Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_11_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 18,2008,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,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 Nancy Seligson,Liaison Wanda Spevedula,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO.2817 Francis and Joanne DeCabia 19 Cabot Road(adjourned 6/25/08,7/23/08, 9/17/08,10/23/08 and 11/18/08) The Applicant's attorney sent a letter requesting an adjournment as the Town Board is still reviewing their request. The Board adjourned the matter to the next Zoning Board meeting,scheduled for Wednesday January 7,2009. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE NO.2823 Richard and Staci Grodin 214 Hommocks Road (adjourned 9/17/08/ 10/23/08) Glen Ticehurst applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Meister stated that there was a problem with the notification that the sign was not posted properly,the date was listed as October not November 18,2008. Mr.Ticehurst stated that there was a November date placed on the sign November 7,2008 which must have fallen off. Mr. Wexler stated that Town Code gives the Board no leeway the application must be noticed 14 days prior to the meeting date and because it was not in place the application must be adjourned to January 7,2008. APPLICATION NO.4—CASE NO.2826 Ilona Cyruli 9 Bonnie Way (adjourned 10/23/08) Larry Gordon the applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Gordon stated that his client is requesting an addition to improve their living space. Mr. Gordon stated that the house has inadequate ceiling height in the master bedroom(below 6 feet in places). The addition would not increase the foot print of the resisting residence in the rear. The portico would give the applicant's a dry entry into their home. Mr. Gordon letter from neighbors at 7, 8 10 and 14 Bonnie Way stating they have no objections to the plan into the record marked Exhibit A There were no questions or comments from the public. The Board discussed the application,and its findings revealed that there little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by 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 Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ilona Cyruli requesting a variance to construct a front portico and two story rear addition on the premises located at 9 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 507. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 26.16 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B.(1), the two story addition as proposed causes the residence to have a total side yard of 26.68 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b); and further the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a lot in an R-15 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 240-36B.(1) and 240-36B(2)(b);and WHEREAS, Ilona Cyruli 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 no change in the character of the neighborhood is being created. The house will fall in line with the surrounding 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 the applicant cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative, the second floor has 6 foot ceilings and adequate ceiling height can only be achieved by raising the roof. Protection against the elements can only be achieved by the addition of the small entrance portico. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The approval of the variance request is the minimum needed to achieve the goals of the applicant without a negative impact on the neighborhood or neighboring properties. Homes on the right side of the house appear to be as close to the property line. 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 the proposed area variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or district due to the fact it blends with the other houses in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that although the difficulty is technically self-created anything that the applicant could do would require a variance and the inadequate ceiling height as well as the need for protection from the weather is not self created. 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 10/23/08 and 11/18/08 meeting(s)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.3—CASE NO.2825 Mantu and Lopa Gupta 4 Rocky Hollow Drive (adjourned 9/17/08/ 10/23/08) Joe Ceremle of Site Design,applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Ceremle stated that they have resubmitted plans as per the Board request and he will answer any questions that the Board has. Mr. Ceremle stated that they have received an approval from Westchester County regarding the sewer easement that the tennis court will placed over. Mr. Wexler read the letter from Coastal Zone Management Commission into the record,stating that it seems to contradict itself as it states that"Although the CZMC members found the proposed action to be inconsistent with the policy, a majority felt that the proposed action would be an improvement over the existing conditions at the site which are also inconsistent with Policy 44". The Board questioned the use of calcium chloride and its impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Cremele stated that it doesn't have to be used to keep the weeds off the court. Mr. Ryan stated that the Board can have the certification reflect the use of calcium chloride is not allowed. The Board discussed the height of the fence and the impact of the retaining walls,and ways to mitigate the impact. There were no questions or comments from the public. 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: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by 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.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mantu and Lopa Gupta requesting a variance to construct a tennis court on the premises located at 4 Rocky Hollow Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block310, Lot 4. The tennis court as proposed is not located within the rear one third of the property where pursuant to section 240-21-C.(7)(a) a tennis court must be located within the rear one third of the property. The retaining wall as proposed has a maximum height of 6 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-52A. The total height of the fence atop the wall as proposed has a height of 16 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-21(7)(e)for a fence in an R-30 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 240-21C.(7)(a),240-52A;and 240-21(7)(e); and WHEREAS, Mantu and Lopa Gupta 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 applicant went before the CZMC and we have a letter stating even though it is inconsistent with the Town Coastal Management Plan the Tennis court is preferable to the lawn currently in the wetland buffer. The height of the wall at 6 feet is minimal in relation to what we actually see. The only two effected properties are across the brook and there is no indication of any objection. The Board believes the undesirable change will not be to the detriment of 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: Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goal by any other feasible means. It is quite obvious that given the location of the house and the Wetlands in the rear and given the developed portion of the land the only place this tennis court can be positioned is in the position presented to the Board on the drawings. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The wall height of 6 feet from 5 feet of stone retaining wall given the size of the property for a tennis court is not a substantial variance for this particular location. 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 at large. The applicants have indicated that they will enhance the wetlands that are the adjacent area. The Zoning Board notes that environmental effect will be further addresses by the Planning Board in its review of the wetland Permit sought by the Applicant. Nothing in this approval shall be constructed to estop a different finding by the Planning Board as to environmental effects. There will be no lights. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is self created the applicant is putting a tennis court on the property. However this 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. 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 10/23/08, 11/18/08 meeting(s)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. 