Loading...
Minutes AV 18-2022 (Mann) 7.27.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN ZONING RR- 3A LOCATION BAY RD. & PICKLE HILL RD. (REVISED) 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; FWW 7-2022 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 APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2022, Jeffrey & Joanne Mann, Meeting Date: July 27, 2022 “Project Location: Bay Rd. & Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) 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 lot 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 50 ft. is proposed. Relief is also requested for the 3 ft. vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft. is proposed. Revised is setback to the stormwater management device. 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 50 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: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 2 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. The revision includes the reduction in relief for the stormwater setback and the relocation of Lot 4 access from Bay Road to Pickle Hill Road.” MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you for your time tonight. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, representing my clients, Jeffrey and Joanne Mann, who are in the back with us tonight if you have any questions for them. Otherwise I’ll handle it. We’ve discussed this quite at length at our May 25th meeting, the overall neighborhood plan for, that they own the two parcels and it’s a Class A Regional Adirondack Park Agency project. So they have their permitting process as well. A few key points I’d like to make tonight for our revisions. We listened to the Board. We’ve incorporated some changes from your feedback and the main change was we were previously asking for our storm devices, such as our infiltration basins, which are just grass detention areas that infiltrate the stormwater. We were asking for 35 feet for the horizontal setback from any water bodies because of the streams, wetlands throughout the site that provide the constraints which that is consistent with the Lake George Park Commission standards which were adopted last year and I included some, in this recent submission, some of their rationale to allow flexibility of design, why they went to the 35. That didn’t go over as well with the Board as we’d hoped. So we’ve re-grouped. So we’re asking to go at 50 feet with it, which I re-read the transcript of the minutes and it seemed like the 50% relief seemed about in the comfort zone for some of the members. So we went to, we’re asking for 50 feet for our storm devices in lieu of the 100 foot requirement from DEC. For this project that’s only on Lots Three, Four and Five. Lots One and Two, the field lots, do not need that relief because it’s sandier soils in there, none of the waterbody features there. So we’re asking for our storm devices, the vertical separation to groundwater to go two feet in lieu of the three feet the DEC standard. Two feet is also the Lake George Park Commission standard. Designing to that gives us flexibility with our design. It’s less filling and disturbing by accommodating that, and again, just a point that some of the members that we thought we’d recognized was we’re talking about stormwater from residences here. We’re not talking about an industrial site or commercial. Water from rooftops and driveways. So we feel it’s nowhere near the environmental risk of like a septic relief would be. So septic standard for an absorption field is 100 feet and we don’t think that stormwater’s nearly the impact. So that’s why we’re comfortable asking for that relief to go to 50 feet. The other area that caused some heartburn was the Lot Three, the middle lot if you will on Pickle Hill Road, which does have a stream crossing. We recognize that some of the Board members were uncomfortable with that lot. So I included some pictures in this week’s submission of where the driveway will be which will be built over an existing skid road at Pickle Hill Road that comes south along the edge of the field and makes a turn to the west for one stream crossing, which we’ve walked it with my clients and we feel it’s the best stream crossing, put in 24 inch culvert, and then the land rises back up 10 to 14 feet to the house site and I just ran to the office to check that house site to snap the flat area topography. It’s nearly two acr es of what I would call the high ground for the building area. So we’ve got all kinds of room in the woods there for a home. So we’re very comfortable with that lot layout, that it’s not an impact on the environment and we do have three test pits that we’ve performed on that, two of them by the Park Agency’s soil scientist to allow a, and they approved a shallow conventional absorption system for our septic. So we’re very comfortable with that lot and hopefully some of that evidence that we’ve provided will make the Board more comfortable with that, and then our final variance is for the geometry of Lot Two, which is the same as we had before , 325 feet of road frontage, and then the average lot width we’re asking for relief from that because we had to narrow it up at the road to allow the driveway for Lot Three to be in a better location. With that, I think that’s the highlights I wanted to make for the Board. I’m here to ask for your approval so we can proceed with the full design and re-submit to the Planning Board. So thank you for your time tonight, Board. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. Who chooses where the test pits are performed and done? Are they chosen by you or are they designated by DEC? MR. DOBIE-We provided an initial layout which was essentially this layout, to the Park Agency for their initial review, and then they bring a team down of Wetland Biologists and Soil Scientists and we walk the house site and say this looks like suitable terrain for the septic and we dig there to test the soils and then we do a redundant test pit. So they work with our layout from a year and a half, two years that this has been going on. MR. KUHL-So what you’re saying is the renderings that you provide is where they put the test pits based on where you suggest the houses should be? MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. MR. HENKEL-And real important where the septic leach fields are going to be would be important also. MR. DOBIE-Correct. We do the geometry with the offsets and look at the topo and provide what we believe is the best area and then approve it with the Park Agency. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 3 MR. HENKEL-I notice the depths of all the test pits, the pits are a little bit different, too. Some are 76. Some are 60 inches. So is that because you hit stone or rock or something or was it just? MR. DOBIE-That’s a function of the field lots. Lots One and Two are very sandy. So there’s no boundary condition there, and then it’s just the soils change in the area of the stream it will be a little bit heavier. So there’s a perched groundwater table in the spring which they had 25 to 36 inches in that area. MR. HENKEL-I walked the property on Monday right after all that rain, actually it was still raining a little bit. I didn’t get a chance to walk Five. I walked Five two months ago when you came in the first time. I didn’t get to walk that on Monday. I don’t really see any problem with One and Two. Three and Four kind of scare me a little bit. Was there ever any thought of making that one lot instead of two lots? MR. DOBIE-No. There was not. We’d like to pursue this layout and we believe that it would be suitable, two house sites there. Once upon a time we looked at, we had a layout that had three lots where those Lots Three and Four are and we realized that was too much for the land. So we pulled back from the three lots that are there up to the two lots. Lot Four is in the lower area below the barn which is a nice, kind of evergreen area which has sands. Just one thing I didn’t mention and we’ll update this for the Planning Board is we brought the driveway for Lot Four to Pickle Hill instead of Bay Road, to save that road cut on a busy road there and it takes some of the slope out of it, and we don’t have to cross, there’s a drainage channel that you may have seen, John, on Monday, that runs across Bay Road down through Lot Four which is seasonal, only runs when there’s a heavy rain. So we’re not crossing that now. We’re coming out through the woods to Pickle Hill Road for Lot 4. MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I was there on Monday and I was kind of surprised there wasn’t, you know, you would think with as much rain as we had it would have caused more problems, but I didn’t really see a whole lot of any of the lots other than, I didn’t walk up to Four. I did talk One, Two, Three. MR. DOBIE-We had five inches of rain. MR. HENKEL-Yes, there was a lot of rain. I’m saying if there was going to be any problem, that would definitely. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. 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 there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this. Sir? JIM BARNES MR. BARNES-My name is Jim Barnes. I live next door at 96 Pickle Hill Road for 30 years. From Bay Road to my house is exactly one mile. There’s a 24 foot drop from Bay Road to my house and driveway. There’s three streams in there. The school buses do not run on that road in the wintertime. All my kids, I had to take them up to meet the bus. They cannot make the hill in the winter. The school buses do not run on that road in the winter. It’s a very bad road in the winter. I don’t know if any of you have ever ridden it or not. You should give it a try. They do not run up and down, that’s Lake George school. They do not go up and down in the winter. They can’t make the hill at Bay Road. They can’t make the hill going by Sunset Trail. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? MR. BARNES-No. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Is there anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, there’s nothing written. 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 think that, you know, our initial concerns were with the drainage and the wetland accessibility to these properties, and I think that changing the access off of Bay Road was probably a plus as far as I’m concerned. As far as the amount of relief required, that one lot has to cross the other lot, I guess Lot Two up there, or Lot Four, excuse me, the one that’s closest to Bay Road. I don’t think there’s a problem with that either as far as the distance between the different drives that acc ess these points in (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 4 there. The stormwater devices, last week we had a good training session with Warren County Soil and Water Conservation, and I think stormwater devices serve a useful purpose, even though they’re not exactly what we have as far as the Town Code goes at 100 feet. I think 50 feet is adequate. MR. MC CABE-So you’re supporting the project? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in support of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m happier with the 50 feet than I was prior to this, so I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no problem as presented. I think it’s an improvement and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I think Jim said it all. I agree with it. MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, when we consider what’s being asked for here, the road frontage just makes sense. The stormwater devices, the applicant has compromised with this here and I think it’s a good compromise, and the lot width is just a technicality matter. It’s not really a big deal, and the lot size certainly meets the requirement. So I support the project also. So I’m going to ask Ron here for a motion. MRS. MOORE-Prior to your motion, I just want to provide an update. It looks like it’s a typo that’s not there. Lot Four needs the physical road access, and I have road frontage. So as part of your motion please include that Lot Four relief is being granted for physical road frontage. MR. KUHL-Lot Four will have access off of Pickle Hill, not Bay Road? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey & Joanne Mann. (Revised) 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% slop es, 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 lot 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 50 ft. is proposed. Relief is also requested for the 3 ft. vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft. is proposed. Revised is setback to the stormwater management device. Lot Four will have access to Pickle Hil l Road through Lot Three. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 & July 27, 2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 5 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We talked about the 50 feet for the stormwater devices. 2. Feasible alternatives have been reviewed and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as this is a good use of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really we could say is self-created, but it’s only because of the nature of the properties. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2022 JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 27th Day of July 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have one project. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much.