Motocross In Stephentown Raises Environmental Concerns

by David Flint
Although Howard Commander’s attorney submitted what he termed was “99 point something percent of our completed application” for a proposed Motocross park in the south end of Town, the Stephentown Zoning Board decided to wait till next month for a 100% complete document. At the meeting on November 3, attorney Francis Roche acknowledged that there may be a couple of loose ends. One is a pending archeological report from the State Historic Preservation Office and the other is a question as to whether the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation will have more to say about wetlands protection.
The second loose end revolves around a letter recently sent to Commander’s engineer, Patrick Prendergast, from DEC Environmental Analyst Nancy Baker. The letter was a response to Prendergast’s withdrawal of his application for a wetlands permit. Prendergast had redrawn the plans, shortening the Motocross track somewhat so as to allow all parking to be outside of the wetland’s 100 foot adjacent area, and therefore not requiring the permit. Roche interpreted the letter as indicating that DEC “seems satisfied with the new plan.” But Lewis Oliver, attorney for concerned neighboring residents, noted that Baker had specified that if any improvements are made to the access road off of Webster Hill Road, a wetlands permit will still be required and she asked for clarification. Oliver argued that a swale that shows on the map between the access road and the VanValkenburgh property constitutes an improvement. Furthermore, Oliver said,  Baker had taken note of the fact that original plans called for more parking than for the currently indicated 371 vehicles, and she warned that any significant future expansion must also be outside of the wetlands and their buffer zone. Oliver did not believe that the 371 vehicles could be fit into the space provided. In addition, he pointed out that Baker said that she was still waiting for some data delineating the wetlands and asked that it be provided soon.
Prendergast responded that no additional improvements are proposed for the access road and therefore, according to Baker’s letter, the permit is not needed. He disagreed that the swale could be considered an improvement but is rather simply a low depressed area for drainage to keep runoff from going on to the neighbor’s property. Beyond that, he said that the wetlands area in that part of the plan is an Army Corps of Engineers wetland that has never been officially adopted by the DEC. The parking area is sufficient, Prendergast said, and can easily accommodate the proposed 371 vehicles. He used a conservative figure of only 130 vehicles per acre, not the standard 150 per acre. As far as DEC still needing wetlands delineation data, Prendergast said that he had provided them with an electronic copy of the map.
Craig Crist, attorney for the Zoning Board, read a list of requirements that an applicant for a use variance must meet to prove “unnecessary hardship:”
1) that the property is incapable of earning a reasonable return on initial investment if used for any of the allowed uses in the district (actual “dollars and cents” proof must be submitted);
2) that the property is being affected by unique or at least highly uncommon circumstances;
3) that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and
4) that the hardship is not self-created.
He asked Roche if he thought their application met these requirements. Roche replied that he believed it does, citing letters and affidavits submitted, including letters from real estate appraisers that say the land “is useless.”
Roche suggested that the almost complete application could now be submitted to the Planning Board for their advisory opinion as called for in the Stephentown Land Use Regulations. The archeological report and anything further from DEC could be added when it arrives. Oliver objected that if the Planning Board is to make an advisory opinion they are entitled to receive a completed application. He contended that there are also other deficiencies in the application having to do with an inadequate noise study, the setback of the access road, insufficient parking area and the fact that Commander has not really submitted documents to prove he would suffer financial hardship in the absence of a zoning variance.
The Board agreed to wait another month for a completed application. It will then be submitted to the Planning Board which will have 20 days to submit a report. A public hearing could then be scheduled for January.