6. No Lights 7. No music 8. No tents 9. No Chemicals used in the maintenance of the tennis court 10. Follow the noise ordinance 8:OOAM-8:OOPM Monday —Friday, 9:OOAM-6PM Sat, and 10:00AM-5:00 PM Sun 11. Screening be placed across the lower retaining wall and fence 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.2830 Steve Babel 19 Jason Lane (adjourned 10/23/08) Paul Noto applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Noto stated as per the Boards suggestion they have returned with a smaller revised plan,corrected the number mistake on the original plan and reduced the request to 167 square feet. Greg DeAngelis stated that the applicant will excavate to basement level and place the home theater there and move the exercise room from the second floor to the place where the theater was to be originally. A letter and photos from Daniel Pisani 14 South Ridge Road was entered into the record. Mr. Pisani also spoke stating he was very concerned with runoff as his property is at a lower elevation and would like it if the Zoning Board addressed the issue. There were no other questions or comments from the public. 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: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by 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 Mr.Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Steve Babel requesting a variance to construct a two story addition on the premises located at 19 Jason Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block207, Lot 487. The two story addition as proposed has a square footage of 6,521 square feet where 6,276 square feet is required when the lot size is 26,025 square feet pursuant to Section 240-59.1(B)(2)Line 26;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 240-59.1(B)(2)Line 26;and WHEREAS, Steve Babel 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 revised proposed 6,289 square foot addition will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. Given the nature of the land the configuration of the property there is no other place to put the bedroom,storage and living space. 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 acceding to the Boards request to lessen the size of the addition by moving the home theater to the basement level and lessening their previous request has no other reasonable alternative. The appearance of the house will be changed minimally. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial in relation to the FAR allowed given the house has no storage as there is no attic or basement in 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 that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district there will be no additional runoff allowed as a result of the project.. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although self created by the applicant's need to increase storage and living area 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. 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 10/23/08, 11/18/08 meeting(s)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.2831 Robert and Barbara Barber 7 Leafy Lane Robert Barber appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler stated that the application was not adequate as the survey that was in the packets was taped together and the parcel of land in question was not shown clearly. Mr. Barber gave the Board a new full size survey. Mr. Barber explained that the rear of his property is at a completely different elevation and the parcel they wish to re-apportion is at the neighbor's elevation. Meredith and Nick Brauer stated that they are the neighbors wanting the property as it would give them a more natural border. There were no other questions or comments from the public. 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: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by 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 Ms. O'Neill,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert and Barbara Barber requesting a permit to re-apportion a parcel in the R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block126, Lot 485 and 477. The proposed re-apportionment of Parcel 485 and 477 would create a rear yard setback of 5 feet(measured from the attached garage)where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)for a residence in an R-7.5 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 240-38B(3)Line 26;and WHEREAS,Robert and Barbara Barber 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 in the character of the neighborhood. The land being transferred is in a natural state and it is the intention of the purchasers to have it remain in the same condition. There will be no discernable change 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 there is no other way then to approve the application because the land is undeveloped then to approve the request to re-apportion. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial there will be no visible evidence because of the re-apportionment. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions,since there will be no change to the land. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that it is not self created the situation occurred due to the topography of 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 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 11/18/08 meeting(s)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. 7 —CASE NO.2832 Richard and Patricia Patterson 64 Sherwood Drive Richard Patterson appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Patterson stated that his wife's parents have lived in the house since 1941 when they rented one apartment. In 1945 they purchased the house with the belief that it was a legal 2 family. Since that time they have lived in one of the apartments,and rented the other. The house was built in 1924 and has been listed on the tax assessors records as a 2 family since 1939. Mr. Ryan stated that it is not clear whether or not they need to get a variance and suggested an adjournment to research the date of the adoption of the Zoning,and whether or not it is a legal nonconforming use. Mr. Ryan is to research the effective date of the zoning and at what point did that zone become a one family zone. The matter was adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 8 —CASE NO.Warren Goodman and Eve Neuman 96 North Chatsworth Avenue Mike Csenge applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge stated that in 2001 the applicants had applied for a variance for a larger project them they are requesting now and received it. The addition now is only 32 square feet, squaring off the rear left corner of the house enlarging the kitchen area. There were no questions or comments from the public, 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: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by 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 Ms. O'Neill,seconded by Mr.Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Warren Goodman and Eve Neuman requesting a variance to construct a one story addition on the premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block118,Lot 300. The one story addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 feet 10 inches where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 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 240-38B(2)(a)and 240-69;and WHEREAS, Warren Goodman and Eve Neuman 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 proposed kitchen expansion will enhance the home when completed. 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 other way to achieve applicant's goals due to the existing conditions. The house is already nonconforming and there is no other alternative. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial as it is only 32 square feet and will not extend any further into the setback than the rest of the nonconforming house wall. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions it is in spirit and character of the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that it is self created only by the applicants wish to expand the kitchen. 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 11/18/08 meeting(s)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. MINUTES The minutes of October 23,2008 were approved with corrections. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:08pm Francine M.Brill Zoning Board Secretary