Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_05_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 26, 2010 IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50p.m. lotm Roll Call. Present: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector(Not voting), Lissa Hochman, Counsel (Not voting), David Fishman, Liaison (Not voting). Absent/Excused: Robert Viner. lotm Application 1 Case No. 2860 Jeff Rosenzweig (adjourned 3/24/2010) 150 East Garden Road Mr. Wexler stated that the matter could not be heard as the applicant did not comply with the notification requirements and post the sign for a public hearing. Mr. Rosensweig, 150 East Garden Road the applicant addressed the Board stating that he was before the Board 2 month's ago for the gravel drive in his front yard. He further stated that he understood he was to wait for the Town to tell him what to do next. He stated that he was quite surprised that he received a violation to appear in court. The judge asked for a bond and requested the minutes of the Zoning Board hearing for his next court date which is June 1, 2010. Mr. Wexler stated it is the applicant's responsibility to get stenographers minutes. Mr. Rosensweig stated the issue is what happened the night of the ZBA hearing and did non action mean non compliance. Mr. Fishman stated that it was his impression that the applicant was to wait for the parking law to change and will put extra pressure to town attorney. Ms. Hochman stated that it would have to be referred back to the Planning Board again as the original language was problematic. Mr. Meister stated that he had invited the applicant to seek an adjournment thinking the change in the law was eminent. Mr. Wexler stated that there can be no overnight parking and the applicant should look at an alternative without the need for a variance. This will show that the applicant has made an effort. The matter is adjourned to June 23, 2010. Application No 2 Case No. 2862 Scott Speilberger (adjourned 4/28/2010)42 HillsideRd. Scott Speilberger, the applicant, Michael Carlo. Rui Pedrosa, and Matthew Carlo of Inivative Air Solutions addressed the Board. Mr. Pedrosa stated that to Board had asked them to find a solution to keep the sound level In the relm of 60 dba's Mr. Carlo stated that they purchased a meter to check the sound levels of the unit from various locations on the property and the adjoining neighbor's house. The Board discussed the levels directly on top of the unit the level was 75,7 but at the side the sound blanket reduced the levels to 60-64 The applicant entered Exhibit 1 letter from neighbor, Exhibit 2 the sound levels at various locations, Exhibit 3 the sound blanket specs, Exhibit 4 Photos were entered into the record. The board discussed the location and alternant possible locations. Mr. Wexler state the applicant has reached the goal requested regarding the dba's. Mr. Wexler advised the applicant that the Board has only 4 members and a passing vote of 3 is necessary for approval. Mr. Speilberger requested an adjournment The matter is adjourned to June 23, 2010. Vi Application No. 3 Case No. 2863 John Fallon and Rebecca Mott 45 Harmon Dr. IVa Motion: To open the Public Hearing Action: Approved, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: 4-0). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister Absent : Robert Viner James Weakley of 12 Main Street Brewster New York applicant's contractor addressed the Board. Mr. Weakley stated that the applicants want the fence to prevent their children from falling off the wall. The fence will replace the bushes that are higher than the proposed fence, in fact they are installing the shortest fence that exists. The Board discussed the fence placement, height, and material as well as whether the bush's should be in front of or behind the fence. Mr. Wexler stated that the bushes may be a condition placed upon the approval. Mr. Baron stated that the applicant can place the fence four feet in from the retaining wall and not need a variance. Mr. Wexler explained that one Board member is not present and the applicant would need 3 positive votes to be approved or they have the option to request an adjournment. Mr. Weakley requested an adjournment to confer with the applicant. ovm Motion: To adjourn the matter to June 23, 2010 Action: Adjourn, Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: 4-0). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister Absent : Robert Viner The applicant was reminded to correct the date and time on the sign. IVm Application No. 4 Case No. 2864 Joe Baker 116 N. Chatsworth Ave. ovm Motion: To open the Public Hearing Action: Approve Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: 4-0). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister Absent : Robert Viner Benedict Salinirto the applicant's architect addressed the Board. He stated that they are requesting a small deck that only requires a variance for lot coverage. The area under the deck will be gravel, and Mr. Baker planted a row of evergreens between the proposed deck and the neighbors in a good faith measure. Katie and Christian Desvallees of 114 North Chatsworth addressed the Board. Ms. Desvallees stated that they do not oppose the variance but are concerned about privacy and request a clause that any owner of 116 N. Chatsworth be required to maintain screening between the properties. Mr. Baker stated he has no objection to conditions as stated by the Board. ovm Motion: To close the Public Hearing Action: Close Public Hearing, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: 4-0). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister Absent : Robert Viner IVa Motion: To approve the resolution with conditions Action: Approve, Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. OvIN Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Abstain= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0 Ayes: Baron, Wexler, O'Neill, Meister Nays: Absent: Viner WHEREAS, Joe Baker, requested a variance to extend an existing rear deck on the premises located at 116 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Lot 234: and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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 240-38F; and WHEREAS, Joe Baker submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, the deck extension as proposed would increase lot coverage to 36.5% where 35% is permitted; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 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 that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood as the applicant currently has a barely useable deck on a house that is built to the setback. 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 goal by any other method as the house is built to the maximum lot coverage. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial small increase in lot coverage and there will be no additional runoff. 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 as there will be no additional increase in runoff as they are simply enlarging the existing deck. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty while self created is not determinative. 1. 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. 2. 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 5/26//2010 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. The area under the proposed deck is to remain impervious. 7. The screening line of trees between the adjoining properties is to be maintained by the owner of 116 N. Chatsworth and replaced if they die or are destroyed by an act of nature. 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. 