't understand the questlon.
MR. O'CONNOR-These are different than what's on here?
MR. SCHACHNER-Some of these are different than some of these.
Tha,t 's cor r ect .
MR. O'CONNOR-MY. Chairman, maybe I can
McCormack, you've actually done made
just, for the record, Mr.
some calculations, based
- 6 -
...--
'-...---
upon your field survey notes, you made some calculations based on
your actual field survey notes as to measurements, you made
exterior measurements of the buildings that we've been speaking
of h,,,:-'r e"?
MR. MCCORMACK-That's correct. Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Turner, can I make another suggestion, please?
Rather than have a Perry Mason like affair, where Mr. O'Connor
puts words into Mr. McCormack's mouth, Mr. McCormack knows the
lssues that are at issue here, and Mr. McCormack's prepared to
tell the Zoning Board exactly what he's done in respect to Mr.
O'Connor's contentions, and I suggest you just allow Mr.
McCormack to tell his story.
MR. TURNER-Yes. You're correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-I object to that, Mr. Chairman. I think I have a
point that I want to make, but, fine, you have Mr. Schachner run
this meeting as you would have Mr. Schachner run this meeting.
1"1f'~. rUF<i\'1ER-i'-10.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess Mr. O'Connor's already departing from
his initial statement, Mr. Turner. I'll leave it up to you. I
thought we were going to stay business like.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a couple of questions here. Mr.
McCormack. these are the figures that you're now submitting. Is
that correct? This is what you've come up with, is that new
construction is 21,828?
MR. MCCORMACK-That's correct, yes.
MR. CARVIN-And then the total to be removed is 22,120.21?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I have a map, here, from Mr. Frank Hardick,
and he agrees with the 21,828 figure, of the new construction,
I'm assuming, yet I'm showing a total square footage of the
buildings to be removed as 22,764, which, just some rough math,
would be at least 640 square feet difference, and this one's a
stamped map. Is that correct?
MR. TURNER-That's correct.
MR. CARVIN-To cut to the quick, where's our difference?
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Hardick is here, too, Mr. Turner, just so you,
you mi ght wa nt to have them t?.otb a ns~"'er .
MR. TIJRI\IER-'y'es.
FR(..:¡1\1~( HARDICK
MR. HARDICK-My name IS Frank Hardick, and I'm the Engineer of
record, and that's the map that I used from Mr. McCormack, and my
c.alculations on iJl:L. map were based on scaling the buildings. IrJe
normally just scale a building and figure out the square footage
that way. If I'd known it was going to be this detailed, I'd
have probably asked Mr. McCormack for the actual measurements,
but at the time, we just scaled the drawings, and, knowing his
work in the past, which was very, very accurate, we didn't
question the size, and so these could be off by say, like, half
of one percent or one percent.
MR. CARVIN-This is more like three percent.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. McCormack. your current figures, and I will
- 7 -
....
--
state for t.he record, I've never challenged the accuracy of Mr.
¡VicCoì-mack '~ò figuì-e2:;, but I challenge t.hc manneì- in whic;.h t.he)'·
were prcsented, because I recognizcd that they were to scale. and
I had difficulty even scaling some of them myself, which is ~hy I
asked him to run them through his computer to give you what your
figures arc. You'vc qat to remember that Plan B. sUPPoFcdlv ws0
less than what was being removed, too, even thou~h Plan~B"w~~ 6~~
feet larger than what Plan C lS. So you're almost talking 1,000
square feet by the time you get done the calculations as to
~...¡ hi;), t '~3 j- hnr c' or not t heì- f" I ('>j' 1'11<-': p" L:, VI.)U j- lì l" C· ~.Aì· M'-(-'Oì-I-\'¡'~ ,., l·
.... 'A' ." .... ^" .. ...... .... _, _.:A.~... r / ........), I"'" ~.....' .... ,~~~\___. I", ~~
you did Buildings Three through Seven, and you put them on a
separate map, and every onc of those buildings, this is t
outslde measurement?
MR. MCCORMACK-Outsidc dimensions, yes.
i'1F; .
I] 'COI"~t'~OR"'O ka}' .
'f i:?et. . 12:, t. ha t
Building Number Ten
an outside measurement
'/ou put
also?
on your
ffla,¡::: as
451:2
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And that's by your field notes?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Building lA, did you ever make a measurement
as to the actual field dimensions of the building to be removed
that's n known and shown as Building 1A?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And how many square feet are in that?
MR. MCCORMACK-2,270.4.
MR. CARVIN-Can I interrupt you just for a second, because I am
not an engineer, and you are bantering tcrms around that I'd like
a little bit of explanation. I'm assuming, I understand, I
think, scaling. Can you tell me what the definition of what
scaling is, and also what a field measurement is? What's the
c: i ff¡:;¡" (: nee:?
MR. MCCORMACK-The three pages that are stapled together that you
have present the, the numbers in circles in the corners of each
building, that represents an actual building corner located in
the field by typical surV'~1 methods, with an instrument and a
measuring device, a tape or electronic measuring, similar to if
we were locating a property corner. We treat the building
corners in the same way. So all these building corners were
located back in 1971. The numbers that. you see next. to the
numbers in circles are what we call coordinants. All the
surveys, be it the buildings or if you look at the property line
map. all the specific points are on a coordinant system. There's
a relationship between anyone point and another. Well, havin9
arrived at the coordinants of each of the corners of these
buildings, we can then compute the length of the sides and the
directions of the sides. That's what you see on the, on both of
the maps, and on the third page of all the computer calculations,
which give us the square footage of each of those rectangular
figures. So the location of the buildings, again, were by
typical survey methods. When you talk about scaling, you take an
engineer's scale, put it on to a map, such as ours, that we made
in 1971, and you can get a dimension, at a 50 feet to t.he inch,
an increment is about the size of, or even less than the outline
of the building, a pencil lot, so it could be a foot one way or
the other. So that's one way of arriving at the approximate
building dimension, by scaling it, as opposed to actual
calculations from a very almost minute point So scaling is an
approximate way of arriving at dimensions, for planning purposes
or not the construction, but for planning purposes.
- 8 -
'-
,./
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I guess I
mean, what you're telling me is t.hat
field measurement. I that correct?
still have a hard time. I
the scaling is based on the
MR. MCCORMACK-Okay.
MR. CARVIN-And Mr. Hardick apparently had the field measurements.
See, my way of thinking, it should come out to the same spot.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think t.hat's correct, Mr. Carvin. He has
copies of the survey map that he did a scale. He took a rule
and, inside line, outside line, when you're talking 22 foot, 32
foot widths, it can be meaningful.
MR. CARVIN-But the math should still come out. in the same spot,
shouldn't ,1, t?
1'1R. TUF<I\IER-No.
MS. CIPPERLY-Because these lines are so close together, that you
can have a difference.
MR. TURNER-Yes. You could have an awful difference.
MR. CARVIN-I understand now.
MR. MCCORMACK-At 50 feet to the inch, each one of those very fine
lines represents a foot. So when you lay it on the drawing of
this map, you can easily read it a foot one way or the other.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I'm saying, all right, in other words,
I guess somebody had to scale this out so he would scale it,
right? I mean, where does he get this print now?
MR. MCCORMACK-The outlines of the buildings are plotted based on
these coordinants that I've mentioned.
¡-'1f~. CARVIN--Okay.
the figure.
I guess I'm still coming out that if this is
MR. THOMAS-You couldn't measure 9.157 feet.
MR. CARVIN-I know, but the math, if you take the 90.175 and
multiply it. by this, it still should come out to the field
measurement, is what I'm saying.
i'iF\. TI"lOl"lr"iS"'I"Jell, if he took ~his~., this could be 89 feet Ions¡, or
it could be 91 feet long with the scale.
MR. MCCORMACK-To put it simply, these, we call these field
measurements. The locations are all based on field measurements
with i~struments. Whereas, to arrive at a width of something
with a scale, you could easily go a foot or two one way.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I can appreciate that.
MR. MCCORMACK-So these are the results of survey measurements.
MR. CARVIN-All right.
guess, is the question.
Is this the map that they
Who dì·e~·\I these:'
scaled off, I
MR. TURNER-It's Frank's map.
MR. MCCORMACK-These locations are basically take from the 1971
survey.
MR. HARDICK-When we measure whole buildings on a plot plan,
chances are IAle just scale them off. If we're doi n9 a !}2.\:i
building, we very accurately measure and check it. That's the
difference. We knew these buildings were going to be removed,
- 9 .-
'---'
---
and we just kind of scaled this, and the accumulation of error
could go one way or the other, depending on how close you read
the scale and how close and light the pencil mark is. If this
was a larger scale, the accuracy would be greater. As you go
down the scale, your accuracy gets less and less. This is well
within the limits of accuracy on these types of maps.
MR. O'CONNOR I don't contest that
scaling, but I think you agree that
are the actual measurements now. '
it's: not vJithin
Mr. Mc:Coì'mdck's
tl-',e realm ()f
me.3S;U r i:?merìt:;:,
MR. HARDICK-Certainly.
MR. O'CONNOR-The point, and I will accept the measurements that
Mr. McCormack has given as being the measurements of those
buildings that are being removed and I will address them as t
exterior measurements of those buildings being removed.
MR. HARDICK-That's how a building's normally measured, in the
();:{ter ior .
MR. O'CONNOR-Not under our Ordinance, Frank.
MR. CARVIN-So are we coming to an agreement, here, that the
actual square footage?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if the buildings he gave me,
the chart, field measurements, I've got 21,734
still will contest that you would include,
Building Number 11.
I ju::~t liJent dOltJn
square teet. I
in any' Inarlner,
MR. CARVIN-Well, I understand your concern, but I'm coming
this figure, an actual field measurement of 22,120.21. That is
t Field measurement, according to Mr. McCormack?
.~ ,+~
1...--1,,,,)
MR. SCHACHNER-That's what's on Mr. McCormack's diagram today.
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
I'm. 0' CONNOR·.. I
9a\/e ,!,'ou , you'd
think if you added the
come to that fi9ure.
381 to the
figure, I jl)S;t
MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what you're doing is you're just subtracting
out the 381.86, which has to be determined yet.
MR. Q'CONNOR-I came to 22,115, roughly.
MR. CARVIN-Well, 22,120 less
around 21 and change, isn't
look about right?
38 is 90in9 to bring it down to
it, 21,900 something? Does 21,938
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have copies for the Board members, of what
Mr. McCormack just gave us?
MR. SCHACHNER-I
you're welcome to
don't think
l().;')\<, at. I
we have that many.
might need it back.
Here '~::
rn in·",
MR. TURNER-21 ,738.35.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's the exterior measurements of the buildings.
MR. CARVIN-If that's the way a field measurement is, is on the
exterior. Is that correct?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions of Mr.
McCormack at this time. If you were not 90in9 to stay for otheì'
purposes, I'd be glad to, Mark, if you wanted to ask questions.
- 10 -
'-../'
'----
MR. TURNER-Do you have any questions, Mark, of Mr. McCormack?
MR~ SCHACHNEP-I might~ If I understand correct, Mr~ O'Conr'¡or is
basically saying Mr. McCormack has fulfilled his subpoena. Is
t '''IEi t~ cor '( ect?
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's what he's saying.
MR. O'CONNOR-It is. Let me ask one question for somebody in the
audience. Did you measure the height of the buildings which was
in controversy, too, at all?
MR. MCCORMACK-No, I didn't.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
subpoena.
I'm satisfied that he has fulfilled his
i'1F<. TURNEF<-O k.:i)/ .
MR. O'CONNOR-If you'll look at what we have, then, t.he external
measurements of the buildings, then, without Building 11, come to
21,734 or 738 feet. They are acknowledging that their building
21,828. I would even go that difference further by still
deducting, perhaps, t.his 524 feet. I'm not sure. Maybe Mr.
McCormack didn't bring a measurement of what the linear, I guess
we can go back, it's within five feet one way or another, if you
deduct the interior building measurements. I don't think there
was any building on there that had less than a two by four type
stud, and I think, is that a correct statement, Mr. Martin, that
you would measure the buildings from their internal leasable
space?
MR. MARTIN-No. That's not t.he way ~ ever was taught to measure
buildings on a site plan such as this, because zoning deals with
the mass of the building on the lot, and if you also take notice,
the gross leasable definition we have in our Ordinance was done
in December 17, 1990, in anticipation of the Enclosed Shopping
Center zone that was done for the Aviation Mall, and that speaks
a lot to Mall dimensions and things like that, common corridors
and so on. ~ was never taught to measure buildings under
interior dimensions, and as a general practice, common building
permits that are submitted for residential homes are measured
under exterior dimension. I think t.his Board has practiced that,
time and ag;i~in, on tìrea. Vaì"iancc)'3.
I'1R. TURt'IEf<'·Ye,s.
MR. MARTIN-I know of no time that we measure interior dimensions,
other than when it's applied to the gross leasable space, where
it's cited in the Ordinance for the Enclosed Shopping Center.
MS. CIPPERLY-We just had one last meeting where the garage was
900 square feet if you counted the inside, but it was ove1 900
when you took the outside dimensions. So, you chose to use the
exterior dimensions.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think if you look at the definitions of Commercial
Space and measurement of Commercial Space, there lS a special
definition t.here, and t.hat's where I'm t.alking about gross
leasable space, whenever it was adopted. We're talking about
applying the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance t.oday,
tonight to this particular application. Without even that
argument, t.hough, as ~ understand it, if you do not include
building Number 11, which is shown on a 1971 survey as not being
part of the Mooring Post Marina, and I think the deeds in the
County Clerk's Office will reflect that as not being part of the
Mooring Post Marina. What has been submitted to you as the most
kind measurement is still larger than what is being built and
what is being removed, and I will submit a copy of that survey
for your record, just so that you can see what we're t.alking
- 11 -
'-
......
-'
, . ..,.. ,. . '. . 1 ,. I
a,)()Ul::,. 1,,1,;:; ,L:3 BUl, 0.1.1"19 t\!urnoor 11. This 1:3 t.he l"'lo()rirl,; F'()::::t
Marina lands from Henderson to t Mooring Post Marina. This
would indicate the property line, and we go back to '67. I don't
even know if Henderson ever actually owned these little
resldences. I can't tell you that as I stand here. (lost word)
research in the County Clerk's Office will tell you that those
parcels were separate and distinct Thev arRn't ornpRrtv to bp
considered ¡::::·art.. I think tr¡;;Õ,), d¿~ument~d eCid~n~e'~ th;'t y¿u'r;
going to have in your file lS going to show YOU that theY'~e not
part of the Marina. We can do the deeds, it's always been shown
separately on the tax maps.
MR. SCHACHNER-There's your 58 and 57, 59, right there.
Mn
,,"\ .
O'CONNOR-They were owned by West.
MR. MENTER-Rolf and White, conveyed in '70.
MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is that they were not part of t
Marina until recent vintage and they were part of the Marina only
in the sense that they were in the same person's ownership. It's
never been given a blessing by variance from '67. '67 they were
not part of the Marina.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think we're getting some apples and oranges
confu::::i:)d here. Can I sa)'" VJhy I think ~"'e're g<:'3ttlng ~;orne applc::'::
and oranges confused, and then if you want to contest that you
can? The reason I think we're getting apples and oranges
confuseel here is ~"'e're not a'¡"guin~;j here, ,:llthough we; º-ªJl ar~:;¡ue
this, and we may choose to later, but we are not currently
arguing that the entire Brock holdings is all Marina property.
We have conceded that there are portions of it that have n
used only residentially, that are not included in our commercial
square footage. We're not arguing about the entirety of those
lots. All we're arguing about is the use of Building Number 11,
,) flel aOiJ, in, ju::;;t for the sa ke of ~::a\/ i ng t i mG, I (;ion' t k"'iJ nt to 'Jet
involved in a lengthy discussion about what the deeds discuss
about the entire rest of the lots. All I want to talk about is
Building 11. If Mr. O'Connor wants to talk about the other
portions of the lots, obviously, he's free to do so, if you allow
him to. I merely submit that it's a waste of time.
t·1R. 0 'COl\lt'IOR-,I think y"ou '\/0 got to look at ~",hat t.he facts; are.
I'll submit the map as being a fact that it was not part of the
Marina, and I can submit dGeds that will show that when t.his
whole operatlon became nonconforming, or took on nonconforming
standing, it was in separate ownership of people who used it as
residential purposes. Once that occurs, unless there's a
variance, it doesn't become part of the nonconforming operation.
This Board, or predecessor people sitting on this very Board, in
1988, turned down a variance to include thoSG properties in the
commercial use. It's in your minutes. It's 1980, 1402.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. For example, as a practical matt r, as we
stand here t.oday, this building in question extends onto the
commercial portion of the property. I believe that's one of t
reasons Mr. Martin made the termination he made. You can ask
him. I'm not positive, but it's been used as part of t
commercial marina and today as we stand here, a portion of it
extends onto the "commercial lot". I believe that's one of the
reasons Mr. Martin made the determination he made, but you'll
have to ask him about that.
MR. TURNER-Would you care to answer that, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Again, the primary reason why I included it was that
it was used for Marina uses associated with the Mooring Post
Marina. I have no survey map. I projected some lines myself,
but I have no survey map that. shows the location, well, I do
have, it is right on the line, the southerly wall. It is right
- 12 -
, ...r'
----
on the line, and it's a tough call to make, but my primary
purpose was that it was used for marina uses.
¡ViP. TUP \I[F~~'O ka y .
MR. O'CONNOR-I've made my
The facts are what we have
argument.
submi t.tec!.
I think the
'( eco''( d sta nds .
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. McCormack does have something to add, I
bel ie\/e.
MR. MCCORMACK-The map you're looking at is the 1971 map, which
has not been revised since then As of a field inspection and
measurement., an addition of about 9.9 or 10 feet has been made to
this building at some time in the past.
MR. MARTIN-Was it there when you measured it ln '73, that
addit.ion?
MR. MCCORMACK-No.
1'1P. l'1AF<TH\I-Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK-When it got added, I don't know, but. that's the way
it looks now. It projects 10 feet.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I don't know if you heard that. At some point
in time since the survey of 1971, approximately nine feet has
been added to the westerly wall of the building, so that it does,
t.oday, extend on to the commercial lot.
MR. FORD-Are you referring, still, to Building 11?
MR. MARTIN-Building 11.
It has been expanded since the '71
:3U'(\i6)l"
MR. SCHACHNER-And for the record, not by Mr. Brock.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. McCormack, in 1971, was that, those two lots
part of the Marina operation?
i'1F~ . 1'-1CCORi"j(-'4CK" I
op(Hation, but. I
can't say whether they were part
know when those various lots were
of the i'1arina
con\/eyed.
MR. O'CONNOR-You
being conveyed to
did a survey, did you not,
the Mooring Post Marina in
of the land that
1971?
lI-Ja:::,':
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
i'1R.
that.
O'CONNOR-And that was not included
survey? Was it included within
within the boundaries of
the boundaries of t.hat
~3ur \'Je;.)/'?
MR. MCCORMACK-Not in the '71 survey.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK-The deed references that those lots are on the map.
When I say the map has not been updated or revised, it has only
in regard to the title chart on the right side, showing the date
of acquisition of additional parcels.
MR. O'CONNOR-Were there any surveys prior to '71? I haven't
asked that question, that go back to '67, when the Zoning
Ordinance was adopted? Are you aware of any old surveys that we
haven't talked about here this evening?
MR. MCCORMACK-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Mr. Chairman, I'd go on, unless you have
- 13 -
"---'
--
some ot.her que:::;ti.onc; of me on that P,3'j"ti.CU.1..';;iì" ¡:::.(:,int,
MR. MARTIN-According to this, Mr. McCormack, the '71
were indicated here as 57 and 58 were conveyed t.o
Post Marina, Inc. in August 5, 1975?
~3U.Y-\/(S)/ 5 lo-t~E;
the r1oorin,~:J
MR. MCCORMACK-That's correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have a
to '75, Mr. McCormack, or
prior to '75?
record as to the chain of title prior
would your file reflect an ownership
MR. MCCORMACK-The grantor 1S listed on the map, but that's as far
back as I can tell you.
MR. O'CONNOF<-And the grantor was?
MR. MCCORMACK-S.J. Rolf and White to the Mooring Post Marina,
Tnc.
MR. o 'CONNOR-I think in your prior hearings you heard Mr.
Henderson t.alk about his family, the Henderson family, having
operated the Marina since t.he early 1900's. I have not heard
this name at all before. My presentation to this Board is t.hat
those lots, up until 1975, were never combined with that. I can
verify that by abstract and by deeds at the County Clerk's
Office. I don't have that information in front of me. I didn't
think it was going to be refuted or in controversy, because it's
not in the survey.
MR. CARVIN-Can I ask Mr. McCormack another couple
T figures here, down at the bottom, are
measurements, these here?
of qu,estion:,s?
the:;:;e fi,:lc:
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes, they are.
MR, CARVIN-They are? Okay. Because I see you've got, you know,
these five buildings, and you've come up with 19,000 square feet
here, roughly, yet you don't indicate the other buildings.
MR. MCCORMACK-Well, you're talking about Buildings 5, 10, and 11.
t-1F~. C('iF<\lIt\ -YE~S.
MR. MCCORMACK-That information was just requested just today.
MR. CARVIN-Where did these figures come from?
MR. MCCORMACK-They are from field measurements.
MR. C(4P'v'I N..· 0 kay" .
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes. The initial effort, here, was to depict these
buildings and the very specific details as to their shape and
squareness and square footage. The other three buildings were
separately measured, field measured, all three of those. That's
what they show here. This was Just a last minute effort this
afternoon. This being lot, or parcel, Building Number lA.
MR. CARVIN-This one would be 11, right here, would it?
MR. MCCORMACK-That's Number 11, yes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this is a map that was drawn approximately,
when, in 1971?
MR. MCCORMACK-'7l.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Can you scale this for me? I mean, I'll take a
one or two percent t.olerance. What does this building show as
- 14 -
-'
~
size here, just as approximate?
MR. MCCORMACK-Well, that would show, it probably would scale
about 21 feet, 21, 22 teet.
MR. CARVIN-So we're talking 21 feet?
MR. MCCORMACK-With the addition.
addition.
There's been a 9.9 foot
MR. CARVIN-Yes, but the addition, you did your field measurements
~-Jhe n?
MR. MCCORMACK-These later measurements of these t.hree were done
t.oday.
MR. CARVIN-They were done today.
MR. MCCORMACK-I can tell you, even without scaling, that this
building, the dimensions that we show here are 31.3 feet, and the
addition was 10 feet.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but in 1975, or 1985 revised, we're only looking
at 21.
MR. MCCORMACK-21.3 feet, for that original building.
MR. SCHACHNER-In '85 or '75?
MR. CARVIN-Well, here, it's scaling out at 21 feet.
MR. MCCORMACK-The 21 foot dimension is from the '71 survey. The
joint between the additions are very visible today, and you can
see that went out 10 teet.
MR. SCHACHNER-But all you know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but
all you know is that that's occurred since '71, correct?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes, after '71. It could have been the next year
or 10 years later.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That's all I was making clear.
have been '72. it could have been, we don't know when,
time.
It could
just some
MR. CARVIN-I Just want to try to get what the building is
in '71. I mean, because if we're going to use the
measurements here for '71, I mean, we've got to go back to
or I;,¡as
f,j,eld
'71.
MR. MCCORMACK-It would be a 12 by 10. Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-12 by 10 less, correct?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MR. TURNER-71 is 21.3.
MR. CARVIN-No, because t.his reduces this figure down.
MR. SCHACHNER-So it would be 260 and 71?
MR. CARVIN-Well, whatever t.he 22 here, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-What it really IS going to throw off is all the
calculations as to permeability. I haven't even addressed that
because I didn't know what they were going to come up with for
figures. I haven't been able to find out. If you go through my
calculation and you compare these item by item, everyone of
these buildings is smaller than what was on the prior maps that
have been submitted, and I also question as to how the ot.her
- 15 -
--....
-..;
buildings were shown, and ma that was the question you as d,
Mr. Carvin, but there are some at r calculations, based UPO\1 t
other buildings, all in Mr. Hardick's mapping, which appears to
be all by scaling as opposed to field measurements.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but can't
that whatever the number is,
permeabIlIty is increasing.
i ner e';'::\:"'3 i ng .
we save hours here on
it's greater. In other
You're disputing what
the notion
vJOn:J:3, the
¡::'E:~r(;ent i2;
~1R. 0 'COt",jNOR-I disagree ~>Jith thtJt, because I'll shm>J you, on that
map, where you've scaled that map over there, he shows 322 feet
of frontage along Mason Road, and if you look at this survey, Tom
McCormack shows 314 feet.
MR. SCHACHNER-So your position is going to be the permeability IS
easing?'
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's fair.
MR. O'CONNOR-Something's wrong, you had two maps up here before.
The to¡:::· map, the per imr:;>teì' i:-::; not to sca Ie. The bot tori! map,
wherever that went to, the perimeter is to scale, but the
buildings aren't to scale as they're shown on that. Mr. Steves
is here, and wor d with me this afternoon trying to figure out
what we're doing and what's apples and apples.
MR. CARVIN-Well, this appears to be the '71.
t ~) (~e\ >.... ..
This "'Jas done
i'm. HJRNER--Yes.
i'1R. U'iRVH',j--This ¡,Jas done in '71, and God only knol¡'Js "'Jhen tr',is ~'Ja~s
cl() flC] ..
MR. TURNER-This was done to scale off the map.
