Chase-ZBA letter UPDATE 9321
September 3, 2021 UPDATED in italics
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, New York 12804
Re: Chase Area Variance Application
Property at 3219 State Route 9L, Queensbury NY
Dear ZBA Members:
We have been retained to assist Lonny and Thalia Chase with regard to the site plan review and
related area variance requests for their property at 3219 State Route 9L, Queensbury, New York.
The proposal is to demolish an existing garage and replace it with a new garage. The new garage
will be ‘squared off’ as opposed to the somewhat irregular shape of the current garage. The
garage is shielded from neighboring properties and 9L and we do not believe that it will pose any
site related issues. The garage is also a marked improvement over the current garage structure
that predates the zoning limitations on garages.
At the August Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board noted that the shoreline setback
appeared close given a wetland on neighboring lands. We had a wetlands biologist flag the
wetlands and then had the flags surveyed. They show that the existing garage is 62.5 feet from
the wetlands. The replacement garage would remain the same as there is no way to move the
structure further from the wetlands without impacting the other setbacks and also the presence of
bedrock would require blasting. We do not believe that makes good environmental sense to do
and request that the garage be permitted to be replaced on the same site .
Relief is requested from Sections 179-4-010, Attachment 1 (setback), 179-4-040 (shoreline),
179-5-020(D) for the maximum size of the garage as well as number of garages. There is a
grade level garage under the house on the property, as well as a shed that due to size is
interpreted as a garage. For the side setback, 75 feet is required, 14.2 (no change from existing)
is proposed. For the shoreline setback, 75 feet is required, 62.5 (no change from existing) is
proposed. For the maximum size, the existing garage is 1,596 square feet, and 1,650 is proposed,
and with the garage under the house at grade level as well as the existing shed that is interpreted
as a garage, the other garage to be replaced in this application is now considered the “3 rd” garage.
However, it is noted that an existing outhouse will be demolished and the garage to be replaced
herein, which exceeds the house size limit, is to be in substantially the same location footprint as
the existing garage. Due to the narrow nature of the lot and existing waterbody along the
driveway, centering the garage does not seem to be a reasonable alternative to the construction
on the same site as the current garage.
Turning to the area variance criteria:
Area variances. ZBA weigh the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted vs. the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such
grant.
ZBA must consider (and Applicant must prove):
(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 the area variance;
Answer: We do not believe an undesirable change will be produced nor will there
be a detriment to nearby properties. The area of the garage is well forested with
trees and cover. To the south, the closest residence to the garage is approximately
260 feet according to the Warren County GIS, and to the north, the closest
residence is approximately 180 feet. The current garage is 42’6” x 38’8” and the
proposed garage is 42’8” x 38’8”. The one corner of the existing garage
compared to the proposed garage is to be ‘squared off’ given the materials
package to be ordered for the proposed garage. In addition, the garage is some
255’ from Route 9L and is shaded from view by substantial existing old growth
vegetation which will remain.
In addition, the size of the garage is well shielded from neighboring uses as well.
The garage will be tucked into the current grade with some site amendments for
stormwater mitigation.
As to the answer to this question on 3 garages, we note that the property currently
has 3 garages and this has not, and we believe will not in the future, have any
impact on the neighborhood, nor cause any impact to any neighboring properties.
As to the shoreline, we note that the existing garage is across the driveway 62.5
feet from the wetland and no change is anticipated. We do not see any impact to
the wetland area.
Thus, we do not believe the replacement of the garage will have any impact on the
neighborhood or nearby properties.
(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;
Answer: The setback variance cannot be achieved by any alternative or feasible
method. As you will see from the topography shown on the survey, to the
southeast of the garage is a 10’ plus grade change that limits how far the garage
could be relocated to the southeast. Pulling the garage to the northeast would
result in more vegetation and tree removal than is necessary if we simply replace
the garage in its current location. The east of the property is not conducive to
relocation of the garage and would result in additional variances. As to the size, it
is submitted that in balancing the interests here, reducing the size of the garage
would result in undue hardship to us as we would lose the storage of the existing
garage which is valuable to us for our personal belongings, snowmobiles, etc.
In addition, although the existing garage could be rehabilitated on site as it exists,
the cost benefit analysis, as well as the stormwater related improvements that are
proposed, make the replacement the more feasible option we believe.
(3) whether the requested area variance is substantial;
Answer: On the side setback, in terms of pure figures, a setback of 14’ where 75’
is required could be considered substantial. The shoreline setback of 62.5’ where
75’ is required does not appear to be substantial, particularly given the existing
locations. In addition, the garage size of 1,650 sq. ft. where 1,100 is permitted, a
difference of 550 sq. ft. could be considered substantial. However, we believe
that in the balancing test here, the sizes are not substantial. On the setback, we
note that numerous structures on adjoining properties on the east side of 9L do not
meet the 75 foot side setback, nor could then even if they were ever relocated on
the respective properties. The garage also is comparable to garages on both sides
of 9L within a few properties of our residential property. Lastly, given the
location of the garage well to the rear of our property and away from 9L shielded
by trees reduces the relative size impact of the garage.
3 garages on one parcel might be considered substantial given the limitation of 1,
however, it is noted that the garages are preexisting to the site. Removal of the
garage entirely is not feasible for the owners of the property.
(4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
Answer: We do not believe there is any impact to the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. The current garage does not impact the
environment at all and we do not anticipate any impacts from the new garage. All
stormwater from the current garage is handled on the property and we do not
propose a change of grade that would increase any impacts or runoff. In addition,
the location of the garage requires minimal excavation and will not require
substantial clearing of the wooded area. It is our intent to preserve the look and
feel of the forested area as much as possible. We also note that we have chosen
dark grey color scheme to allow the garage to blend in with the woods, rocks and
setting.
(5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall
be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily
preclude the granting of the area variance.
Answer: We do not believe the alleged difficulty was self-created. The lot was
created and the garages constructed well before the 75’ setback (for both side and
shoreline) or garage limitations were ever adopted. The existing garage has served
the time of its useful life and we have a choice to either reinforce it as is or
replace it with a sturdy structure. On the cost/benefit analysis our clients decided
that it is far more feasible to replace the garage in its current location, but for
squaring off that one side. Though in concept the garage could not be square off
on that northwest corner, the cost to order the package to exclude that small area
would be substantial. Yes, there is benefit to us in having that square footage
inside the garage, on the balance, we believe our request in this regard is
reasonable particularly in the absence of related impacts of that request.
With regard to the submissions pursuant to Section 179-14-030, waivers are respectfully
requested from items B 1-5, inclusive, C 1-6 inclusive, and D 2-8 inclusive as inapplicable to the
proposed garage. We appreciate the ZBA’s consideration of our request and look forward to
meeting concerning this.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.
mfuller@meyerfuller.com