Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_06_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 25,2008,IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Also Present: Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Absent Nancy Seligson, Liaison Stephanie Gualtieri, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Francine M. Brill, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER APPLICATION NO. 2—CASE NO. 2815 Scott Raved (adjourned 5/28/08) Joseph Guglielmo, from Gordon and Yestadt Architects appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Guglielmo stated that they submitted a revised plan June 13, 2008 for the Boards approval. As per the Boards previous request they are removing 95 Square feet of impervious surface by removing side and rear walkways. Changes leave the front yard at 29.04 feet for Stoneyside Drive, and 19.50 feet for Greystone Drive and remove the need for a rear yard setback. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 4-1 Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister No 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.Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron , the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Scott Raved requesting a variance to construct a new family room and a new exterior stair on the premises located at 30 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 212, Lot 440. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 29.04 feet (Stoneyside Drive) where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B.(1), has a front yard of 19.50 feet (Greystone Road) where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1) has a lot coverage of 35.4% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-37F; and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a lot in an R-10 Zone District. 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 Section 240-37B.(1); 240-37F and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Scott Raved 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 enlargement of the existing one story family room on the side of the house would be considered a one story structure small in scale and in keeping with the spirit, size and shape of the other homes in 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 the applicant cannot achieve their goals by any other feasible method given the placement of the existing house as it sits on the site is burden by the fact that has 2 front yards. The existing house is non conforming and any addition would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial, given the size of the house, the lot and the surrounding properties. 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. Any additional runoff will be provided for on site and there will be no additional noise and light. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although self created is outweighed by the needs of the family given the location of the house on the property. 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. 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, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant at the 6/25/2008 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above 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 substantial compliance with the 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. 1 —CASE NO. 2805 Erik and Sheara Graber Continuation of Public Hearing The applicant was not present when case was called. Georgia Vickers of 36 Colonial Avenue appeared and addressed the Board, Ms. Vickers stated that she was against units where they are placed. Mr. Graber the applicant arrived and addressed the Board. Mr. Graber stated that the units have a decibel level of 8.2 and that the units have been in place since 2005 after renovations were completed and were not on the plans submitted. Mr. Graber stated that the grandfathered unit is louder and that the street noise is louder than the present unit. Mr. Meister stated that the main issue is the distance from the property line and a silent unit can be deemed not deserving of a variance. The Board stated that the record show that March 25, 2008 was heard and adjourned; April 30 the applicant requested and adjournment because they were on vacation, May 28 the applicant stated they were not aware of the date and did not have the sign posted and requested an adjournment. The Board discussed the application and there fore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and DENIED 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.Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was DENIED WHEREAS, Eric and Sheara Graber requesting a variance to legalize the installation of a central conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 34 Colonial Ave. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 120, Lot 260. The condensing unit to be legalized has a side yard of 4 feet 1 inch where 8 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39 B.(2)(a)for an air conditioning condenser unit in an R-6 Zone District, 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 Section 240-39B(2)(a); and WHEREAS, Eric and Sheara Graber 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 does not outweigh 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 an air conditioning condenser unit adjacent to another grandfathered unit 4.1 feet from the property line of the adjacent neighbor whose house is at most 8 feet from the unit is a detriment to the neighboring property. 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 applicant can move the unit to a spot on the property without the need for a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is substantial. C. 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 is an adverse impact on the neighborhood or district, because of the increase in noise from the second unit. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is self created the air conditioning unit was put in place in 2005 without permit, (during permitted construction). NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED, 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. 