MR. CARVIN-Off this map here, I would assume.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and I guess that's somethIng we can all
agree. The scaling is not as accurate as Tom McCormack's field
rn,,~asur' ements .
MR. O'CONNOR-I'd be satisfied to tell the Board that I think Mr.
McCormack's, I accept Mr. McCormack's measurements as to the
buildings that we've talked about being removed. I do not agree
to the inclusion of Building 11, whether it's in the 1971 status
or in its present status, and that's a separate issue.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-When you carry it over, maybe you want us to stay
for a few minutes, when we get into other discussions, you're
going to see that things just aren't, I've been arguing, Mr.
Martin says he has a stamped map. and that's what we're going to
accept. I think if you look at your minutes last month, that's
where it's from. I'm saying things aren't always what they
appear to be, if you get into a look at the background. Scaling
1S not surveying.
MR. TURNER-It's not accurate. Scaling's not accurate.
MR. SCHACHNER-Conceded.
MR. O'CONNOR-Some place in our Ordinance we talk about, in man)
applications, surveyed applications, surveyed presentations.
MR. TURNER-Yes, we do.
- 16 -
--./
'-.....---
1'1f-~ .
less
O'CONNOR-My point is, if you take his figures, he's removing
than what they're creating, and I'll go on to another point.
MR. TURNER-All right.
have been made.
Lets go t.o the next point. The points
MR. CARVIN-I think we have
that that's one of the key
we have to get resolved.
to determine Building 11. I
elements, and I think that's an
think
issue
1'1P. THOI'1AS--Yess.
farther, before
confused.
We might
IIJe get
a~-;
well do it now, before it goes any
more figures in here to get us
an)'
MP. TURNER-Do you want to clarify Building 11?
MR. CARVH'\ -'I,~ell, ŒLL. feeling is that E:uilding 11 s;hould not be
included in this particular plan. I think that it's a separate
lot and it appears to be a separate lot and has been a separate
lot and could be conceivably sold as a separate lot and If
the¡-e's a use of a marina t.here,; we could ha\,je tVJO marina~3 out
there, because that's an existing use. I mean, if I wanted to
buy that lot and set up my own Carvin's Marina, I don't know, I
think I'd have a pretty good argument, because the building's on
a separate piece of property, and I think that that cannot be
included as part of the Mooring Post.
MR. KARPELES-I agree with Jim's determination the first place.
MR. SCHACHNER-And we have more to add on that.
MR. TURNER-I know. We're
want to go with Building 11
trying to straighten
0,- not,
out IrJhether
we
1'1R. ~.Cf'¡ACHr'jEF:-'Ho, I mean on _lliat pO.lnt.
MR. TURNER-I know.
MR. SCHACHNER-I have things to add, if you want.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you will also get into some discussion on
Building 11, as an accessory building, built and legitimized as
an accessory to that residence, you wouldn't be permitted to
build a garage on a residential lot to service a marina on an
adjoining parcel, and you've got to go back to the 1988
determination of this Board that said that those lots were
,"esidential"
i'1P. SC!-1{.'iCHNER"{.'ind all IrJe've be;¿~n ss¿¡'/ing is t.he qucostion is riot
the character of the lots.
MR. CAF<VIH-Do you want to contlnuc with Building 11?
MR. TURNER-I think we ought to clarify whether we're going to
include it or not.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if I could just add something simply, on
t.he issue of Building 11, I guess. I think the standard is, when
the Ordinance changed to residential, was that a marina use, so
that. it would be a grandfather nonconforming, or was it
residential use, and we need testimony on that issue.
MR. TURHER-Yes. Mark, can you testify to that?
MP. SCHACHNER-L can't testify to It.
MP. TURNER-Can Mr. Brock?
MP. SCHACHNER-Well, Mr. Brock can offer some information about
it.
- 17 -
~
--
MR. TURNER-Lets have the information, then.
1'1R. SCHACHr'~EF<"WBut. I tr'link ¡"'J;¿~ should also inclueJe in thbt
discussion, you know, there's clear authority in the State of New
York, and I also, like Mr. O'Connor, even less than Mr. O'Connor,
do I intend to discuss case law, because I don't think this is
the appropriate forum for that, but you have very competent
counsel here who I believe is well aware of the case law in the
State of New York to indicate that there can be an ,¿,ffecti'v'e
merger of use among adjacent lots, when the property owner in
question uses a portion of the adjacent lot, or in some cases,
all", of the adjacc:nt lot, as a pOì-tion of the commercial bu::~ine:::;~~.
Mr. Brock can add the information about what the situation was
i'-Jhen he PUì"c::hased the pì"Operty and i'-Jhat's b()en since, ci?rtainl)',
if the Board wants to hear that, that's fine.
MR. TURNER-Yes, that would be fine.
]OI·IN BROCI<
MR. BROCK-Since I've had t.he property, there has been engines,
parts for engines, parts out of the showroom, like shelving and
gondolas and stuff that are used in the Marina. That's all
that's been, parts that they use for covering boats and stuff
like that, but that's all that's n in that garage, okay, and I
calculated the size of the new building by the fact that Jim said
that building was included. I mean, if it was not included, the
building would have just been that much smaller. It didn't make
any difference, but I went on Jim Martin's fact that it was
inc;luded.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you go back to the November decision by Mr.
l"lartin, that building, b')" number, i'-Jas not included. 1'rn rl(:,t sure
¡"Jhy. It did not appear to b-s ,exc;luded. I'~urnber 11 "'Jaf:: never
mentioned. I went back through t.hose trying to find out. I
t h i rd t h.3 t ' s a I ei::;ìa 1 1. ~:;suc:: , u~;:;e I'h. Br oc k jU:3t te::::t i f i :,J¡::;;
to what he's done the last 10 years. I think that's immaterial.
The question is, what was done with that property in 1967. We
could present a deed. I think Mrs. Poland is here. She may even
hal,jc some information as t.o v-Jhetheì- it was included i'-Jhen hex-
family operated the Marina, and they were the intervening people
between Henderson and Mr. Brock, presently the applicant here.
MR. TURNER-She's here?
MR. O'CONNOR-She's here. She's here under subpoena.
¡VIF:.. TUF::t'IEf':':·' 0 kay' . Lets hea)- he~r re::õ:;¡::'onse t.o that question.
l'iF;. O'COI"1NOR"·S¡'''¡e'd li,ke ver'y' much not to be a part of this
¡:::,roject or pì-esi?:rltation. I'm tølling )"ou that. Mrs. P()ldnd, yC)U
aJ '¡'e, I underst,and, can I ask you to come u¡:::, front? i"jr::;.
PO.L.'HIC:" I'm Mi ke 0 'Connor. I 'cJ ask )OU jU~3t a ::;imple question,
at tf'lis poirlt. Tr'iis building r191'It ¡"¡·81-e, okay, this map 1:3
before the '73 approval when they moved somø of the houses.
MR. TURNER-The one across the road, right?
MRK CARVIN-Tills is the '71.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but look at the one that this one
no h,:)u::~e up front. There's a housc' up front hOì'e.
this Building 11?
is. There':;:;
Okd/. 1~:;
MR. CARVIN-That's Building 11.
MR. O'CONNOR-We all agree that that's Building 11. Okay. Mrs,
Poland, this is what has been referred to as Building 11. Was
that part of your Marina operation? Did you own those three lots
up front, or was it a Mr., it's shown on the survey, Mr. Ruhl?
- 18 -
-..-'
"'---
I«~\THY POLÞ.)t'!D
MRS. POLAND-Ruhl.
MR. O'CONNOR-Ruhl. Mr. Ruhl owned those lots.
those lots or did your family own those lots
i'100F i ng Post?
Did you ever
as part of
OI;Jn
the
MRS. POLAND-Are you talking about the lots adjacent to t.he?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Frederick Roth and Barbara Roth,
those lots while you were operating the Marina? If
you don't know, don't guess. You're talking, your
the Marina, your family ownership of the Marina was
1985. So, still, after the zoning Clost word).
did they' CH-Jn
)lOU know, if
ownership of
f'(om 1971 to
MRS. POLAND-We bought the house from Roth.
MR. O'CONNOR-When did you buy thp house from Roth, 1975?
MRS. POLAND-'75, maybe.
i'1n. 0 'CQt-"li'WF<---\"Je 're the'/ u~;i n9 J.t as a '(E1E:idencc;: pr ior to you
bu/"ing it?
i'ms. POLf~I"1D·'Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. While you're up here, Mrs. Poland, there has
been a lot of discussion at different meetings as to the amount
of boatage or t.he volume of boatage that's n on these
pl"emises. Can )iOU tell me whet.her Ol" not., while you ~-Jere t.here,
what the operation was like during the summer?
Mn
1"\ .
TURNER-That's not pertinent right now.
MR. CARVIN-I think we just want to concentrate on Building 11 at
this point.
MR. TUF<NER-Lets get on Building 11. That's what we asked for.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I apologize. Are you going to make a
separate determination on whether you include Building 11 or not
in your calculations?
MR. TURNER-Do you want t.o determine t.hat now, Building 11?
MR. SCHACHNER-You heard Mr. McCormack's testimony about the fact
that some of it extends across the property line, and that the
lot line, I don't even remember if Mr. McCormack said that. He
didn't..
MR. TURNER-He didn't sa)l that. He said there was an extension of
some 10 feet on it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think it's important for the Board to know, and
you can ask anybody, not me, but Mr. Brock or Mr. McCormack, I
think it's important to know that the building, that it's been
used commercially, at least since Mr. Brock's ownership, is not
located solely on what Mr. O'Connor calls the residential lot. A
pOl"tion of it i:3 located on I;Jhat. ¡Vi)·. O'ConnoF called a commercial
lot.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe
raised, that if it
use of a structur
l'1<:)nc:onforrni n';!.
Board counsel would address the issue that
was not legally a nonconforming operation
,you can't, by adverse possession, make
I
or
....
1"
MR. TURNER-That's correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-I t.hink that's long standing, and it's not a
- 19 -
'v-
----
discussion at issue~
MR. LAPPER-That really goes back t.o what I said a few
ago. It's, when the Ordinance changed. what was the use
point. It had to be nonconforming before that date.
rn.l. liutes
at that.
¡VIP. TURNER--Y'e~3.
MR. CARVIN-Again, from all indications is that this was used as a
residence and not necessarily 8 marina.
MR. TURNER-Do you have something to add to it, Mrs. Wetherbee?
JUD''¡'' klETHERBEE
MRS: WETHERBEE-The only point I want to make is, if you saw t
!)uilding,/ou'd h:nov,,¡ it"s a 98ì"d:gU. It is\1't.,~ :3torage i)uilclin:;¡
1:::'8)' se, the way the ot,her buildili',JE: that ¡',Jere ta!':en out. I thin!';
that would help you decide. It's a garage that. was built besi
a residential house. It's built like a residential garage. It
was not built as a storage barn. It's strictly a little garagu.
How it's been used, that part, you can let them tell you, but it
was not built as storage for boats.
MR. O'CONNOR-I want to ask you a question. Where are the doors
to it? Do they face Cleverdale?
MRS. WETHERBEE-It's been turned around.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, how long Ilave you been a resident
out theru, Mrs. Wetherbee?
1"1RS.
been
WETHERBEE-Well, I've been going
a year round resident since '76.
tr'le'íe for 61
)/eat s "
T ", ',F"
ol 'V ç"
~1R. UiRVIt-.. --O kay .
MRS. WETHERBEE-But I've been there all my life, and I know the
building somewhat because my father built some of it.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would you have any knowledge of
addition was put on the building, the extra 10 feet?
aware that that building was added on to?
I,·Jhen th,[:
l.Jer e: )'()U
MPS. WETHEPBEE-It's a little difficult to tell. No, I can't say.
~1R. C(')RVII",~,wOkay.
MR. TURNER-Okay. What do you want to do, Building 11?
MR. KARPELES-Has Schachner said all he has to say in relationship
to that Building 11? Maybe he ought to get equal time.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Mark, do you have anything to add further, as to
Duilding 11?
MR. SCHACHNER-Only for purpose of a future record, in ot
v,,¡oì-ds, to presef'../e the record that it's QJdL c:ontention that t
ongoing use of Building 11 by the owner/occupant of the premises
is part of the commercial marina use has enabled it to become a
portion of the Marina use, that it's been that for some lengthy
period of time, and that he's achieved a grandfathered or vested
rights status to use not the rest of those lots, but just the
Building 11 as part of the commercial marina.
MR. TURNER-Okay. He said his piece. What's your pleasure?
MR. MENTER-We don't necessarIly want to make a determination of
- 20 -
....,
',--"
use and on the question of Building 11, do we?
MR. CARVIN-I think it's germane to the total square footage
lssue. I mean, that's IJlL. 01'11 Y fe,::;l i ng.
MR. MENTER-Yes, it's germane.
It certain.1/ is.
MR. THOMAS-That's the
::;;qua ref e¡::;1:- ill";:; be i ng
crux of the problem right
removed:>
there.
HOI¡.J ma 1'1,/
MR. CARVIN-How many square feet? We've got to
before can move on.
that", r\3~;0Ived
MR. THOMAS-So you've got
farther. Is it or isn't
t.o resolve that before
it?'
you can go
an,/
MR. O'CONNOR-I had t.estimony t.hat somebody in 1975, I think,
purchased that property from somebody who was using it as
residential purposes. I don't know how you can go beyond that
testimony and the survey that you have ln front of you.
MR. CARVIN-At t.his point, I think it's up to the Board. I think
we have to determine, you know, my position is that it was a
residence and that it should not be included as part of the
Mooring Post package, as far as the square footage on Building
11. Do we have to make a motion or just by consensus?
MR. MENTER-Yes. I don't think that a motion is in order, because
I don't think, it's not an issue that we're here to determine.
It's an elQI.o.ent, certai nly, and i t '~3 ,3 key element...
MR. TURNER-It's an element of the Appeal. I don't t.hink we have
to decide at this point. I think we ought to go on wlth the
hearing and evaluate it afterwards.
MR. MENTER-It seems to me like an element that each of us needs
to consider and determinEs', and it's key. l'.1L. individual decision
and yours will be key, it'll key what you determine is the
role that Building 11 plays, but whether we have to, as a Board,
cide, that we're going to consider that or not, I think is
anotl"ler icssue..
MR. CARVIN-Well, I think we're gOing to keep coming back to it.
I rea 1 .1 y dc).
MR. TURNER-Yes, but it's part of the total testimony of the
(:':¡FJpe.a 1 "
MR. O'CONNOR-One other item, if you look at the card Mr.
Henderson submitted when he was giving calculations as to boat
volume, he did not include Building 11.
MR. SCHACHNER-The reason for
either, the number of boats.
testimony about what was stored
but not necessarily boats.
that lS, we didn't include it
You just heard Mr. Brock's
in there, marina related items,
MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets get on with whole t.hing. I think the
Board will decide it when we get to the Appeal issue, at the end
of it. I;Je'll determine wrl.Ô"t Ejuilding 11 was, I¡.Jhat I¡.,¡e considC'~r
what it was, based on the testimony that's been provided, and
we'll go from there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The next point I would make, again on the
area of expansioll, is that the applicant, as 1 understand it, is
seeking approval for quick launch of 120 to 140 boats, dependlng
up which evening t.hat we, that's, I think, a fair
characterization of the testimonies to date. The zoning went
into effect in 1967. William Henderson testified, on Page 22 on
I'-Io\v'embcn" 14th that "We dic'! not. lìd\l8 quick launch". There,U3 no
- 21-
......."
nonconform.i.t.)" r.i.aht, a~:; to quic!,_ launch. T Zonin,S") Oì-c:inanc,:;.
in its definitions, gives you a separate definition, like a
separate use, of quick launch. A commercial facility located
within a marina. It doesn't say that it is ª marina. It gives
it a specific definition. It's a recognition within our
Ordinance and, again, we've got to work within the frame work of
our Ordinance. We can pick out Anderson and quote you all kinds
of generalities, but you've got t.o go by the language of our
Ordinance, and every Ordinance appears to be just a little bit
different than somebody else's Ordinance. Anderson is, to me,
the accepted treatise on zoning. If you look at this lanauage,
it's given a separate, distinct definition within our Ordinance.
If you didn't have it in '67, how are we going to get to it now,
whatever the number might be? It certainly has different
impacts. It's kind of like looking at a wholesale and retail
operation which has different impacts, or something similar of
that nature. If you have a quick launch, you're going to havc a
heavy volume of use during the summer months, when everybody is
at t.he lake or enjoying their properties, or trying to enjoy
their properties. You have the traffic then. It is much
different than dead storage, winter storage. If you look at Mr.
Henderson's figures, he's t.alking about winter storage only.
He's not talking about quick launch. If you also go through the
history of this property, you will find that they never got a
permit from t.he LGA, or the Lake George Park Commission, for d
quick launch. Apparently, that is something that may be
uncl()ì"taken at this pc\int. The)" ha\/i:: a specific regulation that
says that if it's not a registered quick launch, it is not
grandfathered. I think you're into the same thing here, because
of the impact that you're going to have. If we convert a single
family residence that's used for seasonal basis, on Glen Lake or
on some other lake, we go through all kinds of studies to see if
t.he sc;¡:~,tic system 1S adøquat,a. You' r ø ta,l ki ng, ÎIOI¡.J, a,bou t
changing, perhaps, what was a wint.er storage operation to a
heavily used summer operation and nobody has even shown anything
as to adequacy of septic. I'm just a little bit befuddled as to
how you make that leap. I understand he has the right to operate
a marina there, but when you change it from a marina with 25 boat
slips to a marina with 120 to 140 quick launch spots, I think you
change the impact significantly. People have complained, and
others will, about even the new use of new machinery. Apparently
the):)' e nOVJ is a su¡::;'er 1 i ft ther i? that Cd n 1 i ft boats i litO t
third bay. They've never had a lift of that nature on that
property, with the back up alarms. It's now a diesel machin
that they're going to be subject to the whole day or into the
evening or early morning, however they operate. You really have
to distinguish, if you're going to look at nonconformity, as to
the winter and summer storage. You have to make a finding as to
what is grandfathered as to each item. I don't think you can say
that because there were X number of boats there for winter
storage, you could have them for the summer for quick launch.
t..jilliam Henderson te~3tified DQ quick launch. He had docks fOì" 25
boats. I can remember we used to go up, we bought our boats from
Hendersons, years and years ago. He always had some boats there
for sale. He had some boats that he worked on. I'd say double
that. Probably if you werø looking at impact and volume of boat
usage, you'd be talking, in the summer, about 50 boats when he
operated. That's what was there in 1967, when you got t
grandfathering right to continue in the summer, and the summer
operation. William Wether worked for the Poland family, as I
understand it, you've got an affidavit there in front of you,
om 1978 to 1983. He gave me a figure of 40 boats for quick
launch, during that period of time. I don't know how you get
from no boats to 40 boats, and I'll give you that that,
creeping expansion Oì whatever, change of use, it did happen. He
talks about eight outside storage, boats stored outside, twenty
five boats at the dock, and four to six boats for sale, and ll¡
his affidavit he says that some time or another the sale of boats
was apparently discontinued. You're talking a total of 78 boats,
maybe 79 boats, maybe 80 boats. He actually gave, if you'll look
- 22 -
> ---"
'>-----
at it. a diagram is attached to his affidavit, as to how the
boats were laid out, as they were quick launched then, and he's
got some notes there. In Building Three, they didn't have boats
in excess of 18 feet. They couldn't get the boats in or out, and
he went through all kinds of different discussions with me
saying, you could crowd a couple of more boats if you had to. If
you see and you count there what is shown on this, there's only
34 boats on that diagram. I said, you said 40. He said. well,
if you had to, you crowded a couple of boats in, but this was a
typical use. We did stick a couple of boats in Building Number
Two from time to time. I didn't show them on here. I'd like to
call Kathy Poland up here, who was related to the family that
operated the Marina from 1971 to 1985. Kathy, I apologize for
subpoenaing you, but I understand that you've been very reluctant
to get involv in what is becoming a neighborhood dispute. You
don't like to take sides, and I'm not trying to take sides, so
I'll just ask you a couple of brief questions. You operated it
y()U r :3e.1. f'?
MRS. POLAND-My husband and I.
MR. O'CONNOR-Your husband and yourself operated t.he Marina from
1')71 to 198E.?
MRS. POLAND-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And you had quick launch there?
MRS. POLAND-Yes, we did.
MR. O'CONNOR-Did you have it right from the very beginning?
¡VIRS. POLA[\ID·-I"~o.
'1f~. 0 'Cor\H'~OF:,(,'what was the nurnb·er
boats that you took out?
MRS. POLAND-The number of boats, approximately, glve or take,
v.Jer e abou t. :::,0.
MR. O'CONNOR-Give or take one or two boats?
MRS. POLAND-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-In discussing this with neighbors, have you figured
a maximum of maybe 52 boats quick launch?
1'1RS. POl._AND....Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-That was during the
you have on the premises during
boats at the dock?
summer. IrJr'lat
the summer?
other boats did
Did you have 25
MRS. POLAND-Yes. They were at the dock.
MR. O'CONNOR-Have other boats othe1 than the 50 or 52 boats, and
the 257
MRS. POLAND-Only boats that were being repaired.
MR. O'CONNOR-How many boats did you have there for repair,
.é'l\lC'r age';'
MRS. POLAND-Five, ten, maybe, at the most, at any given point in
time.
i'1R ,.
a i"IC!
O'CONNOR-So you're talking less
your occupancy of the premises?
t.han 100 boats, was your use
i'1RS. POLf0¡ \ID·,((')s.
- 23 -
"--"
--
t/ir:~. 0 'CCH\lt'\IOP"¡::\nci that \\ia~::; from '71 tl-¡rous;:h '32:;'
MRS. POLAND-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Did you also store boats during the winter?
MPS. POUiND-'Ye~3.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can you tell me how many boats you stored during the
l0inter?
MRS. POLAND-About 160.
MR. O'CONNOR-That includes use of the docks, boathouses?
MRS. POLAND-No, I don't believe so.
MR. O'CONNOR-When you did the quick launch, did you store
e'-Ji:?:ì' /t h i ng i ndoor ~:;?
MRS. POLAND-Mostly, yes.
~m .
the
O'CONNOR-Did you have some,
doors closed at nis;:ht?
you t.old the
people you wanted
MRS. POLAND-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the boats inside?
~1R::; .
that
rna
they'
POLAND-Yes. I was thinking, when I said
came in later at nis;:ht and were still in
two or t.hree at the dock, and when they
stayed there overnight, and t n were
mostly, about ones
t h~3 clc)c 1'::~3 .. ~·Je· ha cl
came i Ii .c"J, nd
haule.;:! c,ut
ni:gllt,
i 11 t,
¡flOrflinu.
MR. O'CONNOR-So you're talking about 160 boats in t.otal wintc1
:0; tOì"
MRS. POLAND-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You've seen all the maps and everything else,
and I have not discussed with you, prior to you sitting down here
rig htnov.J .
MRS. POLAND-That's correct. I neve)' met you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I have no other questions.
MR. CARVIN-Mrs. Poland, tho
ha ncH , l0a~3 theì" e a n/ :,; i ze
would these have been?
average size of the
limitation, or what
boa,ts t.hat you
t '/¡:)~S~3 () f ~)()d t~~;
MRS. POLAND-It would be very hard for mo t.o :gIve you an average
size. We had boats from 15 feet to 34 feet.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well I would assume you wouldn't have had too
many 34 feet ones.
MRS. POLAND-You're correct about that, yes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. So would an average Slze, if we're talkins;:
about 100 boats during the course of the summer, in and out,
would 20 to 25 feet be an average?
MRS. POLAND-We never quick launched anything more than
It was under 24 feet if we quick launched them, yes.
.....) /í
,:;:~ '''\'
fe;,:;t ..
MR. CARVIN-For quick launch.
station or any thins;: li that?
Okay.
Do you have a pump out
- 24 -
',,--,
----
MRS. POLAND-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, of the 100, would they all be
Would that be a matter of course? If somebody
facilities, would they automatically be pumped out?
pum¡:::,ed out?
U~;:)t3cl Y'()U ).-
MRS. POLAND-Well, it was a service that we offered, whether you
stayed at the Marina or you didn't.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Did you sell gas to the public?
MRS. POLAND-Yes, we did.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, and how many boats would you service, on
average, as far as gas lS concerned? Would that be in the 100,
or would that be an additional few boats? I guess what I'm
trying to say is, would somebody be able to drive up, get gas,
and just kind of drive off, and if so, how frequent would that
be?
MRS. POLAND-Very frequent.
MR. TURNER-How did you facilitate the quick launch?
MRS. POLAND-We used trailers with tractors and a forklift.
MR. O'CONNOR-How big a boat could the forklift lift?
MRS. POLAND-Not much more than a 20 footer.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It was a small forklift?
I"IRS. POI_Ai"~D-'Yes"
MR. O'CONNOR Okay. When you actually
didn't Mr. Henderson put his boats in
railroad tracks?
took over the operation,
by (lost words) system of
MRS. POLAND-Yes, he did.
i"1R. O'CONNOF-;"..You kind of ItJEoJnt.. a.ItJay frorrl that route.
¡"IF<. TURNER-l,.Jherl did ''lOU gC) i3\1Jay fl"om that rout",,?
MRS. POLAND-Immediately.
MR. O'CONNOR-And your husband bought a hydraulic trailer?
MRS. POLAND-Had one built.
MR. TURNER-Had a quick launch trailer made, j~ that correct?
