Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_04_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 29, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2924 Peter Kinsman Application of Peter Kinsman requesting a variance to legalize an air conditioning unit on the premises located at 5 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as block 409, Lot 20. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2925 David R.Saabye Application of David R. Saabye requesting a variance to install a central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 20 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as block 222, Lot 374. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2930 Ten Grand Inc.(Music Studio) Application of Ten Grand Inc. (Music Studio of Westchester) requesting a variance to internally illuminate a sign on the premises located at 1328-1330 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as block 410, Lot 463. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2932 Winged Foot Golf Club Application of Winged Foot Golf Course requesting a variance to construct a new two story and one half story employee housing building to replace and be relocated adjacent to existing employee housing building on the premises located at 851 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 347, Lot 1. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2933 Mark Jacoby Application of Mark Jacoby requesting a variance to install a 20KW standby generator on the premises located at 5 Durham Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 203, Lot 315. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2934 Joseph Greco Application of Joseph Greco requesting a variance to construct a two story rear addition and to legalize an existing driveway on the premises located at 81 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as 223, Lot 380. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odernia,Town Board Liaison. Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus, Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. The Applications were taken out of order. The Chairman stated that there are only four(4) members present at this time and that any applicant's would need at least three votes in favor to be approved. Mr. Wexler stated that if any applicant's would like to adjourn the matter they may request to do so. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2933 Mark Jacoby Public hearing continued Mark Jacoby,the applicant, addressed the Board stating he would like to have a generator for emergency purposes. The property configuration makes it difficult to place any equipment because it is a corner lot. The chosen location minimizes the run of the gas line as it would be adjacent to the existing pool heater gas connection. Also the generator would be shielded from view by the current landscaping and the present wood fence enclosure of the pool heater,which will be extended to screen the generator from the street. The Board discussed the location of the generator. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS, Mark Jacoby, requested a variance to install a 20KW standby generator located at 5 Durham Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 203, Lot 315. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 Sections 240-35.(1), and WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the generator as proposed has a front yard of 35 feet where 40 feet is required for a generator an R-20 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board Finds under these that the applicant and the placement of the generator approximately 35 feet from the front property line on Durham Road would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Given the configuration and topography of the property and the size of the property next door and given the fact across the street where there is presently no and probably planned in the future no other residence it will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood or nearby properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board Finds given the location and the placement the existing house which is nonconforming on the property the position of the gas line which comes off Durham Road the configuration of the mature trees in that area that this is probably the most feasible only area to put a standby generator. Which in reality it will only probably run approximately 10-15 minutes a week and will kick when it is really needed at times there is no power. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that in this instance the request of a 35 foot setback to a small almost large suitcase size generator large suit case a trunk is not substantial. It sits about 3 foot high and will be hidden by a fence and is not like a real structure size it is defined as a structure because it is attached to the house by D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds the generator will have no additional light, almost nothing of sound only 10-15 minutes once a week, no appreciable adding of impervious surface E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the request is self-created but not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL 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 as agreed to by the Applicant April 29, 2013. 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 (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 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. Condition the wooden fence that the applicant proposes will be built and kept in place on the Durham Road side. 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.2924 Peter Kinsman Public hearing continued Peter Kinsman the applicant stated he is requesting a variance to legalize an air conditioning unit that was installed in the only place possible. The affected neighbor wrote a letter in response stating that they are in support of the variance. Ms. Brill stated Mr. Carpaneto the Building Inspector measured the distance from the outside edge of the generator to the property line as 36 inches at the Board's request. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Frederick Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS, Peter Kinsman, requested a variance to legalize an existing air conditioner condenser unit located at 5 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 20. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 Sections 240-39-B, 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the air conditioning condenser unit as built has a side yard of 32 inches where 8 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that no adverse effect will be created in the neighborhood one neighbor has forwarded a letter in support of the placement of the unit. In the neighborhood there are other neighbors that do have air conditioning units. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds given the lot dimension and size it is not feasible. This is the location it has to be placed. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds in this case it is no in the particular case we are talking about a small area footprint a very small area foot print therefore the variance is not substantial in size. It is less than 6 square feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds a central air conditioning is utilized at best 4 months out of the year the sound pollution is low. Also given most homes have central air it is a natural sound people hear during the warmer months. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds it is self-created but not determinative in this case. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL 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 as agreed to by the Applicant April 29, 2013. 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 (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 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. 2 CASE NO.2925 David R.Saabye Public Hearing continued David Saabye the applicant addressed the Board stating the proposed position of the air conditioning unit is adjacent to driveway on Carol Place. The position is the closest to the internal unit in the attic. Also the location is a significant distance from nearby houses the closest being 68 feet. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Frederick Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS, David R. Saabye, requested a variance to install a central air conditioning condenser located at 20 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222, Lot374. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 Sections 240-38B(1) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the central air conditioning unit as proposed has a front yard of 11 feet 11 inches where 30 feet is required and further the condenser increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that no undesirable will be produced in the character of the neighborhood as a result of the installation of this air conditioning unit. The unit is compact and will be out of view of the main road which is Rockland and located on a short dead end side street which also places it at the greatest distance possible from any of the neighbors and it will be partially hidden by landscaping. It is also a relatively quiet unit which again is a t the farthest point possible from neighboring residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds based on the small size of the property and the placement of the house on it there is no location where an air conditioning compressor can be installed without a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial the pad on which the unit will sit is 3 feet by 3 feet it is therefore a small request for a variance. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds the variance will not have an adverse impact in the neighborhood most of the neighboring properties have air conditioning units so should not be impacted by this installation. The unit should not create any additional runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds the difficulty is self-created but not determinative in this matter. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL 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 as agreed to by the Applicant April 29, 2013. 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 (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 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.2930 Ten Grand Inc.(Music Studio) Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by . Vladimir Babadzhan and Dominique Riviere the owners of the Music Studio addressed the Board requesting a variance to illuminate the sign over the entrance to the Studio. The Board of Architectural Review(" BAR") approved internal illumination and sent a letter to the Board dated 3/25/2013. The Board discussed the sign. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Frederick Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS,Ten Grand Inc. (Music Studio), requested a variance to internally illuminate an existing wall sign located at 1328-1330 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410, Lot 463. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 Sections 240-45H(8)(c)[4], WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the internally illumination of the sign as proposed is not permitted for signs in a "B" Business Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds there will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood the sign is to face north on Boston Post Road there is no residential area that is affected by this. It is facing an area where CVS and Stop &Shop both have illuminated signs. The sign will not be so large as to be a major eye sore or a major negative impact to the view of people heading south on Boston Post Road. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds they do not have an alternative this type of sign is the most effective for the applicant's to advertise their establishment at night. A non-illuminated sign would not be as effective. Internally illuminated signs require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that to have an illuminated sign which is not permitted but it is not determinative in this case. It is an either or thing there is no degree here an internally illuminated is not permitted but appropriate. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds there will not be an adverse effect on the neighborhood once again there are other internal illuminated signs in the area and it will not add measurably to the amount of overall light in the area. There is no other sound or runoff implications. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds yes it is self-created but not determinative in this case. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL 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 as agreed to by the Applicant April 29, 2013. 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 (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 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.2934 Joseph Greco Joseph Greco "contract vendee"the applicant and the architect Mr. Susa of 288 Harrison Drive, New Hyde Park addressed the Board. Mr. Susa explained the proposed addition,which will maintain the architecture of the existing home. Mr. Susa entered photos into the record of neighboring homes marked Exhibit 1. The existing house is fairly small only 1200 square feet, and the addition is only 395 square feet. Building coverage is at 31%with the existing driveway it is 46.96%. Mr. Greco stated he was willing to restore the rear of the driveway to gravel or permeable paving. Mr. Baron stated he would like to see the calculation of the removal of the pervious surface. Motion:To grant a temporary adjournment Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2932 Winged Foot Golf Club Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mr. Wexler asked if all signs were in place and Mr. Mandelbaum answered yes. Seth Mandelbaum the applicant's attorney addressed the Board stating that the club is asking to increase employee housing from the existing grandfathered 24 units to 30 units and increase of 6 units on their 288 acre site. 10 rooms are permitted under Town code. On March 4, 2013 a Notice of Disapproval was sent stating the 24 units were grandfathered as they were built during original construction. The proposed employee housing is more than 200 feet from the closest neighboring property. Both the Coastal Zone management Commission and the Board of Architectural Review have both given positive recommendations. Tony Panza, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the plan the present buildings are inefficient and the applicant would like to replace the 2 buildings with a new 2 story building with a smaller foot print. They are reducing the mass of the building as per the BAR request. The planting plan was explained. Elevation was discussed. Floor plans were discussed. The only location with a view of the staff housing is from the pool steps. Ms. Hochman stated that the Planning Board is lead agency by default but have not concluded the SEQRA process therefore the Board cannot vote on the requested variance tonight. The use of the rooms was discussed, Mr. Burns the general manage stated that 60%are used year round and 40%are seasonal, mostly used by agricultural students doing internships. Mr. Burns further stated that never in the past 22 years has there been an incident in the housing units. The extra units are a necessity to compete with other clubs. Mr. Baron asked to see justification as to why 30 units are required, and if approved would like a condition in the variance that they are single occupancy only. The matter was adjourned to 5/22/13 Motion: To adjourn the matter to 5/22/2013 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2934 Joseph Greco reconvened Motion:To reopen the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Mr. Susa stated that 546 sq. feet will be converted back to gravel,giving a 8.7%decrease allowing for a total of 38.2% as opposed to the present condition of 46.9%. Mr. Baron stated he has a problem that the property has a lot of rock outcroppings. The Board discussed the impervious and the applicant decided to remove the driveway and therefore would not require a variance for the addition. The matter was withdrawn. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of January 23, 2013. Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion: To approve the minutes of February 27, 2013 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion: To approve the minutes of March 27,2013 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. ADJOURNMENT Motion: The meeting was adjourned Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary