Project Narrative August 23, 2018
Town of Queensbury
Attn: Stephen Traver & Harrison Freer -
u l t
742 Bay Road }mot A y. =
Queensbury, NY 12804
Re: Project Narrative
Didio Addition-2966 State Route 9L
Dear Mr. Traver& Mr. Harrison,
We are contacting 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
Planning and Zoning Boards for the second story addition. Since our appearance at the ZBA, we
have modified the plans per the Board's comments and concerns. The main concerns noted were of
the final roof height and additional square footage of the addition, given that our home is existing
non-conforming for both of these, per the Town's bulk regulations. The following explains the
revisions that have been made to reduce the overall scale, to minimize the necessary variances to
the least extent practicable.
REDUCTIONS IN SCALE
The revised plans have adjusted the proposed addition roof to remain below the existing second
story portion of the home (toward Route 9L). The existing roof height is approximately 38' above
the lowest adjacent grade to the home. The plan originally proposed a gable-end roof to be asphalt
shingle at a slope of 6:12. 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 the proposed addition
roof to be 36' 9" from the lowest grade, thus not increasing the non-conforming height of the
home.
The plans have also been modified to reduce the overall square footage of the addition by
approximately 48 square feet (2'x24', -10%). This was accomplished by moving the southern
exterior wall of the addition to be in line with the wall of the lowest level of the home (on the lake
side). The structural bearing of the existing house below make it very challenging to reduce the
proposed addition from the west or north walls, or any greater than now proposed on the southern
wall.
RUNOFF MANAGEMENT
As the proposed addition is to be constructed over an existing portion of the home, no additional
runoff will be generated from the project, i.e. there is no increase in building footprint proposed.
When we purchased the property in 2002, the slope down to the lake was very steep, and erosion
was evident during heavy storm events. Since we have owned the home, we have continually
implemented efforts to stabilize the slope with a series of short stone retaining walls, and planting
of ground-cover to prevent soil loss and sedimentation of the lake. The existing and proposed roof-
leaders outfall to splash blocks with gravel aprons to prevent any scour of the hillside from roof
runoff.
CONSTRUCTION STAGING
Throughout the construction of the addition, all building materials and equipment will be staged in
our driveway. There is adequate access from the driveway grade to the proposed addition location
via our existing deck stairs. 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 would like to provide the following
narrative.
a. Why the request will not result in an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood
or be a detriment to nearby properties.
• The proposed 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 (3) adjacent residing neighbors. As the parcels along Dunham's Bay vary
in size and slope, the homes are constructed at various elevations, from on the water's
Page 2
edge, to adjacent to Route 9L. The proposed addition will not impart any visual impact
to the neighborhood due to this existing variability.
b. Why the benefit sought cannot be achieved by some other method feasible to the applicant.
• As was discussed at the Board presentations, our parcel is a small, narrow lot. The only
alternative for additional living space would be to expand the existing building footprint.
This would increase our total lot coverage, and thus increase runoff generated from the
property. Also, reconfiguration of the existing home to accommodate the proposed
bedroom arrangement is not feasible due to the "stepped" nature of our existing home,
due to the hillside. The addition as proposed is the only feasible way to establish the
desired consolidated bedrooms.
c. Why the variance is not deemed substantial in nature.
• The variance request in floor area is approximately 25%. This is driven by the existing
area of the roof on-which it is to be constructed, and the structural bearing lines below.
The additional floor area is the smallest practicable given the existing house
configuration.
d. Why the request will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood or district.
• The proposed addition does not increase the lot coverage on the property, therefore no
additional runoff will be generated from the project. No trees or ground vegetation
needs to be removed for the project. The proposed Claris system upgrade to the septic
system in connection with the project will increase the wastewater treatment from our
home and improve the effluent quality in the subsurface absorption. The project will
have a net environmental benefit to the neighborhood.
e. Why the alleged difficulty was not self-created.
• The difficulty could be considered self-created, as the variance requests are not a result
Page 3
of a zoning change since we purchased the home. This was not envisioned as a necessity
when we purchased the home 17 years ago, however the welcoming of grandchildren
has made the existing floor plan difficult to accommodate family. This is not a precedent-
setting variance request, in that we did not purchase the property 1-2 years ago knowing
that we would request this variance relief. The parcel is heavily constrained with a
challenging existing construction to accommodate reconfiguration within the existing
floor area. This is purely out of necessity and hardship for the living space to function as
needed for us and our family.
In closing, we would just like to thank the Boards for their consideration of our Variance and Site
Plan approval requests. We have been year around residents and active members of the
community for nearly two decades along with owning a seasonal family residence since 1952 . We
love our neighborhood, and we consider ourselves good stewards of Lake George. We have raised
our children on these waters, and have worked toward now calling it our home. 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, physical
and environmental welfare of our neighborhood, as demonstrated by the letters of support from
our neighbors. We have incorporated the Boards' comments into the proposed plan to the greatest
extent practicable to minimize the variances requested.
We hope you find this narrative provides some insight into the applications before you, and greatly
appreciate the consideration in the approval of our project. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Joseph and Cythia Didio
CC: Andrew Didio,Taconic Engineering
Page 4