MRS. POLAND-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-This may be kind of a tough question. In 1971, about
how many boats do you think you might have serviced, because I'm
get'ting the impre~;sion t.hat C)\/,,')( ,from '71 Uy('ou9h '85, the
business actually did grow. Is that a fair statement?
MRS. POLAND-Yes. I would say that it grew, yes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
would that the
So that, iF we're talking less than 100 boats,
198':, fi9ur"" ItJ n >"ou "'~old?
MRS. POLAND-The 160 boats is the winter storage.
i'1R. C{.\RVIN--Oka.y.
MRS. POLAND-And it's kind of a figure that stands out in my mind,
because it fluctuates. It's not always the same. Sometimes you
- 25 -
',----'
---
¡n.1gl''"'lt ()j"¡.l)/ ha.\/8 l::JC) ()'¡' S()rf c~·tirnE~2.~ you. ít¡i::;1ht 1"'1.3\/;;2 155 (>"() bU.t t
1 (~,.C , in f1Y/ rn i nc:, .1 i
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I'm going t.o ask you to kind of step back
1(')71. I me<:.\n, c1ici ,!'()U have 160 boat~:3 in 1971;'
~,., .....
1,..,..1...)
MRS. POLAND-No. I don't think so. I'd say maybe 130, maybe,
120, somewhere in there.
1'1R.
jU::3t
CARVIN-Okay. Now you also indicated
kind of evolved. Is that correct?
tr'lat
the quick launc\"¡
i'1FS. POUii\1D-' Y e~~ .
MF. CARVIN-Okay. Did
t Lake, now, again,
Geoì'9'ô (.j:ssociation for
fact.or?
you ever glve consideìation to applying to
I don't know the time frame of t.he Lake
tf'¡eir ¡:::;er¡llits. ',Jould t.r"lat r"lave fl Ó
MRS. POLAND-It was my understanding that when we started the
quick launch, there were no rules, regulations t.hat.
~1R. C¡e:)¡RVH1-"O kay .
MR. TURNER-Anyone else?
MR. FOF<D-Mrs. Poland, during that period of time, when you owned
the Marina, and you were expanding the use of the quick launch,
did anyone from the area express any concern to you about that,
the expanded use of the quick launch?
MRS. POLAND-I can't really remember anyone asking, but they might
haVGM I don't l·emembsl-.
MF. FORD-Right.
convers¿3t.lOn.
That's a long time to try to remember a
~1RS. POU·;d'-1C<....Yes.
MF. O'CONNOR-Mrs. Poland, do you remember how many parking spots
you had? How many cars did you have that were parked on your
premises on a Saturday or Sunday?
MRS. POLAND-We had the
building, and we usually
maybe SlX across.
lot across the street
t.ried to park them three
frarn :::hc)w\" ()Olil
, ¡:)'( (¡baL! 1 >.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, 18, 20?
MF~S. POLAND--Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Some place in 1988, t.here was an appllcatlon made,
that I think Mr. Brock indicated, the Board indicated, 24 parking
spots on the premises. Is that a good maximation of the parking
~31:){) t ~:;?
MRS. POLAND-Are we talking about the total area, I mean, because
you could park in front of the Marina, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MRS. POLAND-Yes, that would be good.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. SCHACHNER-Mrs. Poland, I'm Mark Schachner.
Brock. We've never met before.
I ,"epr,o;;sent r1r.
MRS. POLM,ID..-No.
- 26 -
-..../
'----
MR. SCHACHNER-Just real
anything about new boat
you owned the Marina?
quickly. I don't think you mentioned
sales~ Di.d you ¡lave new I)oat sales wilen
MRS. POLAND-Yes, we did.
MR. SCHACHNER-And, were you present, there was a
convening of this Board when Mr. Henderson was present.
here) t.h()n?
P'(' ev i OlJS
l.Jer e '/'()U
MRS. POLAND-No, I wasn't.
MR. SCHACHNER-Have you heard anything about what he testified?
MRS. POLAND-Not really.
MR. SCHACHNER-If you were told that he said that he had 191 boats
sold, or 200 boats stored on the premises, would you agree with
Mr. Carvin's characterization that the business grew after you
took it over, or would you think that perhaps there was some
start up period when you owned it?
Mr--;,:S. POL('i \ID-"y'Ic):3.
I'd WOndeì" wheì"e t.he 191 boat:::; l'.)eì"e, myself.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Thanks a lot.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would urge that the Board make a distinction as to
what noneonformities there may be that run with this property,
rc:qaì"dless v,IIIO the Ol,.¡ner of t:.he pì'oF'eì"t'/ is. I t.hink there ':~) ¿\
cle.'3r di::::;tinction bet..,een tl-",e ~SUillrner U:3e and the ..,linter use. If
we were coming in here with a virgin piece of property, and were
going to ma a site plan application to the Planning Board, they
certainly would distinguish what impact it's going to have at
different seasons of the year, and I t.hink that's the same way
that you've got to look at it when you determine what the
nonconformities are. If I go back, and I don't know if I covered
it, I think I covered Henderson's testimony as to the summer
usage. On the winter level, I believe he talked about 173 boats
being on the site. There are 18 boats, in his accounting that he
gave, that got him up to 191, which were in boathouses, which I'm
not exactly sure. I think somebody told me that they are still
the same boathouses there now that were there when he was there,
but I think, principally, at most, he was talking about 173 boats
on site. Mrs. Poland was just talking about 160. When I went
through Mr. Henderson's figures, I tried to figure out where we
were at, I couldn't figure out what he referred t.o as Building
One and Two. I think that that may have been buildings that were
removed a long time ago, that aren't, look at the other map, that
map there, Building One or Two is, I'm not sure where they were,
and the same as to, I guess Building One and Building Nine, I'm
not sure what he was referring to. Building Nine doesn't appear
to be there any more, unless it was just a part of one that was
preexisting before Henderson sold, or existing when Henderson
sold. I'm not sure, but I give his figures at 173 for winter
storage, and I'm not really going to argue, but I think you have
to make a distinction, and I think that you have to be very
Cd r efu.1. i 1"1'/OU r apPì" ova.l" i -r' you' r c, 'JO i ne.;¡ to 9 i ve a n,/ appr o\/a I:,;,;
on this thing, that t.he appJicant understands that, if you make
the distinction, and you say that there are 50 quick .launch
spots, t.hat's what there will be, 50 quick launch spots,
including the new structure and the portions of the old structure
that are still used for quick launch. At one hearing I think we
heard that the remaining portion of Building One can give us 25
to 35 boats, and the back end of t showroom can give us, that's
part of it. I'm not sure, but I think ,/ou're going to end up
subtracting some of that from potential new usage, or you're
going to have some designation. If you go to the Bolton Marina,
the))/ iç)natethe~se spaces b'/ nUinb(~r. The'l have t.he customer~s
by number. They have, I think, the boats by number, and it's a
\¡(or')i enfor le type t.hinq, .3ncJ I:.hat's somethin9 that I ..,ould
- 27 -
---
suggest strongly, if you ge"t to this l~oir1t, you get to this point
that we consider. I think that the applicant should understand
that winter storage is different than quick launch. I've given
you the affidavit of Mr. Wetherbee. The only thing I would add
to it is, he talked about how they got that number of boats into
the existing buildings, and it was interesting, in that they
apparently put them in on dollies, right next to each other,
right on top of each other, and then Jacked them off the dollies
and left them there for t.he winter, and then brought the next
boat in on a dolly. It is definitely not that number of boats
that were put in those buildings for quick launch purposes. I
don't think, if you're going to compare apples to apples, you
really can do that. The last attachment I have I think I will
save. That is an opinion from Fitzgerald Realty of Glens Falls
that this would be a substantial effect, or have a substantial
effect upon adjacent properties, if you granted this proposal,
but I'll wait until you get to the substance of a variance. I
think you're still on the question of the Appeal, here, whether
or not you're going to require a Use Variance, at this particular
point. That would be my comments on the question of requiring a
U:::;e Variance.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think one other comment, just for the record, I
made this before. If we look at the definition, and Mr.
Schachner brought it to our attention before, of expansion,
i:?)<p,3nsion, as defined in C)Uì' Ordinance, Ü:; stated a~3 any' growt.h
of activity which requires the enlargement of facilities,
including buildings, parking spaces, storage yards, and/or other
facilities which are required to accommodate such growth. and I
say that particularly with reference to Mrs. Poland's testimony
as to the fact that t.hey had approximately 24 parking spots, and
we're now looking at summer usage by 120 boats to 140 boats.
Unless they're all buddies, they aren't going to be able to use
those 24 parking spots, and that, apparently, is what was
9ì' a liclf,;:" t h(3'( eel.
MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll now open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
r:::HEF:.YI._ E'v'¡.\NS
MRS. EVANS-My name is Cheryl Evans, and in front of you, you have
information concerning the proposed buildings. What I want to do
is show you some pictures of t.he new buildings that are going to
going up. Basically, the building in Bolton Landing can be
cornpa"red ~Üth the 1'100r i ng Post 1"1ar i na.. I tr',i nk t.here IrJa::,; cJ
controversy in the dimensions on this building, when I was at a
previous meeting, stating that the building up in Bolton Landing
is bi9ger. So what I had done was basically gone up to Bolton
Landing, in the file of the Town, and get all the dimensions. If
you see the last two pages, you get that the building's,
basically, 35 foot tall, 105 by 35 foot.
MR. TURNER-The third page, 105 by 282 by 35 feet high.
MRS. EVANS-The 105 by 282 states that the building is longer than
what the Mooring Post plans on doing, but the second page lS
basically the picture of these buildings, for the record. T
are pictures of the Marina before they were torn down, the
height. They mentioned the nine foot eave, it looks like a 22
foot pitch. If I understand Plan C, the second building was
reduced by six feet, the first building was not. So you still
get the comparison of the volume of these two buildings, compared
to what it used to be, this quaint area, versus, now these two
massive buildings, and you can also see the comparison in the
height, when we're going from one story of storage to three
stories. Any questions regarding the building? I just want
- 28 -
'--"
/
-../
you to get a feel for the volume of this building. You have,
definitely, the height of 35 feet, which is legal, but when you
combine it with the width and the length of these buildings, does
it fit in this area, which is a peninsula, not even a quarter of
a mile Wl So I want you to put this all together and
visualize this building. On the second piece of paper, I have
the advertisement that now sits at the Mooring Post. Basically,
this information came out of the phone book, and what I had done
lS just compared it, just to that in random another marina, just
to show how it's been used in the past, since 1958, I'm talking
on the fin3t pa~;le of t.he advertis;ernont. ~3heet., and since 1958 to
1992, basically nothing's really changed. It's just within the
realm of his business. Now when you look at the Mooring Post
Marina, and you start at 1958 with, basically, boat products and
actually in '58 and '59, and then come down, there was a change
in '62, they added boat rentals, and then in '74, accessory
dockage used boats, and they just continued, but 1986, you start
seeing the change of how the business has been run, and it's not
only just the, you know, basically, what he's doing inside, but
basically the environmental impact he's having on this Marina.
We have 1987's quick launch storage advertised. In '88 you have
new and used boats. We t.ried to incorporate the Route 9 Mall,
which was an issue in '88, and I n't know anything about that
no~", but tJ'j,zHI you get dov.m to '93 public launcr'l, and then '()4.
So basically you saw, from boat products and storage, from when
Mr. Henderson owned it, to a full blown dockage, dry dockage,
storage, fiberglass repair, brokerage and public launch marina
for quick launch. Now that's pretty significant, and we all
understand the difference between winter storage and quick launch
storage. You have the maps of the people coming to this area.
On the last page, I'll just read it real quickly, this study
shows that. by taking two marinas and printing out the changes of
business. you can see that Dunham's, the other Marina, the only
change was the items in the showroom, which has no effect on the
cornmunit,/, 1,J~;u, or en\/i,'onment. This stud'/ also concluded t.hat.
when Scott Henderson was in business, he basically had it sales,
st.orage and service. When Mr. Poland bought it, they had it
sales, storage, serVlce and they added refinishing, which, with
thlS change, had no change on the communlty, lake, or
environment. This study also concluded that, in '85, Mr. Brock
started advertising the marina to quick launch, dry dock, public
launching, fiberglass repair, incorporated this business with the
Route 9 Mall. Here the use of the land, since 1985, has been
overburdened with t.he overuse on this nonconforming residential
commercial area. The marina's caretaking has been sloppy. The
boat sheds could have been used if all the garbage, oil
refrigerator, engine, oil tanks were cleaned out of there. The
condition were in useable condition when bought. Now with the
new proposal, this Marina is going to be built up and probably
get sold down the road, and we're going to be left. with this big
muss. Mr. Brock, knew, going into this Marina, that Cleverdale
is an upscale residential area, environmentally crucial area.
Also, the land is a nonconforming residential piece of land.
It's ç,1OinrJ to turrlout lik,e t:"j'P, inake the quick buck at the
resident's expense. Lets Cleverdale a quaint area as it's
always been, a place where children can ride their bikes down the
road. Please note that Cleverdale does not have any sidewalks.
Between the volume of the buildings and the changed use of this
Marina thi'it. V-Jill ,"osult VJith thi:, cc)nqestion of cal's and mal"""
people to the area, the tourism, e we would lose the character
of the neighborhood, also the value of our homes, more
commercialism, less residential, less appealin9 to a family to
move in. The value here is family style, where our children are
surrounded by other children. He also has a proposal for parking
on the waterfront land. I have a picture here. It's just a
spoof that I Just happened to forget that I had some film at the
Shop N' Save, and this picture was in there. It was done this
summer in August, and I have about 20 cars parked on the
waterfront, and totally congest ,and you can also note that on
the waterfront, where he proposes to have the parking, part of
- 29 -
--
tJ"'¡¿~~ p.a,'rkin:;1':::;;.; SJc)i.r¡g to 1:)-8 OJ"¡ "¡"'¿:~:::.;:i. nti¿).l lar'¡(J, ,¿J.rìc.J als:;o, ou.
know, a couple of major trees are going to be taken down here,
too. So you're not going to only have the cars lined up, 9 by
20, but you're also going to be able to view the Mooring Post
buildings from the water. It just would look like, I'm trying to
visualize it, maybe a strip piece of land with a bunch of cars,
and I'm a little concerned about all these cars on this property,
because what happens is, Mrs. Poland stated that she parked above
these pine trees. I'll bring this up to you, above these pine
trees, and now Mr. Brock is parking on the grass area, which, you
know what happens with cars when they leak oil, and you have a
rain and the water runoff going into the lake, the waterfront's
going to turn, not only with all the quick launch boats that
proposes, but also from the cars in the parking lot, you're going
to have murky water in front of this Marina. Now you have
residential homes right next to it, and you're going to have the
traffic. Another thing I would just point out is with the quick
launch you're going to have, say he has 140 quick launch boats,
say that 100 come in on the weekend, what about Sunday night?
Are there going to be, like, 80 boats lined up in Sandy Bay
waiting to get in? I mean, if you have all the docks rented out
from other boats, where are all these, are they just going to
idle in Sandy Bay? So you've really got to take this into
consi ration. It all started out with these buildings, and when
I 100 d into the size of the buildings and what he's presenting,
t ~'~ why I said, what are these buildings doing. I looked at
the size. I looked at the location, and I looked at the impact
that these buildings would have, and I hope you all look into
t h i::3 , bec;ause it's just an en'-,;' iì-onmenìta 1 d Ü:;asteì"" a:3 far i}:':; I'rn
concerned. I love the lake. I've lived here all my life. I
1 t for about five years, and I'm back, and I know why I'm back,
because of the lake. It's beautiful. So that's pretty much all
I have to say. I also would like to point out the water runoff.
Brock proposed to have these trenches al'ound this building. Now
t trenches are four feet deep. I had an incidence on my
property where I dug out a trench to put some wiring down four
t. We had a rain storm. The thing was filled up for over a
week and a half with water. It never drained. After that
rainstorm it was filled with water. It was it was in until. I
had somebody come and estimate, I finally had to get them in to
excavate it before the water was relieved. We have such a major
area up there for water runoff. Water doesn't saturate into the
ground. It usually travels some place. So if you have four foot
of water, trenches around the building are going to get filled up
and then what happens when the next storm comes? T y're not
going to be saturated through. I just wanted you to take that,
ause I Teally think that t problems that we're having now,
with the water runoff coming off the property onto the Mason Road
is pretty significant, considering there's no buildings there
right nov.J, and v.Jhen therc; bias !::HJil.:::!:Lng:::; tl-¡ere, t/ir. E:rock haclt.-e,
pump out of his work area and his pumps, I think it was a sump
pump that used to pump into my corner lot, and I used to go over
there and take the pump out and put it down between the property
lines. So we have a significant problem with water runoff, and
to my understanding everybody's supposed to be responsible for
L ir own water runoff, and I think you might want to take t L
into consideration. It's nice that we have these tr ne , but
you have an awful lot of roof lines, and you also have, I also
noticed on the plans, that there's rocks. Only the middle part
is paved, and then there's rock bed underneath the boats, and
t re's room for it to air out, or whatever, but I don't think
that has anything to do with the saturation of the, it's going to
be flooded. You might want to consider that. I just want to
show you something in the picture. I think Mrs. Poland was
talking about parking, not on the waterfront, but it could be,
but I thought I heard her say it was in front of there, but right
there there's 20 cars, and they want to put 80 on that
waterfront. I just can't foresee it, and plus they're also going
on the residential land, when they back out. One more thing.
What I have done is taken, actually, the full scale of this
- 30 -
"--'
-'
building, on a one inch equals ten feet. I actually did the
building to scale, and what I have done is taken the other homes,
I took my house, which was from scale, from the road, 24 foot at
it's highest peak. I even have the plans to show that, ause
there were things going around our neighborhood saying that I had
a 35 foot house, but for t.he record, I only have a 24 foot house.
So in comparison with my neighbors, the Wetherbee's, and then the
Kenny's I kind of scaled them, Just the height, not t.he width,
just to show you how this would fit into this neighborhood. I
mean, that's a massive building, plus the height of the homes.
Now, if you notice, Mr. Harriden's house is a little bit lower,
The way Cleverdale is, it's a finger, and it plateau's on the
top, and then it comes down off the side. So a lot of your homes
you have sloping down. So from the road, you get maybe the
windowsill of the first floor, even going into the second floor.
So you have to keep the elevations in mind, too. So when you
look at thi building, this is going to be probably on the
highest part of the plateau of t middle of t.he peninsula, not
as a whole peninsula, but compared to the buildings on the
waterfront, and also on either side of the waterfront, just to
give you a feel for what we're dealing with here. This building,
I think I gave this a 22 pitch. This is the height of the
builciings, of the old building, a 22 foot high, just to soe the
difference, the change of volume.
MR, CARVIN-I just have one question. The advertising for the
Mooring Post, and this little chart that you made, what was the
r erence? Was that out of the Post Star, the telephone book?
MRS. EVANS-It was all the telephone books. I went from year to
year, as you stated, and howevel it was advertised for in the
corner. I think you have a copy of the, I took them out of the
book. It was all the yellow pages.
MR. MENTER-Not to detract from any statements or anything, but I
think it's important, because there's probably going to be a
numbeì' of pc'ople who "J2\\I1:. to speak, I)ut I think, \.Je should make
sure that the comments are kept, as much as possible, relevant to
the Use Variance questions.
MRS. EVANS-One more thing I'd just like to say, the use, this
change of use, he's using this huge machine, as you mentioned. I
was across the street when they were pulling it in and out, and I
had this smell of fumes when the machine was working, and now
with the new OSHA, in order to back out of any place, you have to
have this beeping noise.
MR. TURNER-You have to have a back up alarm.
MRS. EVANS-Yes, back up alarm, but I'm going to be hearing this,
like, I don't know how many times a day, and also, I think that's
just ically the point I want to make, is before these
buildings were torn down, there was basically no action taking
place across the street from my house. Now you're going to have
all this noise and moving around and movement of boats and the
beeper, which I believe is a change from what we're used to,
Thank '/ou.
TOt-¡ ItJE::;,T
MR. WEST-Good evening, Mr. Turner and Members of the Board. My
name is Tom West, and I'm an attorney. I represent the Coalition
for the Conservation of Cleverdale, which is a group of
Cleverdale rosidents who could not be here tonight. My purpose
here is to urge that this Board determine that a Use Variance is
required for this project, and that this project bo subjected to
a full scale Environmental Impact St.atement review, under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act. Let me begin by saying I
want to reinforce Mr. O'Connor's presentation, relative to some
of the legal issues that he advancod. I think they're very
- 31 -
--'
critical here, use they demonstrate that not 01'11 ~s a Us
Variance required, but they demonstrate that there's a very
substantial expansion of a nonconforming use that should not be
allowed without strict adherence to the variance requirements.
First, I agree wholeheartedly with his legal position, that the
Ordinance as written in this Town, does not allow replacement of
structures at the will of the owner, without requiring a
variance. They allow maintenance and repair, but no replacement.
This is a very common issue that is cropping up allover the
State, as people are trying to take old businesses and replace
them with new businesses, to increase the activity and t
profitability of the businesses, and every town is facing this,
and most of the towns that I'm familiar with are taking the
position that that type of replacement is not allowed unless
their Ordinance specifically allows it, and so I think that is
perhaps one of the most important statements that's been made
tonight. Secondly, I'd like to speak to the issue as to whether
or not there is an expansion. Mr. O'Connor and several people
have referenced the definition of expansion that's set forth in
your Code, in Section 179-7, and I think that should be the
beginning and the end of the analysis. If you read that Section,
it talks about any growth of an activity, which requires
enlargement, and we'll come back to enlargement, of facilities
including buildings and parking spaces. Now, I could not find a
definition of enlargement in your Code, but the common definition
of enlargc;ment is to make sornethi 1'19 bi9ger. It does not rn·aan
horizontally bigger. It means bigger in any dimension, and so I
think that it is Just and proper for this Board to interpret that
provision as meaning that any expansion of a building, whether it
be horizontal, in terms of the square footage, and we spent a lot
of time tonight talking about what the square footage is of the
xisting buildings that can be properly counted and what the
squa¡"e footage is of t.he ~ !)uildings, but that's 01'11'/ pa¡"t. of
t analysis. We've heard two other issues mentioned tonight,
and ¡au have photographic evidence which is very demonstrative of
how large and obtrusive these buildings are going to There
is a substantial volume increase and there is a substantial
height increase, both of which are going to very dramatically
impact this largely residential neighborhood. Even if you look
at the parking issue alone. I know Mr. O'Connor made this point,
but I think it's worth repeating. We've heard testimony tonight
that the parking spaces at the facility, when this facility
acquired its nonconforming use rights, amounted to 24 parking
spaces. I believe that there are something in the order of 140
or more parking spaces proposed for this new facility. Under
anybody's definition, that is an enlargement of parking. Ulldel
your Ordinance, you have no choice but to interpret that as an
enlargement, which means that this is an expansion of a
nonconforming use, and it requires a Use Variance, and all of t
requisite showing to obtain a Use Variance. I also want to talk
about the change in use, because I think that's significant. I
think that's the reason why the room has been packed at this
meeting and every meeting about this facility, because it is very
dramatic to go from a quaint neighborhood Marina, similar to t
Mooring Post Marina, that many of us knew and grew up with, to
the type of high scale, modern, commercial quick launch operation
that is being proposed here today. I think it's significant that
your Code separately defines quick launch from Marina. A quick
launch is a distinct !<ine! of ma¡"ina. It l~;;; a cHffc:.n;:.Hìt u~;:;¿::. I
cannot find where quick launch is used in your Code, but t Fact
that it warrants a separate definition shows that it is the
legislative intent in this Town that a quick launch is a
different t.ype of operation. It will have a dramatic effect on
this neighborhood. There will be significant increases in
traffic on the land. If they're going to quick launch a 140 or
more boats on any given weekend, you can imagine that will mearl
that on 4th of July weekend, t.here will be 140 cars coming to and
from that facility, and how many times per day are they going to
travel to and from that facility? How many t.imes are they going
to run down to the store to get a six pack of beer or something
- 32 -
',---
~
else that they forgot? How many people are going to come out,
come to visit them? How many cars per boat? I think you're
going to find that this project will 1 to significant on land
traffic corl,;¡(:,~~tion. :r think tl"H::ì"e ~",i,ll a.1.s,;) ~;).i.unificdnt
increases in traffic in one of t.he most congested areas oft
la , r i:Jht thc<ì"e adjacent t(:;. CliC}\/crdale. In f.3ct ,.:r VI()uld call
to your attention the fact that the Lake George Park Commission
found that area so significantly congested that it actually zoned
the area of Sandy Bay, immediately adjacent to this proposed
project, as having restricted use. We all remember the days of
unrestricted access to Sandy Bay, when there would be hundreds
and hundreds of boats rafting for parties. Now you have to tie
up to a specific mooring. The Lake George Park Commission, in
zoning that area of the lake for limited access, had to make the
finding, sed upon public health, safety and welfare, that that
area of the lake was over congest ,and that's why they did it.
I also want to bring to your attention the history of quick
launch operations in the Lake George basin, and some of the
regulatory requirements, because I've had some personal
involvement with that, and :r think it sheds some light as to why
there is no grandfathering in this case. Everybody knows that
we've had creeping quick launches through the Lake George basin.
I think some of the test.imony that we've heard tonight is a prime
example of what's happened at many of the marinas around the
lake. They started out as plain, neighborhood marinas, with
service operations and winter storage operations, and over time,
people began to realize that they could make additional revenue
by quick launching. They could use the winter storage space for
summer operations, and expand their operations through that.
