Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_04_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, APRIL 26, 2017 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK ROLL CALL: Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Jeffery King Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board, John Landi, Building Inspector Absent: Irene O'Neill, Tom Murphy, Town Board Liaison Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:45P.M. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 3056 Safe Guard Storage Properties 615 Fifth Avenue Public Hearing Continued Chris Fisher, the applicant's attorney, Stan Bonilla, Safeguard's representative, Chris Michalek, architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Fisher addressed the Board, stating that they have addressed the Board's comments from last month's meeting; they have changed the front elevation of the building and reduced some square footage. Mr. Wexler stated he wanted to get a sense from the Board as to whether they feel they have enough information to take action and he would like to put the matter off to the end of the meeting. Mr. King stated that he lives in the vicinity and discussed whether he should recuse himself, as he is concerned with traffic. Ms. Hochman stated he should determine whether he is able to perform his duties objectively. Mr. King reconsidered and stated that he was confident he could continue to review the matter objectively. The Board estimated trip count and potential traffic implications. The matter was adjourned to the end of the meeting. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE NO. 3 - Christopher Fathers - 38 Myrtle Blvd. Public Hearing Continued 1 Mr. Fathers stated that they were before the Board last month and there was a mistake on the Notice of Disapproval, which has been corrected to include the second air conditioning unit at 14.3 feet from the front property line (Myrtle Blvd.). The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jeffery King, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Christopher Fathers, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize 3 Carrier multi zone ductless heat pump units and a Generac 22 KW gas fired stand by generator on the premises located at 38 Myrtle Blvd., and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123, Lot 98; 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 (the "Zoning Code") with particular reference to Sections 240-39 B(1) and 240-69; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and 2 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 the Board finds that the applicant would like to have central air conditioning and being burdened with two front yards this is actually this is the best place to put them because there is a large retaining wall behind that blocks them and, further, they are not visible from neighbors or from the street. 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 suitable location. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial as most people in the neighborhood have air conditioning and there will be no discernable visual or noise impacts. 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 only impact from the air conditioners and 3 generator would be noise but because of the distance to neighbors the sound would dissipate and the air conditioning units are very quiet 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 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. 6. The generator should be exercised during weekdays during daylight hours. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. APPLICATION NO.3 - CASE NO. 3 -Kim and Bryan Mitchell - 22 Villa Road Public Hearing Continued Greg Lewis submitted two documents, which were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1 & 2. 4 The applicants propose to add 900 square feet to the rear of the house. The lot coverage issue has been reduced because they were asking for 48% previously and currently seek only 35.1%. Lot coverage and impervious area and drainage was discussed. Benedict Salanitro, the applicant's engineer, addressed the Board. He stated that he has been on site with the Town's consulting engineer and they have done test borings to determine the depth of rock. He further stated his belief that they could capture and handle storm water. The patio will be sloped away from the home, with an open groove along the perimeter with 12' of gravel and underdrains. The Board discussed the request. The application requires an erosion control permit. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jeffery King, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Kim and Bryan Mitchell, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a two story addition at the rear of the house on the premises located at 22 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111, Lot 191; 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 (the "Zoning Code") with particular reference to Sections 240-38B(2)(a), 240-37B.(2)(b), 240-38F and 240- 69; and 5 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 the proposed addition is in line with the existing structure and the side yard encroachment is small. 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 Board considers this the most reasonable solution to satisfy the needs of the Applicant. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial given the allowable coverage of 35 percent and proposed is 35.1% is an imperceptible increase and the side yard encroachment is also deemed to be insubstantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be no increased light or noise and drainage impacts will be addressed. 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. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 3062 Mr. & Mrs. Renee Burns Continued Larry Bennet, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board and apologized for the previous month's error. The Applicant got a new survey and noted a change in the actual dimension from the deck to the property line. He gave a brief synopsis of the application. The house is preexisting non-conforming. 7 Mr. Bennet stated that there is no other direction to build out as they cannot build over the county easement. They are presently at 10.45 feet where they need 12.2 feet to have a combined side yard of 18 feet. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote: After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jeffery King, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Renee Burns, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed rear deck on the premises located at 10 Cabot Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125, Lot 477; 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 (the "Zoning Code") with particular reference to Sections 240-39B(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 8 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 the design improves the appearance of the front of the house and the deck will not impact a rear neighbor because the property backs up to the Town commuter parking lot. 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 due to the location of the county easement, there is no other place for the deck. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because the applicant is asking for a variance of 16.25 feet combined side yard setbacks where 18 feet is required. 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 this will not create any added runoff since it is only a minimal increase in square footage. 9 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE NO. 3063 -Anthony & Kristen Paleorico - 45 Fernwood Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King 10 Susan Yamaguchi, the applicant's architect, stated that this is a corner lot and burdened with two front yards. She further explained the proposed addition and displayed a three dimensional model. Mrs. Paleorico stated that her neighbor supports the application. The Board discussed the requested variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jeffery King, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Stephan Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Anthony and Kristen Paolercio, (the "Applicant") requested a variance a second floor addition within the footprint of the existing house on the premises located at 45 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 501; 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 (the "Zoning Code") with particular reference to Sections 240-37B(2)(a), 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 11 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 nearby houses within this area are similar in facade, appearance and massing. 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 this is an existing nonconforming structure and the property is burdened by two front yards. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the increased square footage is substantial but this is not determinative because the impact of the proposed addition is not considered to be substantial. 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 storm water will be mitigated and the proposed addition will not have an impact on air and light. 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. 12 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. APPLICATION NO. 7- CASE NO. 3064 - Linda and Rodney Cutler - 6 Carol Lane Mr. Tom Sassone, applicant's attorney, addressed the Board, requesting relief to install a swimming pool in the rear yard. A variance from the rear yard and house is required. Ms. Cutler stated that she has letters of support from five neighbors and three of those neighbors also have pools. Mr. Sassone that one stated that the distance from the proposed pool to the nearest neighbor is over 100 feet. He added that the property steps down in the rear and the pool will not be visible from the neighbors' yards. Mr. Sassone further stated that if the pool were moved over to the side it would create a safety issues because it would not be visible from the interior of the house. 13 Mr. Sassone stated that there will be an automatic pool cover and an alarm as well as a perimeter fence. The Board discussed the application. Motion: To open the public hearing non pro tunc Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson There were no questions or comments from anyone in the audience. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Stephen Marsh After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Stephen Marsh the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jeffery King, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Linda and Rodney Cutler (the "Applicant") requested a variance to install an in ground concrete swimming pool with automatic cover on the premises located at 6 Carol Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330, Lot 109; 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 Swimming Pool Ordinance with particular reference to Section 192.5A(1)(a), Section 192.5A(1)(a) and 240-69; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Swimming Pool Ordinance; and 14 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 are many pools in the neighborhood and the rear yard setback and mature vegetation will shield the view of the pool from the neighboring properties. 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 no other location would eliminate the need for a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the existing topography and mature vegetation obscures any visibility of the pool. 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 it is a large lot with mature plantings and there is considerable distance from the nearest neighbor. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 15 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. 1 - CASE NO. 3056 - Safe Guard Storage Properties - 615 Fifth Avenue continued The Board discussed the five factors to be considered in evaluating the benefit to the applicant against its impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Fisher stated that the building has been revised to reduce bulk to the greatest extent practicable. Mr. Wexler expressed concerned about the FAR, massing and bulk. It is situated at the exit and entrance to the Town. 16 Mr. Evans questioned the 0 front lot lines, but also stated that the applicant has done a very good job responding to Board concerns and there are mitigating circumstances. Mr. Simpson expressed his concern about setting a precedent and whether placing a building of this size would predispose the area to become more commercial. Mr. Fisher responded that this is a commercial area and the Town has already deemed four stories permissible in the area. Mr. Marsh commented that there has been no opposing neighbor feedback regarding this application. Mr. Fisher stated future applicants can't invoke this as precedent unless the same or very similar facts and circumstances are presented. He further stated that this application is unique for the reasons discussed. Mr. Sacks stated that the proposed use increases the FAR without having an impact on the other considerations such as parking and traffic. Ms. Hochman stated this is an unlisted action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the Board will have to make a determination of significance. The Board has received a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, with Part 1 completed by the Applicant and Parts 2 and 3 completed by the Town's Environmental Planner. Ms. Hochman further explained that application requires site plan approval by the Planning Board and the signage must go before the Board of Architectural Review. The Board discussed runoff and lighting. Mr. Wexler directed Ms. Hochman to prepare and circulate a draft resolution to Board members. Mr. Wexler adjourned the matter. MINUTES On motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks the minutes of March 22, 2017 were approved. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion: To enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh 17 ADJOURNMENT Immediately following the discussion in Executive Session, upon motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary. 18