Loading...
Minutes AV 19-2022 (Mann) 5.25.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN ZONING WR LOCATION 76 PICKLE HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 17.1 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE: LOT 6 (3.8 ACRES); LOT 7 (4.1 ACRE); LOT 8 (9.2 ACRES) NEAR TO THE MANN 5-LOT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON A SEPARATE PARCEL. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND IS NEAR TO APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE SITE INFORMATION INDICATES THERE ARE AREAS WITH 15% SLOPES, PROJECT IS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION FOR 3 LOTS, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF WETLANDS/SHORELINE, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE AND STORMWATER DEVICE LOCATION. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2022, Jeffrey & Joanne Mann, Meeting Date: May 25, 2022 “Project Location: 76 Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project Applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision of a 17.1 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 6 (3.8 acres); Lot7 (4.1 acre); and Lot 8 (9.2 acres) near to the Mann 5-lot proposed subdivision on a separate parcel. The project is located in the APA and is near to APA and NWI wetland areas. The site information indicates there are areas with 15% slopes, project is a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision for 3 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetlands/shoreline, work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width for a three- lot subdivision. The lot is 17.1 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 147 stormwater,179-4-050 frontage Relief is requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft. where 35 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for the 3 ft. vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for lot 6 of 3.8 ac and Lot 7 of 4.1 ac physical access to use a proposed drive for Lot 8 of 9.2 ac. In addition, Road frontage relief is requested for Lot 8 where 57.86 is proposed, Lot 6 and Lot 7 where 0 ft. is proposed and required is 400 ft. 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 relief requested for the stormwater device location is 65 ft., stormwater device height is 1 ft., road frontage is 342.14 for lot 8; 400 ft. for both lot 6 and 7. Physical road front for lots 6 and 7. 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 3 lot subdivision for a 17.1 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with driveways through one drive to Pickle Hill Road.” MR. DOBIE-Good evening, again, Board. For the record, again, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. My client, Jeff Mann, is with us as well, and this is Part II, if you will, of his overall Class A Regional Project (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 2 with the Adirondack Park Agency. So it’s Parcel 23.2, which is a 17 acre flag lot with 57 feet of road frontage on Pickle Hill Road, and it’s to the east of a stream that runs north/south to the wetlands to the north.. With this project we’re here to ask, how we set it up is similar to a private HOA subdivision if you will. We’ve done a couple of those with the Board over the years, some five lotters where it’s a private road maintained by the HOA with landlocked parcels with easements across the roads. That’s how we set this up with the southerly lot, Lot Eight, retaining the tail, if you will for the ownership of the road and then easements for Lot Six and Seven. So obviously Lots Six and Seven have zero road frontage on the public right of way. So we’re asking for 400 feet of relief from the 400 on those, and then Lot Eight would have the 57 feet out of the 400. So it’s a function of the geometry of the pa rent parcel, and the logic is that the southerly most part of Lot Eight is a gorgeous building spot and to, it’s a substantial length of driveway, and the long way there’s more really nice building spots. So we’re going through the process, and again because of the proximity of the stream to the west, we can’t hold 100 feet with our stormwater devices. So we’re asking to design to the current Lake George Park Commission standards of the 35 feet horizontally and two feet vertically to groundwater, and again we have sufficient density for the project. Just to make the point that my clients have owned it since 2002 and in the two years we’ve been working on it it has been for sale without any acceptable offers on it. So that’s why we’re pursuing the project to move forward with it. So we appreciate your feedback and questions and thank you for having us tonight. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-So you said like an HOA, So is this actually being submitted to the AG and become an HOA? MR. DOBIE-It is what’s called a CPS-7 Cooperative Policy Statement. It’s an E-4. So it’s a simpler basic HOA we would call it. MRS. HAMLIN-But it’s a legitimate HOA? MR. DOBIE-It is. Yes, you can’t sell a landlocked parcel without a maintenance agreement. MRS. HAMLIN-Exactly. That’s my question. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Does that have to be approved by the State? Does it make it an HOA? MR. DOBIE-I have a little experience with this. It’s kind of a general filing with the paperwork. MR. HENKEL-They accept anything pretty much. MR. DOBIE-I believe it’s kind of pretty straightforward. MRS. HAMLIN-It’s considered diminimus, because it’s less than the traditional four to five lots. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this particular project. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEVE PREUSS MR. PREUSS-Good evening. My name’s Steve Preuss. I live at 42 Sunset Trail, which is the property directly adjacent to Lot Six. I know the Manns, consider them friends, and I’m learning a lot about this process. So I’m taking this opportunity to express myself publicly and go on record with some of my thoughts about the project. I’m learning about the setbacks and the fact that I guess the current Lake George Park Commission standards are 35 feet, which is what they’re proposing. So I realize this is not in the eyes of some of the controlling entities an inappropriate amount of setback to request. However, I do have concerns about preserving the quality of the water that flows into Lake George as many of us do in this community. We trust that the requirements and the laws and the rules really are going to be looked through that lens of wanting to preserve what flows into Dunham’s Bay and that whole wetland area that ultimately ends up in Lake George. I do believe that this project will result in a detriment to the neighborhood directly behind it. Many of the other property owners there highly value their setting right now, and although we realize and acknowledge Mr. Mann’s right to develop his property within the guidelines as he sees fit, I just want to go on record to say we believe it would be a detriment to our