There were regulations of the La George Park Commission, in
1982, that required all marinas to register their operations and
define, very clearly, the nature and extent of their operations,
and if this Board reviews the submission of the Mooring Post
Marina in 1982, you will find that there is no mention of any
quick launch activities at this facility at that time. In 1988
when the Lake George Park Commission was revitalized, actually
through legislation in 1987, I was retained by the Lake George
Park Commission to assist them in developing their regulations,
their initial set of regulations. Part of those regulations
dealt with new dock, wharf, mooring and marina regulations to
re¡::)lacE;o tl'''¡e then e>:isting r:2S;1u,latiof'i:3. One of the issues tl'''¡at 1~ICò
focused upon at that time was the expanding quick launch
activities, and we made it very clear in t.he regulations, and
it's very clear that to be grandfathered under the Lake George
Park Commission Regulations, that the operation had to be both in
existence and registered before the Lake George Park Commission.
It's significant that at no time did either the prior owner
ì"euister an)'" quick launch activit,i,e~s, Oì' diel t current o~"ner
register any quick launch activities under either the 1982 or the
1988 Park Commission Regulations, and you might say, well, of
what significance is that to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Queensbury, and it's very simple, because I can give you
a simple analogy. Some states allow you to have reciprocity, and
to obt.ain a driving license if you have a driving license in
another State, and it would be similar to me going into one of
those States and asking for a driving license, and when they say
to me, present your New York driving license, I can say, I have
none, but I've been driving in New York for 25 years. The simple
fact of the matter is that because I, if I did not have a New
York license, it would be illegal operation. It would not
entitle me to reciprocity in that State. It's the same principle
here. The fact that none of these owner, current and prior,
chose to register any quick launch operation before the Lake
George Park Commission establis the illegality of the use, and
the ì'ea~son 1'11"1/ t.he propo:c::()c! qu,i,ck lE\unch opeì".3tion i~~ an
expansion. I'd like to also address briefly, because I know
other people want to speak, why this project should be reviewed
under t ~:;tatc;) Environme¡·¡ta.l Cìl,J.a.lit'/ RevielrJ ¡:'¡ct before any
variance application is act upon. I understand you've got some
Appeals befor you and you may want to act upon those Appeals,
- 33 -
..--'
.--
~)l)t. 'f()r >/C)lJ ac:t U¡:J()n ,3n'/" ,:)f tt""ìe: \¡'(3,ì'··1.arlc:c a.¡::::I:)lic,3ti,::)n::;:;~¡ I t.:",iì^·¡!·:,
it's appropriate for you to address the status of this proj ct
under SEQRA, to declare it a Type I action, and to require an
Environmental Impact Statement. One of the other things that we
did, when we established the new Park Commission Regulations in
1988, was to declare the entire Lake George, and 500 feet around
I_ake Geoì'~~:¡e as a Critic;:al En\v'iì-,::::>nrnenta.1. (n-ea, undeì" the ~3tdt(;
Environmental Quality Review Act, and the significance of that is
that projects like this one, that fall within that area, in whole
or in part. and this one, I think, is wholly within that area,
are considered Type I actions if they're Unlisted actions. What
that means is that unless Mr. Schachner can convince you that
this is a Type II because it's merely a replacement in kind, or
Just an Area Variance, which I believe to be the substance of his
arguments, that it is a Type I action which, presumptively,
requires the project to be addressed through the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement. Again, this is an area that
is highly congested on the lake. There are special findings by
the Lake George Park Commission that the lake should be
restricted. This is not an area of the lake where this Board
should be allowing a business to expand its operations. There
will be serious health and safety issues. Having driven on that
side of Cleverdale personally, on a number of occasions, on
weekends, I can tell you, you take your life in your hands going
CIOV'H\ that area in a boat. It ,i,:;;; not only congcò<sted, i t i~,; roug:'¡_
Adding increased traffic to that area will be significant. All
of that should be addressed under SEQRA through an Environmental
Impact Statement before any variance application is granted.
in, just to summarize, I think it's very clear that this type
of wholesale replacement is not lawful under your Ordinance. I
don't think there c()uld be an/thinS! clearer, in CD.L. mind, t.h,s,t
this is an enlargement of both facilities and parking spaces.
Therefore, clearly a Use Variance is required. I think because
of the significant adverse environmental impacts that are
presented, some that I didn't mention, but that Cheryl Evans
mentioned, the noise of the forklift, the fumes from both t
forklift and the boats, all of these t.hings, along with the
traffic issues, should be addressed in an Environmental Impact
Statement. I'll answer any questions, if the Board has any.
Thank you very much.
E:L I Z(.ìBETH IrJARD
MRS. WARD-My name is Elizabeth Ward, and I own property on
Cleverdale, further out on the point, beyond the Mooring Post. I
am not adjacent to the Mooring Post. My concern centers around
traffic and it centers around both boat traffic and automobil
traffic. On holiday weekends, actually almost every weekend in
July or August up there, we already have a significant congestion
problem with the residents and the guests that they have coming
to t.heir properties. If the Marina is allowed to expand, even if
only half of t.he boat owners come to use that property, you're
going to have somewhere between 60 and 80 cars cominS! on to th
point, some of whom, as was pointed out, may be leaving at
varlOUS times to go to the store or do other errands. You ate
also going to be stopping traffic, somewhere around 120 times a
day, to allow the forklift to come across the road to bring t
boats for quick launch. This is already a congested area, if
this is going to go on early in the morning and into the evening
hours. From the water side of it, you're going to have boats
returning and leaving in an already congested area. The Mooring
Post does have a very large business, I believe, pumping
gasoline, so that we already experience back ups with boats
floating out beyond the docks of the Mooring Post, waiting to get
in and purchase S!asoline. These are hazardous in that area
because of the co lon. If you allow this quick launch
operat.ion to expand and grow, you're going to have more boat8
floating out there. This also puts an oil slick in the water
which is at the very least unpleasant and somewhat polluted.
Therefore, I don't see why Mr. Brock would be pursuing this if
- 34 -
,-.
-
thi~s wasn't i.'ln (3)(pansion. It '~:.: riot the: natu,'e of t.he beast to
put a lot of mOTley irlto sornethirl:C¡ th.at doesn't ¡:;.roduce sOlnetl",irl:g
for you. 50 I think it is clearly an expansion, and should be
viewed as such and a usa:ge variance should be required. Thank
,/"OlJ.
DIL,L I,..JETHEr-~BEE
l'iFL I,..JETI·"¡EnBEE"'I'1y narnei s B111 I,..J.;::d:. her b;¿:e " I 11 \.IE) 0 rl i"laso n Pc.ad"
t~ì>/ I¡~.ife {Jncl I 1i\/(3 ()n M¿.3S()n RC)i.3cJ.. I r()¿11ize this ¡:;)ay'ti(~I.Jl¿3r
se:gment of the proceedings this evening deal with the matter of a
Use Variance, and I recognize that one of your colleagues, Mr.
Turner, asked that we restrict our comments t.o that which apply
only to Use Variance. I believe my comments are applicable. I
believe they also might applicable to an Area Variance as
well. I do not know what the protocols are. So I am testifying
or speaking, at this point, with respect to the Use Variance, but
as I say, I believe they would also apply to an Area Variance.
On October 21, 1994, the attorney for the Town of Queensbury, at
a public meeting stated as follows "I think that as a matter of
law you c:ou,lcJ almo:::;t :~;ay th.at enla¡"gerr¡ent mean::;; allTlost an':l kind
increase in size, and I have read some court cases that give a
very wide interpretation to enlar:gement. I've :gone also gone
through a dictionary to r enlargement and extend, and the
t;¿~(· m:3 seern tC) be \.ier Y .br ()ad " It CIOf,:::; not seem t:..o co !If i n',0d
anywhere, that L have read, to a situation where you simply add
up the square feet of the current occupancy area of the building,
and that's what you know, no matter how tall it gets, it can
~>t,ill be ther;¡::;. I thirlk enlargemerlt is very' bro,ad, in the sen:::;e
o f a 1 a ' 9 er :::; t r u r: t u ," e . " f:, 11 0 f the" I 's" t 0 V~ hi,::; I', I r (; fer red i n
that quotation were those of the attorney for the Town of
Queensbury. One of my points of confusion is, I realize you
operate as a basically autonomous group, but if we are paying for
the professional judgement and the legal opinions and the
di'rection of tf"'le ToltJrl i~ttorney, ¡"Jhy do ItJe not li:::;ten to the To,'Jn
Attorney when he makes a statement' which is as unequivocable as
the foregoing was? Throughout the summer, those of us who are
going to be most exploited by this proposal were confronted with
regular visitations by the applicant. He visited us on numerous
occasions, as he did other neighbors. There were always two
stipulations that accompanied his visit. Number One, he was
going to do something which was entirely acceptable to those in
the neighborhood. Number Two, he was not going to replicate or
go through what occurred in 1988, under any conditions
whatsoever. We are confused that we find ourselves doing exactly
the same spin that we danced in 1988. Concurrently with t
visits, we were told, at that time, in July and August, that this
was clearly an expansion of the business, that it was necessary
for the business to grow and increase, that we really only had to
worry about the enlargement on the 4th of July, Labor Day,
Memorial Day, and some particularly appealing weekends in July
and August, because that's the only time that the majority of the
people would come to take advantage of the quick launch
facilities. We were told that the rest of the time we really
didn't have to worry about the expansion, that the boats would
sirnp,l>/ 1"<3,::; ide in theil" cradle::,; nd the int.ru:;,;ions v~()ulc! be
minimal. We are confused. If that was the case in July and
August, when we were visited, we do not understand why, ln
January, it is alleged that there is no increase in usage. The
determinations of the Town Attorney appear to been clear and
unequivocable. He explicitly stated that t.he simplistic
application of square foo as a measurement device in
determining the expansion of area and use, is insufficient and
unfoundc?cl. I will ,"e¡;::;'e,¡t the > c¡uote "It" ,. meaninG: expan:3ion,
"does not seem to be confined, anywhere that I have read, to a
situation where you simply add up the square feet of the current
occupancy area of the building, and that's what yoU know, no
matter how tall it gets, it can still be there." Our appeal is
for consideration as residents who are going to most impacted
by this measurement. You have heard some raise the argument that
-- 35 -
''--'
---'-
we should have known, when we assumed occupancy, that a marIna
was our neighbor. Indeed, we did know, and we know that now, and
we are prepared to accept that now. Similarly, the present owner
2:;hc)u,ld rlave knolrJn, IrJh",)n h,e a:::~s;urned occupancy and o(-Jne'rshij:::', <)f
what the constraints on that Marina were. We simply ask that
those constraints be maintained, and that the variance in usage
and areas that are now being sought considered by the Board as
unacceptable to those who are going to be most impacted, none of
whom approve of this project. You may hear some statements from
people in Cleverdale who will appeal for consideration for this
expansion, but I would ask that you give consideration to t _
who are going to be most impacted and see if you hear any
favorable testimony from them. T nk you. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
ROBERT E\,I;6,N~;
DR. EVANS-Mr. Turner and Members of the Board, my name is Robert
Evarl~:::, ¿HIC! I'm the ¡:::'ì"Ope¡ty OVJn,'}'( imrnedL:'d:.el)'" to t.h(; soutf'¡ cd ~'ìì .
Brock's Mooring Post and immediately to the west. I'm directl
impacted. As you heard from Mì-. Wethe¡bee, as neighbors we are
unit in a coalition, m,è"¡liY of U:S, against thi~:; project. (\ga,irl,
I'm not here to put Mr. Brock out of business. We've grown
within t Mooring Post. We know it's there. I have pictures
I'm going to show you about the rustic nature that we're used to
and the use that we're used to, and this tremendous change that
you've heard about. I'm not going to go through it tonight.
You've heard, certainly, the cases presented. The question is
here, what is the hardship here? Why are we going through
variances? Why do we have to bear the burden of his projected
expansion needs and changes? I'm a little concerned about the
car barn and I feel sorry for Jim Martin and his Staff. I think
's been certainly a diplomat, working with him and trying to
keep both sides happy, but through Plan A to Plan C, via Plan 8,
and I think you'll all admit, some of the information and
misinformation has been extremely confusing. Why do I, as a
resi nt, have to be in such a defensive, bringing lawyers in and
fi,,>mil/ an.:::! neighbor:::;. ~~Iì·. Brock h.:\~~; create.:::: a ci'\I'il I'Jar.
Unfortunately, all I'm hearing from the Board, and this concerns
me, is I'm hearing preexisting marina, and under 35 feet, but
this project is not going to go away. We're asking for fairness.
We feel that, unfortunately, a decision was made, and
misinformation. We feel that Mr. Brock well knew what he was
doing in '88, we told him, we had this room packed with hundreds
of people, it's t.he middle of January and this has been going on
through the winter, but we got through this in one night. We had
100 people saY1ng, no way. We told him, the Z8A told him. He
came around this summer. Again, we misinformation, and we'v
told him, no way. Lets talk. You can't have unilateral
decision. We'd never be here if we could talk this project out
and work out something we could both agree on. I'm not a
neighbor that's going to give him a hard time running his marina.
It's en there, and it's a rustic nature that we've always been
u to, and the use we're used to. We're not stupid. I mean,
we wouldn't be here if we weren't very concerned, and know the
facts, and are very concerned about the facts and what you heard
presented tonight. My concerns, again, I think this 18 a major
project and I think it should go through SEQRA. I think that
the¡e's some tremendous environmental issues that, as a neighbo1,
not onl'>, along v.JÍtr'l use, but also a·esthetics, I 'in extr.¿m;,~'l:;
concerned about. I think if you went through the letters, as Mr.
Thomas has, it's got to be almost 10 to 20 to 1 against t.his
project. We have phone calls coming out of our house all th
time, what's happening up there. Is it going to happen, is it
not going to happen? Why does this have to happen in our town?
Why can't we work this thing out? I mean, this really needs to
studied. There's some major flaws with this presentation and
this project, or we wouldn't be here in great numbers and be so
concerned. I want you to take this to heart, and I want you to
t.1'''¡ink about, if tl'li:,,; I;Jere a 35 foot rnon;ster going up in your bacl,
- 36 -
;...-
'-.../
yard, in a Critical Environmental Area, increasing usage or
changing usage, whatever the case may be, it's a major concern to
us, and, as property owners with t.remendous investments and
12),3 >' i n~;J t r C:fn(;· ncl()u ~3 ta)( f:~:3 t () t his T 1~)l.<.J n ~¡ ()lJ)M C'~) 1ì(':::;':~ '( n~;~; (} r (:? ) ¡::. 1 C'd ~::;c:
here us. Please listen to us. Mr. Brock has made some poor
islons. I think. He ordered this building weeks in advance
prior to getting a permit. He had those surveyors up there t
day after he got a permit" I mean, this thing is planned,
Gentleman, and my concerns a¡ e, lets bring this train back in the
station. Let~3 study it.. I_c~t,;:; l;)()k at it the ,,,a/ it is. Let,:;;
SECRA this, and lets take it t.o the Planning Board, whatever we
need to do. I think that., as neighbors, would make us happy if
this thing were modified, re-Ioo d at, environmentally sound and
aesthetically sound. So I'm jus! asking your consideration as
(lost word) members of Quee ury saying, please, if this were
going in !()ur bi3ck yaì"d, plea,;);:; ".-'0'1:.;0 t,hc: Wi3/ y;)U w()uld v~ant this
to 90 if Y()lj VJcr e our ne i :,:) hbol' :::: . T 1"Ia n k)ioU \/e r y ¡flue :"'1..
JOE POI.)I_ I EF<
MR. ROULIER-Good evening. The concerns that I have are, of
COUì":3e, ì'c:ga'I"c!ing all tfìe maì"inas on Lake (;eOì"ge, anc! it happen:,:;
to be the Mooring Post Marina right now. The problem that I see
lS that, tor many years, and probably for the last 20 or 30
years, the marinas on Lake George have been allowed to do
anything that they wanted to do. I refer to this as creeping
marina expansion, and how I define that, my definition of this is
the continual enlargement of a marine facility without any
governmental approvals or authorizations, and without any regard
to the neighborhood, and what I mean by that is that, in 1971, to
tl'''¡e be:st of mi' recollection, the la,rge:::~t boat orl Lake GeOì' ge I¡.Ji3:3
a 30 foot Chris Craft. T I. the 30 foot Chris Craft has been
replaced by 32 foot, 34 foot, even up t.o 41 foot boats. T
boats contain bathrooms. They contain bedrooms. They're used
weekends as party boats, and there's been, because of the size of
the boats; ,. there's n a tr(0ínondous increa~3e in t.he amount of
traffic that goes to t boats every weekend for one purpose
and one purpose only, to party on Lake George. Being in the
building industry, as I am, if I wanted to put a two bedroom
addition on my home, I would not only have to conform to all of
the setback requirements, t I would then be ta n in for the
:s.ize ()'f rny sC~I:)ti(:: S)/::3t(~rn~ Wc.~ t"IEt\/e- tf'''li~3 tr~0rnE~ncl()u~~3 .inc:'(e¿:t~3()' in
the size of the boats, but yet the septic systems are not keeping
pace ,,,it.h t. :::d,ze of t. bOi;Ü,~~ thdt. all. of the md(inas on Lak·:::;
George continue to have at t ir docks. Annually, I would
estimate that the boats on Lake George increase in size from 10
to 20 percent. As I said, in 1971, the largest boat the I know
of was owned by a Mr. Frank Holbert., it was 30 foot long, but the
average boat, at that time, I would say was 18 feet long. T
boats wers basically utility boats, and all you have to do today
is ride up to Lake George and see how the boats have evolved into
these small communities that are now on the shore of Lake George.
In my opinion, these marinas, because of this, what I call
creeping marine expansionism, is putting a burden on our
neighborhood up there. I see it on the weekend with the traffic,
and one of my principal concerns is regarding a quick launch
facility, i:;:; t.f"'lat th(:3 peopl.¿~ come up, tl"ley h.ave t,heil' boats ¡::::·ut
in. They go out there. They drink on the boats. They come back
to the dock, get in their car, and then go flying, and I mean,
flying, do,,,\! C::le\/i,3n::lale, F~o,3d on de ':,unda/ afternoon. The second
issue that I would like to bring up is regarding t size of the
building. The entire focus is on the square footage of the
building. I know, at t.he first meeting, t.here was some
consideration given to the capacity of the building, but any time
that you have three levels to a building, and I've certainly
built. many honlc:s dnd I kn()v~ thi for ò fact. If/ou ha\/e throe
levels to a building, you consi all t.hree levels in the square
foot.a~~::Je rc,quiì"(:)ment. 'Y'()U c!on't jU~3t. co,'\si I t. basin area.
You consider t first floor and the second floor. Because this
particular storage drea will have not only a first floor, but it
- 37 -
'--'
Il~ill hi:1'v'e a ~3eC()i-¡d floor, lie: it. ~,~ill hd\:e, i:1 thirc: floc>ì, In!JlL
opinion, we should be looking at three times the square footage
or approximately 60,000 square feet, instead of the 21,000 square
feet that's before you. Unless the people of this Marina are
literally stacking the boats, one on top of the other, without
cradling them on some type of a framework, which would be the
second floor, or the framework for the third floor. I believe my
calculation of the 60,000 is certainly in the ballpark. I don't
know, I haven't heard any issues regarding the hardship, but I
would just like to mention this. If the size of the bOi:1ts, in
1971, were 18 feet, and the current size of the boats aì
approximately, lets say 26 to 28 feet, and would still maintairl
the same number of boats, the dollar amount increases as the size
of the boat has increased. In addition t.o that, if the prices
charged for storage, back in 1971, have increased to the 1995
rates, we're actually having a quadrupling in the overall cost of
the storage of individual boats. In my opinion, t.here would
no hardship created under this scenario, and that there would
no reason for approval of the Use Variance. I would like to mak
one last comment regarding the views. A lot of people thi:1t I've
been speaking to said, well the people that live over on Mason
Road have a view of the lake, that a view behind them isn't
critical. If it ~Jas in [IlL. back yard, it ~~ou,ld be significantl).
critical, but I would like to bring to your attention a variance
meeting approximately five years ago here, where I was looking
for a side line setback of approximately 10 feet for a particular
customer of mine. The adjoining land owner, who had a view to
the north, had his attorney present and argued that, by
encroaching on the property line by ten feet, it would obstruct.
his view. This Board subsequently turned down my request for
that setback requirement of 10 feet. The significant part of
this, however, is that the attorney that was arguing against me
was arguing for his client who hadn't even built the house yet,
and it's turned out that the property has subsequently have been
sold, and that there will not. ever be a house built on that piece
of property. This Board consi red the view, at that time, to be
so critical, even though there was no house built on t t
property by that person, and I think that we, additionally, have
to ta a good hard look at not only the view these people hdv
of the 1a ,but view this building would glve them out th ir
k door, and as Dr. Evans said, I don't think anyone of you
l-JOuld ~'Ja,nt to look out your t~';3ck door at a, 35 foot. st.ructura"
Th,,,nk Y"()U,
st¡L.L,'( ~\JI-IEEL,ER
MRS. WHEELER-My name is Sally Wheeler, and I am a summer resident
of Mason Road in Cleverdale. I support my neighbor's concerns
for safety, increased traffic, runoff into the lake, and over
utilization of t.he lane:, but. I i'-,IOU.lC:! like t(,\ request/au Z()nin:;
Board Members keep firmly in mind three quastions. First, does
the expansion Mr. Brock proposes actually improve the valuable
land resource that falls under the jurisdiction of the Town of
Queensbury? Second, does the proposal show respect for Lake
George, an especially fragile and beautiful natural endowment.,
and, finally, will Mr. Brock's proposal positively contribute to
t well being and communal environment of Cleverdale, one of the
many communities in tha Town of Queensbury? What I am suggesting
is a different way to evaluate Mr. Brock's proposal. Indulge in
a fantasy with me for a moment. Imagine that Mr. Brock were to
put fc)'¡-th, not thi~3 prc,posal, [::;out a proposal. v~hich not
expand his business, but. maintains it in an especially attractive
way. Imagine that his building on the land respects the for
soil permeability, sewage treatment and drainage. Imagine that
his property is landscaped nicely, and is aesthetically plaasing
to t.he eye. Imagine Mr. Brock getting up each morning and
looking at his land and the lake, and taking pride in the fact
t.hat he ,-esp¡:ô<c,t¡?c! t.he land ancJ the li.':\ke, ho~..J good he might, f,::el
in his heart that he did the right thing for both the environment
and his neighbors. Does this sound silly? Perhaps. I love to
- 38 -
"'---'
.........i
walk, and one of the pleasures walking around Cleverdale is to
see how lovely people can ma their property. L reap the
benefit of my neighbor's hard work and love of their land,
ause I get to appreciate their forts. The Mooring Post
t'~I,::;r:L nd i~::; .'J. hi:;3tor ic; piece of Clcj\jerdale. It ':i:3 biac:n ther (; f(·¡
almost 100 years. I can't imagine Cleverdale without its own
In:,\, .L na . HOl"-lev{:'1-, L k nov.J V·J ht1 tit' :-:;;; like for some>:) ne t c) !::;ou i .1 ci .3 \1
eyesore nearby with no concern for neighbor's views. Now that
the structure's there, it's unsightliness is a daily reminder
tJ,òt I"'!i gh r I ¿: bu i I dl nST'S i mp.'Jct. negat i \/1:2' 1 yon ne i s11"'lbor ¿; . Is it
right for neighbors to be concolned with other people's property
on Clevcrdale? Yes, it is. We are a community, and when we
clon",'t, (:onsicler each other anc! (:onC:i;:ntì"ate onl/ on our Ohm
personal ires, we cease to a ommunity. As the Town Zoning
E30ard, Li?...\.l. ha\/e the oPPoì-tunit)" to real.l.}' :3C¡;t an e~':amp.l.e for
Queensbury. You have the opportunIty to say, we grant variances
on.l.y w 1"1 we can see that the individual has respect for and
appreciation of the land and water that falls under our
Jurisdiction. It really is possible to have Mr. Brock offe1 a
i::::'roP()~",;Jl tllat lrJould set a 1"li9I'''1 ::sta,ndard of excellence, a,nd lrJould
t II'v':/ of oth,3r d¡"e¿i:::i, becau::;;e it V.Ja23 ae:sthc:tica.ll/
appealing, enhanced and honored the land and lake, and fostered,
not ne,qati\je relation:::; with his neighbc)r~3, [::;out positi\/e
appreciation. Indeed, the Mooring Post Marina might be an
example for other businesses and marinas around the lake, because
of the positive contribution it makes to the welfare of the lake
and Clever dale. Perhaps it is a fantasy to imagine that we could
;.;\11 t,hink mor-e abc·ut the "-,,n''/:l.ronrn.:::nt than our- poch:et.books, but .if
we don't, we will not have much of a legacy to pass on to the
next generation. I think you members of the Zoning Board are
able to reflect values and standards that can be admired by both
business people and residential owners, but to do so means that
you must sensitive to the wel re of t land, the lake, and
the resi nts of Queensbury. Quick decisions are easy to make.
Caring and concern t.ake more time, and in the long run, make for
a better fut:,ure. I t.hank..,.ou \¡,·ar> ¡nueh f()r li::;tenin9 to me.
MR. TURNER-Thank you.
,JI.)[)'y' L,JETiiERBEE
i'1PS . "JETHEF?BEE.., I'm Jud)/ 1¡,Je t her ,a rid I Ii \/.¿} 0 n i'1aso n Road,
Cleverda.l.e, and I've been here, you've heard me earlier tonight.