2799 Duane Reade Continuation of public hearing. No one appeared to represent Applicant. The Board discussed the application and the draft certifications were accepted. CERTIFICATION On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded Mr. Meister, the application of Duane Reade and Melron Amusement Corporation to operate a new or used motor vehicle business at the Subject Property (as hereinafter defined)was DENIED upon the following resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 5-0. WHEREAS, Duane Reade submitted an application to the Building Inspector on November 13, 2007, together with plans to operate a "New or Used Motor Vehicle Business" on the premises located at 1265-1275 Boston Post Road, and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Lot 449 (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within a "B" Business District as defined in the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2007 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 the proposed automobile dealership is not permitted in a "B" Business District pursuant to Section 240-30A; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2007 Duane Reade submitted an application for a use variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application (the "Variance"); and WHEREAS, by letter dated January 11, 2008, Melron Amusement Corporation, the landlord of the premises located at the Subject Property, approved and authorized Duane Reade's application for the Variance; and WHEREAS, by letter dated February 26, 2008, Duane Reade notified this Board that it retained new counsel; and WHEREAS, by letter dated March 13, 2008, Duane Reade submitted its 10Q quarterly financial disclosure statement; and WHEREAS, by letter dated March 19, 2008, Gregg Hill, a resident of the Town, submitted a letter in opposition to the Variance and attached over one hundred emails from Town residents opposing the Variance; and WHEREAS, by letter dated April 2, 2008, the applicants requested an interpretation by this Board that the proposed use for the establishment of a car showroom at the site is a permitted retail use in the "B" Business District pursuant to Section 240-30 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, by letter dated April 23, 2008, the applicants addressed questions raised by this Board at the March 25, 2008 public hearing; and WHEREAS, after publication of notice, this matter has appeared on the agenda of the Board on November 28, 2007 (matter adjourned by applicant), January 2, 2008 (hearing and adjournment), February 27, 2008 (matter adjourned by applicant), March 25, 2008 (hearing continued and adjourned), April 30, 2005 (matter stricken from agenda); May 28, 2008 (hearing continued and adjourned), and June 25, 2008 (hearing closed); and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the Subject Property, reviewed the Variance application, reviewed all relevant material submitted in connection therewith, and has heard all persons interested in this Variance application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Town Law, Section 267-b(2)this Board may not grant a use variance unless the applicable zoning regulations have caused an unnecessary hardship; and WHEREAS, Section 267-b(2)(b)of New York State Town Law provides that a finding of unnecessary hardship requires the applicant to demonstrate that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, (1)the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; (2)that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; (3)that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and (4)that the alleged hardship has not been self-created; and WHEREAS, based on the materials submitted by or on behalf of the applicants and other concerned parties, based on the facts adduced in the course of the hearing of this matter, based on inspections of the Subject Property by members of this Board and based on Board members' familiarity with the neighborhood surrounding the Subject Property, the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds for the reasons stated below that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have NOT caused the applicants unnecessary hardship. A. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the Subject Property is not capable of realizing a reasonable return because (i)the owner of the Subject Property, Melron Amusement Corporation, continues to receive rental payments from Duane Reade; (ii) Duane Reade remains a viable corporation despite the closure of its drug store at the Subject Property; (iii) a fully operational bank is located on the Subject Property and is presumed to be providing lease revenues to the owner (in addition to those it is receiving from Duane Reade); and (iv) Duane Reade has rejected possible sub-leases by a Vietnamese restaurant and a liquor store, both of which would be principal permissible uses in the "B" Business District and would pay rent, although possibly at a lower rate than the proposed automobile sales operation. The Board notes that Duane Reade has provided no information suggesting that rental payments to the owner of the Subject Parcel by the bank do not constitute a reasonable return on the owner's investment in the Subject Property as a whole. Further, without acceding that Duane Reade's ability to offset its rent payments to the owner of the site is even relevant to the question of a reasonable return on the Subject Property, the Board notes that Duane Reade has failed to demonstrate that the rent which it might have received from either of the rejected subtenants would not constitute a reasonable return on the Duane Reade portion of same. B. The restriction precluding an automobile dealership applies to all of the properties fronting the Boston Post Road in the neighborhood surrounding the Subject Property. The Applicant has failed to identify any unique characteristic of the Subject Property relative to other properties in the "B" Business District that (i) makes all permissible uses unfeasible and (ii)makes the motor vehicle sales use feasible with respect to this property alone. The presence of a bank on a portion of the Subject Property and Duane Reade's admitted rejection of permissible alternative sub-tenants for the Duane Reade portion of the Subject Property fatally undermine any claim of such a unique circumstance. C. The requested variance, if granted, would be incompatible with the intended character of the neighborhood. The Town Board has specifically not included the sale of new or used motor vehicles as a principal permitted use in the "B" Business District, whereas, in contrast, such use is permitted elsewhere, i.e., in the "SB" Service Business District. In particular, the Applicant has failed to explain how vehicle road testing associated with the proposed motor vehicle sales operation would not exacerbate traffic problems in the area thus negatively impact the character of the neighborhood, which is bounded by schools to the north (Central Elementary School), east (Mamaroneck High School)and southwest (Hommocks Middle School), as well as by residences. D. The alleged hardship to Duane Reade is self-created because the current use restrictions were in place at the time Duane Reade took possession of its demised premises at the Subject Property under a long term lease, to operate a drug store, apparently with no right on the part of Duane Reade to terminate the lease in the event the drug store were to fail or Duane Reade were unable, in that circumstance, to sublease its demised premises to a permitted principal use. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application for a use variance is hereby denied. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Vote: In Favor of denial: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Linda Harrington Ronald Meister CERTIFICATION On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister, the application of Duane Reade (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant")for a zoning interpretation that would allow the operation of a new or used motor vehicle sale business at the Subject Property(as hereinafter defined)was DENIED upon the following resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 5-0. WHEREAS, the Applicant wishes to enter into a sublease at the Subject Property under which, according to a representative of the proposed subtenant, the subtenant would engage in "the sale ... of new or used motor vehicles;" and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the Applicant submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans for a "New or Used Motor Vehicle Business"on a portion of the premises located at 1265-1275 Boston Post Road, and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Lot 449 (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within a "B" Business District as defined in the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2007 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 the proposed automobile dealership is not permitted in a "B" Business District pursuant to Section 240-30A; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2007, the Applicant submitted an application for a use variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, by letter dated January 11, 2008, Melron Amusement Corporation, the landlord of the premises located at the Subject Property, approved and authorized the application of its tenant, Duane Reade. WHEREAS, by letters of the Applicant's attorney, Paul Noto, Esq. to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated April 2, 2008 and April 23, 2008, the Applicant has requested an interpretation that the proposed use for the establishment of a car showroom at the site without service bays and/or a service center, or the storage of new vehicles, is a permitted retail use in the "B" Business District pursuant to Section 240-30 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, in such letters and in oral comments to the Board by the Applicant's attorney and other representatives, the Applicant has attempted to distinguish the proposed use, a car showroom, from an automotive dealership on the ground that the former will not have the negative impacts associated with auto servicing, repairs and storage of new and used cars; and WHEREAS, the "B" District permits stores for the sale of goods at retail (hereinafter "general retail use"); and WHEREAS, the terms "store," "sale," "goods," and "at retail" are not defined in the Zoning Code; WHEREAS, the sale of motor vehicles is not listed as a permitted use in the "B" Business District, in which the Subject Property is located, but is expressly permitted as a principal permitted use in the "SB" Service Business District, which "SB" District also includes stores for the sale of retail goods as a special use; WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance §240-31.A(3) makes no reference to the presence or absence of service bays and/or a service center, or vehicle storage in allowing the sale of new or used motor vehicles as a principal permitted use in the "SB" District; and WHEREAS, all of the additional permitted uses of the "SB" District are listed as special uses in the "B" District (in which the Subject Property is located) except for automobile dealerships; and WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings: 1. The Applicant's proposed subtenant intends to offer new or used motor vehicles for sale at the Subject Property. 2. Car sales are not typically associated with general retail use. To the contrary, car sales are a distinctly classified use under the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the list of permitted uses with respect to the "SB" District, which includes as a principal use: "the sale or hire of new or used motor vehicles." Zoning Ordinance, §240-31.A(3). 3. The presence or absence of service bays, a service center and/or vehicle storage is not determinative of whether a facility would fall within the term "sale of new or used motor vehicles," as such term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. It is the activity of selling motor vehicles that determines whether a use falls within that term. 4. Inasmuch as the sale of motor vehicles is specifically permitted in a different zoning district, i.e., the "SB" District, the absence of such permission with regard to the "B" District, in which the Subject Property is located, is deemed a prohibition of such use in the"B" District. 5. The use proposed by the Applicant, i.e., the sale of new or used motor vehicles, is therefore prohibited at the Subject Property. 