Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Use Variance Dorsey topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Supporters urge board to grant Dorsey use variance; hearing kept open until July 2

Planning Board / Zoning Board of Appeals (Town of Queens) · June 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a June 18 public hearing on a use-variance request for 880 Bridge Street, multiple supporters including the RCS Community Business Association and a town councilman argued the application meets the legal 'unnecessary hardship' tests; the board deferred action and kept the hearing open for July 2.

The Planning Board/Zoning Board of Appeals on June 18 heard public testimony in support of a use-variance request filed by Michelle and Mark Dorsey for 880 Bridge Street (tax map 131.4-12.1) and left the public hearing open until its July 2 meeting while members review legal issues.

Rebecca Flack, vice chair of the RCS Community Business Association, said the Dorseys have invested in revitalizing the former Old Dominion Croft Equine Hospital property and that the project ‘‘aligns with many of the goals outlined in the town's comprehensive plan, including supporting agriculture, tourism, small business development, and economic growth.’’ She asked the board to support the application as a community asset.

Marlene McTeague, chair of the association’s board, also endorsed the project and said the town needs more local event space. A town councilman, Steven Schmidt, read a letter from Steven D'Agostino asserting that the application meets the four statutory prongs required for a New York State use variance under Town Law Section 267B, calling the case "a textbook example" of unnecessary hardship under state law.

Applicant Michelle Dorsey told the board the hardship is not self-created, described the property’s history as a commercial equine hospital and said zoning that has not been updated since the 1960s does not reflect current agritourism uses. Several neighbors, including Anthony Litner, spoke in personal support and said they expect the project to bring economic benefit and not materially increase traffic.

Board members said there is substantial material to digest, asked counsel to clarify legal definitions and recommended an executive session at the next meeting to ensure members have a common understanding of relevant statutes and code terms. The board voted to adjourn (keep open) the public hearing and take up the matter on July 2; no vote on the variance was taken on June 18.