I've been here through the years. We've tried very hard, at our
IK:>lJ~;e ,. tu !<eer) frorn c;h.':Hli,Ji n9 the, char-aeter of C.l.f~ver-dale, C))" t,()
!'''Iarrn the (}nviroT'lrn·ant, by rninimizil'I,;J any chang('':~: to our prop·erty.
We wait for 10 years to put up d garage. A tree fe.l.l down. ~o
we finally found room enough to put it at a very peculiar angle
to the rO.'3:\(;I. We did tllat. ~::.;c· l"-le l'Jouldn't. 1-13.\/e to take dowrl ani
trees. When our family outgrew our four room house, we went up
half a story. We didn't go the whole full story. My six foot
t."JO s;on ~'Iit his ~",ead every time rie got in bed, but that was hi§.
problem. It was to keep the small, cottage like character of our
house, and the neighborhood. Since then, we've come here_ We
went along with the request that the Marina made. back several
years ago, for an increase in SIze of a building. We went along
l"-lith t.hat. T n in 1':")00, a ri",que~3t \/e1-Y' :,;inl.ilar to thi:::; one,.
except it was one building instead of two, but the same size, was
flatly deni by your Board, with very little hesitation. We've
seen the business use and size change from a quiet sales, repair
and storage business to an ever increasing quick launch operation
that seemingly needs ever hig r and expansive building and noisy
machines for operation. What are we going to be asked to allow
next? Just as we knew about He rson's boat sales and storage,
vJhen W(j bc)us;¡ht, so (Lid ¡"ir. E:ì-()ck know the building size, height ,.
the property boundaries and the restrictions, and most of all,
abc)ut t,he fra,jile corldition of L.¿¡ke C;eorge.. In con(;..l.u~::;ion, I
Just, I don't understand this. In 1988, the Zoning Board of
Appeals concluded, after the hearing for a very, very similar
r e ell.1 est f 0 '( t his i'1 a r in,) , t hIs; ,ì. :::: the i r quo t ,:; " T hi::;; i san
- 39 -
-'
o \.: ';:~:;' ï :) U'i . f"1 () n t I::: r c) 1=:- ;;2 r t_ '::/
create a hardship and then
little farther, but I think
"/ou.
and equals Gxpansioll. 'feu carlilot
Ç)ì'N()¡::,():::;¿-~: E~ s()luti,:)r¡. II It VJ(:;:ììt ,:)n ,Ei
that sums it up right there. Thank
DEBORAH SKH"¡HER
MRS. SKINNER-Mr. Turner and Members of the Board, my name is
Dcd:;.orah Skinner. I 'rn a¡·i:?~3'Lck')nt. of Cleverdale. I 11',/(,3 on the
end of the point, in the old Catholic Church, and I had not been
aware of what was happening until it was already happening. I
guess I'm not within the variance limits to receive notification,
but I'd like to read a lette~ that I had written and submitted
into evidence. I followed up a telephone conversation. It was
requested to me that I submit it into evidence, and due to t
lack of time, I'm just going to read it. It's addressed to NT.
Martin. I telephoned the Planning Board Office. I went there,
t.he 28th, in lat.o2 after noon, t.o S,1() on record :::>t,3ti n9 some of in>
serious concerns regarding the Mooring Post Marina project on
Clo2verdale. Evidentally, my home is just over the 500 fe t
requirement for routine notice by variance to me. So I was
unaware of a meetin9 on the t.opic until I heard it on the radio
while driving out of town. When I telephoned your office, I
spoke to an individual who took a statement from me, and I
promised to follow up in writing. Subsequent to that
conversation, I received information that the meeting was
postponed to the following week. at which time I planned to
appear In person. I would, however, like t.o, at this time,
add)-ess a -few COnC0)·r,s I f13ve about va1~ious aspects of t
project, which I feel are extremely valid. I've been a
Cleverdale Road resident,in a house almost at the end of the
point since 1988. I am also an owner of a building at 275 Bay
Road, Queensbury, where my business is located. During the past
year, we have had to undergo two expansions at our 275 Bay Road
building. During the time prior to the expansion, I, as an
owner, as well as my builder, had to undergo rigorous procedures
regarding variance and zoning laws, as well as extremely
stringent compliance rules requiring the addition of 11umerous
,.,3:;;;troom facilities that ha¡:~'i::'<)n t() be not onl).. re~;tl'OOin
facilities, but also have to be for the handicapped. An elevator
for $13,000 that has not been used once in the last year, exc
f ()r te::::;t i ng, a nd be i n9 r equ i~' ed to e nc IO:::3e (.;our durnp:::::t(:)", t ha t i ::;
in t far back yard of au) facility, and barely seen from t
road. This names only a few of the stipulations that were
required of our small expansion. As a citizen of Queensbury, I
must respect the fact that if the rules are, in fact, to ensure
the quality of life and our environment in Queensbury as we know
it, those rules must be followed and adhered to. The issue that
truly bothers me is the reason I'm telling this story, is that I
truly believe that not only everyone is required to adhere to t
:~3arn<::~, f~tringent guidelines, ¿.:>nd thôt it is ab:solutely amazin';;" to
me, to witness some of the leniency that I believe goes on, i.e.
Queensbury Quaker Road, the parking lot is an accident waiting to
happen. I had one there myself, and I believe we already know
that, not to mention the aesthetics of it. Mr. parillo's Dunhams
Bay boat launch, where I have personally witnessed the overflow
of septic tanks on many occasions, not to mention the fact that
it is vital wetland, and now most recently the fact that the
Mooring Post Marina's embarking on a project that not only 1.
livin9 just down the street, but homeowners nearly within his
bael, ground lPJere truly unalPJare of. I as:k 1'1'(. i"1artin. v,Jho::)re lPJ8í'
your stringent 9uidelines and procedures where it came to
approval of this project? If they were followed, I am totally
unaware, and if they were, to what extent were they followed. I
feel that my family and my company create many vital job openings
and supply a very vital service to our community, not to mention
the fact that my lake house, which is a residence, generates well
,;)\)<":1' ':137:;,00 a '/C3,;3~' in school anc! to~'~n ta,:>(G~~:. 1'\/(;" V,j()\"k
extremely hard for the equity I have in this home. I feel it is
very important to mention at this time that 1, as a business
- 40 -
-'--
.......".
owner and strong advocate of small business, would not want to
encumber Mr. Brock's ability to conduct a professional and
i,:,,"ofit.abl bu~::;ine~3s, r:;spec;ialI./ in l'IOI¡.J '()rk, ':3tate, ,:'?speciall)" t.
v.) ;,) '/ t ~....¡ L) u. .1, r'! c ~s C~; c-1 i rn d. t 'D .1:3 .. If;:·:::;,.1 , 1'''¡ () vJ e, \/ C; 'j" J t 1"'¡ D.t i, (1
conducting his business, there should be a clear understanding as
to the environment he is conducting t.his business in. From my
understanding of the project, my concerns are as follows: Most
of the concerns that have been mentioned here tonight are also my
concerns, but my serious concern is to whore I live. I feel that
the aesthetic appearance of this project is of the utmost
importance t.o the people who live and pay taxes in t
Cleverdale. I honestly feel, to go away from my letter, t.hat I
would not have purchased my property in Clever dale , had the
building that is being PI' been there in the first place. I
honestly feel that Mr. Brock's intentions and the intentions of
th'b CI¿:vcrc!al r'3:3iderlts ou,ld fla\/G be·en ,lddre:õè~:3ed, and we could
have come to a compromise, had we had advanced notice. To go
alrJ8/ from my lett..er a9ain, I tl¡ink that if I¡.Je had had adv¿.¡nced
notice, r:'0:3~3iblY' the ì"esidfjnt~::; .:e,ulcl 1"la\/e sat d.)~,~rì \\Iit.h Mr. E3:rock
and come up with some kind of compromise as to the size of t
buildings, where they should be, and possibly he'd be conducting
his business now where it looks like it's a little bit at a stand
still. The other issue that truly concerns me is the fact that I
1'''1:0'.1\/8 :3m,all children .'Jho ride theil"~ bik,¿õs up a,nd dOI¡.Jn t.hatroad
dnd l"la\/e no otheì- choice: but. te, utilize th,,,,, r for pl¿~'/ an.::!.
exercise, not to mention the fact that I, myself, must travel in
and out of that road, passing t.he Mooring Post, or, in a sense,
driving through the middle of it, be it business or personal use.
In the summer months, as we all know. the traffic on Cleverdale
increases heavily. Parking is at an extreme minimum, and any
time the Mooring Post needs to launch a boat or take it out of
the water and store it, they need to cross the road. To date,
residents have been very patient, and the Mooring Post seems to
be very accommodating. Most boats currently stored at the
Mooring Post are not. in and out on a daily basis, from what I
have seen. My real concern regarding the issue is that Mr. Brock
is proposing to increase not onlY' the number of boats stored at
the Mooring Post, which definit ly requires an increase In
:;;eò:::;on,3.l.Ln an.;::;! out~3, l)ut ,;;:d.~::;o, in fact, to hÒ'v'e ~;,Jhat Y'QU t.erm
quick .li:-\unch boat :'3tora";¡(:::,, ¡'Jhicl' nH:',}n~;:; t.h,3t thence) v.Jill be parkin:J
r{::)qI.Jl.r,:;;d fo; boat 01;.Jfl·er:3 anc! t!'''leir frie'lìd2;, and I point out, and
their friends. I rarely see someone who wants to go have a
recreational daY' on Lake George and utilize their boat that
n't genera.l.l/ brin9 alc>n,J a friend Oì" a fri'3nc! joins t.hem UF'
there with another motor vehicl or maybe a few at a t.ime. My
concern is the safety of my children and their friends if these
people come in and out, enjoy their day on the lake, and then
depart in thc} afterno()n, cau:3inu \..JhE:\t 1. feel ~;,Jould be a rn,;3j()ì"
increa:se in ti affic on a roae! that is ,;3Ir(}ad/ o\/eì'burdened in t.he
summer time. You only need to go there, in the summer time, on a
weekend, to know that, not to mention a holiday wee nd. Also of
concern is t fact that the road will be blocked on many more
occasions for the boats that will be quick launched on a daily
basis, increased numbers, and we will have no resource but to
take the sf road in back of the Marina, causing the road
serious, that road, serious increase in traffic, which runs along
t.he back of the Marina. I am not aware of any traffic study
having n conducted. If one has, I sincerelY' request a copy of
it, if that is within my rights, and I understand, this evening,
that there was not a traffic study done, but I'm sittin9 here and
I would truly and honestly request, as a resident, that. that is
done. I feel that other concerns I have will ,or have been
de;3lt \;,Jit,h l;.Jit,h otlv,:)" i~3SUC)~::;, and in c1.o:::,in;¡, I v~on't read t.he
closing of my letter, but it 1S a serious concern. In
Cle\/creJale, it':3 been rnent:¡,on,,::,j ')'dì1.ier this eVc?nLn9, there arE'
no ~;:sid¿)'I¡.Jalks in C1everdale.. T , '::;; jU:Ô3t th,s' ro Ther;e's not
a lot of ¡;,Jood~;. Then':'? ':3 '-/(:1'}- fe¡,,) placiõ<;; for chilchen to play. I
have a SIX year old.. I have a fourteen year old. There are
¡:;·roba,b.l.y fi\v'o or si;..: ot.her cl',ilciì"c.:rl hi~3 ,a~)(; that corne in 1:.h",..:
summer time that aren't there in the winter time. TheY' ride
- 41 -
'.,...-
'''''''''-
thc;.L r \Ji u¡:> ancl VH¡ th,,? st.re,C?t., an(:1 there I:::; no c\t r p.1.a,:.:
to play, and if you add another 30, 40, 50 cars, for a quick
launch, along with their friends on top of that, when they visit
them to go on the boats during t day, you're really increasing
the traffic, and that's a serious concern to me. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else?
MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN
MRS. MERRIGAN-My name is Mary Ellen Merrigan. I live on Seeley
Road, and I listened carefully before, when you described the
residential situation, the residential lots, Building 11 as a y
issue, and it is to me, also. I also wonder, on the issue of the
ratio permeability, is the residential land being included in t
ratio permeability? Can anybody on the Board clarify that?
MR. MARTIN-No, it's not.
MRS. MERRIGAN-It's not. Last time I was here it was included in
t ,"eel outline. I woulcJ al~~;o lil';e t() support. Mr~3. Skinne,' '~::;
point about the fact that t rc are no sidewalks, and my children
already know that there are different rules in the summer than
the rest o"f the year, -tha"t they're not to ride -their bikes out on
Cleverdale in the summer. If you increase the number of cars,
what about the children that don't know that, the children that
don't know t.he fact that people are running out, not just to t
store, but to the liquor store, which is right next to the
grocery store. Please consider that these kids do have to ri
on the road, and that when you add more cars, you're putting them
at an increased risk. Thank you.
BILL l.jf~RD
MR. WARD-My name lS Bill Ward. I own property about a quarter of
a mile out on Cleverdale from the Mooring Post site. I'd li to
~:;uPi:::'ort the arguments that have been rnade this eveni ng 11,
relation to the necesslty for a variance for the project. as
proposed. I'd also like t.o read a brief statement from my
nephew, Bill Wetherbee. "Gentleman: My name is Bill Wetherbee.
I am the son of Judy and Bill Wetherbee who live on Mason Road,
directly behind the Mooring Post Marina. I feel that the issues
surrounding this project should be settled among the peopl
directly affected. I'm amaz at the number of people who pass
judgerneílt onthi::; proposal, t n return to their rlomes miles alrJa>"
and far out of sight of the project. I ask the Board members
that when you read letters, you give each letter a fair
valuation, as well as determine if sender's name is on your
notification list. I would hope that when you hear speakers, you
ask the proximity of their homes to the project. I realize ot
businesses and people have an interest in the outcome of this
,il!:;. I'm not sug:~;¡e:::;tin:J that;/ou ignor;,') thei,- \v"l(~\',;:::,.
However, when you determine which residence were to receive mail
notification of this project, you establish a group of people
whose interests are directly affected and need to be protected.
This group of people live with the consequences of your decisior¡
every day, for the remainder of their stay on Cleverdale. This
group's concerns should, therefore, be given the highest
consideration as you evaluate the project. I do not live within
site of the Mooring Post. I do, however, spend a good 1 of
time at my parents. When I visit my parents, I hope that I am
not confronted with a 35 foot high wall, as I approach thei¡
I"¡orn(;;;. Pictur;::ó) IrJal ki ng out of )/our r"louse a,nd S;::3el ng that, '/'(Iur
neighbors had constructed a 30 foot high fence along one of your
property lines. That's taller than four sheets of plywood end to
end. I find it hard to believe that you would not oppose such a
fence. Another major change brought about by this project will
be the use of a large commercial fork truck. A fork t.ruck of
this size has never been used at the Mooring Post previousl)
Never. The sound of a fork truck of this size, operating insi
- 42 -
---
-.i'
a steel building, lifting a boat to the third storage level, lS
not acoustically pleasing. A steel building will do little to
Inufflc: t:'¡e ~~;¿)uncl. I ~3P;3\,t a c:umnF)ì' ne::<t to t,he Bolton I."undin,"
1'13¡"1na çJ,nd ain very' fai'flilia,r ItJitrl [,he noi~3e' g¿\ierat d z,imila..
¡'-cjU i \:::<¡ne n t . T II i ~,; [,}\ Oi:)():sa 1 .",¡ i l.1. i nc ¡ (,'a~3e t he no i sc: ;3 ::< per 1. ne 1);-
the resi nts living along Mason Road. Mr. Brock has n a
neighbor. I use t services of the Marina yearly, and enjoy t
convenience of its close proximity I worked at the Marina for
eight summers. I owe the est.ablishment a good 1. No one in
my family wants to prevent the Mooring Post from operating.
However, I must question the validity of some of the figures used
to substantiate the proposal. Because of the increased cubic
footage of the proposed building, the increased quick launch
storage along Mason Road, and th itional ~7 equipment
which would be required, I believ Q varlance to be necessary,
anci, in lL,;,¡ht of t. concern::;, I ')i:JpO~3e j' pn)ject. in its
cur I' :6 1'1 t f C,( in . T h a n k /0 u f () r >/ 0 l) Ii, i ili ,2' . " It'~; s i :9 fi ed, I"J i II i a in (oj.
t~,atherbe; ,
MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else that hasn't spo n?
]()HN 31< I r·,¡r"Ef?
i'm. ~:,r\HH'~ER"I'1y name is John Si<irlrkr. 1'1y ItJife ",;po earlier. I
hadn't really intended to speak, but I guess I felt like I had
to. I'm sort of sitting back by this mural, here, on the wall in
/OUì" buildiw], and, obviou:31/, that':,) eveì"/"bod/':3 dream ()f v~hat
Lake George would like to be, what it was at one time, and what
In)" f alTI i I y' bC)U9ht Pì" opc)r t''/ her e i \1 1 c¡20 . T :'113 t' ~:;:; , obv iou:::;l/ "
unrealistic. My parents hav some Friends who live in
t,H1.1.ia¡n::.:;!:)ur:)" ane! t,hu s~¡entlernan, tile 11U~3b,;¡n,J ill ¡::-..¡rticular, has
n very involved in tiling to preserve Williamsbur:9, and
é'3,:J.ic:i to m) fat.I',¡ôi ,)\'jU t,in\e t.hat if 'v"e.l()pc,r::::; ¿ir fOl' it, then
you should be against it. Well, I don't believe that. I have a
lot. of cli nt.s with by business that are developers, and I find
it very interesting that there are people here that are builders,
such as Joe Roulier, that are, in fact, against this, which
surpri me. I would think that they would be for this. I grew
up on this la I started in 1948. When I drive around the
lake, I don't like the fact that I see houses on the side of the
In 0 u n t a in. I don't wan t t. 0 c! r i veal' 0 u n d C 1. e \/(:) ï d ale .:'1 n d 23 e e t h i :3
huge building. I don't want to see Mr. Brock suffer financial
difficulty. He's a neighbor. It's an unpleasant situation to be
in a Hatfield and McCoy situation, which we're kind of getting
int.o in Clevôïdale, but I have to say, honestly, that the thought
of driving by a building that size, and if you stand in front
the building at Fisher's Marina, if you stand in front of the
building at Lamb's, you look at the size of that building, it's
just down right ugly, and people corne to this area because of the
beauty of La George, and I think that something lse could have
bec:n done. If/ou loed;; at th,:: hi::::;t.Oì"i ()f Lake GecHge, if/()u
look at the Marinas t.hat are on Lake George, when they were
built, there wasn't a bi9 demand for storage, for quick launch.
Pilot Knob Marina, for instance, worst place in the world to
locate a ¡"larirkõ\. Tlìat'~3 l<Jhøre in)' family 9ri,?I¡~ up. Onc, of t.he
roughest areas on the lake. T get. wi ut every year
by the ice, but fortunately Mr. Stewart, t owner, had t
foresight to buy property down t road, in two areas, k in
the woods, build another building. His boats were star back
there. Th re's lots of boats going up and down the road. The
usage has been expanded, but it hasn't really affected the
neighborhood adversely. Smith's Marina 1n Bolton Landing.
Theì"e '23 n() t.oo much y'ou can ci.;) a:':; fa'I' a::::; e::<p.'3n::,:ion. So he's
worked within what he has to exist, t existing space that he
has. He happens to be a client of mine. Lamb's Marina sold the
business and put up this absolut 1/ horrendous building which has
absolut.ely no value t.o the aest.hetics of La George, combine
with a mount.ain covered with above it, rl~ a business
pei"son, if I l",¡a:3 to !:)L!/ the t"!,)oì'inç¡ PO::3t ~l:Hina, and hac! plans to
expand it, I don't krlow l-f I car) rnal<e tl1is ar13109Y ~:'I'opGrl/ but.
- 43 -
-"
i t·~ ~3 1 i i 'f I VJS\::3 i ¡~¡t() ~.)a .L 1, ¿3n(:: I t1.J.3 r¡'!:',.e:c: t.::::. 'f()rrr¡
professional baseball team in Glens Falls, and I bought a
baseball diamond on Cleverdale, with the of having d
professional team. I wouldn't buy the baseball diamond on
Cleverdale. Because if I'm going to build a stadium and have
lots of traffic, I mean, lots of parking, it doesn't make any
sense. So I think there has to be a recognition on a business,
from a business perspective, that, you know, I've got so much
space to work with, and, there's got to be another alternative.
There's a gentleman here who does mostly hauling boats who has a
storage facility off of Ridge Road. It's back in the woods. It
can't be seen. I didn't even know it was there until I went to a
boat auction. I mean, there are other alternatives to building
this absolutely huge building on a tiny little peninsula. To me,
it ma absolutely no sense, and I feel badly for Mr. Brock. I
feel badly for all the people. I give you folks a lot of credit
for sitting here. It's not something I think 1 would volunteer
to do. It's a thankless job, as far as I can see, but I feel
that I have an obligation, as much as I tend to be a middle of
the road kind of a person and a facilitating type personality, I
don't want to have to feel uncomfortable when I drive by Mr.
Brock down the road. I have to say that I think that this
project is totally out of line and should be denied.
J (:1t',IE FFE I ,"¡OFEF:
MRS. FREIHOFER-Good evening, Mr. Turner. I certainly did hope to
speak here tonight. I'm Jane Freihofer. I live two doors north
of the Mooring Post Marina. I own two pieces of property and I
pay taxes on those. I've n at Cleverdale over 60 years as a
summer resident. I drove boats on this lake when I was nin
,¡'ear::;; old. 1'\/e ~;c;;en a lot of changos. I 11!-::,e John Bro(;!',. He
hi,'<:::,d ill)/ 9randson last sumrneï . I '\Ie 9ì·O~·Jn UI::' I;Ji tl''', the l"loor i nu
Post, but what's happoning now, I just hav to reinforce what t
gentleman that spoke here tonight said so well, and the nei9hbor
that I havo, who live there year round, said so well. This
project is all out of perspective for that neighborhood. We all
havo kids, grandchildren. They can't play in back anymore. We
used to worry about the lake. T lake is a God send compared to
the road, and it's serious. Somebody's going to be hurt, and
t.t1is e>:panslon can't Ip US~ ar1d it can't help Lake Gaol-go, arld
tf"Ü, 's rn/ big:;i<:::3t concl:;;r n. I (Jon't \¡Úsi, .]()I'l)ì bad luck. I hop
some compromise with height and size can be made. He's a man who
cortainly works hard, and I don't wish him ill, but this I have
to just add my words to tonight. I think it's a mistake for
Cleverdale and a mistake for Lake George. Thank you.
ED I<:Ei",!NY
MR. KENNY-Good evening. I'm Ed Kenn)/, owner of property with my
wife on C1everdale and Mason Road, right directly opposite John
Brock's Marina. There's not much that I can say that n't
already boen said, but I do want to get my two cents worth in, as
far as being along with the people of my neighborhood. It's out
of the question that such a large building be put up and hurt so
many people. There's nothing much more that I can say, only t t
I'm :3t.ric;tl'/ again::::;t, it. I o....Jn a piece ()f F')rOpeì"t/' t.hat '~3 120
t along that road, and it I;Joul.d , In> entire pro¡:;,srt/, it
would be 35 feet high, and I don't think that t.here's a person in
the room, if it was them, what would say the same thing, but I
cannot add to anything that anyone else has said. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Anyone? Mr. Schachner.
MR. SCHACHNER-I'm trying to just speak once. So I assume t L
everyone else has spoken. Mr. Turner and Members of the Board,
for your records, I'm Mark Schachner. I'm Mr. Brock, the
applicant's, Attorney. I don't think I'll be very brief, because
I have a lot to refute. I will, however, try very. very hard,
and I think I'll succeed in sticking to the point, and t point
- 44 -
"--
--.J'
right now, I think we will aglee, lS the appeal of Jim Martin's
termination that a Use Variance is not necessary for t
application, and I'm not faulting anybo for this. It's a very
complex legal process. T of us who have parti ipated, a I
mean everyb you all, we who have participated in this
exercise have seen what a complex legal process this is, but I
think it's obvious that the vast majority of comments that we va
heard tonight, and I'm not discrediting them at all. Everyone is
entitl tc> rnake their comment:s" ane: I think thiè\t thoy ~0ill !::;.e
incorporated by you all in the rocord of some future pros ing,
if Lhere i:3 a, \lariarlce ::::orc)ceeding, ¡::Jut obvious;ly I'iTI not goins¡ to
n:::fute the v,;;,\st major it), of the cornme;nt,:; that wen?: rnacte. I'in nc:ot
uoirlU t.Ci c,vc,n try' tC) refut,::;,thcèm a:s to I,.·Jhetl''',er tr,is is a goocj
project or a bad project, and will have a bad impact or a good
impact. I'm going to stay right out of all that, unless t
Board directs me to get into any of that, because it's obviously
not relative to the specific legal issue at hand, and I say legal
issue, because that's really what the issue is before you right
n01,.0" It. ':3 a legal i~3S;;lH:: a:"-; to vJhet.heì' t.he project" a~:; pn)¡:)o:sed,
requir s a Use Variance. Jim Martin, the Zoning Administrator
the Town of Queensbury, has issu a t.ermination on this issue.
His determination is that there is not a Use Variance requir
for the project as pr I presume, the first couple of
speakers expressly sta t. t they disagree with that
determination, arid I think I'm safe in presuming that the rest of
t spea s disagree with that t.ermination, although their
comrne:nt~:;; VJc'(e not focu;?3Gc:1 ()n tl'I,;;1t" ,;Jncl agaiìÎ, the,/'r;", not.
attar rle/::;:; a nd I do n 't f au 1 t t.1',ern for that. ~·Je a 1::30 do not have ;,')
whole group of supporters here to get up here and speak about the
benefits of project and what's good about it and to substantiate
Q..Uì·.. contenti()rl~:; about t.he mer it::; (:of t.hc: pì'oject" becau~3e a~Jai n,
unless you tell me otherwise, I don't think t t's the issue
that's for us at t.his time. You already have, because of
previous proceedings, the petition signed by 82 people, all on
C:lel,jerddl . "{ou also ¡"Iavo a :;:;0, ie::;~ of let.t.ü'r':s frorn ~::;uPF>orter~~,
and we will produce supporters, at a different conv ntion of this
pr()cc3edin9, if it'~~ appì"(;opriate to do é'30, anc:! agairl, before I 9-::::1:.
into my specifi~ comments, I want to make sure, does the Board
agree wit.h me that that's the only issue before you right now?
MR. TURNER That's the issue.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. For the benefit of your record, I have just
distribut an extremely short piece of text. The text is copied
directly, and then enlarged, by a copy machine, and I don't
int,anci t.o p¡'OdUC,<2 r'1r. ¡VìcCoì'mack to (:!i~3cu~::;:3 wl"I,:",;t the le\-/còl of
enlargement was. It's a direct copy of a portion of the text of
a Nev~ ',",») k ~::,t¿\te ':'3tatut.(j. "["hc; r'~el,.',J '{or h. 3t.at.e Stat.utc' is
generally known as the New York Town Law. The Section that I've
copied and distìibuted is the vory first. part of Section 267 of
the New York State Town Law. T name of t Section is "Zoning
Boar cI of Appea l~:;", and th,:':: Sect ii,)n i ~3 qu i tc:: leniJthy and goc:s 0\1
to discuss all different things about your powers and authorities
anc! how y'ou rule orl applic;:,;ltior¡:; ,¡,ne! thin9~:~ Ii t.hat. ~3ect,¡,c\n
One of Section 2(';;,7 is ;¿~ntitl "Dc'finition::s", a,nd the very first
definition, of several, is the New York State Statutory
definition of the key term that you have to look at tonight. The
terrn i;3 "U~::;e 'V',3r' iance", and by the way, thi::s terin is not definecl
in t.he TC)\0n (,d" Qu¿:;(?nS;buì")" ZOllin\J O'¡"dinanc¿::, dl"IJ th,3t.'s riot
unusual. So the governing Statute here is New York State law,
and t.his is direct copi out. of a book call McKinney's,
I¡.Jhic!", is t name of a Sta,te :;,t,:Jtute, and it, ::;:;ay:::;, "Use Var ianc;¿;
shall mean the aut.horization by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
the use Qf land for a purpose which is otherwise not allowed or
is prohibited by the applicable zoning regulations", and I
believe I've highlighted on each of your copies two words in this
finition, and the words are "use" and "purpose". The sole
issue before you right now is whether Jim Martin, your Zoning
Administrator, cOìrectly termined that the application for
i' <,,) novat ion ;) f the' 1'100 r i n;¡ :'o::ó: t i'iar' ,Ì, rlicl noLi' (2qui r C' a Us;,:":)
- 45 -
'---'
'-
\/¿lri,3ncc::~ ¿tncl t c)\-'¡l'>" finiti':)1~\ ()f the tC:ì"^'fn IILJ~:;(: \/d'¡'l~~i¡~jC~:~" t}-·'¡'st
governs this proceeding is the definition t.hat I have just
distributed. So all of my comments are going to focus on this
definition and the words "use" and "purpose". In the context of
those comments, I will also try to address the comments made by
the opponents that I believe to be relevant to your
te;'(minat.ion. Those which I bi3lieve not. t.o be \"elevant, I ~...¡ill
try" to e><clu(~e. It '~3 '\I'C",";/ i nteì"':323t.i n:~; t() me: that, as I said, the
Cueensbury Zoning Ordinance does not define t.he term "Use
Variance". Contrary to what the two att.orneys who spoke tonight
before myself said, the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance also nowhere
states that a Use Variance is required to continue a preexisting
nonconforming use, to replace a preexisting nonconforming use 01
even to, and please before I say the magic word, understand that
l¡JC contend l¡,Je a're not doing this, but e'Jen to e>-;pand c),
preexisting nonconforming use. So even though we submitted
documents to you, letters, affidavits and other t.ypes of
testimony, to indicate that all the proposed uses we're talking
about are already taking place at the Mooring Post, and have
La K[;Hì pI ,3(>;:> at the Moor i n9 Post for ma ny years, th·e bot tom 1 i ne ,
as a matter of law, is that the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
Pl-ovisions in question don"t even state, do 110t even state, that
a Use Variance is required, even if, for the sake of argument,
you consi red us to be expanding the preexisting nonconforming
use. The only directly applicable language, if we were
expanding, which we are not, is in Section 179-79, Subsection D,
and ('-Jhat t.h.3t sa'/:3 i~3 "r';ny nonc()nforming use may be incì"eased
only by variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals", but I
think it'2:; '\I'i!;;r>' import.ant to ¡::::'oint out that., at lei,)~'3t. in ŒLi..
opinion, the first two attorneys, or the two attorneys who spoke
¡:::-ro\/iously, 9ave,; me tho irnpr,es:::;ion tl''',at the Zoni ng O'rdi n,3,ncc
clearl/ ~states in it that you needt.o get a U::se \,Iariance if /ou
want t.o expand a preexisting nonconforming use, and that is not
so. If that were so, then we'd discussing the expansion issue
at 9ï(3at length" ancl y"ou rnial-It ha\/e an eaf~ier decision to maf,8,
but it doesn't say that. So I'm going to focus on t use of t
propert.y, because that's what's in the definition. Use Va¡-iance
shall mean, etc., etc. use of land for a purpose which 1S
otheïwise not allowed or prohibited by zoning regulations, and by
the way, we concede that, if this were a virgin plece of
pì'opeì"ty', to use the term t.hat I belie\/e one of the pre\/i()U~3
attorneys used, that this would not be an allowed use of t
property because of current zoning. So I think, I believe,
everybody agrees that what we're talking about is a preexisting
non(~onforrning use. HO('-J I'rn 90ina to focus (HI the IrJ()rd IIU:;3;) II and
"puïpose", the two woïds in the Statute. What is the use of t
property? What has it been since when? Since 1906, and we have
sworn testimony that you've already received, the use of t
property, this very same property, has been as a commercial
marina. Since the early 1900's, as far back as 1906, there have
been boat sales. There's been boat storage. There's been boat
launching of some type, and we'll talk about what types in a
minute. There's been boat repairs, and I guess there's n
sales of gasoline, maybe not back as far as 1906, but back many,
many years. We heard, you've previously heard and received
testimony from the gentleman who's family owned the marina, I
':;'¡UE";;:;~;; frorn 1906 all the (,-Jay up through 1971, the l-1enderson
family, and you've already received testimony about the types of
uses, as well as the levels of uses, and I'm not going to re~ash
all that. T uses have existed, literally, for decades, long
before there was zoning, and in fact, t.hey've existed at levels.
at least during the Henderson regime, that evidentally wer
greater than some of the levels during what I'll call the Poland
regime, and that's just how the business fluctuates, I guess.
Most of the comments that we heard, excluding, again, the ones
that don't relate to the specific issue you're decidina, seemed,
at least to me, to focus on the launching aspect, not so much on
the sales, storage, or repairs, gasoline sales we heard a little
bit about, but an awful lot of focus on the launching aspect.
Now, there's been some evolutions, I understand it, within t
- 46 -
-...../
"'--"
industry of the launching of boats. Number One, New York State
law, and cases under New York State law, which I'm not going to
get il1to, clearly anticipate and allow for the natural evolution
i. f'¡{;::.::;:::;Ô:::;, CC)rOiller c i d.l JJu~31 nc;:~::,;~:;c~:=:" I;>J J t, h 't:. !H' {) t.i ¡n·ss " T -'I,:;3. t.:- ':3 nCtt.
to say t y allow for expansions and building increases and the
using of additional lands and things like that, but there's veT
significant body of New York law that I won't get into in detail
that clearly anticipates that businesses do evolve, that
techniques for running businesses do evolve, and that allows
evolution of businesses to occur. The bottom line here, in terms
of launching, is as l understand it, we've had Jaunchinq of boats
at the pr ern i :;:;C~~3 liter ..:-\11 )" ~'3 i nc(:: t \/ur )" ea r 1/ 1900 ':3 . ¡''-Io~'-J the
launching used to be accomplis d, as I understand it, on a rail
::Ö;::i:3t,ô;'in, ò,nc! !ILì::.. 9ue~;:s is that ti"¡;:, (tdl S;)"::3tern 1,'3 a heck of a lot
slower and a heck of a lot less efficient, and by definition can
handle a lot less boats in a given time period then what we have
now come to call a quick launch facility, but the bottom line is,
the type of use has existed since 1906, including boat launching.
A tremendous amount of the comments we've heard have related to
the number of customers, how many peopl have been coming, will
be coming, etc., etc. We submit, as a matter of law and
practicality, an interpretation of zoning law, the number of
customers, quite frankly, is not relevant here, and if the number
of customers was how you deci issues like this, you would go
out of business, because you would never I to see your
families and go to your jobs, because every single time, at least
In a preexisting nonconforming use situation, that somebody had
success in thei. business and doubl their customer base,
t opponents ~1e)Ye would indicð'te that t. fiG ·to corne before
l"()l.\ for .J U2:;;;:' 'v' a ria nc:<:: . ':.u , 'I' or (;:< amp 1 e ,. 1 et23 F'r ,::-:te nd ~'-Je hi.i\\/() E\
h y j;; 0 the tic a lr est, a u r a II tin d , a ¡::. r e () xi::; t 1. n 9 , (10 fì eon for m i n ~1
r(::,:~taurant. The(e~3tauì-ant h¿:\::ö; a lc,u::::;/ chef. One hunch-ed ¡::H3c\ple
a week come to the restaurant. The restaurant hires a great
chef. Now the restaurant has 100 people a night come to it.
Assuming that they don't do something by acquiring new land or
something like that, that it's the same restaurant or the same
,',;ize¡·'c;;3taurar¡t, whate\/er }"()U \'Jant t.c) c:al1 it,. )-"()U clon't. ha\/e a
situation where they need a Use Variance, because more customers
ô ¡ c::orn i nCi to the r e23tau ì":;¡ n t . T 1"1';;\ t '~;; ju:::;t. 0 ne h/¡:)()t het i Cd I .
Pick any preexisting, nonconforming use that you want, and the
fact that, over time, the number of users, or the number of
customers fluctuates is, Number One, completely irrelevant and,
Number Two, is to be expected. Some people are more successful
than others in running businesses. Now, we've also heard, again,
the vast majority of comments referring to these issues about
parking, traffic, meaning car traffic, also traffic, and there
were a couple of comments about boat t.raffic, meaning on the
lake, as being increases, and I have to drum home the fact that
people are talking, opponents are talking about this in a futur
t,·:: n,:;:,c', af; in t II ~;e n~;e of if }--¡e; qu i c J<: 1 au ne I"¡os 140 boa to.:; , if he
s;Le,! e~::; 200 bo,3.t~:;, !;Jh i c h ~'J'::)' '/'2} no!;! 89 ' ' to 1 i In ita t 1 '0,1 1 , if
t e things. These things, it's been documented in your
record pr viously, through sworn affidavits, as well as numerous
1ett.<0r:3, t are all t,h(), e><,i,;:3ting lel}¿3ls ()f U23es. If t.h,:)
people have said, and not ever/one has said this, by the way, but
Çi:.9JI1S;;.. oppononts ha\/e ,::;aid, look" \'-J() c:ð.n 1i\/e wit,h it a:s it is no\'-J.
We may not love it as it is now. We may not be crazy about it as
it is now, but we can live with the level of use as it is now,
and again, please understand, I recognize not everyone has said
that, but some have said that. We have absolutely sta ,ln
every single application mat rial, and every single verbal
presentation, that we will not xce the existing levGls of use.
<;:,0 )iOU're not 90ing to i'¡,D\/C liIe,( traffic on Cleverdale Road.
You're not going to have more cars parked at the Mooring Post.
You're not 90ing to have the dangers that a number of people have
spoken about. Now if they feel those dangers exist already, and
:,,;OI1'le pe;oplc (Jo, that's a differ,ent issue. Our statement on t.hat
is those affect the existing level of use, but again, the number
of customers is not the sis for your cision. The is for
/()u r c!ec i ,;;: i () \'1 is,. hE\:;:; t. he U:è:;(,c;'¡ ne! t hi:,:, pu r PO"3-2:;;; fOì" V~ hie hit. '5
- 47 -
...--
--
being used changed from t preexisting, nonconforming use, and
we submit that it has not. Just for the sake of your record, Mr.
O'Connor did cite a particular case that I believe involved a gas
station and, again, without getting too specific, and I'm not
,coven familiar IrJith trle case he 'refe'rred to, but the gi~;t of ~'Jhat
he said was that in a similar situation, the court said, you need
to have a variance, and I think he then added, correct me if I'm
wrong, Mr. O'Connor, t.hat in that particular case, the court
eleni,se! the \/a¡"iancø, anel I can tell you, .lne: I'm reall}" ~::;aY1n,;
this for your record and your counsel, as much for your own
benefit, because I'm not going to start throwing names Jnd
numbers and cases at you, that clearly, if that case exists, and
I have no røason to disbelieve Mr. O'Connor, that is not the only
case on this topic in the State of New York, nor is it a
controlling case on this topic in the State of New York. Just
this evening, not after I got here, but before, I very quickly
did some research and found a case in which a sand and gravel
mine was allowed not only to continue, but to reconfigure and to
expand, and the court said that because the property had alrea
been used for a sand and gravel mining operation, that the rest
of the property could be usød as well, and again, that's not even
what we're talking about here, but that's one case. There's
another case involving a nursery. meaning not a place for little
children, but trees, a garden nursery. The same issue. Clearl)'
there are numerous cases that say, if your use remains the same,
even if you were expanding it, you don't need a Use Variance
because it's the same use. By the way, some of these cases did
find needed an Area Variance. I think the most important issue,
lC;(;ii3.ll}i, that came up, in t.he opponent's pì"esentation, in c·ur
mind, was this issue about Building 11, and I think that Mr.
Car'./in in particular, r)ut other Board rnernbers as I.--Je11, see)o¡·.cd
very concerned about the issue of Building 11. Our position
ut Building 11 is as was stated earlier, and thank you for
allowing me to interject at that time. I think it did help the
proceeding go a little more smoothly, but lets put this 1n a
perspective anyway. Mr. O'Connor has indicat that
accepted Mr. McCormack's numbers. Mr. McCormack's numbers say
that the square footage to be removed is 22,120 feet. M¡.
McCormack's also found that Building 11 is 382 square feet. Just
lets, for the sake of argument, lets take Building 11 out of t
calculation we give credit for. Lets subtract the 382 from t
22,120. If you do that, you get 21,738 square feet to be
removed. You might say that that's a number that Mr. O'Connol
and I would agrøe on. If you take out Building 11 from the
calculation, if we're accepting Mr. McCormack's numbers, t t
leaves 21,738 square feet. The new proposed buildings are 21,828
square feet. The difference between those two numbers is 90
square feet. We believe that Mr. Martin's døcision was correct
in almost all respects, and one of the ways we believe t
ision wa~3 CO¡"ì"ect \'~a~;:; in includin';i Buildin';i 11 1n the
calculation, but the differønce is only 90 square feet. If t
Board, when you've reached a decision, feels that the Building 11
issue is a particularly difficult issue, and I recognize the
difficulty of that issue. I do understand (lost word) concern,
and I think some of the other Board members share in it as well,
you, c;,;r:::"I"es;sed it the be~,;t, I thought. ~,Je are I.--Jillin:;'1 ti),I"1('"
Brock is willing to, reduce the square footage of one of the
buildings, simply by narrowing it by one foot, and what I'm not
901ng to tolerate very passively is, yelling and screaming f¡om
opponents that, that it's a whole new application, because all
,"e'r2 talking abi)ut is litc:.rall)" taking one of t.he buile:inGc:; '},\Id
reducing its width by one foot, and if we do that, that's
building that's 102 feet long. We would reduce t squar
footage by 102 square feet, more than accommodating the 90 square
foot difference between what I just described as the number, if
you take out Building 11, and the number of the propo new
bu i 1. (I i ng~;;; . So af;; f aì" a~:; ,...¡e' r e con(;:(:3,- ned, tha t V~()u I ei cc,mp I ete 1)'
eliminate this Building 11 issue from the difficulty of your
isian, if t.hat is, in fact, a difficult part of your" decisi0rl~
Now, on the quick launch issue, again, that was one of t main
- 48 -
',,---
-'
tc)pic:s, I th()U9ht., t.hat ~'~d heard ,,1bout, quic'k launchinG. Li
many ot things 1n this business evolution, in many different
!)u::;.in';:~::;s(,<;;, includirL,; 'thc; businec:;~::: I'm in ,,\nel the bU~3ine:sc3i:?c:; thi3t
you all a,'e iI" things change with time. I'm not much of a motor
t per:;,::orl, ¡::;,c(:ë;;onally, L)ut as I under2;tand it, quick la,uncf',ing
I;J8:;':,: (lot a I',ot i:ë::~:;u,,:'3 in 1')06, or 1(;,110o( 1916 C)i 1926. HS I
underst.and it, quick launching was not a defined term, in this
zoning law or in other ordinances, in years past. As I
understi3nd it, quick launchinG, and I think Ms. Poland testifi
to this, was not a requirement of a Lake George Park Commission
per rn i t v,Jhe nit was; ::3ta r t ,) t the t100r i n9 POS3t t1i11 i na, ¿;;\ nei I
lieve 's 100 percent correct in that respect, from my own
xperlenclng representin9 clients fore the La Geofge Park
COilll'fli:3sic;'(I, Gui,.;.:k l,a,uncrli ng 1.:3 a forln (,f t launchi rìg. The
rail C3',/~3tem iS3 a form of boat l¿lunchirlg. Focu:::; ()ìi the law, use
of land for a purpose. Has the use of land, is the land now
being used fOf a new purpose? rhe answer is no. All the
purposes for which it's n used SInce 1906 are the samc
purposes for which the use will continue, and by the way, the use
continues as we sit here now. Obviously, there are boats being
stored at the Mooring Post right now. So, again, you know, the
quick launch issue is one that has to viewed in the context
evolution of business, evolution of the very concept of quick
launc;I''',in9. 1'1r. W·""st, r')I~~'res;;E,ntirì,g a :]i'OUP I'm riot f¿¡iTliliar IrJith,
but I lieve it was, I was hopi~g it had an acronym to it, but I
t.1", ink i t 1;1 ð ~:; j u s;;t C C C . I 'rn rl ot ~:; u,r '2, i:::· uti n ¿¡ n i e \I e nt, a in (1 n g h i ~,;
cornrne rJt:.s, he i ricH ca ted t Iv" t the I_.':j kc? (31.201 gc F'¿;I r I:, C:omln i ss i.;) \1, 1 n
J.982,. ye-Cjuir.:cd, or t.his3 "Id:::: ¡",is,; exact ¡::::,I'lra::::;e "3 d·stail
cie~::;cr ipt ion ()'f act. i '.j i t ie~ë; i.':I t a IM}r i na" when mar i. na~;:;re;J i :stc'r fOl'
Lake George Pa1-k Commission permits. Mr. West was not here, as
fa1' a~3 I 1<,n()vJ, at thc' prc.'\iiou:::: meeti n:;;:::; uf thic:: Boarcl a!)()ut t.hi~:;
application, but I have told this Board before, and I stand by
this. A,gain, my experience representing a number of commercial
marina owners before t La Geor;Je Park Commission, that
statement is simply incorrect, and in fact, the La Geor,ge Park
Cornlni~3sion, in 1982, t app.licEJ.tion i::'roce~::;s v~a~;; rnuc!'¡ IIK>r
similar to taking a piece of paper, like writing t.his on the back
of a napkin, figuratively speaking, and ribing only what was
on 1:1'18 ',Jat·sr, arid th,en they issued you a ¡:;.er¡nit. To chara,cter ize
the Lake George Park Commission permitting process in 1982, as
required a detailed description, and then to ascribe illegality
to the quick launching because it was not t.hat way in 1982, is, I
think, grossly misleading. In fact, I think the Park Commission
it:::,·:;lf ha:;3 taken t.he 1:::'0~;3itiorl here that quick l,;)unchini;i ha~:: t.';3kl:3)"1
¡:).l.a(;e at thi~,,; ¡::'I'ope'(t';l for c;;c) long that i t '~:; a grancifathf,:reci u~:)c ,.
althou,gh t Park Commission not agree, necessarily, with
what the level of numbers were. That's an issue that will
olved elsewhere. The only other point Mr West rai that
e!Ld bedr, I tl'lought, on thÜ:; Ü3f:;UC', 01 c()uld bea',' on tiLL:; Ü3~::;U;;"
but I want to refute, is the notion about 5EQRA, the Stat
Environmental Quality Review Act. That clearly is not what's on
t,hc' tElb I e fore "/()u tocla¡'. 1"1e ':;:: tr'l i n;:.J to get/()u to sOinehc'l;~
start invoking the SEQRA process w n we're onli at the appeal
::;I::.aue . T I~I':;¡ t. ',::; ani ssue t. ha t :;~.i 11 be d i :::;cus~;;;ee: if .';HiC! w he; n
there's a variance pr ing, not at this t.ima, and please,
Board members, interrupt me if you have any questions or comments
about anithing I'm saying. For example, if iOU think SEQRA's
relevant now, I'd like to explore that in more detail, but I can
tell you, as d matter of law, it's not. I guess, unless tic
are any questions, I would like to wrap up, again, focusing on
t.I"lc laga,l i:3~;ue, which I ti,ink I/~'~ dUf·eed is: t ,:only' ls::su,e before
you. Mr. O'Connor made a st tement, now, literally, several
1'¡our::::; ago, and I don't !"·,i'IOI"J 'If YC)I,) cau91"lt it, but 1"lr. O'Connor
stated that he believes that Professor Anderson, who I believe is
a law professor at Syracuse University Law School, is the leading
aut.hority in New York on Planning and Zoning law. Do you recall,
have you all heard of Pr Anderson and his treatise,
"Anderson on Zoning"? in, you recall Mr. O'Connor making
that statement that he's a leading authoriti, a few hours ago?
1"iere'~3 what P1"0 (~1ndeì':c::()n :;:;3/" E¡!)C'Ut :s:itu,3tion:c:: like? thi::::,
- 49 -
,,-'
---
2nd part of what he says, ~> t wsy, as well as 8V6¡-ythir¡g els6
I'm saYlng here, is very unpopular with the people in this room,
.3nd I can't 'really' apologize for that, because 1¡,Jr'lat I'm ~:,3yin9 is
what I believe to be the State of New York law, and, obviously,
this is not a popularity contest. We didn't brin9 our list of
supporters to take the stand, and you're, obviously, going to
view this objectively, fairly, rationally, and all that, and one
thing that Professor Anderson says I think will be particular
unpopu.lar IrJi th t.he oppon¿,nt:=; in this room, !:::,ut it ':3 ['lis IrJords,
not ¡nino, anci thi~3, again, i23 in the conte~·:t of" if IOU aì-e
incroasing your use, which we maintain we're not, okay, and W2
acknowl there's n some fluctuation in the number users,
but as far as the physical facilities, we're actually reducins
our square footage, and, again, I think the issue of height 15
not what's relevant to your termination on the Use Varianc
Issue. There IS, certainly, authority to indicate that
additional height does not require a variance, but I think that's
sav for a different discussion, and I'll make that point In
much more cle:tail dUì-ing that dÜ:;c'u~;;:3io\ì. I'm no~'~ quotin:;¡ fì'C'i'i:
Professo'( Ander~:;on's book "¡';n(Jer~:;on on i"'1e~,J Yo'rk Zon,in:~;" "(,ii
increase, sometimes referred to as a more increase, in the volume
or intensity of a nonconforming use is not a change of use. This
rule", and believo me, this next sentence is not mine, nor is
anything else I'm reading, "This rule is foU,oIrJ'2;d,
notwithstanding that the increase in volume renders the use more
obnoxious to its neighbors. Even an Increase in volume
accompanied by some change in the nature of the use is not
regarded as a change of use. Increase in the volume of business
t.ran:sact,aci by a nO\ì'::onfc)l-min'~:; business", anc! this get,::; b¿:~ck to
the early issue I mentioned about, for example, nonconforming
restaurant, "An increase in the volume of business transacted by
a nonconforming business is held not to constitute a change of
use", and just to editorialize, for a second, on what he's
saying, that seems very logical to me, because again, you don't
rule on whether a use is changing by how many users there are,
how filany cust001BTS there afe~ The question 18, is t:l0
fundamental use changing. Here's an interesting point he ma
"Change from seasonal to year around use of a building is not
r(é";arc!eci a~3 a chan~;ìô of a nonconfc;¡-ming use", and again, VJe'ì'e
flot doing that, but we have rd some testimony about tIle fact
that the mannôr in which our use is bôing conductod is a little
bit different in the summer than in the winter. I thought that
comment made a lot of sense. Thô mannôr in which our usô will b
COfiducted i:::; sornei~Jhat diff",,,r'2nt in the summer versus the ~-.ji nt'2'r "
P1-ofessor Anderson says "Even if you were changir¡g fr()m seasoflal
to year )-ound use' , in t!le case 11e~s ,·efe\M,"irlg to~ t1181-2 was a
seasonal use that wasn't used at all year round, and then was
started to be used year round, not regarded as change of a
nonconforming use. This goôs on and on and on, but I think those
are the salient points. The issue before you, right now, is one
and one issue only, was Jim Martin right in determining that we
don't need a Use variance here? The basis for his determination
is, the property use is not changing. The usô, since 1906, has
been as a commercial marina offering a serIes of commercial
mal-ina uses. The law says that a use variance is use of a land,
well, authorization by the ZBA, for use of a land for a purpose
which is otherwise not allowed or is prohibited by applicabl
zoning regulations. I didn't say this earlier, but I suppose I
should, at least for t.he record. The reason this use is allowed
is not because it's one of the permitted uses of the zoning law,
but because, I did say this, bôcause it's a preexisting,
nonconforming use. So we fit within the language of, it 1S
allowed. It's allowed as a preôxisting, nonconforming use. We
don't fall within the definition of Use Variance, and now, lets
put my lawyer hat aside and conclude, just look at this ill common
sense. Practicality. A Use Variance is when you change a use,
The use of this property is not changing. There may be some
ebonflow of, are therô more quick launch customers or less quick
launch customers than when t polands had it, then when the
i'1endersolls had it. [;Je do happen to ha\/e some inforrili:;t,i·;)n t·:)
- 50 -
',--,
"-'
prove to you that we're not increasing the number of users, over
\'Jh,3 t tvlr. [j( 08 k h,3~s hac! ,. elu r i n~:) h i ~;:; t. nu r e ,:L:, ')\<J \V,;n-, L,u t. \:"
bott()IT\ li1'I';::,. ,3~:; I'.......c ju:,;;t read t.o '>'ou, is t. t that'~;:; riot t
is Fo)" cisior¡, -t rlu¡nb01~ o"f cUStOlTI6)NS, and logic dicta"tes
t t shouldn't be the basis for a ision. T is fOI a
clslon is, Is it a different animal? Is it a dif rent use?
