Loading...
Minutes AV 18-2022 (Mann) 5.25.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2022 SEQRA TYPE JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN ZONING RR- 3A LOCATION BAY RD. & PICKLE HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 35.23 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE: LOT 1 (6.92 AC.); LOT 2 (5.95 AC.); LOT 3 (7.77 AC.); LOT 4 (3.63 AC.); AND LOT 5 (11.57 AC.). THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND THE SITE INCLUDES APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE SITE HAS EXISTING OUT BUILDINGS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF BAY ROAD. THE PROJECT AREAS INDICATE THEY ARE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION OF 5 LOTS, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF WETLAND/SHORELINE WORK, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE, STORMWATER DEVICE LOCATION, AND LOT WIDTH. CROSS REF AV 19-2022; SUB 14-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 34.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-23.1 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2022, Jeffrey & Joanne Mann, Meeting Date: May 25, 2022 “Project Location: Bay Rd. & Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project Applicant proposes a 5-lot subdivision of a 35.23 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 1 (6.92 ac); Lot 2 (5.95 ac); Lot 3 (7.77 ac); Lot 4 (3.63 ac); and Lot 5 (11.57 ac). The project is located in the APA and the site includes APA and NWI wetland areas. The site has existing out buildings along the south side of Bay Road. The project areas indicate they are within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision of 5 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetland/shoreline work, work within 100 ft. of designated wetland. Relief requested for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width for a five lo t subdivision. The lot is 35.23 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Section 179-4-020 dimensional RR3A, Chapter 147 Stormwater The applicant proposes 5 residential lots. Lot 2 requires relief for lot width where 362 ft. is proposed and 400 ft. is required; road frontage where 400 ft. is required and 325 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft. where 35 ft. is proposed. Relief is also requested for the 3 ft. vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft. is proposed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The lots proposed are greater than 3 acres. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the environmental constraints including wetlands. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The lot width relief is 38 ft., lot frontage is 75 ft., stormwater device location is 65 ft., stormwater device height is 1 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 5 lot subdivision for a 35.23 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with driveways to Bay Road and Pickle Hill Road.” (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 2 MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, a professional engineer in partner with Hutchins, a local company here, representing Jeff and Joanne Mann who bought the property in 2002 and it’s a pretty complex project so I’ll try to keep it as straightforward as I can. It’s really two projects we have on before you tonight. This one we’re discussing parcel 23.1, which is the left portion of that that’s on the screen. You’ll see some arrows pointing to the west. So that’s parcel 23.1, a five acre, or five lot subdivision, and I’d like to thank Laura for helping us put this together, too. It’s a pretty complex project and I believe we’ve done a nice job with it. We’ve been working on it on and off for two years now. So we put a tremendous amount of thought into it, and we’re an Adirondack Park Agency Class A Regional Project. Which means they have full review authority over these two parcels, which they look at as one whole project because it was under common ownership back in the day, but it’s two separate tax map parcels. So that’s why we’re here with two projects for the Town. This five lotter, the relief we’re asking for is on Lot Two, the road frontage and lot width, and the point I’d like to make is we have 1200 feet of road frontage on Pickle Hill Road for three lots. So one could say well why don’t you give them 400 apiece and be compliant. That was our initial layout. The Park Agency asked that we move the driveway for Lot Three to the east. So it cannibalized some of Lot Two, and we think that’s a good solution. It crosses the small stream, culvert instead of the main stream, which they didn’t like that idea. So we had a little logging road cut for Lot Three, slide the driveway over, took a chunk out of Lot Two. So Lot Two had deficient road frontage and lot width below the 400 feet requirements, and for the stormwater variances we’re asking for is to design to the Lake George Park Commission standards which they adopted and updated last summer, but the Town has not incorporated that into the stormwater ordinance yet. I anticipate that probably within the next year. So as the Town Code sits today we design to the DEC standards which require 100 feet for say a rain garden to a water body or a stream or a wetland, and as there’s pockets of wetland along the stream, we can’t hold that 100 feet for this sort of project. So we ask to go to the 35 feet as adopted by the Park Commission and then two feet of vertical separation from our storm device to groundwater as opposed to three from the DEC standard. We’re consistent with current Park Commission law to give us flexibility in our design and because we know that’s going to be the first comment when we do our full design for the Town Engineer is going to say, well why didn’t you build to DEC. We’re trying to get out in