Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

Page 2 -- July 15, 1995 Z.B. Variance -- Group Challenges Marina Owner's Hardship Claim Regarding New Docks Lake George Association Inc. v. Lake George Park Commission, 623 N.Y.S. 2d 426 (New York) 1995 Condit owned a marina on Lake George in the town of Ticonderoga, N.Y. The marina was at the lake's northernmost end, which contained a natural dam and rock shoals. Condit had a permit from the Lake George Park Commission to dock 40 boats. Condit decided to convert the marina into a private harbor club. He applied to the commission for a variance so he could remove the existing docks and boathouse, replacing them with three new 125-foot nonconforming docks (among other things). The new docks would actually take up less square foot- age than the existing ones, and Condit did not ask for permission to serve more boats than he already did. The commission granted the variance, but the Adirondack Park Agency denied Condit's application to begin the project. Condit modified his applica- tion to the commission so that all he asked for was a variance to build the three docks. After a public hearing, the commission took from Condit additional evidence regarding hardship, including letters from his bank and accountant. Lake George Association Inc., which opposed the variance, asked the commis- sion to deny it. After the commission agreed to modify the prior permit and grant a variance for the docks, the association asked a court to review the deci- sion. The court dismissed the case, and the association appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission's decision was supported by evidence, so it was upheld. The regulations under which the commission administered Lake George Park set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a variance applicant would suffer unnecessary hardship. Condit showed financial hard- ship -- the very location of his property placed his business at an economic disadvantage. The dam and the shoals presented a safety hazard to boats and boat- ers, which the new docks would eliminate. The letters from Condit's bank and accountant, as well as other financial information, showed that Condit could not operate a viable business with the types of docks that were already permitted. The marina would not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare, or the environment and resources of the park. Nor would it change the essential character of the area or lead to congestion in the park. The marina had been operating for several years, would not service any more vessels than it already did, and the square footage of the docks would be reduced. Variance. -, Developer Can't Get Permits Until Street Is Dedicated Zimmerma~ v. Zoning Board of Adjustme~t of the City of Philadell)hia, 654 A. 2d ] 054 (Pem~sylva n ia) ] 995 Thackeray Estate Associates owned a 2.76-acre rectangular lot in a single-