~:;ncl we submit. that. it'c:; clearl/ not. a cliff rc:-nt u:;:;c,. dne::
ther ore Mr. Martin's determination that it does not require a
Use Variance 1S clearly correct, whether it's popular or
otherwise. Any questions? Thank you.
MR. TURNER-I'm going to give you one time only, t
and that ':::: it.
bot.h (,f /c,u,
MR. O'CONNOR-First, I"d Ii to, for t record, ma a couple of
po i n t.~3, :)::3 to i, s~::;ue:=; t ha '1::, \>.,)eì";) i.:>ì" ()ug I,t up b)' ot. he'( f L;lu res, a ne:!
rna')i It J,.J,:)uld be tter ''::J>T'anded on jUf,,;t !yr i,afl/. [..J n ~,Je 'ro¿;
talking about volume and we're talking about usage, Mrs. Poland,
is still in the room, I went back and asked her, of those 50
~uick launch type customers that they had during her '71 to '85,
some 14 years of operation, a period that would be long past 18
mont.hs, as far as abandonment of any no~conforming rights that
Mr. Henderson might have had or might not have had, although he
claims no quick launch cust.omers. Of those 50 customers, her
average usage on the weekend, weather being good, was 25 to 30,
as opp t.o what is ing propo today, and how it's kept
there, if it is kept there, I don't know, but it's a drastic
change in volume, and I think it should be part of your record.
T!",e ot (que::sti()n that I tl',i nk ¡¡¿'ed",; to addre;ss, and Sue
brought up a comment, or made a comment, and I didn't understand
this, but as I understand it, your understanding of the
application is that the applicant intends to use t.he middle
ai2::1e:,:; of tJI bu,ilcJiíi9s;th,st he's; c:on::õ:;!:ructlrl:S¡ for IlJint,er
:3tO(';;:'Gie, as ~<Ji::;ll a~;3 u:c;inu t:",,3' slot,:;;;. I unclerc3tO()C: cliffc:',"::;;rlt. ¡:'¡ffì
I ¡¡,J'( c> fì :;'1'?
MR. SCHACHNER-Do
~IJ ha t ~=;()f.2\le~·r:> t ()
you 1¡~3. nt us to
v~i th thi::- ls~:;ue
("la,r i f'/ that?
beforc: )'ou.
It
has not -",i ng,
MR. O'CONNOR-I think it has to do with volume.
riP. SCH(';CI'lr\IER"'It does h.'.'.\\/!3' to e\o wit:"j volume, and \/oluml:? has:
\lothi rlU to ~>.,).i t.1t the issue befor/(:,u.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you know if t applicant's going to use t.hat
t, thi:;t ,,(e;:., for ~;;tord!;iiD dUì'i\ì;> thò" v.Jintcì"? ¡Vly calc,ulatlon 1:::;
you'1'e talkll'"lg abou't arlothol- 60, 70 1)oats in t l-e~ T~1at's 55
feet by 102 feet long in each building. We ~ot into a great
discussion of volume before. If you're talking about that,
you're talking about 120 in the racks. You're talking about
Building 1. and BI.,d.ldin9 2, l'JI",ic;I', ca,n aCC';)ìTIi'ílodate:35 boatc::. Tl'ie
Pì"()F'OSt¡J. before '/'ou '( i!;;;ht n()I/J i::;; for 21:3 bo,'3tc:;, ever') l¡.Ji nteì'
storage, without any exterior winter storage. I'm presuming that
there's no exterior winter storage, and that may be a wrong
presumption. We've had figures on this thing that have gone in
every different direction, nd I'm not trying to play games with
figures, but I don't think the 80ard has really a clear picture.
It didn"t have a cleaì pict.ure of the square footage of the
buildings, ,3n(1 I don't think it doc:;:; ¿¡:;:; to this \Io.l.urne. The n,a>:t
point I would make is the question of the pTec nt that you're
t.alking. I think /C)U ,)tf',<::, P(}O¡:::;,le li:::.:tenirI9... I knol.--J this
ha::; b;)e \"1 :30[ne co neer n abe,u t t. C¿¡:;;L,H<Ja/ t"'!,"j r i na . T her" e '~; ::;Ollle
concern about Dunham's Bay Marina, and there's some concern about
Harris Bay. Harris Bay you turned down a Use Variance for even
expansion of a deck to accommodate your existing customers, and
y()urequi( d U~3E? 'v'ar .ianc fe'ì' ti"¡.'3t Pì"opos:ed e:~:'ì::;·¿,n~3.ion, '-{c,u
quote Anderson. I've got about three pages of Anderson. It's a
900d, 9f:.nüI",3.1 thesi~3, !::;.ut. )"OU h.'.'.\ve t.o real izc that {~nder::;:;on i~s
L book: t t 3\1<::'rybod/ b¡, their ¡::(oblen,~s in, and t n ~'J ri
t draft t ir Ordinance, t y aft their Ordinance to ;>et
- 51 ~
~
awa)1 from t problems tIle court said, t loc21
ordinance didn't provide for this, so we're not going to
something about it. I differ greatly with Mark's
characterization of what Jim Martin decided that a Use Variance
IrJas:; not necessary. t:1.l:. understa,ndi ng is that )iOU decided that U:::;e
Variance is not necessary because you saw no expansion, not
because you saw the same use there. You went through great
detail trying to calculate out what square footage was, what
boats were. I think the Board, here, has set a very clear
precedent that >,ou need a U::;:;e Variance in our TOI,,¡n, to expancJ a
nonconforming use. I don't think there's any issue about that.
We even have a particular Section in the Ordinance. The word l¿
"e~<pE:\nsion", the definit.ion (,f e::q:;'i.'3,nsion, and pi:1ì"ticularl/ ~,~he'I'
you're going to create facilities to accommodate that growth.
Now it would be nice to speak of the quote from Anderson, but
you've got to do it in the context of our Ordinance, and I think
if you do it in the context of our Ordinance, and you look at the
Finition of expansion, if you look at the numbers that have
been presented to you as to volume of use on that property,
you've got to look at volume. You've got to look to see if
t Ie's a proposed expansion. The creeping expansion is not
:30Inet:"'lin9 that you ccan blese:;. '(Cìu'r·e talkin9 about a
nonconforming bakery is not entitled to a variance to permit
enlargement to accommodate automated equipment, notwithstanding
that the now equipme.'nt v~()ulcl ¡"endi:3)" the ope¡"ation les::::; labo',
intensive. I can give you two pages of quotes, now everybody has
a computer and you put in the play words of the subject and the
computer will give you back, I've 90t six pages of quotes in my
briefcase if you want it, and this is probably the boring part of
what you are goin9 to decide, but ta again, another look at
what Mark proposes as being the key here, the definition, under
the Town law, of zoning. He says that the Use Variance shall
mean the autho'!'izatiof¡. t,Jell he,re you have the ,Ô:(pplic:ant a~;3kin9
you to allow him to build two buildin9s without a Use Variance.
That's, in essence, the lS8ue. That's the authorization that
's askin9 for, for the use of land to build buildin9s on ~
parcel of land is a use of land. A use of land doesn't mean that
/ou're tillin9 the} land. It cJoe:sn't mean you'r·e plant,ing C,"01:::3
on land. It means an activity that you conduct or propose on t
land, and I'm sure that we can all come out with a whole line of
Ci.Õ\~;;es;, use of land inc:ludes the cc)n~;3truction of buildin;)~;;;, fo¡- ,'"
purpose, and I'll use his terminol09Y. All of a sudden, we get
near t one! of his c!efinitions;;, he :sa/s;, fC>í a nc:~,~ PU¡"po:ö;;:-.
Look at the Oì-dinance. I c:lon't see v,Jhøre it. :3i.3,/';3 for a J::!.2..\i
purpose. It says, for a purpose which is otherwise not allowed
or is prohibited by t.he zonin9 re9ulations. Now he says you
don't. have a definition of Use Variance within t.he Ordinance, the
i-:'lJ(>:""f¡chIJ'¡"V Cc>c!p l-u'l,)tif \/(.J'U lü..,~,)I,,\' ~t 17/ Q--l-'/P,( 1) Vou "1"'-'" '''''-):lflg:" tCi
~<l .......,,-" '~":-"""~"" ,- __, v.# oW. / . ~ .... .......- ;'. ..........~..... ., I . ....... :::;;}....... ~ ~-
see what is a permitted use in this particular zone, and it says
tl'''I,;),t no building or st'ru,cturi? of land shall hereafter ba u:se:d (:>ì'
occupied, no building or structure or part thereof shall
erected, moved or altered unless in conformity with the
rc:gt.llati':)n2; iV3rein ~,pe,::ifieci for the districts in ~",hich it is tCi
be located. In this district, I don't think anybody has
contc:nd()c! th.3t. t.he e¡"(}ction c)f quic!.; launclì buile!in;¡:::; ar::
¡:::,erîoiitt ThiDt i:s obviousl)i a nonp,::;:rillitted u.s,ç, and that '~~ "JI"I}
We~1-G sayirlg you a Use Va1~ianc0. Businesses can evolve, ar~(j
I would agree that bu.sinesses can expand when they evolve, but
not, ac:cordin-g to our O¡"dinònce, if )/OU. n('3ed to ó.lt.er t
facilities, even to the simplest of parkin9, to accommodate that
growth and activity. We've handled t problem that was found
when they 9ave you that case cite in Anderson. I have no ot r
additional comments.
MR. WEST-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and be brief. I
know it's been a long evenin-g for everybody. I have four quick
points to make. First of all, re9arding the Lake George permit.
It's not the back of a napkin, as Mr. Schachner represents. It.
was an official permit issued on DEC letterhead, with an annexed
survey of the property and the docks and moorings, or wharfs, at
- 52 -
'--'
J
issue. T permit very clearly states the following,
"Descripti,on of ¡V!i.Õí)-ina: Sal,::; o'¡ re,nta.1. (.\f mai'ine i:::)-oduct:':~, \'~atz:n'
craft, and accommodation for 25 boats." That's what was
,'i?::;¡i:::;tei-cc! ln 1982. In 19í3e, \,¡hc'n t.h,,: ne'\..) r(3:;¡ulationsè: «,¡ere,
Issued, Mr. Brock chose not to register any quick launch
activities. We brought this to his attention. in 1988, whcn this
2or¡ing (::ont''j''o\/ers/ firste slJr·faci.:}d~ I;JI"'ien I~·· .is first F)fJ:)¡::'():sal ItJd.:;:';
ma He was aware of the regulations then. He hasn't
register He's illegally operated, and nothing lS
grandfat red. Number Two, a Use Variance is required. As Mr.
o ' Co n no)- ju:;;;!: ::::ta ted, the under .1./ i ng per ITI it t u::;e of the
property is residential. That's what the Code permits. Anytime
)-"()U C)(,piJ nd i;:\ no ncorlfor mine:; U2è;e, ),OU ,,\ rea 11 (A,,) i rig a nonco nf or Hi i nG
use in a r sidential zone. That requires a Use Variance. It's a
\¡,en"/ :;:;irnple F'I i nc;iple, and 1'1)-. :-3chachneì' ':::, ar:;¡ulnent::;; \,~()ul(:: re,all>'
tur['¡ t,he entire hi¿:t()r'/ of trlis Coard, a::;; I '\/e '¿\F:;.·sric,nced it, on
it~;) heac::, becau2;;e it'2è; n iIli:::.. (::><perience th¿¡t e\leì'/ tirnc: a
nonconforming use is proposed to be expanded, in this Town, that
a Use Variance is required, not an Ar a Variance. Thirdly, this
i ~::; not j¡J~;;; t .'3 n e ::..: pa n2;; i () n of the numbGr 0 f C:u2;;t.omer 2:, . r'lr .
:;:.( ha,cl"'11'i r \·¡,¿'nt 1::.0 9 r (:a tIc ngt.I', '. 1'1e u:;:::ed the analogy 0 f the
rc:::;;taur.,:\nt t.o :3d'/, \.¡c're ju:::::t incr a:::;in9 t,he inten:::;;it/ of t.
u:::;":. Tfl(;: building~:;; th¿¡t are prc)¡::-)()s,:3d fOI tl',i::::; ¡:::·ropc:rty are
grotesquc. They are significant expansions. We've quibbled
about the footprint and whether or not it's bigger or larger. We
think wc've established that it's bigger. That is significant,
but no one an dispute the fact that the height is significantly
higher than the preexisting buildings. The volume is very
significantly larger than the preexisting buildings, and the
parking is on the order of six to eight times greater than that
which was grandfathered for this facility. All you have to do is
look at t pictures that Cheryl Evans present to you of t
quaint old storage sheds that I've been t.hrough on many
occa,sion:;;;, l.()okinc: at (:,1"j boat.:::.: in th,'jt faci..lit/, anc: (:e,¡npaì-e
those to the modern, steel pole bulldin9 that's a triple r.
Thi:s L:; not 1.00 CU2;;tOfl'¡C.'n'::':; coming '1:.,.;) a re::;;tauriJnt.. Thi:-;;:; Ü;; a
quai ntr'.:·'2,ta,urant going t·) a t¡' i¡::l ker, if¡oder n re~:;taur,3nt, a
fast. food establishment. There is a change in t character, and
the; r ''5- i :~; c 1'1 a, n g e i n t rl ¿c; ~;; i Z E;, and f ,i n.3, 11';/ , I 'rn 90 i n ::;;¡ to add 0 n
other set of legal arguments that just occurrGd to me, as I was
listening to Mr. Schachner's proposal, and I would direct these
Lv your attorney. In looking over our notes from the 1988
meeting, and you have minutes on that meet.ing, I think you will
find that Mr. Schachner and Mr. Brock came in and applied for d
Use Variance. They knew that an expansion of a quick launch
operat.ion and new building of the kinds that are being pr
here requir a Use Variance. This Board, not t se same people,
but this Board, nied a Use Variance. That raises two legal
principles, Number One, and estoppel, Mr. Schachner and Mr. Brock
are estopped from taking i.nconsistent positions. They admitted a
Use Variance is required in 1988, and they're bound by that
admission in 1995. Number Two is res judicata. This Board has
already determined that a Use Va\iance is required, and that it's
not appro¡::;,r L::¡t,e, that t.herc 1:;;; r.c> !v:'Hclship, anc! t.h.;it is bi n<:H 1ì,';';
upon this applicant as well. T nk you very much.
MR. CARVIN-I have one more question for Mr. West.. Your
organization that you represent, approximately how many residents
or ïnembc:r:;;;, >"(:oU ha\/o a rnemb¡;)¡,:;::hip count, pO~;;::3ibly'?
MR. WEST I'm only representing four of t nei9hbors, and we
s;pecif.ica11>' :st,ructured it th.'.:1t HE\)' :,,;0 t.hat. I, iIli:::.. ~:;peakin:J v~()uld
not c;.r¡:clu ani' of t.1"1(; ;:::,:;01:::-1e l',Jh·,) H¡2ì"·'ô? here toni;;¡ht from
speaking. The people that I 1 epresent are Joseph Hardin, Bertha
Robert.s, Fran Martin, and 8a1b and Tom Longes. We st.ructured
tl'¡at ::;0 tl"¡at:, I could sl:::·c~ak tu¡¡ight on b.::;half (;:of the people wh()
9r,'::.:.n't hc,re, HO~'J many' time~;;; h.j\/c' VJe heard" fore thi~;~ 1:30a)'(:I,
that when projects come up on L George, they frequent.ly come
up in the winter time. The summer residents, who own property
and pay ta"es in this Town very oft n can only be heard by
- 53 -
--
letter. I was as d members of t organization, t
neighborhood organization that have opposed this project, to come
up and speak on behalf of the people who could not be here
tonight, and we structured it that way so that I would not
int¿,rfere "'Jith the right of p,eople Ir,¡h() are ¡-"¡ere tonight to mak¿,
their own presentation, because I think those are the critical
presentations.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but essentially you're only speaking for t
f ou ì"?
MR. WEST-That's correct.
1'1':,. CIPPERLY--'(ou referred to, ln 1gee, '/()U ~:;aid "l'J.¿'"
they needed something. Who were you referring to at
advi
that
thenl
pc)int?
r'1f? L"JE'3T,wl'1y recollc'ction is :3c>í("cI¡Jhat 'v'agu,c, but I do r;ôc.::;;llt ~,
we had a Zoning Board meeting similar to this one, that many of
the very same issues were brought up, and that many of the ver)'
same people who spoke in opposition to this project tonight
::::[::0 I-::-u , and so IrJhat I I,-;JouJ.d erlcou'rage you to do is to look at
you ì" .
MS. CIPPERLY-Did you also represent the neighborhood at that
tim6'?
MR. WEST-No. I represented the Lake George Association at that
time, ancl I would c:nC()Uì"agc: t.hc; Board to lo()k at the minute:;:; fo,'
-uxactly what was appli for, by whom, and exactly what t
ision of the Board was at that time, cause even though this
project has gone through a number of iterations, it was proposed
one way in 1988, and we're up to the fourth proposal now, and we
have Plan A, B, C, D, and now we have D, because it's C minus the
one foot of building width that's been heard tonight. The
concept is the same. The basic concept is the same, large,
triple decker storage racks for quick launch facilities, a
substantial increase in building volume, substantial increase ln
the intensity and kind of use. This is exactly the type of thing
tl"¡at thee legislature ifltended t.o be 'reviel,.Jec! b)i t.hi:;::; Zoniíl:;
Boarc:, ,)nd th,õ; fathi:?:ró;:. ()f t.he T()\,~n \,¡ho pas.sed th(?:, Zor,'L ¡-¡'J
ordinance intended to require a Use Variance. Thank you ver)
mucl', .
MR. SCHACHNER-Could I just make a quick comment?
MR. TURNER-Quick.
MR. SCHACHNER-Briefly, members the Board, and thank you verI
much for your patience, Mr. O'Connor produced a new word, but I
like his word, "activities". He said you have to look at the
E\ctj.\/i1,;Jc;::3 involvecl in t.he u:::;e. I think it':;:; a good v~or,:::. Th,,;
activit.ie~; are not changing. 1'1r. IrJest focused his cornrn;:nt:::; n
the rich history of Queensbury Zoning Board isions involvinG
¿,>::pan:3ion':::~. Our po~;i.tic)n.L:::; that IrJe'r,e not, an e>~pan:~:i()n, aiie)
remember that, under law, expansion does not mean if more or less
customers come. The height, you know, meets the zoning
r<>:::¡uirement, in tenm;; of 75 fee' :. The \¡,olume an::.:\1o:])/ abe,ut
triple kers we don't think is appropriate. I know we ve
mentioned to Mr. Martin before, I don't recall if we've mentioned
to you all, that goods are (lost word) stored on shelves. We can
reduce that to a silly comment by looking at grocery shelves in a
Shop N' Save, or you can take it to a more serious leveJ., for
example, it's our understanding that, what was it, snowmobiles,
snowmobiles, jet skis, and things like that, I don't want to
mention any particular commercial entities, but there 1S a
comn1ercial entity in Queensbury that sells snowmobiles 3fld
they're stacked. That doesn't make something a triple ker.
Jim Martin's determinat.ion, as 1 understand it, is that, if ¡CU
don't have separate floors that you can walk around on and all
that, the volume is irrelevant. The parking is not increasing,
- 54 -
~
-/
and tha t '~:: a íi irnpor La nt mi s;conc...,pt i (i n t ha t VJas me fit i 0 n(~d ,a.3, r 1 i. ,c: (
th;':It. I eiiel not refute t.h¿¡t I, pe\'hli::~;::, ~3¡·íoulc: \/e refut lJ
were as by the Town Planning and Zonin8 Staff to show that t
site can accommodate sufficient parking to meet the new parking
requirements of the Zoning O\dinance, but t re's nothing new and
differ nt proposed, in terms of the area available for parking,
t.han has n available over t years, and I should have
mentioned that earlier, and the very last point I want to mak ,
Mr" West is to be credited for making a very creative argument.
He threw out, intentionally, and I understand why, threw out some
l.c)gal rnumbo ju.rrd:)(), but thc; basic notion's sU:C;YJe::;;ti ng I::;; that.
we're doing the same thing, or something so close to th same as
we did in 1988 that., legally, we can't go forward with that. I
think he's cither not aware of or does not appreciate a vcry
::;iuriificilfit furleiarnc;nta,.1. diffi;;renc: Iì"1 198í3" ["Ii'·. erock, s;()ught
this Board's permission for a Us Variance auss the proposed
bu i 1 d i n',~:: , I\!urnber 0 ne , I a r gc}r, ['!umbi':) r TVJo, to acc omrnoda t.e rnC)ì" e
ts, but Number Three, most significantly, was going to include
a pOìtion of his property as what's corne to known as t
reSl ntial lot. So, he was looking to put a portion of the
building on the residential lot, and it was the then Town Zoning
Staff' d termination that requires a Use Variance.
c1 arl , that is not at all w t we're proposing here. Total
apples and oranges, and for that reason, a a matter of law, it's
2 ornplet 1y (Ji'ffereTlt si-tua'tion~ arId t:lat's al]. I )~ðall/ to
:¿;,;,¡y. l,Jc: ~'J()u.lci just request that/i)lJ ide thi:;:; i:::;~:;;uc, arid thi,;:;
issue, trying to keep as focused as possible on Just the issue of
the Use Variance. Thank you very much for your patience.
MR. CARVIN-I just have kind of a quick question. I'd like to
return to your restaurant. I think it was a very appropriate
analogy, and I don't think there's anybody here that disputes the
fact that if we have a successful cook, and there's hundreds and
hundr of people lining up, that, as long as the; can get them
through t r, we don't have a problem, but if you will, I'd
1i ma this a one story restaurant, and I guess m; question
to;:) y()U VJ,:)ulcl be, if )'oU i to build tJ. :::;econo:! :::;to¡,)" v~oulcl
that an xpansion, in your opinion?
MR. SCHACHNER-Are we assuming a preexistin;J, nonconforming
.j.. ¡::~ ::E; t, ,:t I..)¡'" d. n t ~ .3.1 ~.:; 0 "?
MR. CARVIN Yes. I mean, I'm using your analogy. You said it was
a p¡,:::e;<i2:;t.in;¡" nonconforlrd,flG. TI'H: only" t,hin:g t.h.3t I '[I\. cl(:,in:~) i
I 'I\.i rnakin'::~:¡ it ,:)r\ii:; :::;t·:)r)/, ancl n()l"¡ )'()U v,,¡a¡¡t tCJ build a tv~o ~::;tO\")'.
I'm. SC!Ü:;Cf"H-Œ:G~"T t's fin,s,. I'rn jU:õ:;t tr/in9 t.o r.:ut it into
cont.ext. I'm :going to answer, my understanding of New York State
la~'.), -3, nd the ca;::;es I' \.l:b r IrJC,U 1 d i ndi cat,::' that addi n9 a :seco nd
story certainly not require a Use Variance, first of all,
clear, Cì")sti.':i.l clea\", ok;,'!.), ancl t,he:re ':3 an i~3sue a:,:; tCi ~"Jhether it
requires an Area Variance, and, in fact, I have a second story
cass, literally a second story case. It was not a restaurant. I
don't r the use, but I can quote to you from the second
st.ory case. so that I don't have: to rna up my answer. I'll
bring d legal answer. Let me find m; second story case. The
~:>;;'cond 231:..or> (;a:::;e l~:3 a faiì'.l>' r",;cent one. I \¡'JCHì't:]O into much
mumbo Jumbo, but it was cided, in 1993, that's pretty darn
recent., under the same principles of New York State law, and I'll
quote \/erbatirn f\'om it. "B·bcaU::::;E) th,::;: adcJition of,3, :3·econd ::;;to','/
would not enlarge the: footprint 01" outline of the structure:, the
proposed construction would not increase the structure's
nonconforrni t>" . I"c·~.,,¡ ,l(H[ fila)'" lìd",/e a tou:;¡her cE.I::;;e to bi';' mac!e " in
Ž'OU.··¡·· 1'''ly'~)ot t".ical, ¡V¡r.. C:a.-r\/iri, be:ca.u.::~;¿:', as 1. t..J.ri(1(~r2;td.n(i it, i.r¡
that situation, Mr. Martin, as Zonin9 Administrator, would find
that If )OU',",?; adding :stori,as ()rl, I t,hink h,¿ t,.Jould tc'rrnirie,
th.:lt if >()lJ'(i';; acidinr;¡ ;:::;tori,:::::; ':)ì'i, t.hat that rnight be an
,a>~i::;.an:::;i()n, bl,)t t:"lat's, I¡,JC,,'!,,:; ¡¡C,t uddin:;) :::;tciric::; on, and s
clearly rnac!c) t,he di:?terfliinat:L()n th,:;¡t the,;:;(';; dc) not~:,¡ud.lify, l~3
::::tor ies tr ioht IrJord, Jilll, or le\./(Od::::?
- 55 -
--
--
1\1F~" ~1/;¡:;~TI¡\t·,-"-y(;:::;s,, I",Je ¿~ cJðf.I.n.it~.ion (j"f 11:;S;t()'(' It fr()rn
York Stat Building Code.
I..
,~
¡, ¿I.'J
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and he's clearly made the determination that
this, that the proposed tier, stacking, if you will, does not
constitute additional stories that need to be classified as such.
MR. CARVIN-Yes, but the building will be larger. So it would be
an extension, if we use that term.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, I don't agree with that.
MR. CARVIN-It's not extending upwards?
i"1R. :3Cf1(iCHt',1ER....y,D:::;, the buildirlsl i~s e)<t~,:;'nding u¡::'IrJards;" ì'e~s, I
,'l:;;;'ree v~i th that. Ol<,a/, but i30ai n, my pO~;:ii tion is t:'.at that
not require a Use Variance, clearly, and that's the issue before
you now, and to use the analogy of the stacking of the
snowmobiles or whatever other types of goods, I don't think
anyone, when a commercial entity starts stacking its commercial
goods, takes the position that, by virtue of that, they're adding
stories, or for that matter, expandino upward.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. So your opinion would be that the second stor
would not be an expansion?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. I didn't say that, Mr. Carvin. In fact. I
think I directly and specifically stated that that might
considered an expansion. I think what I said, very specifically,
was that that clearly did not require a Use Variance, and that
tl"' .:}Jt..':3 'th,s Issu,·3 l)(i~f(,)'re '/()u."
MR. CARVIN-Well, no, my question
that an expansion, not whether it
That's not my question.
to you is, would you consi
would require a Use Variance?
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I guess I'm not letting you cross
as effectively as you wish to. In some context, it
considered an expansion and in some it would not.
c~xaínl ne
l,\I()lJ 1 cJ.
rn,¿:
t1F~. CARVIN-I'~o, not in "some" conte:;.(t, 1 n your c()nte::<t.
MR. SCHACHNER-In the context of requiring a Use Variance, no.
MR. CARVIN-In the context of t.his hypothetical situation.
MR. SCHACHNER-In the context of requiring a Use Variance, no. In
t context of, are additional building materials needed to build
up the second story of your restaurant, yes.
MR. CARVIN-It would be an expansion?
MF;:. SCHACI'-INER'''In that conte:;..:t.,;les, and in
n't know how else to answer your question.
cLifficult.
!1lL cont(,x t, no.
I don't ITie,':\n to
I
MR. C:,(.'\RVIN-'Okay'.
MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. Please decide, is our only ot r pitch,
and thank you for your patience.
MR. TURNER-What do you have that's new?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't. mean to get into it, but here's my SiX pages
of favorable citing, and I don't mean to mislead you, okay, but
this was a case that involved boats in a slip that said that t
common law rule allowing increase in volume can be overwritten by
the zoning statute limiting expansion. You've got to look at our
Ordinance, not at the generalities of what we're talking about.
- 56 -
'---
---.J
MR. SCHACHNER-Could I just say, I agree with that principle.
"1R. O'CCJI"n"jOP··(¡nd I t "'¡ink VJe can :;:;ubmit
to get into what prior rulings there
1, n t ¡ ¡,' I tin G; 0 u r Or din a nee . I t i'l in!",:
~ L. ~;;; f ,;}:I c e, a n c! T do 1'1 ' t t hill !': )" 0 u h a \i e
1"2sL~1't that you should be loo~~ing for
b '¡' } , If yo 1..1 rea II ~/ If) a nt
are, if you have a problem
()lJ.I'· C)r(Jit1,3ríC¿~ i.:5~ cliz~~,a.r ()f¡
t.::.:> ~J() out:si ()f it fc)¡- t
1',Ils:, T!.JF:/',!ECp..(:¡ll 'i" ight . Do /,)U
t
finitir))"'¡ ()n ~;3t,()r'i~:~::,:; ?
I'm" ~1{-\F:TH\I..":::,tc)ri'G~s"? '{¿é'S. (i ::stor/,
which lS tween one floor level and the
or t r See Section 70S. iF and G
State Building Code.
'I ì~:~ I~) () _'IN t. ion
next highc'ì
of t.hi~s Co
()f a bui ldi n9
floor le\/,,,l
1"~'9I¡J Yor k
i'1R. TURI"~EF~"Okay. The public heati)iC! 1:3 cl
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-O~ay. Corrospondenc
CORRESPONDENCE
i"1R. THOr'1AS'''(i letter dated D.?;ce'rnbc'r l't, 1994, "D,ear i'i·embers of t
Zc)nin:;¡ Eoard ()'f ¡ip¡::;.eals; For t ~;ummer mont. of 197(3 until
1ge3, I I¡,Jas (¿-¡llplo'/ee! 2],t t I'ioc.rin:g Po::;:;t 1'1ar1na. DurinG; that
tlmo frame one of my responsibilities was to assist drivers in
loa,dins¡ and uTlloadins¡ quick lauTich boats. 8/ 1980, my rr1òifl
responsibility had shift to being a driver of the quick launch
equipment. I spent. much of my / working the service. DurIng
í\ì) emplo)'r:¡c,nt, the tiloor i 1'1::';: p{):;;t hc:·u no mote tl''¡(~n '::3 total ()f 40
ts;, for qu,ick lauflcr, PUI"pc,;;:.e:,-s, in the barn~s ~'Jhich hÒ\ie
r·eC{3nt.l)" '3n '(az ~3in(:erel>",; l,Jilliarn (~. l,Jet. r ¡,; lett.i::r
datc;d DC}Cerflber 22, 19')4 "De,3,r Cha:i..rman Turner and Zoning Board
members, T La George Association (LGA) urges the Zoning
80ard of Appeals to reconsider the Town's most recent decision
that E\ u:;;;c, 'v'arlance is not vJarranted for the nGV, t1oorin;,:;¡ p()~:;t
Marina project. It is t LGA's position a use variance is not
() n 1/ r Gqu i, .j fo,' t PI' ,:,,:3;; nt 1:::'10 je,::;t [:;,u t fOì" .') ny" Pì' oject ot her
tha,n recorlcst,ru,cting TI,;,'I;,J non"·corlforrl1i)lg :;;:tructur¿s~;; of th,e sarne
dimensions on the footprint of the original buildings. Anything
else is a chanG;e iT! the non-conformin9 use structures and, by
rc:gulation, n:;;qu:¡,ì·,e~;:; ,3 u~:;;e './.:.1r ii"J.nc;?:. The T,;)~'~n 's; ordinance iC3 a
lot like many other such ordinances. It sets up special
districts for areas that need extra protection from certain
elopment, like the waterfront residential district where the
Mooring Post Marina is located. The ordinance also protects non-
conformins¡ structures and non-conforming uses. It protects non-
coryf,:)',"min,;: :;::tYUCtl!ì"ØS: b) allc,~,~ins: them te' bs ì"OI::::,·::,ir ."fle! alteì"
i;¡hen I¡", ed to prot.e:ct su'rrouf¡cJin9 ncighborhood~3 frorn deca)/.
ifieally, sections of Article XI spell out allowances given
by the town to non-conformins¡ structures. It allows them to be
re:¡::'al'C ,. alt.c:rc,d, etc., pr';:)'v'idec! the prope:,r pi::;ì'rnitc:; are
obtiDincd. ¡é~,nd, if fIOi'I""cOrlforrni'IS) t,ructures ar·¿ ::;:;tr by af¡
,)ct be)"ond ilidn "c; (¡flt)'()}" t ,;,;t.)'uctur¡.~::;:; arc a.1I()l'-Jed tC)
rapl ",)1]" t,) ti'''¡-Gir ori;:'1inal dirn;Dn::sion::,;, and ()nly l~ithin
COr" t <3, i n t i rn:; .1 i in i t ~::; . l,J hi;), t a !) .;) u trio n (, .;) n f i) l' rn i n :;j ;;; t rue t ur e ::;; t hat
also house non-conforming uses, such as the case of the Moorins¡
Post Marina facility? What specifically does the Town's zoning
ordinanc(?: sail about thi¿:;' Doc'::':n't this -'¿;ven ínore ::;t..rongly
suggest a use variance is requir According to the Town's
zoning ordinance, replacement of non-conforming structures used
'f ()'ì n() n w^"c:() n f () r In i rl~J U::;:;Cj:3 i ~;~; ì"1() t ti 11 ~)~¡,Je.,;::J .. Ro ~1.1 ¿.t c:orne: '() t () f rl() n .~~
conforming uses structures is allowed only w n the destruction
t t occ:urT i:::: be/onc: the cont';01 of I,¡,\arl, i)y ì:::.:t,n, by fire:, b~,"
v.Ji nd , ¿.tc . (;¡ flyt!"¡i Tl:a ol:,l,er t ha n v.Jha t t 7:.0 ni n9 or di na nee
s:pe>:.::ific,ally allo[,;)~';; rec¡uire:::; a U~3e \/arlance by t,hc' Zoning 130ard.
Nowhere in the Town's zoning ordinance does it state that non-
conforming structures u for non-conforming uses are allowed to
b::, d,;",'iTioli::,::hed :3n(lt n '¡' ilt in ,êi r2:Jconfi;:,;u,ration diff(!)r,z:nt
-" E.7 -
...-'
~
t. n t ()'ï" i ~~J i 1'\<3.1 n() n'w c:() n f () '( ïn i r¡~;;: :~:: t '( U c: tu r ~:;,~~~; " T h~0 ()( (J.i f¡.::;, "¡"¡(, .1..::;;';
clear. Simply, non-conforming structures can only rebu It
using the original footprint. Non-conforming structures hous ng
non-conforming uses are not granted the same privilege. Armed
with the above information, the LGA urges the Zoning Board to
requlre a use variance for project "c" of the Mooring Post and
grant such variance based only on what is legitimately
grandfathered. Thank you in advance for your consideration on
this matter. Respectfully, Michael A. Siegel Chairman - Land
1):::;,2; C:ornrnittec) r:al:.r'/'/ (,. Vilma', Di¡·ector Land !.):",3"
MR. TURNER-All right. What's YOU1 pleasure? The hour 1S late.
MR. THOMAS-We've got two more appeals to here, too.
MR. TURNER-I know. I don't think we should vote on it tonight,
at all. I think we've got some information to review that might
be new information. Until we have a chance to review that, I
don't t,hink ~..¡e :::;}-",ould exercisE:, a 'v'otD on it at all. r;S a, ma,ttei"
of fi.'.Ict, one Boarc:! member bein:;¡ nt, I v-J()ulc: like t() ha',¡'c 1:,:';
i/Jhole Board here: to \lote on th(; i:::;::;u,~'.. That '~:; i:!lL speel.
MR. THOMAS-I'll go along with that.
MR. KARPELES-Yes.
I a.:0"( ee If
MR. TURNER-So, when can we
this y·oom next? Does a11yone .110W"?
MS. CIPPERLY-The 18th is our.
MR. TURNER-Our regular
it's too extensive. It
meDting, yes, but looking at
Just won't, it won't fit in.
·t r'I'¿~
agE! nd.3. ~
MS. CIPPERLY-We can check for
on t,J,õ;d
fie>:t GJedn·c,sday.
I"" 'C'
. I..... ........
u. ~~ II a 11 Y' 0 I::> c.' f¡
MR. TURNER-All right.
MS. CIPPERLY-Are you planning
t,on .l.9ht?
.t- ,""
1.....1.,.)
do
the
other
tJrJ()
031:::
MR. TURNER-It's allover tonight.
It's 12 o'clock.
MR. FORD-Will the public session be re-opened?
~m. TURNER,·Not for this Section. The other tlrJO, yes. If H,;~~ cafi
com to a decision on this Appeal within a short time, at t t
next meeting, then He will entertain the next Appeal.
MR. MARTIN-Ted, just from a loglstlcal standpoint,
have some input from the parties involv
notices to send out for two Appeals where
yet been heard. Is there any way we can
l,}:a"'jc~ them open?
if I
(::()u.1 c:
We've got a lot of
the hearings have not
open those tonight and
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Why don't we open them and continue them?
MR. TURNER-That's no problem. We can do that.
MR. MARTIN-Otherwise, we have to re-notice.
MR. TURNER-I know. You have to advertise it agaln, sure. We're
gOlng to open the hearings on the two other Appeals, and He're
,:;)(}in:;: to PO::3tpon,: them until the continuance of the n(?,){t IT\i:;(,:ting,
after we vote on the Appeal that we Just heard.
MR. SCHACHNER-And just call it
tha.t. ':=:; Ol"'ð.>"..
"adj()ur n" i n~,;;teacl ·;yf PO~3tpone, i 'f
MR. TURNER-We have to determine when we
everybody will be notified, somehow.
can get this room. T
How do you propose
n
to
- 58 -
",,--,
¡
-----
.......,
not ,1, f)/ t he:rn?
MS. CIPPERLY-We can put a press release in t.he paper, but we have
four pages of people to mail noticcs out to.
MR. SCHACHNER-Can't we pick a date, subject to change? In oth (
wor . that way the people herc would all know, unless you a¡
told differ ntly. In addition, put it 1n t.he papel
1'1f:;:. TI.JRJ',!EP T \îi?><t 1 ic::; Jc,hn
Marina. He's appealing Jim's decision
\I() 1:. , and the othc'," ¡t:,ppi?al 1:;)
appealing that d bLl'ff )A' zor"¡e 18 r'18e
¡',\ . Cr oc k IVlo() r i ne;; F'o:::, t
that an Area Variance is
Cheryl Evans, and she's
MR. O'CONNOR-Cheryl
no objection:::;. l,J<:',; unc::ier:st¿"nci.
1'1R. SCi!(';C:·:r',IER"'(;¡nd, obviou:::;ly, 1'1r. Ci'ock has no cbj,¿·ctl()n~~.
r'1F~. r'Ì;:'\R:T:r N'" I '11 ma k C'\i"¡;,fY at ternpt, d n¡'t.. h i n9 the n,,,.i. 9hbor ,::; .,~,)U 1 d
],}, ,irì te;rrn~ò of contactin';:.; peo¡:::-l .
MR. TURNER-Well, I think
here that are invol
b;',; E! n()t r i na:, ,'5 fie:
they can surely pick it
who can contact them.
that, you know, there's enough of them
that certainly know that 1: a's going to
if there's a public article in the paper,
up, or the Town can contact a lead person
MR. SCHACHNER-Wait. I'm con d on d matter of law, and maybe
/()ur coun::::;,:".l eou.1ci adclì"e:~:;s thi,:;;. r'1¡ TU;\I('I I ha'Je ,) .le,ç¡òl
~ucstion that could directed t.o your counsel. My
uncliôr:::;t,:-inciin;;;:, 1.egal.l.)i, i:3 that if t public iV;,'dì"ing i~:3 e,p.;:;:ned,
and then adjourned, there's no requirement for further notice.
MR. TURNER T t's right.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I understood Mr. Martin, to be t.he
b;3.::3i:3 for r'lr. r1aì"tin 'co:; ion.
MR. TURNER That's right.
MR. SCHACHNER 0 . So if that's t ue, I don't care what anybody
puts If¡ t, paç)61-, tllat~s fine, bllt I want to rna sure tllat
we're going to open t public hearing and t. n adjourn it, so
that from a legal standpoint, we're pTotect
MR. O'CONNOR-That's also
hav t ir input at that
ve any irlput on thdt~
purposes. All they're
¡:::"ò¡:.:-cr ..
typical that we allow those present to
t i l!i{: . ~Je 'Y" C riot a 1..1 e"',J i. na a n>iboc:i/ t,o
We're just Journing it for technical
talking about is really an ad in t
j~R~ SCHACHNER"'J don't ha~¡
p'¡" ()I:;. 1 GfíI i::" t co n:::::ta nt
the:;:;e n()ti.cc}~:s"
any trouble with t.he
'; ¿'J ::::~; t :~'I e: :3 t E::t f f ~;:~ .01 i C~: :.
Ib:;Ja 1. ad.
te, :::;en,:::! ()ut.
The
,3.11
I'm.
but
L.('iPPEP·"Riç;ht ..
v~e :::;h()u.l.,j ¡::'ut
I,.Je 're ~saYl nç;
ono ;:1(;: in t
that nothing is legally required,
paper, as a matter of courtesy.
MR. SCHACHNER That's fine.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN So you have ope
th public hearings?
MR. TURNER-Yes. So we'll open t Notice of
John A. Brock, Mooring Post Marina..
1 No. 8-'94,
r1R:3. W(~F~D
t Clc\/cr
:r think tl'¡,::1t ¡:).la(;e~;:, a;1 unrc,'al. L.òl.,ndo\i ()rì pec,pl who ¿J[iõ,
12 year I-ound~ T ~2S¿ pð()1~12 a1~2 ¡~un1·¡ing llP 2X01-bitant
- 59 -
~~._..----
,
.-'
--
~
I::: :'''¡ () fi e [) i 11 z; b ',::- c· a 11 ..L n :Ç) a. 'r.. t .1 ,3::;:; t n', .;S~ c~ "1.': I f/ :.a ~ .1 .;:.' tt i. fì:Ç u. s h: 'j", <::. ¡"J i,.·.; ~~
time t meetings are going to happen. I think it's your
responsibility, as the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, to notify
people. I think there's a procedure in place where you are
required to notify people who live there.
MR. TURNER-We only have to, we notify you, legally, once, but if
we open the public hearing on this Appeal and the other Appeal,
and we adjourned it, we don't have to notify you again.
MRS. WARD-Okay, but you serve t.he people of the Town of
G!Ui3e n~;bu',- Y' .
MR. TURNER-That's fine, but that's the law. Okay.
t1':;:,_ C:IPPERLY-I ¡',Jould add, if yc,u v~ant a notice specifica.l..l> or a
phone call, give me your name and phone number, or, we'll call
)"()u .
MR. SCHACHNER-And, Mr. Turner, I
reads the Notices, we'll adjourn.
procedural request, but I can make
don't care ¡",hen.
hea1-d you just say, once he
I do have one additional
it after, if you (,,;.3, nt . I
MR. TURNER-O y. What's your request?
MR. SCHACHNER-That, remember there was an additional matter t t
1,.'¡85; i,,)i .I.ginall,/ suPpos,,?d to b""" noticed fa,' toni9ht, that (,Jas not
notic for tonight. For the sake of expediency, please, since
we'ro journing t other two, lets issue a proper 10931
notice f01 the Area Variance application itself, at the same
t i n'¡f} .. r).1 ,;,::'a.se ..
MR. TURNER-Have you contacted the paper?
t1f?. t¡!(~r':::TIN"The 0\11) t.hi n9 abe,ut that
of handling a Use Variance and Area
heard f~rst, and you haven't ruled on
/ t.
is we, t)~pically tl10 o1-del-
Variance is that t Use is
the need for a Use Variance
MR. SCHACHNER-But that was true
last time you agreed to notice
Buse we submitted it.
~,Jhen
the
I;Je ¡",¡ere heir e last tiille, ¿Inc)
Area Variance application,
i~1F? ~
TURNERy-As you can see,
we never, we've only
"..,.",. .,
8~...) 1.....
t.i,is far.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand you may not get there, but I want to
ha\/c:: the option.
MR. TURNER-That was my concern, and that's why we didn't notice
it.. That was my concern, that we would not get to it, even get
to it, so there was no point in noticing it.
t1R. SCll¡:;CHNER·..(\l thouah, vJhic?n V,Ji2 VJere 113st. here
said you wanted to, get to it.
f ()r e' Y"CIl) ~i >/(:ftJ
MR. TURNER-And I did, but it just doesn't happen.
supposed to be on for the 18th anyway, Mark.
That ':?;
MR. SCHACHNER-Is it on for the 18th?
MR. TURNER-Yes, the Area Variance.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That notice hasn't come out.
MR. TURNER-They haven't gone out yet..
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
little.
I didn't even know that.
That.
Ip:;:;; a
- 60 -
r
\
~.-
-y
MR. O'CONNOR-Wait. Are we gOing to have
Variance on the 18th, before you hear the
or not the Area Variance was required?
a hearing on the Area
Appeals, as to whethe1
MR. SCHACHNER No. The Appeals are on the 11th.
MR. TURNER If we can get this all next Wednesday night. Okay.
Mr. Thomas, read t application, please.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 8-94 JOHN A. BROCK - MOORING POST MARINA
APPEAL BY JOHN A. BROCK, MOORING POST MARINA FROM A DECISION OF
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATING THAT, BASED ON HIS
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 179-83A, DESTRUCTION, THE PRE-EXISTING
STATUS RELATING TO THE AREA NONCONFORMITIES IS LOST, AND THAT THE
PROPOSED STRUCTURES REQUIRE AN AREA VARIANCE, AS THEY DO NOT MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL-IA
REGARDING SOME SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. LOCATION: BOX 84,
CLEVERDALE ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 IN A WR-IA ZONE AND CEA
MR. TURNER-Notice of Appeal No. 8-94 John A. Brock Mooring
Post Marina. There was a motion to postpone t.he matter. It was
introduced by myself and moved Mr. Carvin, until January 4th
or 5th, pending on the advertising. So that has already n
tabled. I'll move to table it again.
MR. SCHACHNER-You're going t.o open the public hearing?
MR. TURNER-We didn't open the public hearing on that.
tal:)l it"
("Je JUé;;;t.
j'1f-~ .
Thc!
1'1 (~F-; T I j'1 '"w i~1 n d \'J ,e
j . . 1 'l
nO:.lceé:; Wi, ,
1,.<Jill notice
fOI
t ~' e
(;re:.:..1
\/ .3. "{' i a n (: ,¿>
(> n t.. :'~'i (»
18U'í.
g(> ()ll t ~
1'1R. TURj""IEF~",O
(;off th,,: b,j,t.
/' "
I ' 11 ()¡::'c:~' 1"1 t
i:-ublic
ring on that one, right
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
,~
¡'iF:. TUF~NEF:'(ind I'll IlIO\)e; to t L L!'IG a¡:>¡:>lic;:;¡tion.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 8-94 JOHN A. BROCK
MOORING POST MARINA, Introduc Theodore Turner who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin:
Du 1,/ ¿¡do¡:::,t
\Jot.e:
t: - :"'1 i :~~ 11- t 1"'1
y of January, 1995, by the following
AYES: 11y' ~ Fo)-d, Mr~ MerJ'ts)-, 11~. Kal-peles, My'. Ca)-'~in,
Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner
j"'10E'3: 1',10t1E
ABSENT: Mr. Maresco
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-95 CHERYL EVANS APPEAL BY CHERYL EVANS
OF MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING THE MOORING POST MARINA, STATING THAT,
BASED ON HIS INTERPRETATION LETTER OF DECEMBER 19, 1994, AND
SPECIFICALLY SECTION 179-72, BUFFER ZONES, A 50-FOOT BUFFER ZONE
IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. ACCORDINGLY, AN
INTERPRETATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUESTED.
LOCATION: BOX 84, CLEVERDALE ROAD, TAX MAP NO. 13-2-21 IN A WR-
lA ZONE AND CEA
MR. TURNER-The next one ~~
Evans. Okay. I'll open t
rno\/e to tabl e .
j"10 t 50" () f
l:J!.!t:) 1 i c
Appeal No. ~ 95, Cheryl
1~ing OY"¡ tl~at, arid I will
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
- 61 -
-
.------.~
~----~..--
. ..--''''".~~
....-
"- (
;.
....
Intì'oduc
c
OF APPEAL
Tur ner l<,Jho
NO. 2-95
mo\/eo::::J f Oì"
CHERYL EVANS,
it~::; a~j()¡::,tiorj. ;
tjOT,I ON
seconded by F,-ad carvin:
Duly adopted this 4th day of January, 1995, by the following
\¡,ote ::
AYES: Mr. Mentel", Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Turner
I"·IOE'::.: i'10i,1E
ABSENT: Mr. Maresco
MR. TURNER-So as soon d~
room, which, hopefully,
Tiotl.fH:,d.
we can find a date
is next Wednesday,
t.r"'¡b.t. ~;Jø (:a n
all partic<;;
g'31: thi:::;
Hill
MR. O'CONNOR-Thanks for your patience.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
- 62 -