neighborhood in terms of that aesthetic that brought us to that neighborhood if those woods entirely disappear, we’re staring into backyards that are clear cut and lawns and what not. That’s not what we purchased our properties having. I don’t know that that’s what this discussion is about tonight, but I have my opportunity to express my opinion I suppose. So I also wonder about the environmental impact. I’m familiar with that stream, and again, having it flow into the lake I just want to make sure that this is done right. One concern I have personally a property owner is if the setbacks aren’t altered and the property (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 3 plan is changed, I’m wondering about the consequence of having the road, that driveway further from the stream and therefore the houses closer to my property line. So I don’t know if this can be addressed or perhaps the engineer can address it, but what are the plans for setbacks or vegetative setbacks around the property? Is there a plan to have? MR. MC CABE-So tonight we’re just concerned with a couple of things, the road frontage and the stormwater device location. Not its design, just simply its location. So anything to do with the houses, that’s speculative. MR. PREUSS-Different discussion. MR. MC CABE-And that’s a different discussion. That’s right. Also there’ll be a lot more discussion on the stormwater, all we’re approving is the location of the device, and not even the design of the device. MR. PREUSS-All right. MRS. MOORE-I can just interject, that it will go back before the Planning Board which is typically where they’d go through subdivision review and the locations of clearing and the element of having our Town Engineer review the stormwater management plan. So there is that other element that is addressed at a later time. Specifically the Zoning Board is looking at the variances being requested. MR. PREUSS-Okay. Like I said, I’m learning about the process, but I do appreciate the opportunity to share my views and again, I respect Mr. Mann’s right to look at his property and develop it within the guidelines that he has to adhere to. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So, anybody else? Go ahead. JOHN GOODMAN MR. GOODMAN-Hello. I’m John Goodman. I live at 92 Sunset Trail and my biggest concern is the 15% grade, more than 15% grade. There’s a lot more than 15% grade. So I don’t know how you’re going to have room to put a road, put a house and keep it out of the water. It’s a huge, off of the back of our lot it drops right off and it goes right to the water. I’d like to see the real plans on that when it comes to how you keep all that out of the water. So that’s basically all I have. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else? So do we have anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-Other than the letter that has been submitted by Lizbeth Sweeney, and the same letter that I read in already. So I’d like to instruct Staff to add this to the notes. MR. MC CABE-So that’s it. MR. URRICO-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I still have concerns about what you’re doing here. It’s understandable that the flag lot is the only way that’s going to give you access to those three proposed lots in the back there, but I think that the screening proximity to the road and the steepness of the terrain back there is not going to work for me. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’d have to say I’m kind of more supportive of this one. I understand what Jim’s saying. I think I’d be supportive of this one. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-The 15% grade, but I think that can be worked around. I think you can build it appropriately. I think it’s a good project. When we have the public coming up and talking about, you know, I purchased my property and I built my house, but you’re purchasing property and you’re building your home, you know, if somebody comes and builds a house in front of yours and blocks your view, you didn’t buy the view, you bought the property. I think development is positive, it’s good, and for that reason, it’s the same way as people come up and say look at the end of my property line, I want them to leave 15 f eet of trees up (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 4 where that person clear cut their property to their property line. I personally support development done in a proper way and I think that this is, this is the proper way. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I have the same concerns I had about the previous project abutting the stormwater project, and again we’re working with the rules as they’re currently, the current rules, not what may be projected. If that changes, then I would change my opinion, but for right now I sti ll think I need to be cautious, we need to be cautious about granting permission within 100 feet of the wetland. So I would be against this project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I certainly would be okay with granting relief from the 100 foot, but not that much relief. We’re talking about, you know, way over 50% which is extremely substantial. Otherwise, I’m good with road width. I’m good with frontage issue. So I’m a no at this point. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I have an issue, like Roy, with the stormwater, Mr. Chairman. So I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And from my standpoint it’s the same thing. The 100 foot I think is a ridiculous standard and I don’t go along with it, but again, we’re a little on the short side he re. You need four and you only have three. So I’ll give you the same opportunities that you have the last time. MR. DOBIE-So again, Board, thank you for your input, and let us re-group here and if we could get back in July for the second meeting that would be helpful to take another swing at it and re-design it. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So could I get a motion, John? MR. HENKEL-Tabled to the 27th for that one, too? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey & Joanne Mann. Applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision of a 17.1 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 6 (3.8 acres); Lot7 (4.1 acre); and Lot 8 (9.2 acres) near to the Mann 5 -lot proposed subdivision on a separate parcel. The project is located in the APA and is near to APA and NWI wetland areas. The site information indicates there are areas with 15% slopes, project is a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision for 3 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetlands/shoreline, work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2022 JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, Tabled to July 27th, 2022 with any new information to be submitted by June 15th, 2022. Motion seconded by Ronald Kuhl. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2022, by the following: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Board.