front of that before we spend thousands and thousands of more dollars doing the full comprehensive design. So we’re here to ask for your approval for these variances and if we’re successful we’ll design to the full build out with the SWPPP, the stormwater plan, and then we’ll have two more rounds with the Planning Board and also we have to re-submit to the Park Agency. So we’re here to take a good swing at it tonight and we’re very comfortable with the project. There’s all kinds of density. By density there’s enough for eight lots. We’re proposing five. So we think it’s very reasonable for the land and the final point I’d like to make is my clients have been somewhat zoned out if you will, where they owned it in 2002 when the lot width required was 200 feet and it went to 400 feet in 2009. So if we still had the old standards, if you will, we wouldn’t need that variance. So they’ve owned it for 20 years, and again we’re compliant with all of our setbacks per current Code for this Rural Residential zone and then density is plenty compliant. So we don’t feel like we’re asking for too much with this project, and we’re here to ask for your approval and we’d be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Thank you for your time tonight. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I walked that property where Lot Three is and that’s pretty scary. There’s a lot of wet in there and I can see maybe four lots, even though you’re way over the requirement, but that Lot Three kind of looks pretty scary. I don’t know if you’ve walked it or not, but there’s definitely some concerns there that I’d be afraid to approve a house there. Whatever you do it’s going to always need other variances. Usually with a piece of property like that you’re going to need another big barn put on it to house your equipment for land maintenance and that. So I think whatever we approve, they’re going to come back to us numerous times for other variances. I can see a four lot division of four lots maybe there, but not five. So that’s the only concern I have is that Lot Three I walked. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised, so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has any input on this particular project. So you’ve got to come up here and identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM BARNES MR. BARNES-Jim Barnes. I live at 96 Pickle Hill Road. There’s so much traffic on the road right now you can hardly get up and down that road, especially in the wintertime. You put that many houses down, you’re going to have a problem. There’s three streams there, on this property. When you say you’ve got 100 foot and you go 100 foot from the center of the stream, or 100 foot from the bank, your setback. When you make a 100 foot setback, does it start at each side or does it start at the center of the stream and go out either way? MR. MC CABE-That’s not our job to answer questions. We’re just here to listen to the comments that you might have. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 3 MR. BARNES-That’s a waste of my time because that’s what I want to know. There’s three streams running down through there. It’s all wet behind there. I’ve been there for 32 years. We get a lot of water down through there when it rains heavy. It floods. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else who would like to input on this particular project? Go ahead. MATTHEW SCOTT MR. SCOTT-Hi. Good afternoon. My name’s Matthew Scott. I have a property at the top of Pickle Hill and Bay and I’ve only lived there for a few years, but I can tell you, because I am perched right up there on top of Bay and Pickle Hill, and I completely agree. The traffic’s incredible already, and I’m not exactly sure of the layout of the expansion for all these lots, but if there’s going to be an entrance on both Bay and Pickle Hill, I can only imagine the amount of traffic that’s going to be on there now, and again, I don’t know exactly what the Board intends to do or what you consider, but as far as when I purchased the property, I purchased it because I didn’t want to live in a development. I didn’t want all the traffic. I didn’t want all the, you know there’s enough traffic on Bay, put Pickle Hill is a lot more than I would ever have imagined. The other thing is, living there for several years now, the amount of wildlife that I see, and whether or not that plays a factor into your decision I’m not really sure, but I can tell you that on that big giant cornfield, that used to be a cornfield, the amount of wildlife that I get the opportunity to see as I walk my dog up and down Pickle Hill, is tremendous and obviously with any development it has to be considered that that’s all going to be displaced. So, you know, not only the deer, the turkey and all the other animals, I think it’s just, it’s not my property so it’s not my decision what you guys decide to do with it, but as a concerned neighbor, I just, my value I think of my property will be diminished in my experience living in that area. So for what it’s worth. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? LIZBETH SWEENEY MS. SWEENEY-My name is Lizbeth Sweeney and I’m not really sure, my property doesn’t border this project. It borders the next one that is coming up, but I wanted to say I agree with the previous neighbor that it will detrimentally affect the environment of the area. It also, from my experi ence, and I’ve lived there almost 30 years, it is a very wet area, and all those streams, when it’s high water, those streams just surge, and they’re surging into the Lake George watershed and I believe that that’s something that should be considered. I also feel that I have never known the New York State DEC to back down on something. If they have a code that says 100 feet, they’re going to be strict on that code no matter what the Lake George Park Commission is saying, because New York State even fights off the EPA at times. So that is a concern to me. I do think a lot of time was put into this in trying to develop it, and the understanding of the environment. I have concerns sand I do think it’s a significant impact on the area and I also feel i t is somewhat self-imposed because when that property was purchased, it was purchased as it was. Okay the Code did change in 2002, but the Code changed, and that’s what, I would think, has to be upheld, the Code that exists, not the Code that they think it’s going to change to a year or two from now. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So, Roy, do we have anything written on this particular project? MR. URRICO-We do, but it was by the same. MR. MC CABE-Is it all right if we don’t read the letter? MS. SWEENEY-You don’t have to read it, but I hope you’ll consider what’s in the letter also. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. URRICO-Am I reading it? MR. MC CABE-Yes, you can read it. MR. URRICO-“Thank you for the opportunity to voice my comment and concerns on the above listed requests for variances. The information listed in the packets on the website does not reflect information in the public Hearing Notice I received at my home address. The PHN I received cross references AV 18 - 2022. In researching the information, the application which references property adjacent to my property is listed in zoning board documents under AV 19-2022. I appreciate the efforts that Jeffery and Joanne Mann have put forth in preparing both applications with the supporting documents. It appears the efforts on this project have been in good faith. I sternly object to the requested variances in both the above referenced requests. My greatest objection is to the request that due to the stream and wetland locations it is not possible to situate all the needed stormwater management devices 100-ft away from these features and the property owners are requesting horizontal setbacks and vertical separations which are significant. It is my opinion that the request for these setbacks pose significant undesirable stormwater and (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 4 environmental changes to the properties and the community. The only benefit I see from these requests is to the applicant, the applicant could seek to develop the property within the existing code framework. The applicants state the requested variances are considered moderately substantial. I disagree it is highly substantial and will have an adverse impact on the physical, and environmental conditions of the neighborhood, the community, the ecosystem, and the Lake George watershed. The impacts of this project and the impacts of the requested variances are 100 percent self-created by the property owner. In summary I object to the requested variances being approved. Regards, Lizbeth Sweeney” And it’s 80 Sunset Trail. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So would you like to respond to the comments? MR. DOBIE-Could you go to the next map, Laura. If you’ll allow me to walk up here just to explain Lot Three a little bit. I would just like to address Lot Three which seems to cause a little heartburn. So our original thought was for a density for two lots up here. We realized that wouldn’t work with the land and, yes, to Mr. Henkel’s point, to come off of Pickle Hill Road down in the draw across the main stream and come back up could cause some heartburn I could see. That’s why we moved the driveway to the east of the main stream where it crosses Pickle Hill Road and there’s little remnants of probably a skid trail once upon a time so it parallels almost the edge of the cornfield which is right here, and then Jeff and I walked and found an appropriate spot to cross. We’re still on the high ground for this secondary stream which is here and then the property comes back up, and these are two foot contours. So it’s six to eight feet higher than the stream, and this is an area where it’s been logged in the last five years and we did three series of test pits with the Park Agency. So this is the high and dry ground of Lot Three. We kept the driveway to the east all that we could to avoid crossing the main stream and any wetlands impacts, and we had a Park Agency wetland biologist there twice and she flagged along fingers in here, and here’s our building setbacks off of the wetlands and the stream. So we’re keeping the house, and this is a substantially sized house, just to show that we have room to work. So it’s compliant with our stream setbacks, wetland setbacks. So I’m comfortable that this is the building spot up here. It’s on higher ground, a little heav ier soil and so I just wanted to make that point for the record that we’re not doing any wetland disturbance or mitigation on this part of the site at all or on any part of it for how we laid it out. MR. HENKEL-So when you say a large house, what do you figure that footprint is? MR. DOBIE-This is over 6,000 square feet of a footprint, just gave us enough to work with. MR. HENKEL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-I want to make it clear. We’re not making decisions on any houses at this particular time. All we’re making decisions on are the locations of the stormwater device, which maybe you explain the 100 foot versus the 35 foot. MR. DOBIE-Sure. How the Town Code reads is the standards, there’s the DEC stormwater design manual, which in our professional opinion is more aimed at commercial projects, big, huge developments. So it’s difficult to apply that to residential projects when there’s 100 feet obviously. DEC does allow home rule for those standards because Queensbury’s what’s called an MS-4. They administer the DEC program at their discretion, and then the Town Code reads that the Zoning Board has power to grant relief from the stormwater standards which is the design manual. So that’s why we’re here to ask for that relief. MR. MC CABE-So where does the 35 feet come from? MR. DOBIE-The 35 is the Lake George Park Commission standard and it was adopted last year because they recognize that they used to have a 100 foot standard and that was difficult to meet that on many projects. So they were seeing a lot of variances for their board. So we didn’t just pick that out of the air. We went with the Park Commission standards which were adopted for the drainage basin. MR. URRICO-Where is the 35 feet measured from? MR. DOBIE-They measured from the high water mark. So as one gentleman was talking about, the width of the stream, if you had a 20 foot wide stream, you’d measure from the stream bank. These streams are generally three to four feet of a stream bank, but we will hold to the stream bank as the standard. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m not having a really big problem with the road width issue. I think you don’t diverge from the 400 too terribly much on most of it, but I’m just thinking, I mean to my mind it’s really four lots because you’ve added a defacto on the fifth lot. I just don’t like varying from our own standards that much and I’ve kind of held to that for a lot of projects we’ve seen on the lake as well. So I think I’m going to have (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 5 a problem approving, if we can split the variances, approving the ones for the stormwater devices at this time. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-John made a point, you know, struggling with that Lot Three, and I am, too, and I fully appreciate and understand, you know, your explanation here, and honing in on this thing. So I am, as broken down, would be fine. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I’m not in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I find it highly speculative that anybody would be interested in Lot Three with the amount of wetlands you have out there, and I think, you know, the map shows clearly your access point abutting into Lot Two on the eastern side there, too. Those lots to the east and the west I think are developable. I don’t really think that Lot Three is a developable lot. I think it should be kept as green space. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got to stand with what I said in the beginning there. I think that this is a project that’s doable, but I think it’s got to be looked at. I know you’ve put two years into it, and it’s too bad you’ve put that much time into it, but I would have to say I’m not for it as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I find it interesting how people talk about traffic. These five lots, anyway, to me that’s not that much traffic off into the area. I actually think it’s a good project and I’d be in support of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m disinclined to support a project with this type of stormwater device. I think we cannot anticipate what the future is going to be in terms of the variances. Just like you couldn’t anticipate, when you purchased the property, that the lot sizes would change. So given the types of storms that we’ve had lately and predicted to have going forward, I would rather err on the side of caution rather than approve a project that’s that close to the stormwater that might be affected. So I would not support this project. MR. MC CABE-So my feeling here is that you guys have probably done as good a job as you can do, given the nature of this project. I have no problem with the lot width. I have no problem with the road frontage variances. They’ve been explained very well, and I also don’t have a problem with the stormwater device location. To me 100 foot from where you want to protect is way too far. What you’re trying to do with the stormwater device is to slow water down, and having to stay 100 foot back to slow the water down to me is very impractical. I think the 35 feet is much more reasonable, but unfortunately you don’t have enough friends on this. So you have a couple of choices here. You can table, take a look at it and maybe present another design. You could call for a vote, but that’s not going to go well. So I guess I need some guidance here. MR. DOBIE-Yes, we’d respectfully request to table it, let us re-group, and we’ll come back to you at a future date. MR. MC CABE-So when might you be ready? MR. DOBIE-Certainly not next month. Probably a July meeting. MR. MC CABE-So do we have openings in the July meetings? MRS. MOORE-I believe we put two in the July meeting. So I’m comfortable putting it in the second meeting. MR. MC CABE-So with information to be submitted by. MRS. MOORE-By June 15th. MR. MC CABE-By June 15th. MR. HENKEL-Okay, and we’re going to go July 27th. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey & Joanne Mann. Applicant proposes a 5-lot subdivision of a 35.23 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 1 (6.92 ac); Lot 2 (5.95 ac); Lot 3 (7.77 ac); Lot 4 (3.63 ac); and Lot 5 (11.57 ac). The project is located in the (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 6 APA and the site includes APA and NWI wetland areas. The site has existing out buildings along the south side of Bay Road. The project areas indicate they are within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision of 5 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetland/shorel ine work, work within 100 ft. of designated wetland. Relief requested for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2022 JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, Tabled to July 27th, 2022 with any new information submitted by June 15th, 2022. Motion seconded by Ronald Kuhl. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDe vitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE