Loading...
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