6. If a general retail use classification were interpreted to include the sale of automobiles, there would be a redundancy between the principal permitted uses and the special uses in the "SB" District, which conflicts with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance to make clear distinctions between principal and special uses within a given zoning district. 7. An interpretation by this Board to permit a car showroom as a retail use in the "B" District would have impacts beyond the Subject Property requiring evaluation of associated potential environmental impacts. 8. The Applicant's requested interpretation is tantamount to a change in zoning, which is outside the scope of this Board's authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application for a zoning interpretation that would allow the sale or hire of new motor vehicles without service bays and/or a service center or the storage of new automobiles in the "B" Business District is hereby denied. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Vote: In Favor of denial: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Linda Harrington Ronald Meister APPLICATION NO. 4—CASE NO. 2806 Eun Kyung Oh and Michael Oh Continuation of public hearing. Michael Oh appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Oh stated that they lessened the size of the plan as requested by the Board. The board had a problem with the plans as presented but the architect was not there to clarify. The Board requested that the architect appear to answer questions the Board has about the plans and on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Harrington the matter was adjourned to the July 23, meeting. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 2818 Thomas and Christine L. Baker Christine Baker the Applicant appeared and addressed the Board stating that they want to change the garage to living space. The footprint of the house will not be changed, the garage door will remain and the front of the garage will be used for storage of strollers, lawn mowers etc. Ms. Baker stated that the eat in kitchen area is being used as a play room at present, and the garage is to narrow to be used to park a car. The Board stated that the Town Code requires each house to have 2 parking spaces, and Section 240-79 B states no vehicle storage longer than overnight shall be developed within 25 feet of the front lot. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Meister the Board voted to Close the Public Hearing. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Meister, 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. Meister, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: by a vote of 5-0. WHEREAS, Thomas A. McGrath and Christine L. Baker have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to finish part of the existing garage and construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 14 28 Copley Road and known on the tax assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 80. The proposed conversion of the existing garage to storage and living space has a side yard of 5.7 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B. (2()(a). the existing drive way cannot legally accommodate parking a second vehicle within the required parking setbacks pursuant to Section 240-79 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District; 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 Section 240-39B(2)(a); and Section 240-79B and WHEREAS, Thomas A. McGrath III and Christine L. Baker 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 there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood there will be no change in the foot print of the house, or in the appearance the front of the garage will maintain the garage style door. 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 applicant cannot achieve their goals by any other feasible method the garage space is substandard and. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial the addition is the less than any other construction of additional space elsewhere on the lot. 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, there will be no additional noise or runoff, as required by Town Code all additional runoff will be contained on the premises. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although self created there will no change in the footprint of the house and the impact will be minimal to nonexistent given the garage is insufficient to use as a garage. 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. 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, THERFORE, 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, 6/25/08 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above 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. APPLICATION NO. 6 Case NO. 2817 Francis and Joann DeCabia Paul Bergins the Applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Bergins stated that 19 Cabot Road is between the sound barrier of the thruway and the Town parking lot abutting the17 Cabot Rd. which is also owned by the DeCabias. Mrs. DeCabia stated that the 2 lots have not been merged. William Lacknower of Hudson Engineering appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Lacknower stated that Cabot Road itself does not flood but the DeCabia's property is lower and water remains on the property causing considerable damage to the owner's home. The DeCabia's, want to raise the elevation of their home to 42 requiring the foundation to be replaced. Three photos of the flooded area were entered into the record marked Exhibit 1-2-3. Carol Aloise of 21 Myrtle Blvd. stated that she has lived in the area for 30 years and owns 10 Cabot Road and understands the plight of the DeCabia's as they and 15 Cabot Road are the only houses that flood. The Board discussed the application and requested that the Applicant try to come up with different solutions to the problem. On motion duly made the matter was adjourned to July 23, 2008. MINUTES The Minutes of March were not discussed. The Minutes of April were not discussed. On motion duly made the Minutes of May 28, 2008 were Approved with corrections. NEW BUSINESS Town Code Referral from Bill Maker regarding a proposed amendment to the zoning code was discussed. ADJOURNMENT On motion duly made the meeting was adjourned. Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary