Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_09_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 27, 2006 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Linda Harrington Also Present: Laurence Horvath, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson Melissa Sasso, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Francine Brill, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 PM APPLICATION 1 CASE # 2741-31 Villa Road (adjourned 9/5/06) Martha and Gilbert Herzberg appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Herzberg stated that after the last Zoning Board meeting they reviewed and modified their plans. Mr. Herzberg entered a letter from Arbitrio Construction Corporation in to the record marked exhibit A and also 3 letters from neighbors marked Exhibit B. Mr. Baron stated that he is not in favor of the project and that the area should remain grass or some other pervious material. Ms. Harrington stated that she is not in favor of giving up any green space for a driveway. The Board discussed this application. And its finding revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron No Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington No After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 3-2 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 Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Gilbert Herzberg, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to expand a driveway on the premises located at 31 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 111 Lot 104, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted 240-39B(1); 240-79B); 240-38; and WHEREAS, Gilbert Herzberg. submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. We the Board do not believe that an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting this area variance. The request for widening the driveway will reduce need for the applicant to park their car on the narrow street when removing the front car. This will benefit the neighbors on the block. The widening is limited to only the depth of a car from the property line and not out of character with the block. 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 believes that the applicant can not achieve their goal in any other way. The topography of the property results in a steep driveway and no other area would require a lesser variance. C, Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial the increase of 110 sq. ft. in 7500 sq. ft. is minimal. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The runoff from the drive way will be handled by the drain at the bottom of the drive. There will be no more noise or light as a result of the expansion. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty is not self-created; the house is setback more than is required. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION 2 CASE #2742 SGANGA Fred Grippa (applicant's architect) and Peter Sganga appeared and addressed the Board. The applicant wants to repair roof and add storage for the existing rental house, as the basement of the house is to wet for storage.... The Board discussed this application. After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Mr. Baron, the following resolution was adjourned to October 25, 2006. APPLICATION 3 CASE #2743 LAROUSSI Susan Laroussi appeared and addressed the Board. Mrs. Laroussi stated that she wanted to legalize central air conditioning condensers that were installed on the side of the house. Two letters from neighbors 25 Barnum Road and 7 Barnum requesting the Board grant the variance were read into the record. Photos of the unit were entered into the record as Exhibit A The Board discussed this application. And its finding revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Sami Laroussi, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 19 Barnum Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 759, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted 240-37B(a); 240-69; and WHEREAS, Sami Laroussi. submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board feels that no undesirable change will be made to the neighborhood. The unit is installed at the back of the house, bushes and trees surround the yard partially screening the unit from view. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board sees no reasonable alternative. The only possible place that would not require a variance is the front of the house, but that location would be undesirable to the house and the neighbors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial. While the distance between the air conditioner unit and the property line is unclear it is some where between 21-to 25 feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty is not self-created; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE #2744 ALLEN Rick Yestadt (applicant's attorney) appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Yestadt stated that the applicant wished to add a dormer extension for a child's bedroom. The dormer would be within the existing foot print of the already non conforming house. The Board discussed this application. And its finding revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, James and Patricia Allen, have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to extend an existing dormer on the premises located at 5 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 778, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted 240-39B(2)(a); 240-69; and WHEREAS, James and Patricia Allen submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board feels that no undesirable change will be made to the neighborhood or nearby properties with the extension of the dormer. 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 feels that there is no reasonable alternative that will meet the applicant's needs. The dormer is within the existing foot print of the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial. The area of the extension is in the nonconforming area of the already existing house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The immediate neighbors have no objection to the project. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty is not self-created; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO 5 CASE #2745 SMALLEY Jeff Megan (applicant's attorney) appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Megan stated that this third part of the variance was not required and this was confirmed by the Building Inspector and the Board and there fore removed from the application. The Board and the applicants discussed the placement of the pool and realized if the pool was moved slightly the need for the first variance could also be removed. The applicant decided to move the pool. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Ms. Harrington the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et. seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, David Smalley, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an in ground swimming pool on the premises located at 10 Wildwood Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 507 Lot 90, 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 190-5 (1)(a); and WHEREAS, David Smalley. submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that the proposed location of the swimming pool follows the existing side lines of the house. There are bushes in place granting privacy to both the neighbors and the Smalleys. Only a very small portion of the pool exceeds the side property setbacks and in no way should it be visible from the neighbor's yard. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds the proposed location offers most importantly high visibility from the house. The pool can be seen from most windows in the rear of the house, especially the kitchen and office in order to keep their grandchildren safe. It is also the only area of the backyard where flow from the house makes sense. The other areas of the property are unsuitable due to the layout of their house on their property. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The swimming pool will have no effect on any conditions of the neighborhood. The filter system will be on a closed loop system. Backwashing the filter will not discharge any chemically treated water. The pool itself will not displace any rain or run-off as it is a watertight vessel. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this is not a self created difficulty. This is simply the most logical and suitable location to place a swimming pool. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2746 Cohen Rick Yestadt (applicant's architect) appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Yestadt stated that they previously met with the planning Board and CZMC and were requested to move the driveway away from the waters edge if possible and to make it narrower. As a result they have moved the driveway to the edge of the property and are requesting a variance. A letter from CMCZ was read into the record. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill No Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 4-1 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, Chaim Cohen, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a driveway to access a one family dwelling on the premises located at 23 North Brook Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 214 Lot 545, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-79A; and WHEREAS, Chaim Cohen. submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood, since the house is set back. The only area variance requested is for the driveway. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: There is no alternative solution to access the house, except via the minimum driveway proposed on the site plan. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: While the 0' setback from the property line appears to be substantial in this instance it is due to the existing position of the Sheldrake River in relation to the proposed driveway. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: This is not a self created difficulty. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 247 DUNKIN Liam Winter (applicant's architect) and Ellen Dunkin applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Winter stated that the house is already non-conforming and the extension will be in the existing footprint. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 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, Ellen Dunkin, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to extend a master bath and closet on the premises located at 2 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Lot 479, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to 240-36B(1), and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Ellen Dunkin. submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town Of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that the project has an existing non conforming condition upon which they would like to expand the second floor. The house is not situated parallel to either road at the corner so only the corner of the house is in violation. To lessen the effect of the variance the applicant intends to hip the roof so the massing of the roof is minimized. 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. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial it is only 60 sq. ft. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The house is well situated and has existing landscape elements that will hide the extension. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: This is not a self created difficulty; the applicant's have tried to work with this space for many years. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 8 CASE NO. 2748 LAVAN Mr. Lavan appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Lavan stated that he would like to legalize his 8 foot wood fence that he erected to replace a chain link fence. Peter Gujda and Alison Horvath of 38 Dante addressed the Board. Mr. Gujda stated that in the last two years the Lavan's have built a basketball court and added a pool to their property. The noise that is generated is a nuisance to him and he requested that the Lavan's do something to mitigate it. Mr. Gujda stated that he is favor of the fence as it has reduced the noise by about 50%. Mr. Eugene Laska of 34 Dante appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Laska stated that originally he had no objections to the fence because he was under the impression it was totally legal. Mr. Laska entered 3 photos into the record marked Exhibit A, B, and C. Mr. Laska does not want the fence to continue to his property, he feels it is too overwhelming. John Cauflin of 35 Byron Lane stated that he is pleased with what the Lavan's are doing with the property. Diane Cauflin of 35 Byron Lane stated that neighbors have to live together. Poll Board The Board finds that the multiple heights and materials of the proposed fence is disturbing The Board feels that the 8 foot height is too high and that the fence should be lower with greenery to hide the starkness of the fence, and also to absorb sound. The Board also suggested that the fence should be moved back 5 feet on to the Lavan's property and planting be put in to screen it. The Board discussed the fence and suggested that the Lavan's review their options and come back with a specific proposal. Application adjourned to October 25, 2006 MINUTES The minutes of 7/19/06 and 9/5/06 were approved MEETING ADJOURNED 11:15p.m. Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secetary