Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_01_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 24,2007,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Linda Harrington Ronald Meister Also Present: Laurence Horvath, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Francine Brill, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 PM Arthur Wexler, Chairman thanked Thomas Gunther for his many years of service to the Board as the previous chairman, and welcomed new member Ronald Meister to the Board. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2754 Haas The case was adjourned to the Next meeting February 28, 2007. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2755 Temple Keith Akroyd architects representative appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Akroyd stated that the property owners want to create a new front entry on their home which is already nonconforming. The porch would only encroach into the set back 2 'h feet and increase lot coverage 2.7%. The garage is 29.6 feet from the property line while the addition would be 27.6 feet from same. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Linda Harrington Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review on motion of Mr.Wexler seconded Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert B. Temple, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a new front entry on the premises located at 4 Senate Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 638, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-39B(1) and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Robert B. Temple submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. 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: The Board feels that this project is in keeping with the neighborhood, and will not be a detriment to neighboring properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board sees no reasonable alternative, due to the substandard width of the lot, there is no alternative but to put the entry porch in that location. The lot is 16% smaller than the zoning calls for hence there is no other place to reasonably place the front porch. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial. Technically the variance is for 7.86 feet to the base of the proposed stairs which will be four feet wide. The porch itself protrudes only 2.6 feet into the required front yard, and the increase in lot coverage from 45%to 47.2% is only 2.7%. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The porch will make the relationship of the house as compared to the neighboring houses more uniform with the line of the other homes as they front the street. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty is not self-created; as the property is nonconforming as to the size and width. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2756 Finkleson Michael Csenge (applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge stated that the house is already nonconforming, and the addition will be 12 feet at its widest point. The room planned is a four season room. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Linda Harrington Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review on motion of Mr.Wexler seconded Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Ira Finkleson, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one story addition on the premises located at 60 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 296, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-38B(1), 240-38B(3) and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Ira Finkleson submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. 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: The Board finds that the proposed one-story sunroom addition is in keeping with the existing dwelling and the surrounding residential neighbors. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds the conditions that were created at the time the dwelling was constructed do not conform with the Zoning Regulations of today. Practical difficulties exist where only a very small addition could be designed without an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the proposed sunroom is mainly over an existing concrete/slate patio and creates only minimal additional impervious coverage to the existing site. Therefore the Board finds that the variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds the proposed sunroom addition is in spirit and character with the surrounding neighborhood and will have minimal impact and no adverse effect. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the only self created difficulty may have been in wanting to create a small additional living area for their family. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. 5. The addition shall be well screened and the arborvitaes shall be maintained and replaced as necessary. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2757 Plisson Arthur Wexler recused himself, and Linda Harrington was acting chair for this matter. Larry Gordon (applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Gordon stated that the existing deck is structurally unsound and will have to be repaired or replaced for safety. The existing house is already no conforming, the deck is in the rear of the house and can not be seen from neighboring properties. A letter form Mr. and Mrs. Blockton of 18 Leatherstocking Lane and Mr. and Mrs. DeCicco of 14 Leatherstocking Lane stating they do not disapprove of the plans was read into the record. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Recused Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Linda Harrington Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review on motion of Ms. Harrington seconded Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 4-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Jean Marc Plisson, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two level deck in rear yard of the premises located at 16 Leatherstocking Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 320 Lot 242, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-36B(3) and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Jean Marc Plisson submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. 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: The Board finds that the proposed new deck will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. The deck will be replacing an existing rear yard deck facing the Leatherstocking Trail. The proposed deck is more attractive and compatible with the existing house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that there is no reasonable alternative. In order to provide satisfactory use of the rear yard a variance will be needed because of the lot configuration. The existing deck does not provide access from other rooms, especially the kitchen. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The proposed deck will not be any closer to the rear yard than the existing deck. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds the variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, The deck is in the rear of the house and is not visible to the neighbors. The proposed deck will provide a better fit with the environment and view from the trail The deck while larger than the existing deck should have no impact on the neighbors and would add safety for the residents. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created. The existing rear yard is difficult to use and access from the house, because of the steep slope of the rear property. The configuration of the lot also makes it difficult to add on to the rear without a variance. The existing deck appears to be structurally compromised, and is possibly dangerous and needs to be rebuilt to the present code and safety regulations. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2758 Coady Larry Gordon (applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Gordon stated that the renovations will allow the applicants to increase the usable living space. The existing entrance to the house is on the side not the front and the garage is too small to accommodate a vehicle. Letters from Mr. and Mrs. Boyle of Fernwood Road and Mr. and Mrs. Gibson of 60 Fernwood Road stating that they approve of the plans were read into the record. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Linda Harrington Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review on motion of Mr.Wexler seconded Ms O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Sara and Jim Coady, have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to renovate an existing second story and to add a second story addition and a first floor addition located at 54 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Lot 452, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-37B(2)(a), 240-37 B(2)(b), 240-37F, and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Sara and Jim Coady submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. 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: The Board finds that this proposal will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed renovation will be in character and scale to the existing house and the neighbor's homes. The neighbors who face the side of the house where the addition is planned do not object to the plans. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that there is no reasonable alternative location to create a family room, powder room and mud room beyond converting the existing garage and extending the plane of the existing front door entrance. The existing garage is too small to accommodate a vehicle and is instead used as a storage space for lawn/outdoor maintenance and recreation equipment. This extension is critical to create storage space and a mud room that can accommodate those items currently stored in the garage. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Applicants are requesting a minimal variance of approximately 50 sq. ft. The existing house's side yard is presently non conforming. The proposed addition will extend to the same distance as the existing front-door entrance to the house D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds the variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The variance requested aligns with the existing front-door entrance. F. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created. The side yard main house entrance location and the location of the garage on the side yard have caused the need to add on to the side of the house. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2759 Hilden Paul Benowitz (Applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Benowitz stated that the house is the only non traditional house on the street. Lot coverage would increase from 42% to 44%. The Board is concerned about the increased coverage and suggested that the landing be trimmed down to the size of the stairs to decrease the amount. Mr. Benowitz stated that he would submit new plans reducing lot coverage as per the Board recommendations. Ron Carpaneto the Building Inspector can approve the changes discussed. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Linda Harrington Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review on motion of Mr.Wexler seconded Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Hilden, have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front porch on the premises located at 20 Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 562, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-39B(1), 240-39F; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Hilden submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. 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: The Board finds that this proposal will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The residence is the only"non-traditional" residence facing the street, built at a different time, and of little architectural significance. The Board feels that the porch, and the change of base material from brick to stone will enhance the appearance of the house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that there is no reasonable alternative location. This is a front porch, some of which is beyond the set back line. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Applicants are requesting a minimal variance. The porch is of minimal depth and the applicants are reducing the amount of lot coverage by 32 square feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds the variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, The introduction of the porch since the house is higher than the neighbors will make it fit more gracefully into the community. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 2759 Vivola Diane Neff(Applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Neff stated that the plans are to reconstruct a previously enclosed front porch and repair the 1921 foundation that's in bad shape. A 16 foot addition to the side of the house for a garage and bedrooms above, as the house although it has three bedrooms one is only 7x6. A letter from 8 neighbors were read into the record as Exhibit A The Board stated that the entire property is in the Buffer Zone and will have to go before the Planning Board. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Linda Harrington Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review on motion of Mr.Wexler seconded Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Dean Vivola, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to rebuild an existing enclosed porch and add a garage with master bedroom above on the premises located at 30 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 380, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-39B(1), 240-39B91), 240-39B(2)(a), and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Dean Vivola submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. 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: The Board finds that this proposal will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The rebuilt enclosed front porch based on the 1921 drawings was part of the original structure, and the reconstruction will not change the dimensions. Therefore there will be no change to the neighborhood. The side addition will maintain the front dimensions of the existing house. The house does not project towards the street further than the adjoining properties therefore it will not change the character of the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that there is no reasonable alternative location. It would not be possible to rebuild the enclosed porch without the proposed variance. The proposed addition conforms to the front and rear dimensions of the existing house. If it was designed within the confines of the current zoning code, the addition would have an awkward architectural relationship to the existing house. The additional 4.5feet on the first level will allow for a garage and stairs to the rear yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds the variance is not substantial, that the dimensions of the rebuilt enclosed front porch will not be increased. The side addition increase of 4.5 feet would conform to the front dimension of the existing house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds the variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The rebuilt enclosed front porch will not increase the dimensions. Rebuilding the porch to the current codes and construction standards will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood or environment. The side addition will conform to the architectural qualities and physical dimensions of the existing house without impacting the environmental quality of the area. The Board finds that the plans may require a wetlands permit from the Planning Board as some or all of the applicant's property is located within the wetlands Buffer Zone. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created. The porch was part of the original 1921 plans and was enclosed before the current owners purchased the house. The house like many on the block was built without a garage. The house also was built with only one bathroom, and three bedrooms one of which is 7'5"X7"8. The proposed addition would enable the owners to add another bathroom on the second level and a powder room on the first level and to create more habitable bedrooms F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application 5. If it is determined that the area to be disturbed exceeds 10% of the portion of the wetlands buffer located on the applicant's property, the applicant shall be required to seek and obtain a wetlands permit from the Town's Planning Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 8 CASE NO. 2661 Helen Xialo-Li appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Xialo-Li stated that she would like to build a storage shed for her gardening equipment and bikes. Ms. Xialo-Li feels that the side location is the only place possible on her property. The Board discussed the application and felt that they need more information to make an informed decision and asked Ms. Xailo-Li to supply them with the exact size and model information on the shed and the exact site where the shed will be placed on the property. The Board asked if she would stake out the shed. NEW BUSINESS The Board decided to institute a policy that the applicant's should stake out the area showing the outline of the proposed project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 9:35 Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary