Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_09_10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Linda Harrington Ronald Meister Bob Viner, alternate Also Present: Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Absent: Nancy Seligson, Liaison Francine M. Brill, Recording Secretary Stenographer: Ashley Negulic CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 1 —CASE NO. 2817 Francis and Joanne DeCabia (adjourned 6/25/08, 7/23/08, 9/17/08, 10/23/08, 11/18/08, 1/7/09, 1/28/09, 3/24/09, 4/22/09, 5/27/09, 6/30/09 and 7/30/09) Paul Bergins, applicants'lawyer, appeared and addressed the Board. The Chair asked for clarification about the operation of the Town Code section 240-70A. The Chair also asked for clarification about the language concerning the Town's stormwater system partially causing the drainage problems at the subject property. Mr. Baron then made a motion, seconded by Ms. O'Neill and the following resolution was ADOPTED by a vote of three in favor and two against. WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application to the Building Inspector on April 2, 2008, together with plans to construct a single-family home on the premises located at 19 Cabot Road and Municipal Parking Lot #1 and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125, Lot 465.2 (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within an R-6 District as defined in the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance; and 1 WHEREAS, on May 9, 2008 the Building Inspector issued a denial of Applicant's permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance because (i) the lot as presented has a lot width and street line frontage of 50.24 feet where 60 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39A(2); (ii) the proposed one-family dwelling and driveway have a lot coverage of 36.5% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; (iii) the proposed driveway has a 0 foot set back from the side yard lot line where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-79B; (iv) the driveway does not have the sufficient depth to park vehicles more than 25 feet from the front property line, also pursuant to Section 240-79B; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2008 the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for area variances; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2009 the Building Inspector issued another disapproval on the grounds that the plans submitted fail to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance because the parcel in question is an undersized lot pursuant to Section 240-39.A(1) and, according to Section 240-70A of the Zoning Code, in order for a building permit to be issued for the development of an undersized lot, it must have been in single and separate ownership status at the time of the adoption of Chapter 240 or any amendment thereto, and the parcel in question was not held in single or separate ownership on such date; and WHEREAS, after publication of notice, this Board has held public hearings for the application on the following dates: June 25, 2008, May 27, 2009, June 30, 2009, July 22, 2009, September 10, 2009; and WHEREAS, because the Applicant has modified its plans so that the proposed house will cover 32% of the lot; the variance from Section 240-39F for lot coverage is no longer requested; and WHEREAS, in an effort to reduce runoff, the Applicant has modified its plans so that the proposed driveway will be constructed of gravel rather than concrete or asphalt; and WHEREAS, the proposed driveway shall be coterminous with the existing driveway at 19 Cabot Road and will require an easement from the owner of the property located at 19 Cabot Road; and WHEREAS, a portion of the front yard lot line of the Subject Property is obstructed by an existing guardrail; and WHEREAS, a separate driveway is not possible because the Town has refused to grant the Applicant's request to remove the existing guardrail; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has presented evidence that the Subject Property has had a history of flooding problems due to its low elevation relative to surrounding land; and WHEREAS, the Applicant owns a tax lot which is improved with a single-family house adjacent to the Subject Property, having an address of 19 Cabot Road (the "Adjacent Parcel"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has presented evidence that the Adjacent Parcel also has had a history of flooding problems due to its low elevation relative to the surrounding land; 2 WHEREAS, runoff from Cabot road drains into two 48-inch storm water pipes at the base of Cabot Road that run under I-95; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's engineer testified that the runoff that would be generated by construction of the proposed house can be accommodated by existing offsite infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's engineer proposed to address flooding and drainage issues on the Subject Property and the Adjacent Parcel, by raising the yard elevations of both lots to greater than historic flood levels and constructing drainage swales on the Subject Property (the "Proposed Drainage Improvements"); and WHEREAS, Chapter 240, Section 70.A provides, in pertinent part, that a permit may be issued for any lot existing in single separate ownership as of the date of the adoption of this chapter or any amendment thereto; and WHEREAS, the Adjacent Parcel and the Subject Property came into common ownership on or about July 15, 2005; and WHEREAS, Chapter 240 was amended on June 21, 2006 and other dates subsequent to the date that the Subject Property and the Adjacent Parcel came into common ownership; and WHEREAS, Section 240-89.D(4)(b) provides that on "appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination of the [building inspector] ... regarding the application of this chapter, the Board of Appeals may grant to an applicant an area variance from the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions"; and WHEREAS, the New York Town Law Section 267-1(b) defines "area variance" as "the authorization by the zoning board of appeals or the use of land in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements of the applicable zoning regulations"; and WHEREAS, Section 240-89.D(3) provides that "area variance" shall have the same meaning as it has in New York Town Law Section 267-1(b); 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 with respect to the following variances, as identified and described above (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Variances"): (i) To vary the lot width requirements of Section 240-39A(2) to allow a lot width and street frontage of 50.24 feet where 60 feet is required; (ii) To vary the requirements of Section 240-79B to allow the proposed driveway to have a 0 foot set back from the side yard lot line where 5 feet is required; 3 (iii) To vary the requirements of Section 240-79B to allow the proposed driveway to have less than the sufficient depth to park vehicles more than 25 feet from the front property line; (iv) To vary the requirements of Section 240-39.A(1) to allow lot area of 5,200 square feet where 6,000 square feet is required; and (v) To vary the prohibition stated in Section 240-70A against issuing a permit to erect a building on an undersized lot that is not in single and separate ownership as of the date of the adoption of Chapter 240 or any amendment thereto. 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the Applicant from the granting of the Variances outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. 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 development of a single-family house on the Subject Property is consistent with the neighborhood character of Cabot Road, which contains several other similarly sized homes on non- conforming lots. The Board also finds that because Cabot Road is a relatively small road and not a through street, the proposed construction will not create any traffic or circulation problems. As such, the Board finds that the Variances will not result in an undesirable change to nearby 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 finds that due to physical constraints in the location of the Subject Property and because of the Town's guardrail adjacent to the Subject Property, any single-family home constructed on the Subject Property would require a driveway with a zero side yard setback. In addition, the Board notes that the Applicant reduced the size of the proposed house to eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. Due to the configuration of the lot, the requested variances for lot area, lot width and street frontage are necessary to allow the construction of any single-family home on the Subject Property. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the Variances are not substantial because the proposed house is similar to other houses in the neighborhood and the requested deviations in lot area, lot width and street frontage are not substantial from an absolute or percentage perspective. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: 4 The Board finds that the existing drainage infrastructure combined with Applicant's proposed drainage plan is sufficient to absorb any increase in runoff generated by the proposed construction. Further, the Applicant's proposal to reduce lot coverage from that originally requested, as well as the proposal to construct a gravel driveway will mitigate runoff. In addition, the Board also finds that because Cabot Road is a relatively small road and not a through street, the proposed construction will not create any significant traffic or circulation problems. As such, the Board finds that the application will not result in an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. In addition, according to testimony of the Applicant, construction of the new home will finance improvements to mitigate severe drainage problems affecting the Subject Property as well as the Adjacent Parcel, which is developed with a single-family home. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that although the difficulty relating to the dimensional aspects is self-created, this factor is not determinative. Furthermore, the drainage difficulties affecting the Subject Property as well as the built house on the Adjacent Parcel appear to have been created in part by the Town's storm sewer system upstream of the Subject Property. The drainage solution proposed by the Applicant is a costly and effective mitigation proposal that will not involve taxpayer dollars. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of these Variances 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. 3. For the reasons stated above, these Variances are 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. NOW, THERFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the Variances be and the same are GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant at the September 10, 2009 meeting of the Board. a. The system for handling increased runoff from the 1,692 square feet of impervious surface must be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm. 2. The Adjacent Parcel (i.e., the property located at 19 Cabot Road) shall grant an easement to the Subject Property, in a form acceptable to counsel to this Board, for development and use of a proposed driveway that shall be coterminous with the existing driveway at the Adjacent Parcel. 5 3. The Applicant shall submit plans, including stormwater plans for both the Subject Property and the Adjacent Parcel, reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building and/or the Town Engineer prior to the granting of the building permit. a. No Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until the Proposed Drainage Improvements are completed, or, at the discretion of the Director of Building of the Town of Mamaroneck, a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for the new building on the Subject Property, provided that a bond in an amount to be determined by the Director of Building is provided to the Town of Mamaroneck to ensure the completion of the Proposed Drainage Improvements. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one (1) year of the filing of this Resolution, provided that, at the discretion of the Director of Building, this time period may be extended to the extent permitted by law. 5. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one (1) year and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit, provided that, at the discretion of the Director of Building, this time period may be extended to the extent permitted by law. 6. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. Vote: In Favor: (NAMES) Arthur Wexler Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Against: (NAMES) Linda Harrington Ronald Meister APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2847 Sara Siegel Will Siegel, the applicant, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Carpaneto, the Inspector of Buildings, about the site visit that was conducted to examine the pitch of the patio. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the patio was pitched in the direction of the applicant's lawn where the runoff would be contained by three 175-gallon drywells. 6 The Board discussed the application. There were no comments from the public. After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5- 0. WHEREAS, Sara Siegel requested a variance to legalize an existing rear yard patio on the property located at 52 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 412 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property, as developed with the patio, has a rear yard of 3.8 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-50; and WHEREAS, the Property, as developed with the patio, has a lot coverage of 37% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F; and WHEREAS, the patio increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to approve an Application For Addition And Alteration To Existing Building on the grounds that the plans submitted fail to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-50 and 240-37F; and WHEREAS, Sara Siegel 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 from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. 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 patio is in the rear of the house is desirable and provides a suitable backyard for the applicants and is not out of character with 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: 7 The Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goal by any other method, because of the configuration of the house and property. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the patio is not substantial and is adequately shielded by shrubbery. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district because there will be no additional noise as a result of the patio and the three 175 gallon dry wells will adequately take care of the additional runoff. In addition, the Board noted that the patio is screened by shrubbery. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that although the difficulty is self-created, it is not determinative. 4. For the reasons stated above, 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. 5. For the reasons stated above, 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. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the applicant at the July 22, 2009 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. 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. 8 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 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. 2848 METRO PCS NEW YORK, LLC The applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 2849 JAMES SCHWARTZ AND SUSAN COHEN The applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2850 ANDREW AND ALISA BAUER The applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2851 MR. AND MRS. JAMES OLLSEN Amy Csenge, of MSC Group Architects, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Baron questioned why the application mentioned of the use of the garage as habitable space. Ms. Csenge stated that the application before the Board only concerns the portico. The Board discussed the application and Mr. Wexler suggested that Ms. Csenge call the architect to clarify the garage issue and the matter was briefly adjourned. The hearing in the matter was continued when the Ms. Csenge returned from conferring with the architect. Amy Csenge confirmed that the garage conversion was not part of the application, and that only the application for the portico was before the Board. The project is an open air covered portico, over an existing 21 square-foot landing and the proposed portico would be further from the front property line than those of the adjacent houses. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions from the public. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill , seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was ADOPTED unanimously, 5- 0. 9 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. James 011sen requested a variance to construct a front portico on the premises located at 661 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 155 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property, as developed with the front portico would have a front yard of 27 feet 8 inches feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B.(1); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted fails to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B.(1); and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. James 011sen 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, this makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. 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 granting of the variance will enhance the look of the property, as many other homes in the area have porticos and covered entry ways. It will provide a haven from the elements. 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 the applicants cannot achieve their goal by any other method because a variance is necessary to put a portico on the existing foundation. Therefore the applicants have no alternative other than to request this minimal variance C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is insubstantial because the encroachment into the front yard would be only two feet and four inches. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: io The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district because there will be no additional runoff, as there is already an impervious landing. In addition, the portico will enhance the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood because it will break up the flatness of the front of the home, and it will be in keeping with other homes on the street. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created because the applicant purchased the house as it is and because the front yard requirement existed when they purchased the home. However, this factor is not dispositive and is outweighed in this case by the considerations cited above. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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. 6. For the reasons stated above, 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. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant at the September 10, 2009 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. 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. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. 11 APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 2852 Alice U. Fonte (Exec. For Estate : Phil Hartnet) Mike McCann, applicant's architect, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. McCann stated that they want to legalize an existing sunroom that was built over a patio many years ago. Mr. Wexler asked if the house is conforming at 40 feet from the rear property line. Mr. McCann stated that the house itself is 40 feet from the rear property line, but the sunroom encroaches into the required rear yard.. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions from the public. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill , seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was ADOPTED unanimously, 5- 0. WHEREAS, Alice U. Fonte (Exec. For Estate : Phil Hartnet) requested a variance to legalize an existing glass and aluminum sunroom on the premises located at 6 Prince Willow Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 1546 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property, as developed with the sunroom, has a rear yard of 29.9 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B.(3); and WHEREAS, the sunroom increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to an Application For Addition And Alterations To Exisitng Building on the grounds that the plans submitted fail to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-35B.(3) and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Alice U. Fonte (Exec. For Estate : Phil Hartnet) 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: 12 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. 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 granting of the variance will not produce any change in the character of the neighborhood because the structure currently exists and has existed in this location for a number of decades. Due to its preexisting condition, the floor area of the structure will not change nor will the impact of the structure on the neighborhood. Due to the fact that this is an existing structure sitting on top of an existing masonry terrace it will not affect the impervious surface on the property and runoff. A. 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 the applicant cannot achieve their goal by any other method, given that this is an existing structure. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the Property, as developed with the sunroom, has a rear yard of 29.9 feet where 40 feet is required. while it might be considered substantial The fact that this is an existing structure in the rear yard and not visible to the neighbors nearby supports the conclusion that this is not asubstantial request. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district because there will be no additional noise or runoff as a since this an existing structure. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty appears to be self-created, due to the fact it that it was constructed in the past without benefit of an area variance. However, this factor is not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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. 13 3. For the reasons stated above, 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. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the applicant at the September 10, 2009 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of t his Resolution. 4. 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. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Minutes On motion of Frederick Baron, seconded by Ronald Meister the minutes of June 30, 2009 and July 22, 2009 were APPROVED subject to technical corrections by counsel. June 30, 2009 5-0, July 22, 2009 4-0 Linda Harrington was not present therefore abstained The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 Minutes prepared by Francine M Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 14