Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_11_20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 20, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin J. Rend Simon Arthur Wexler RIMED Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector Stephanie Hanak, Public Stenographer 0 Terranova, Kazazes &Associates, Ltd. '�Gr 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Gunther announced that a prior application that was before the Board last month and adjourned, i.e. Richard Hein of 44 Sheldrake Avenue, requested a postponement. Mr. Gunther proceeded to read the letter, and requested that a motion be made to adjourn the matter, without a date, pending response from the applicant and asked that the secretary remind the Board of this pending application. Mr. Gunther said if nothing is heard from the applicant within three months, the secretary shall contact the applicant to see if he would like to proceed or withdraw the application. Mr. Kelleher made the motion to adjourn the Richard Hein matter without a date, pending response from the applicant, which was seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously approved, 5-0. Mr. Gunther said the draft Minutes to be reviewed for approval will be conducted at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2245 (adjourned 10/23/96) Application of Stephen and Rima Garrow requesting a variance to construct a 2 story addition and deck; the 2 story addition would have a rear yard of 20.25 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(3); the rear deck stair platform would have a rear yard of 16.75 ft.where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and the addition would increase the extent by which the premises is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 410. Mike Csenge, the architect for the project,appeared. Mr. Csenge said the matter was adjourned last month for an opportunity to review additional items requested by the Board and to answer questions of concern from the neighbors. Mr. Csenge said the Board wanted to know the following, and commented on each item: Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 2 1. Cost of the project; resubmitted the application; the cost is $35,000.00; 2. Alternatives for the project; there is buildable area; submitted a site plan with what is proposed with the variance and what could be an alternative without a variance; the alternative with the variance, being conservative at a 19 ft. x 20 ft. addition for a family room, putting a deck across the back of that and still maintain the study to the side; 3. Drawing 401; proposed addition without the variance, footprint of an as-of-right addition that could be built; 4. Skirt the rear; the proposal is up on piers; the elevation was modified; skirt panels are proposed, which has been done within 8 in. to the ground, to maintain the wood away from the dirt. 5. Garage and columns treatment; wrap the structural column with wood around; introduce a small arch underneath it to look more architectural, to keep the openness of the garage door and keep the access. Mr. Csenge said the proposed addition before the Board meets the lot coverage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and is a smaller addition than what could be built without a variance. Mr. Csenge said the applicant is seeking the variance on the side yard, because it is so open and lets in light and air to not only the applicant's house but to the houses behind and around it; to close that off with an addition as proposed would probably be up 20 ft., is a southern exposure to the rear yard and would totally block it off. Mr. Csenge said the property is a fairly open piece of land, the owners have tried to maintain that openness, which is why a variance is requested. Mr. Csenge said the drawing he is referring to was prepared last evening, hence the Board members do not have a copy, but he will be submitting the plan for the record. Ms. Csenge said concern was voiced from the one of the neighbors at the last meeting about some of the large trees that the applicant is proposing to build close to. Mr. Csenge said due to that concern, the owners contacted Neal's Tree Experts who visited the property, looked at the trees and staked the ground to show where the proposed addition would be. Neal's Tree Experts sent a letter which is on record in the file to Mrs. Garrow stating, "the proposed extension was to be supported on post instead of standard footing and therefore would not alter the root structure of the tree." Mr. Csenge said repeated attempts to contact the neighbor to the rear to have open discussions with them prior to the meeting were to no avail. Mr. Csenge said both site plans were redone, so there could be a comparison, and asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mr. Kelleher said he did not have a question, but he visited the site three times and said there is no question in his mind that what the applicant is proposing is a far better restructuring of the structure than what could be built as-of-right as shown on the two plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Csenge had an estimation of the amount of square footage involved in the encroachment. Mr. Csenge said he did not have a breakdown in square footage, but the addition is approximately 13 ft. and would encroach about 5 ft., plus the deck. Mr. Csenge said the second floor is a smaller footprint. A discussion ensued regarding the percentage of encroachment in the rear yard, and Mr. Csenge discussed fresh elevations with the Board, which will become part of the record. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Ms. Gallent said at the last meeting the Board had asked for a description of the reason why the addition was necessary. Mr. Csenge said he submitted a new application and read the longer description that was on the application. Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 3 Ms. Gallent said the description read explains why, architecturally, a variance is being requested but asked why the applicant needs the addition. Mr. Csenge said the addition is for the growth of the family, help out with small children and to provide a place for studying and homework in later years. Mr. Csenge said the applicant wants to enlarge the family room, which presently is small. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler had a question on the possible addition without a variance, and asked if lot coverage includes the driveway also. Mr. Csenge said the driveway is gravel and it is not included in lot coverage, but the deck and front walkway are included in that calculation. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. Dolores Battalia of Stein and Battalia,2001 Palmer Avenue,Larchmont,appeared, representing Vivian and Murray Brauman who reside at 13 Dante Street. Ms. Battalia said the Brauman's reside immediately to the rear of the Garrow property and stated Mr. & Mrs. Brauman are opposed to the granting of the application to construct the proposed addition, because of its negative impact on their property. Ms. Battalia stated the bulk and height would be very detrimental to the Brauman property. Ms. Battalia said the applicant has stated in their statement of points that the addition as proposed is to maintain openness and to avoid blocking light,air and views of their adjacent neighbors on either side which is commendable. However, the statement of points does not address the impact on the Brauman residence. Ms. Battalia said the Brauman's had the plans submitted by the applicant reviewed by another architect, who has also given consideration to alternatives and introduced the architect to the Board to make his presentation. Robert Stanziale, architect, of 270 North Avenue, New Rochelle appeared and was asked to advise the Board of his background, professional training and expertise in the area of zoning and planning. Mr. Stanziale said he has been a registered architect for sixteen (16) years, with his own practice in New Rochelle for twelve (12) years, primarily concentrating on residential work, similar work of residential additions and new single family and multifamily houses. Mr. Stanziale said he is a member of the Eastchester Planning Board and a regular representative of other clients before New Rochelle Planning and Zoning Boards, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Mamaroneck as well. Mr. Stanziale then explained the visual comparison plan presentation that he prepared for the Board, stating he did not have access to copy the plans submitted to the Board or Building Department but copied as many dimensions as he could from Mr. Csenge's plans and based on a survey from Mrs. Brauman. Mr. Stanziale said both properties are similar because they presently have a similar rear yard of 25 ft., which is the present conforming zoning rear yard for an R-6 Zone. Mr. Stanziale said the Brauman property has a yard on one-half of the property and a driveway down below where the garage is accessed from, and their living area is primarily on the first floor area. The Braumans do not have a deck, but utilize the living and den area at the rear of their house every day. Mr. Stanziale said the Garrow property also has a 25 ft. rear yard, and the proposed two-story addition would encroach the rear yard to a point of 20 ft. and further encroachment of landing and stairs attached to the deck would significantly increase the bulk and height of the applicant's house as it is viewed from the Brauman residence. Mr. Stanziale said the 16.7 ft. is for the landing and stairs for the deck only, and it certainly can be considered an extension of the deck. Mr. Stanziale then discussed the difference of the properties with the proposed addition as to how the property is now. Mr. Stanziale said the Garrow's utilize their backyard as their living and outdoor space and with the proposed deck much of that activity will be raised up one story closer in height and rear yard encroachment to the Brauman's property as well. Mr. Stanziale said the two-story addition, an extension of the bedroom upstairs and family room extension will be an active area facing the Brauman property. Mr. Stanziale said the wraparound deck will fill in the side yard area. Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Stanziale said he reviewed with Ms. Battalia the alternate plan that was submitted, and he feels a comparable addition could be accommodated in the side yard without the request for a variances. Mr. Stanziale said the other properties that are adjoining to the West of the property all benefit from deeper rear yards and narrower side yards, which was done to accommodate the zoning code for an R-6 Zone in the area. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Stanziale to describe the layout of the Brauman property, which is behind the subject property. Mr. Stanziale said there are two rooms in the back of the house, a living room and den. Vivian Brauman, a resident of 13 Dante Street, appeared. Ms. Brauman said in the back of the house is the living room with a big window overlooking the garden, and over the driveway is the den. Mr. Wexler asked how far down the driveway is from the rear property line to the adjoining property, asked the height of the retaining wall and asked if the driveway was 3 ft. below the retaining wall. Mr. Stanziale responded that he believes the driveway is very close to the property line, the retaining wall approximately 3 ft. high, and the driveway is below that. Mr. Stanziale submitted a photograph to the Board for the record of the rear yard of the Brauman property which shows the driveway and retaining wall at the back of the property. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Stanziale for the distance between the rear of the two houses as proposed and the distance between the houses on Maple Hill Drive from side to side regarding what he is proposing, i.e. the Garrows are proposing adding an addition to the rear of their property 5 ft. of which beyond the existing house, beyond the building envelope, there will be structure, stairs and deck in that area. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Stanziale's proposal is that instead of building towards the rear of the property to move toward the West side of the house within the envelope that the applicant has available to them. Mr. Gunther said his question is, what will the distance between the properties be; i.e. what is currently proposed and what is Mr. Stanziale proposing. Mr. Stanziale said he does not have a survey of the adjoining property,but it seems as though the adjoining residence has a conforming side yard of approximately 10 ft. Mr. Kelleher said as proposed the structure requiring a variance, not considering the stairs, would leave a distance of 45 ft. from the back of the structure on Dante to the back of the structure on Maple Hill. Mr. Wexler said the 2-story addition will be approximately 50 ft. The Board reviewed the tax map regarding the footage. Mr. Gunther said if the applicant built out within the envelope, approximately 10 ft. would be left, leaving a 20 ft. distance between the properties as opposed to 45 ft. A discussion ensued. Mr. Wexler said he did not understand from Ms. Battalia's clients'point of view how the impact of a side yard addition within the envelope would have a lesser impact than a 5 ft. projection in the rear on their structure, when their views will be unobstructed to the street across from Maple Hill Drive. Ms. Battalia said her client's primary living areas are in the rear of their house, and the main living and activity area of the Garrow house will now become the rear of their house including the stair and the deck which is up high. Ms. Battalia said a significant amount of activity will take place which is not there now, and it will be viewed by them and imposes on their privacy. Ms. Battalia said it is a small district,an R-6 Zone, and the houses are close to begin with. Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Wexler said the side yard that is so much larger than any other yard on that street, and has an unobstructed view. Mr. Wexler asked if Ms. Battalia's client realizes the applicant can build the addition as-of-right,put a deck behind their addition as-of-right larger than what is proposed. A discussion ensued. Ms. Battalia said the Brauman's position is that the focus of all the impact is on their property, and understands the neighbors are concerned on either side, the Board likes the perception of a wider lot and said the houses on either side are wider rather than deeper. Ms. Battalia contends that building on the side is more in keeping with the architecture on that street, and believes there are a substantial number of viable alternatives to the applicant that would have a much lesser impact on the Braumans. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Csenge if would like to respond. Mr. Csenge said he hopes the neighbors take into consideration the applicant has thought about them, evident by photographs from across Maple Hill down through the side yard. Mr. Csenge said any as-of- right addition would totally block that house from the southern light, the southern exposure, the darkness, the south to southwest light that are natural. Mr. Csenge had submitted pictures which were on file which the Board reviewed. Mr. Csenge said the neighbor is worried about the living area being in the back. Mr. Csenge said with an as-of-right addition, that is where all the living will be. Mr. Csenge said the deck could be larger, the addition could be larger and the addition could be two-stories on the side yard totally blocking. Mr. Csenge said the Garrows are trying not to do that, the neighbors on all other sides and the rear have been contacted, and none have objected to the addition. Ms. Gallent asked if Mr. Csenge had letters in support of the application. Mr. Csenge said the applicant did not seek letters, but had informal conversations with the neighbors and invited all the neighbors to come and look at what was being proposed. Ms. Battalia said as a point of information, the Braumans were not involved before the first meeting with the Board, which Mr. Csenge agreed with. Mr. Csenge stated that is why the matter was adjourned last month, to talk to the Braumans. Mr. Csenge said he and the Garrows have tried more than once to reach the Braumans to no avail, to answer any questions they might have. Ms. Gallent asked that all pictures be labeled, and asked that the record reflect that the applicant is marking his photographs with numbers, and the Braumans are marking their one photograph with a letter. Mr. Wexler asked how the deck will be used. Mr. Csenge said the majority of the deck is an access point to get out of the addition and existing kitchen, and the side area running down the side of the house is purely a sitting area 4 ft. wide. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Csenge had given any thought to developing the deck in a larger format off toward the side of the house that would not require a variance for the deck or at least the steps of the deck. Mr. Csenge said the circulation and the stairs were located at one point, from both doors. Mr. Csenge said the deck was not a big feature for the addition. Mr. Wexler said in responding to comments,was any thought given to redirecting the deck to the side yard setback beyond the existing building line and is trying to understand what Ms. Battalia's client is concerned about. Ms. Battalia said her client is concerned about the activity in the backyard, and if the Board is considering what Mr. Wexler just stated, Ms. Battalia does not believe the plans indicated any plantings of any Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 6 significance or any height on the site plan. Ms. Battalia does not have the benefit of a copy of the plans. A discussion ensued regarding the current plantings and suggested plantings as screening. Mr. Wexler then asked Mr. Csenge if it is his client's intention to use the side yard as an activity yard for the children and not the rear yard. Stephen Garrow, the applicant, of 42 Maple Hill Drive appeared and said it is his intent to use the side yard. Mr. Garrow said he currently uses the backyard, but with the proposed application,just the side yard will be used. Mr. Csenge said with the canopy of trees, it will be difficult to grow anything in the yard. Mr. Gunther asked if anything is indicated on the plans regarding planting. Mr. Csenge said nothing is indicated on the plans regarding planting. A discussion ensued regarding evergreen trees being planted requiring minimal light. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Csenge if the applicant would like to consider a planting proposal. Mr. Garrow said over the last two months he has talked to the majority of neighbors to work out the proposal, and now at this meeting planting is now being addressed. Mr. Garrow said he will discuss the issues, i.e. plants, plantings, trees, fences, to accommodate neighbors and does not understand the reason for the planting issue being raised this evening. Mr. Wexler asked if there was a way to put the stair on the side as opposed to the rear. After some discussion, Mr. Csenge said the stair can be worked out on the side, without encroaching beyond the setback line and the stair would be deleted from the variance. Mr. Csenge said the planting and landscaping can be worked out together with the neighbors. Ms. Battalia said if the stairs were moved to the side, Ms. Brauman would be happy to work with the applicant. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public or Board members. Ms. Gallent said if the stairs are going to be moved into the side yard, the Board needs plans noting same, as the variance the Board votes on relates to the plans before the Board with conditions. On a motion made by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Mr. Gunther said before proceeding with a resolution,he would like to get a sense of the Board and Board members as to their feeling towards the application and restrictions they might be considering. Ms. Martin said knowing the area she feels there would be a greater impact on light and air building out to the side than building in the back, and it would more adversely effect the neighborhood to remove the side yard property than it would be to build in the rear. Ms. Martin would be in favor of granting approval as proposed with the stairwell being moved, whereby the entire Board agreed. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Csenge the anticipated starting date for work. Mr. Csenge said it is anticipated that construction would be in the early Spring. Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Gunther then said the applicant now knows how the Board is going to vote, and asked that Mr. Csenge submit a plan with the proposed changes, as a part of the record. Mr. Gunther then informed Mr. Csenge it would be unnecessary for Mr. Csenge to attend the next meeting, the matter will be adjourned to the next meeting, December 18, 1996, and a vote will be taken at that time. Mr. Gunther said there will be two changes; i.e. move the stairwell to the left onto the side instead of the rear, discuss with the neighbors the plantings which should be included on the plan and incorporate the alterations discussed at the meeting that were not on the plans before the Board. Mr. Gunther said these materials should be submitted to the Board in time for the next meeting to be reviewed and voted on. Mr. Gunther said he is closing the public hearing this evening, there will not be any more hearings on the matter other than a vote at the next meeting, and the resolution will be prepared. Mr. Gunther asked counsel to draft a resolution that includes the items the Board has covered, as all five of the major items that the code requires have been discussed. Ms. Gallent asked Mr. Gunther to address #2, #3 and #4 of the findings the Board must address. Mr. Gunther said the record will show while there may be an alternative permitted under the code, the proposed is less detrimental to the community because it maintains open space in an already congested area. Mr. Gunther said the Board has determined the variance is not substantial, based on the fact that there is approximately 65 sq. ft. over a 2,000 sq. ft. area in encroachment and the Board does not feel the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2245 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the December 18, 1996 meeting with the public discussion portion closed. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2248 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Richard Martin requesting a variance to legalize an unenclosed off-street parking space at the front property line 1.0 ft. from the south side lot line where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79B; and further, the space created is not located entirely on the applicant's property as required pursuant to Section 240-79A; however, an easement from the Town granting access in, on,over,under, across and through the right-of-way of Echo Lane has been filed in the Office of Land Records of the County of Westchester. Said parking space is located in a residential R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 70 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 289. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Martin before proceeding with the case if she had a statement to make. Ms. Martin said it is necessary to recuse herself from the next case because she is one of the applicants on the application. Ms. Martin then left the room. Richard Martin of 70 Echo Lane, Larchmont, appeared and stated the application before the Board is to seek a variance from the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the parking area adjacent to the driveway on their property. Mr. Martin said he appeared before the Board in June of 1995 to seek a variance for the same space which was denied at that time, because the Board observed it would require an easement from the Town in order to consider granting a variance for legal use of the parking area. Mr. Martin said he applied to the Town of Mamaroneck for an easement which was obtained and filed. Mr. Martin said he is returning to the Board this evening to seek a variance for same. Mr. Martin said the neighbors were surveyed and there are no objections, and filed a statement with the application indicating there is no opposition to the application. Mr. Martin said the parking space was present when the property was Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 8 purchased ten years ago, and the neighbors who lived in the area prior to the Martins said the space was present some number of years before. Mr. Martin said they became aware it was in violation under the Zoning Ordinance in 1995, when the original application was made. Mr. Martin said the reason for seeking a variance is to accommodate the cars the applicant has, as the driveway has a steep pitch similar to many in the community. Mr. Martin said since filing the application an accident occurred, the car rolled into the garage door. Mr. Kelleher asked how the applicant became aware that the parking required variance. Mr. Martin said a deck was built in back of the property, and in the process of obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck the building inspector also issued a violation for the parking. Mr. Gunther noted in the application it states "to legalize an unenclosed off-street parking space at the front property line 1.0 ft. from the south side lot line where 5.0 ft. is required and the space created is not located entirely on the applicant's property as required" and said there is no mention of a front yard setback. Mr. Gunther asked the representative from the Building Department the reasons why. Mr. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector, said that is because in the Zoning Code a person is allowed, for the purposes of accessing her garage, to maintain a driveway. Mr. Gerety said what is not included is the unenclosed off-street parking space within 25 ft. of the front yard, which was changed in the recodification and is no longer a violation. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther said then the Board is only looking for a 1 ft. versus. 5 ft. side lot line variance, since the Town has already granted an easement. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. There being none Mr. Gunther said informed the Board that he had the Town supply the original records relating to the previous denial, copies of which were given to the Board members this evening. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0, Ms. Martin had recused herself from the case. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. &Mrs.Martin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an unenclosed off-street parking space at the front property line 1.0 ft. from the south side lot line where 5.0 ft. is required is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-79B; and further, the space created is not located entirely on your property as required pursuant to Section 240-79A; however, an easement from the Town granting access in, on, over, under, across and through the right-of-way of Echo Lane has been filed in the Office of Land Records of the County of Westchester. Said parking space is located in a residential R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 70 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 289; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-79B and Section 240-79A; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Martin submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 9 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The application had been heard before the Board in June, 1995 and was denied because the applicant needed an easement from the Town to utilize the off-street parking space at issue. 2. Subsequent to the June, 1995 meeting, the applicant was granted an easement by the Town of Mamaroneck for the parking area. 3. The application is not substantial, as the parking area has been used for many, many years in this manner and there is no other alternative. 4. The record reflects that the neighbors have no objection to the parking area. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. 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; 3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a permit. Mr. Gunther said there is one more piece of public business to handle, before adjourning to an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Zoning Board November 20, 1996 Page 10 © Mr. Gunther said let the record show that Ms. Martin has returned to the meeting at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther asked the Board members if they had reviewed the Minutes of July 24, 1996, September 4, 1996, September 25, 1996 and October 23, 1996. After some discussion, Mr. Wexler made a few minor changes to the July 24, 1996 Minutes. On a motion made by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the amended Minutes of July 24, 1996, the Minutes of the September 4, 1996 and the Minutes September 25, 1996, were approved, 4-1, Ms. Martin abstained as she was not a member of the Board at that time. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Minutes of October 23, 1996 were unanimously approved, 5-0. On a motion made by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the public meeting was adjourned and the Board went into the Executive Session. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on December 18, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. /21 , Margu ite Roma, Recording Secretary