2865 K.A. Map Realty, LLC 2 Varela Lane OvIN Motion: To open the Public Hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. IVa Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Abstain= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner Mike Charitou the applicant addressed the Board. He explained that he did not notice that the Building Department had denied the portico when he started construction. The Board discussed the portico, and found that the notice was incorrect by one foot. Mr. Charitou stated that he will reduce the size to comply will the notice. IVa Motion: To approve the application as amended Action: Close Public Hearing, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Abstain= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner ovm Motion: To approve the application as amended Action: Approve, Moved by Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Abstain= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner Application as clarified is to have a front portico, the front edge 26 feet from the property line and portico roof 26 feet from the property line. After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0 Ayes: Baron, Wexler, O'Neill, Meister Nays: Absent: Viner WHEREAS, K.A. Map Realty, LLC, requested a variance to construct a front portico on the premises located at 2 Varela Lane and known on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot 62.2: and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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(1); and WHEREAS, K.A. Map Realty, LLC submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, the portico as proposed has a front yard of 26 feet where 30 feet is required; and WHEREAS, the front portico increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 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 that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood as it would make the house consistent with other house in the development 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 goal by any other method as a result of a construction error the house was built at the limit C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial as it is only 4 feet. 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 it will make the house the same as the other houses in the development. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although entirely self created 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 5/26/2010 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Application as clarified is to have a front portico, the front edge 26 feet from the property line and portico roof 26 feet from the property line. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Iva ` Application No. 6 Case 2866 Alex and Deb Leiter 44 Valley Road ovm Motion: To open the Public Hearing Action: Approve Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Abstain= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner Alex Leiter the applicant and David Abrahamson the general contractor addressed the Board. The board discussed the placement of the A/C unit and possible alternate locations and concluded that the proposed location was the best. There were no questions or comments from the Public. IVa Motion: To close the Public Hearing Action: Close Public Hearing, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Ronald Meister. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Abstain= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner ovm Motion: To approve the ac unit with the condition that it be placed one (1) foot away from house Action: Approve, Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Abstain= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0 Ayes: Baron, Wexler, O'Neill, Meister Nays: Absent: Viner WHEREAS, Alex and Deb Leiter, requested a variance to install a central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 34 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114 Lot 550: and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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, Alex and Deb Leiter submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, The central air conditioning unit as proposed has a side yard of 3 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and WHEREAS, the unit increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 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 that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood the location will be screened by a chimney and is not visible as the house sits 50 feet from the adjoining neighbor's house. 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 goal by any other method as there is no location more suitable C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is as it is the minimum required 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 as the air conditioning unit is nearly invisible. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although the difficulty is self created as the applicant wishes to have air conditioning it 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 5/26/2010 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. The unit is to be placed 1 foot away from the house. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Iva ` Application No. 7 Case No. 28 Stop & Shop 1326 Boston Post Road Iva ` Motion: To open the Public Hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, None seconded. IVm Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 4). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner. Brian O'Conner of Froling Signs addressed the Board representing Stop & Shop stating that they have been before the Board of Architectural review for changes to the logo and are requesting a variance to internally illuminate the signs at the BAR's suggestion. The 2 signs are smaller than the original signs and are being put in same location, they are only 72 sq feet. Stop & Shop's preference is to replace the signs with same letter height conform to code. The Board discussed the sign, colors, wattage and size. There were no questions or comments from the public. Iva ` Motion: To close the Public Hearing Action: Approve Moved by Arthur Wexler, None seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 4). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner. Motion:To approve the two illuminated signs on the premises located at 1326 Boston Post Road. Action: Approve, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 4). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0 Ayes: Baron, Wexler, O'Neill, Meister Nays: Absent: Viner WHEREAS, Stop & Shop, requested a variance to install two internally illuminated wall signs on the premises located at 1326 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410 Lot 463: and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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 240-45H8(c) [4]; and WHEREAS, Stop & Shop submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, the wall signs as proposed are internally illuminated; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 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 that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood the illuminated replacement sign has a smaller impact. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: A. The Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goal by any other method that given the design of building it would be out of character and not reasonable to use any other lighting as it would detract from the building. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is substantial but smaller than what is there now 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 E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although self created 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 meeting 5/26/2010 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. Iva ` Application No. 8 Case No. 28 Jacobe Denauris 57 Mohegan Road OvIN Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. OvIN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 4). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner. Corine DeNaurois the applicant addressed the Board stating the fence was damaged in the March storm and she is asking to replace the fence with a white plastic fence the same size and height as the wooden fence is rotted from the water collecting in puddles under the fence. The Board discussed the height and color of the fence and sated that the white would be to obtrusive, Ms. DeNaurois stated the color is not a problem but sh wants to keep the height at six feet because she has active children and Fenimore Road is highly used. The use of vegetative screening was discussed to mitigate the impact of the fence. As well as moving making the fence only four feet in height which would not require a variance. The fence where it currently sits is illegal and the Board suggested moving it to the property line. The Board suggested that the applicant speak to Ms. Paul the environmental coordinator to get suggestions for water tolerant plantings to screen the fence. Mr. Smedresman 833 Fenimore Road stated that he doesn't care about the height or location of the fence but is opposed to the color white and would prefer something more natural. The applicant requested an adjournment. Next Meeting June 23, 2010 ADJOURNMENT Motion: To Adourn Action: Approved, Moved by Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 4). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister. Absent: Robert Viner. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary