For the October 16 Planning Board meeting, Stacey’s plan was pressented by Cronin Engineering. You will want to see it.
I don’t understand quite what is going on at the Planning Board. I don’t know what this process is. Since they will barely talk to you at a public hearing, they are definitely not going to explain what they are doing with this application.
The code for CC2 (Morrissey Drive) doesn’t allow a 2 story commercial building. It has to be residential above commercial. Whether you or I agree or disagree, that is what the code specifies. For what I know, there are 2 ways to change something like that. One is a use variance from the ZBA. My understanding is that ZBA’s generally don’t care for granting use variances and that they can be challenged in court. The other is to go to the Town Board, and the Town Board, after public input, can make a change to the code.
So I don’t know what the Planning Board is doing with this application. If someone can explain it to me, please do. The Planning Board won’t answer questions.
Points 
I haven’t followed the 15 Morrissey application but will look at the videos. I was successfully “chilled” when I suffered the consequences of challenging other uses on Morrissey before the Town Board included vehicle storage and contractor yards as permitted in CC2. They are apparently consistent with the residential character of the adjacent neighborhood. That’s also why vehicles can have fluids changed while suspended over gravel. Business owners are nice folks, trying to put food on the table.
The problem with the intrusion into the buffer on the 187 Lake Drive application is that the ZBA’s Decision and Order on this application, and the decision made by this Planning Board will
affect at least every lakefront property, and likely every residential property within the LP zoning district. The decisions made on this application become a precedent. Future applications made relative
to other properties will be decided based on the decisions made in the current application. Courts have found that as in judicial proceedings, justice demands that in administrative proceedings, “cases with like antecedents should breed like consequences”. The antecedents are obviously there for any LP applicant: residences on nonconforming lots, and for many, a desire to increase living space. What is of particular concern on the lakefront is the potential of 84 applicants (84 single family lakefront homes)
being allowed to build 37 feet (38’ Variance was granted for the 75’ lakefront setback) from a fragile, pollution-sensitive waterbody. It boggles the mind that the ZBA said that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the potential damage to the lake. I guess the applicant is really, really, REALLY happy.
By: AP on October 18, 2023
at 8:06 pm
The public should understand that this precedent exists now regardless of any further planning board action.
By: Dawn Powell on October 19, 2023
at 4:05 pm