Loading...
Minutes 9.22.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 1 OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LESTER H. CHASE III AGENT(S) MEYER, FULLER & STOCKWELL ZONING SPLIT (RR-5A & LC-10A) LOCATION 3219 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AS A REPLACEMENT GARAGE OF 1,596 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,582 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 378 SQ. FT. SHED (NO CHANGES). SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, FRESHWATER WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. CROSS REF SP 49-2021; PZ 130- 2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-17 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2021, Lester H. Chase III, Meeting Date: September 22, 2021 “Project Location: 3219 State Route 9L, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. home with a 378 sq. ft. shed (no changes). Site plan for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, freshwater wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the construction of a new garage that requires relief for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages in the Rural Residential zone, RR5A. The parcel is 2.08 acres. Section 179-4-030 dimensional, Sectional 179-5-020- garage The proposed garage is to be 14.2 ft. from the property line where 75 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for the size of the garage of 1,650 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 1,100 sq. ft. for lots less than 5 ac. The number of garages allowed on site is one, proposed is three garages – two existing. The garage is to be located 68 ft. from the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. 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. 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. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of garages, reducing the size of the garage and locating the garage further from the property line. The parcel is 2.08 ac and all of the buildings existed at one time, although the size is slightly larger. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for more than one garage, setback of 60.8 ft., and garage size of 550 sq. ft. in excess. 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 to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. garage to replace a previous garage with this garage being slightly larger. The plans show the location of the garage and the type of garage proposed. There are no changes to the site; the proposed garage is located in the same area as the original.” MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell. I’m here with Lonnie Chase, the applicant. As the application description stated, what we’re doing, what we’re proposing to do, is replace a garage that is out behind the house. We were originally on for last month before the Planning Board for a recommendation. One of the Planning Board members actually asked a question about the distance to the wetland that is three properties to the south. It’s nothing that caught our radar or Staff’s radar. I went up the next day and measured it. The 75 foot setback is closed. So we (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 2 had EDP come in, flag the wetlands and we had Kristin Darrah go back out and survey the wetlands and put flags around, and it came out to 62 and a half feet. So obviously, given the replacement, that’s a non - conforming, prior non-conforming use. So we had to ask for that relief as well. As you’ll note the property, if you guys went out there and did a site visit, there’s a garage that is part of the house. There’s a shed that is not far from the house, and again to the south a little bit, that because of the front door that’s on it renders it a garage. We end up with three garages under the statute, one is a storage shed for snowmobiles and things like that. So if you did see the garage out back, you’ll note that it is beyond it’s useful life, and likely it’s ability to rehabilitate it. The cinderblock is starting to crumble and so the proposa l is to square it off, remove the small outhouse that’s out back. In terms of the area variance test of trying to lessen the relief requested and things like that, you’ll probably note right to the back of the garage there, it slopes up a bit and there is some bedrock right there with trees on it. So in terms of excavating and things like that, it does not make a lot of sense to us to pull the garage back further away from the property. That would get closer to the property to the east. There is a letter of support in the materials from the neighbor to the east there. So again, just, in the whole balancing test that we’ve got to deal with with the criteria, it is a prior existing non-conforming use in terms of what your interpretation of a garage is, setbacks, the area, square footage. The square footage discussion is really to square it off. You’ll see on the one corner there’s a seven and a half foot kind of square. If you were out there, again, you can kind of see it. So in terms of just ordering the package for the replacement garage, it’s easier if you order those in standard dimensions. So the idea is to square the garage off, replace it in site, add some stormwater improvements to manage the stormwater out back there. It is shielded quite a bit even from the front. You can’t really see it from 9L. It’s shielded vegetation wise to the south and obviously on the southeast for sure and to the north and the west. We don’t think it has any impact on the neighbors, not really. It’s an idea just to preserve the value. Obviously having a garage like that is better. We don’t think that it has any impact at all. We did go to the Planning Board last night. I think they reported a favorable recommendation and we discussed all this. Obviously we’ll be back, depending on what happens here. Hopefully we’ll have a favorable meeting tonight and we’ll be back to the Planning Board for the Site Plan. I’ll obviously take questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. Did I miss something in the packet? Was there an easement granted at one time for these, the driveway? Because the driveway doesn’t go to, there’s no driveway. MR. FULLER-That’s a good question. So, yes, the property right next door, Diane, that’s Thalia’s mom, so it was the parents that owned the property before where the house is and the garage is. So, yes, there is access across that lot to the back here and Diane lives across the street on the lakeside just further down 9L. LONNIE CHASE MR. CHASE-And we have a deeded right of way. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that’s in the title if you ever sold that property, the garages wouldn’t be stranded. MR. CHASE-Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes, good question. MR. KUHL-What’s the use of the garage? MR. CHASE-Right now it’s really just full of small stuff I’ve got to get rid of and my father -in-law had equipment back there that I’d like to get under cover and try to save it a little bit. MR. KUHL-Just electric going in there. No water? MR. CHASE-Correct. Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. CHASE-It has electric right now which I’d probably maintain. I don’t know. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? All right. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? I don’t see anybody out there. Roy, do you have any letters? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, and I also have, the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify an y significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 3 passed seven to zero, September 21st, 2021. Letters. “Dear Mr. Brown: Our property borders the Chase property. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation. The project will be visible from our property. It is my understanding that a variance(s) is required for this project. We support the project as the building is an existing building. Our concern with any project is related to lighting and minimal tree removal. Based on the plans and our discussion with the Chase’s we support the variance(s) requested by Mr. and Mrs. Chase. Thank you, Scott C. Johnson 3213 State Route 9L Lake George, NY 12845” And “Our property is directly across State Route 9L from the Chase’s. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation. The project is not visible from the road or our property. It is our understanding that a variance needs to be requested and we wanted to go on record saying we support the variance(s) requested by Mr. and Mrs. Chase to accomplish this renovation. Thank you for your time and service. Daniel Grasmeder and Kathy Grasmeder 3222 State Route 9L Lake George, NY 12845” That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-At this time I’ll start with you, Brady. MR. STARK-I don’t have any questions or anything, but the project does seem pretty straightforward, and with the unanimous recommendation from the Planning Board, I’m in favor of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I will be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-I have a little bit of a problem with it. That’s a lot of garage between that, the house, the garage shed whatever you want to call that. That’s 376 square feet. I would say that’s a lot of garage for the space. I would like to see it a little bit smaller. So I’m struggling with it a little bit. So I’m going to have to say no as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think that the two acre lot supports it. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, am in favor of the project. I think it’s a replacement and I don’t see any grand change that’s going to happen in the neighborhood. It would be an improvement to your property. So anybody want to make the motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lester H. Chase III. Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. home with a 378 sq. ft. shed (no changes). Site plan for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, freshwater wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the construction of a new garage that requires relief for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages in the Rural Residential zone, RR5A. The parcel is 2.08 acres. Section 179-4-030 dimensional, Sectional 179-5-020- garage The proposed garage is to be 14.2 ft. from the property line where 75 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for the size of the garage of 1,650 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 1,100 sq. ft. for lots less than 5 ac. The number of garages allowed on site is one, proposed is three garages – two existing. The garage is to be located 68 ft. from the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 2021 and Wednesday, September 22, 2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 4 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: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered, perhaps making the garage a bit smaller, but we feel that this is a reasonable and minimal request. 3. The requested variance is substantial in that we’re asking for three garages on one site. However, all the factors have borne out here. 4. There is not necessarily an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 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. 54-2021 LESTER H. CHASE III, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. CHASE-Thank you.