Loading...
Project Narrative for September Review August 23, 2019 T-�rgvn of 'E n Attn: Stephen Traver HardSon Freer 1-(DWN OF 742 Bay Road PLANNING OFFICE Queensbui y, NY !2904 Re: Pyuject K'arrative Didlo Add iticn--2966 state Route 9L Rear Mr. Traver i-: Mr. Harrison, We are ccntactinr, you regarding our application for a proposed residential addition to our home, located at 2966 State Route 9L, Queensbury. As you are aware, we have applications before the Pli rnning and Zoning Boards far the second story addition. Since our appearance at the ZBA, we have modified the pions per the Board's comments and concerns. The rain concerns noted were of the final roof height and additional square footage of the addition, given that our borne is existing non-Conforming for both of these, per the Town's bulk regulations. The following i explains the revisions. that have been made to reduce the overa11 scala, to minimi2,e the necessary variances to the least extent precticable, REDLIC11ONS IN SCALE The revised plans have adjusted the proposed addition roof to remain below the existing second story portion of the horne (toward Route 9L)_ The existing roof height is approximately 38' above the lowest adjacent grade to the teem . The plan originally proposed3 a gable-end roof to be asphalt shingle at a slope of 6:1 . This required an increase in the highest point of the roof from that of the existing. The modification now proposes to have a 1:12 EPDM roof, consistent with the existing roof pitch, over which the addition is proposed to be constructed, This allows for tyre proposed addition roof to be b' 9" from the lowest grade, thus not increasing the non-conforming height of the game. The plans have also been modified to reduce the overall square footage of the addition by approximately 49 square feet (2'x24', —10 ). This was accomplished by moving the southern exterior wall of the addition to be in lira with the wall of the lowast level of the home (on the lake side). The structural bearing of the existing house below make it very challenging to reduce The proposed adtli on frarn the writ or T,cah walls, or any greater than now proposed on the southern wall. RUNOFF MANAAGEMEW As the proposed addition is to be conAructed over an existing portion of the home, no additional runoff will be generated frorn the project, i.e. there Es ho increase in building footprint proposed. When we purchased the property in 2002, the slope down to the lake was very steep, arrd erasion was evident during heavy storm events. Since we have owned the home, we have continually implemented efforts to stabilize the slope Mth a series of short stone retaining walls, and planting of ground-cover to prevent soil less and sedimentation of the lake, The existing anti proposed FOOD leaders outfall to splash blocks with gravel aproxis to previEnt any scour of the hillside from roof runofif. CoN RucnON STAamc Throughout the construction of the addition, all building materials and equipment )Ad II be staged ire our driveway. There is adequaw access from the driveway grade to the proposed addition location via our existing deck stain. These stairs will allow for easy access for transferring materials during construction. STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE In an effort to address the standards for variance issuance, we ou;d like to provide the following narrative. a. Why the request will not resuir in an w4estrable change to the chufucter of the neighborhood ar be a aietdment to neaft pro,perfies. a The proposers addition Is In keeping with the architecture, use and character of the neighborhood and nearby properties. The board has been provided letters of support from the three ( ) adjacent residing nefghbors. As the parcels along Dunham's Bay vary in size and slope, the names are constructed at various elevations, from on the water's Page 2 ,'-Ige, to adjacenL to Route Ri.- Thc- proposed addition wlil not Impart any vist;d! !rnpact to the na1ghborh o od due to this axisting vari20ba ky. b. Why the h�mefit sought cannot be achieved by sc me Other inerhod feasible f,D the appikoni. As was discjussad at the Board presentations, our parcel is a small, narrow lot. The only alternative ibr addlitionai I ing space would be w expand the exi-Ring building footprint. This would €nc;ease our total lot coverage, and thus "rricrease runoff generated from the prape€cy. Also, reconfigul ration of the existing home to accommodate the proposed bedroon-L arrangement is not feasible due to the "stepped" mature of our existing home, duke to the 'hillside. The zddition as proposed is the only feasible way to establish the desired consolidated bedrooms. C. Why the variance is aot deewood substantW in nature. o The variance ri cquest in floor area is approximate[y 7-5%. This is driven by the existing area of the roof on-which it is to be constructed, and the structural bearing Tines below. The additional floor area is the smallest practicable given the axisting house configuration- al. Why the request will not have ran adverse e�feci or l poct an the physical or enWiarrmerrtcr# corrdltrons of the rye;ghboah-aad ar district. lb The proposed addition does not increase the lot coverage on the property, therefore no addltional runoff will be generated from the project. No trees or ground vegetation needs to be removed for the projeM The proposed Claris system upgrade to the septic system in connactiori with the protect will increase the wastewater treatment frorn our home and improve the effluent quality In the subsurface absorption. The project will have a nei environrnenta[ ben,-fit to the neigh borhood. e. Why the alleyed difficulty was net self-created. o The diffictilty could be considered self-created, as the variance requests are not a result Page 3 of a 4c)-ni g Change sioce We purchased Ois i orj-te. This was not anvisioned as a rieeessity �ri3er� � purchased -orr,e 17 years ago, howe e'- the welconiIng of gfar,acni16ri rn has made the existing floor plan diff icult to accommodate faTr.ily. This Is trot a precedeat- set MF, variance request, ;n that we did not purchase the projaeiTy 1-2 Years ago =coking that we would requesx this variance relief. ale parcel is heavily constr-Aried with a challenging existing comistruction to accommGdate reconfiguration within the eaistiag floor area. This is purely out of nacessity and hardship for the living space to function as needed for us acid our famia y. In ciosmg, we would just like to thank the Boards for their consideration cd our - Vahan ce and Site Plan approval requests. We have been year around residents and active members of the community ibr nearly two decades along with owning a seasonal family residence since 1952 . We love our neighborhood, and we consider ourselves good stewards of Labe Ceoige. We have raised our chIIdren on these waters, and have worked toward r ow calling it our borne. The protection of the Lake, the surrounding physical environment and the character of our neighborhood is and will always be a priority of ours. We believe that our project is in-keeping with the aesthetic, physlca[ and environmental welfare of our neighborhood, as demonstrated icy the letters of support from our neighbors. We have incorporated the Boards' ccmments into the proposed plan to the greatest extent practicable to rninimize the variances requested. We hope you find this narrative provides Borne insight into the applications before you, and greatly appreciate the cc n sid a ratior� in the approval of our project. Thank you very much. Sincerely, josoph and Cythia Didio CC: Andrew ❑idio,Taconic Engineering Page 4