Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016_11_30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, NOVEMBER 30,2016 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel Absent/Excused:Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,John H. Landi, Building Inspector,Tom Murphy,Town Board Liaison. MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 -CASE NO.3036-Josh Freidfertig-42 Villa Road—Public Hearing Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Josh Freidfertig,the applicant, stated that he is requesting a variance for the 4 air conditioning units that were installed last summer. Mr. Wexler asked why they were installed in the present location. Mr. Freidfertig responded because of the location of the patio and to maximize the efficiency of the units. The Board discussed the placement of the units Public Comments Simon Sumberg,the neighbor on the left, complained that they are 15 feet from an open porch on his mother's property and would create noise. Mr. Wexler stated that the left side is actually legal and all four units could be placed there legally. A letter from the owner of 36 Villa, in favor if soundproofing being installed was read into the record. Mr. Wexler asked what the DBA level is for all units. Mr. Marsh stated that he is in favor of placement of the units as shown on the plan because they will not cycle as much as they would if placed all on the same side of the house. Mr. Wexler stated that only the right side requires a variance. 1 It was suggested that the applicant return with a new plan either moving the units to one side or moving the units closer to the house for less of a variance. Motion: To adjourn the matter to January 4, 2017 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. APPLICATION NO. 3-CASE NO. 3044-Taubenfeld—16 Maplewood—Public Hearing(continued) Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that the new proposal meets the coverage requirement and they are now only asking for a side yard variance. The additional square footage is 12 square feet. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by, Irene O'Neill Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1). Yes: Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh. Abstain:Arthur Wexler, Chairman. After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (3-0, Abstain 1). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Stephen Taubenfeld, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a two story rear push out, platform and steps on the premises located at 16 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 350; and 2 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 (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-38B(1)(a), 240-37B(2)(b), and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 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; and 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because it will not increase existing lot coverage and the additional bulk is only 12 square feet. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because there is no other location for the steps. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial as it is only 12 Square feet and does not increase the existing lot coverage. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the lot coverage will not increase over existing 3 conditions,the steps are over an existing impervious area and the addition will not generate any additional noise, light or runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. 4-CASE NO.3045- Pam and Jonathan Weinberg—Public Hearing(continued) Rick Yestadt and Mr. Weinberg were present and addressed the Board, requesting a variance for three air conditioning condenser units in the side yard.The original house had a unit in the same location and two new units were added. The closest adjacent house is 55 feet away and 6 feet higher in elevation. The room in the rear was discussed and Mr. Weinberg stated they have purchased a new window to make that room compliant as a bedroom, making the location of the AC units in that location unacceptable. The Board discussed the location of the units and the DBA. 4 There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh. After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously,4-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Pam and Jonathan Weinberg, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for the installation of 3 new air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 22 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204, Lot 300; and 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 (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-35B(2)(a), 240-35B(2)(b), and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 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; and 5 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the units are are sufficiently far(55 feet) and higher(6 feet)than nearest impacted neighbor. In addition,the Board noted that a fence, berm and plantings provide sound insulation and visually buffer the units. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the proposed location minimizes the impact to neighbors and the only other potential location would be infeasible because it is adjacent to a bedroom. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial relative to the large size of the property and the significant distance to the most effected neighbor. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the DBA level (60) is low and the homeowner intends to shield the units with evergreens. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 6 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. 5-CASE NO. 3046-Greg Notch—58 Moran Place—Public Hearing Greg Notch, owner, and Brian Smith of Sila Air, addressed the Board requesting to legalize two air conditioning units in the front yard. Mr. Smith stated that there was no other place to put the units as the rear yard has a patio, there is a walkway and the left side of the house is very close to the neighbors and non-conforming. Substantial screening has already been planted. Mr. Smith further stated the units are high efficiency with a DBA rating of 70 and noted that the closest neighbor is on the other side of the street. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved 7 Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (4-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Greg Notch (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize 2 new air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 58 Moran Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504, Lot 51; and 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 (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-37B(2)(a), 240-37B(2)(b), and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 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; and 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. 8 The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the units are relatively quiet,well screened and placed in an area which functions as a side yard with no adjacent neighbor B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the property is burdened with two front yards and any other location would reduce the efficiency of the units because they are further from the handler. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units are considered small and the DBA level is low. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the units are visually screened and the noise impact will be negligible because of the low DBA of the units. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent 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 9 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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 3047-Frank Alexander—66 Sherwood Drive-Public Hearing Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Paul Noto the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board,to legalize the existing garage. Mr. Noto explained that the garage was there when Mr. Alexander bought the property in 2004 and he has since rebuilt it as it was falling apart. The Board discussed the request and noted that the neighbor's garage is also nonconforming Mr. Noto showed a 1964 survey showing the garage and old shed on the property. Mr. Sacks stated that there is a slab throughout the whole garage and it is properly pitched. Mr. Wexler stated that the Board has never had an application of an accessory structure from one side to the other side of the property. Mr. Sacks stated that he would like to see a topographical from GIS with a view of impact from Lundy as well as letters from the neighbors. There were no public questions or comments. The matter was adjourned to January 4, 2017 APPLICATION NO.-CASE NO.3048-William Spinner—2 Vine Road—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. 10 William Spinner,the applicant, addressed the Board requesting a variance for two air conditioning condenser units and explained why there are no alternative locations on the property. The units are behind a fence and screened with bushes. The DBA is 75. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh. After review, on motion Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (4-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, William Spinner(the "Applicant") requested a variance for the installation of 2 air condition condenser units on the premises located at 2 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 340; and 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 (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-37B(1) and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 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 11 WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposed location is far from neighbors and tucked away into an alcove and partially shielded from view. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the proposed location is furthest from neighbors and therefore presents the least impact. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is placed in an alcove and not intrusive to the neighbors. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because runoff will be minimal, noise will be buffered and it will be partially screened from view. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 12 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. 3050 -CASE NO. 8-Jonathan and Cindy Clare—22 Edgewood—Public Hearing Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Diane Neff,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating they are reducing the house on one side to widen the driveway and decreasing coverage from 50%to 48%. The owner gave a letter from neighbors in support of the plan and it was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the requested variance,the percentage of coverage and the nonconforming driveway on the property line and noted that it is necessary to back out of the driveway There were no public questions or comments Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved 13 Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh. After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (4-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Jonathan and Cindy Clare (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a small addition and renovation of the property on the premises located at 22 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123,Lot 304; and 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 (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-39B(2)(a), 240-39B(2)(b), 240-39F and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and 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; and 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because there is a increase in the side yard setback on the left side from 7 feet to 10 feet, no change on the right and a slight reduction in impervious area. 14 B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the house is preexisting nonconforming and there is no alternative that would achieve their goals to increase the house and widen the driveway. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they are reducing coverage from 50%to 48%and the side yard setback will be increased from 7 to 10 feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be no increase to light, sound or runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 15 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. 9-CASE NO.3051-57 Harrison Drive Corp.—Public Hearing Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Paul Noto,the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board requesting a variance for insufficient lot width for the vacant property in the R 7.5 zone. Frank Grippi,the applicant's architect, showed the proposed house and its relation to neighboring properties. He further stated that there are other properties in the area that are only 55-60 feet wide. Mr. Wexler explained to the public why the variance is required. Mr. Sacks questioned the slope, which was stated to be 20 degrees. Mr. Noto stated that the house will be zoning compliant. Public comments Carol Carozza, a neighbor, stated that her back yard abuts the lot on top of a hill, and the subject property was denuded of trees. Leo Tomczyk, the owner, stated he spoke to the previous building inspector and was given permission to cut trees David Becker of 1 Robins Nest, stated that street frontage and width is too small because its 20 feet less than required by Town Code. He further stated that the undeveloped property has a small level area, and the removal of the hill will cause erosion of the cul du sac behind. He further stated that 30 mature trees were removed causing increased wind flow. He further stated that he and the neighbors believe the property cannot support the house, as the property was always maintained as a green space by the previous owner. He further stated that rock removal will be required. Mr. Sacks asked the public why they feel it is not valid building lot. Edward Mitchell of Nobile, Magarian & DiSalvo law firm stated that the lot was originally part of a 57 parcel subdivision. 16 Mr. Sacks stated that the parcels were not contiguous and were separate tax lots with a 5-foot strip in the middle. Ms. Carozza stated that the houses that are on narrow lots where built before 1960 and the applicant was well aware of the zone when the lot was purchased. She further stated that when she sits on her deck she will be looking into windows. Martin Mertils of 2 Cottage Circle referenced many narrow lots that were here long before and asked why make an exception now. The applicant knew that it was in a R7.5 zone when he purchased. Transfer paper marked Exhibit 1 and entered into the record. Mr. Decker of 1 Robins Nest stated that his back yard will sink as soil is eroding presently. Ms. Carozza stated that the applicant ruined the land and they must replant the trees. Frank Grippi not being built to property line, neighbors far away, and property lower. Mr. Sacks asked the applicant to address the issue that the area is zoned R7.5 and Mr. Grippi stated that they met with the previous building inspector and was informed it was a buildable lot. Mr.Tomczyk stated that he purchased the lot to build a new house, Mr. Flook would not sell lot unless the house was bought also. He purchased both rebuilt the existing house and sold it. Mr. Wexler stated that there are a number of lots in the area that are nonconforming and the Board's task is to weigh whether the request is out of character with the neighborhood. Ms. Carozza stated that if the property were flat she would have no objection. Mr. Wexler asked Mr.Tomczyk to lay out on the lot where the house will be placed,for a sense of the proposal, and prepare a topographic site plan. The owner of 59 Harrison stated that they will need a retaining wall once they dig into the hill. Mr. Wexler stated that the slope reduces the mass of the proposed house. Mr. Sacks asked that the engineer to show the erosion issues, air and light. Ms. Carozza stated that Mr. Maker looked at the statue and determined that it was not a buildable lot and that is why they are before the Zoning Board. The matter was adjourned to January 4, 2017. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of October 28, 2016 Action:Approved 17 Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh. ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 11:35P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 18