Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_03_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 25, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Absent: J. Rene Simon Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Judy Perrino, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 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 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther advised the applicants that one of the Board members, Mr. Simon, is ill and will be not in attendance. Since there are only four out of the five members present, the Board will be happy to hear the application and proceed. If the applicant decides not to proceed, the matter will be postponed to the next meeting. • The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2302 (adjourned 2/10/98) Application of GLSN Realty Corp. requesting a variance to construct an addition to the front of the existing building. The addition to be constructed on the existing building and lot has an existing floor area of 73% and proposes a floor area of 83% where a floor area of 50% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45C,has an existing lot coverage of 73% and proposes a lot coverage of 90% where 25% lot coverage is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45A(3), has an existing width at the front lot line of 50 ft. where 150 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-45A(2),and proposes to add no parking spaces where the addition of three (3)parking spaces is required pursuant to Section 240-78;and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in a Business Zone District on the premises located at 176 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 642. Mr. Gunther stated the application was first heard at the last meeting and adjourned to forward the application to the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC). Mr. Gunther read the response received. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant had received a copy, and if he understood its contents. Jeff Meighan of 100 Mamaroneck Avenue, Mamaroneck, attorney for the applicant appeared,along with Gjoko Shkreli, the owner of the property, of 4 Fairview Court, Cortlandt Manor, New York and James Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 2 Gaita, the project designer, of Envirospace of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont. Mr. Meighan said the applicant did not receive a copy of the CZMC response, but does understand its contents. Mr. Mazin interrupted the presentation, stating his is present to ask for an adjournment of the application being heard. Mr. Gunther said the Board will certainly get to the public portion of the application. Mr. Meighan said at the previous meeting there was an indication that the matter be sent to the County. Mr. Davis said he was not at that meeting, referred to the Board Minutes of that meeting, page 11, and said it states the Board determined after some discussion that no referral to the County Planning Board was required. Mr. Meighan said presentation and discussion was made last month. The matter was adjourned awaiting the determinations requested. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Meighan wanted to add anything else. Mr. Meighan said nothing else will be added, other than what had previously been discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions and/or comments from the public. Donald S. Mazin of 1415 Boston Post Road appeared. He stated he is present on behalf of BRW Construction and The Coughlin Realty Group, the owner of the premises next door to the applicant. Mr. Mazin said both of these people did not get notification of the first meeting, in addition to other people in the audience that also did not get notification of the first meeting. Based upon that, Mr. Mazin requests an adjournment to give those individuals not noticed an opportunity to review what was submitted along with reviewing the Minutes of that meeting giving them time to present their comments to the Board. These individuals would prefer not to oppose the application if all can agree with how the applications effects everyone and would like an opportunity to do so. These individuals would prefer not to go on the record to object to the application, if not necessary. A lot of questions are unanswered and without the opportunity to appear before the Board and express their view points a building may go up which is objectionable to his clients. The President of Board and manager of the co-op at 172 Myrtle Boulevard, Marylinn Taylor, appeared. Ms. Taylor said no notice was received and that work is proceeding on the building. A fence was put up this date and the building is being gutted. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Mazin he did not have any objection to allow interested parties to have an opportunity to review the records, review what was submitted and also to speak with the applicant, and will poll the Board members. It is the Town's practice, but not the Town Law, to provide notice to residents. The Town makes an effort to send notices, there may have been omission in this case and possibly the Building Inspector can explain. The Town is only required to provide a public notice in the newspaper and that was accomplished. Mr. Gunther stated he has a copy of that publication as well. This is a public meeting and we will move forward, as there are other members of the public present that have come to express their comments. Mr. Mazin asked if the Board will adjourn the public hearing on their request and let the others go forth, as Mr. Mazin did not follow what Mr. Gunther was stating. Mr. Gunther stated he would be suggesting that the Board not take action on the application until the next meeting to give all those interested parties an opportunity to speak this evening or at the next meeting on the matter. Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Mazin said they would like an opportunity to review the Minutes,review the plans and perhaps resolve the situation. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Main if it is his suggestion that the notice of last month's public meeting was legally deficient or is he suggesting there was a failure in the custom the Town has in giving additional notice. Mr. Mazin said the problem he has is that these are the two immediate neighboring buildings. He is making a claim that notice was deficient by the fact that when Mr. Mazin went to the Town offices and asked who the registered owner was, the Town computer stated his clients. His clients should have definitely received notification. Mr. Davis said the chairman stated the law correctly. The only required notice is publication in the newspaper five days prior to the hearing. Mr. Davis stated he understands Mr. Mazin's clients did not receive notice of the kind the Town customarily furnishes in addition to the publication and asked if Mr. Mazin is describing that failure or also making a claim that the hearing was not legally noticed. Mr. Mazin said he cannot comment on that, because when he looked at the file the notice of the hearing was in the file. Mr. Davis said that the Town has an additional practice for sending notifications that is not legally required. Mr. Davis said what apparently happened is that the tax lot designation of the adjacent premises which the map shows as lot 627 had become 627.1 and 627.2. When the lot number was entered into the computer nothing turned up. A discussion ensued regarding this matter, and the fact that Mr. Mazin's client also owns the parking lot down the street within 400 ft. and was not notified. Mr. Mazin said he went to the Building Department and Mr. Carpaneto, the Director of Building,and Ms. Roma, the secretary, both explained the situation with respect to the 1 and the 2. If this has been the custom of the community, and it appears notifications are sent out, Mr. Mazin said not noticing the immediate abutting owners and giving them an opportunity to appear and comment is detrimental to the policy of the community. Mr. Mazin feels it is unfair, the Board has the ability to adjourn it and give those individuals an opportunity to review the matter and meet with the applicant. Mr. Mazin said the individuals do not want to oppose this application if they don't have to. Mr. Mazin said his clients will oppose the application if forced to do so and will file an Article 78 proceeding. Mr. Mazin stated he called the applicant and offered to sit down and discuss same, but did not get a return telephone call. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Mazin that he has already complied with his request. Joe Coughlin appeared, representing Coughlin Realty as well, and asked if the Board received a letter from Edward Ferrarone. Mr. Gunther said the Board received a packet this date with two letters in it, one from The Coughlin Group, signed Thomas Coughlin, and one from Larchmont-Madison, Inc., signed by Edward Ferrarone. Mr. Coughlin presented a letter from BRW Construction, the co-owner of the building at 178 Myrtle Boulevard signed by Bill Crawford, entered into the record as exhibit 1. Mr. Coughlin stated his concerns about not being noticed, being unable to review the proposed project and informed the Board about the lengthy process personally experienced several years ago when applying for a variance. Mr. Gunther stated he previously said time will be granted for review. Ms. Taylor asked if they will receive notice and copies of the plans. Mr. Gunther said as soon as the Board is finished with the matter before it,he will set the date for the next meeting. He informed Ms. Taylor that the plans are on file in the Building Department and can be Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 4 reviewed there. That is the way the process normally runs. Copies of the plans are not mailed to all homeowners, but are available. Mr. Mazin asked if the Minutes will also be available. Mr. Gunther said the Minutes will be available in the Building Department. At the end of this meeting, the Board will review and approve the Minutes from that meeting. Mr. Meighan stated he went to the town this afternoon after hearing about notification situation. He was informed it was an error due to different label systems used in the Town, as stated. It was not intentional. Mr. Meighan stated he is mildly irritated there is a possibility the applicant will have to reappear next month. Mr. Meighan stated that Mr. Gaita said the applicant had spoken to the Coughlins long before his appearance at last month's meeting and that they did not seem to be interested in working with the applicant at that time. Mr. Meighan said he would prefer not to have the matter adjourned,and feels it is being done under threat of an Article 78 proceeding. Mr. Gunther said, in speaking for the other Board members also, that the Board does not act in response to threats. The Board acts in a fair and open manner, giving all applicants a fair hearing and all members of the public the opportunity to speak. Mr. Meighan apologized to the Board. Mr. Gunther said his early comment to Mr. Mazin was that an error was made in not getting the notice to the proper individuals. Mr. Mazin said he indicated the applicant was called and informed these individuals did not want to oppose his request. There cannot be any threat to the Board, whether decided or not. The applicant met with Mr. Mazin's clients and the plans reviewed were not the final plans. Mr. Mazin's clients did not know when the application was going to be made, thought they would receive notice and would have an opportunity to express their opinions. Notice was not received. The applicant was notified that there were items of concern and Mr. Mazin asked for a meeting. Mr. Shkreli said an attempt to discuss the project was made before application was made. Mr. Shkreli sent Mr. Gaita to review the proposed plans and get input from them. Mr. Shkreli called on Monday expressing a desire to meet with them and review the plans to discuss any objections they might have. They said the attorney is handling everything, and they had nothing to say. Mr. Shkreli said Mr. Mazin called yesterday asking for an adjournment, at which time Mr. Shkreli said things can be discussed in front of the Board. Mr. Gaita said two or three months ago he approached Jack Coughlin and three of his sons to explain what was being proposed, when the design faze was initially started, to get their input. He also spoke to them about a potential easement if the building was not going to be sprinklered, but then decided to sprinkler the building. When advised they were not noticed, Mr. Shkreli made an attempt to discuss same and work out any concerns. Mr. Gaita said it is a 500 sq. ft. addition, not tremendous like the Coughlin building. If another month must pass, it is unfair to the applicant who has invested a lot of time and money into this project. Mr. Mazin said when Mr. Coughlin was approached several months ago, the plan was totally different. Mr. Gunther asked that one party at a time make a statement, finish that statement and then go on to another person to avoid a conversation, he said, she said. Michael Coughlin, chairman of The Coughlin Group appeared and stated everyone wants this to work out as everybody's perception of the same meeting can be drastically different. Michael Coughlin then explained what transpired when Mr. Gaita came to project and their concerns; i.e. the height blocking the Coughlin side signage, egress in the back, a staircase down to the Coughlin parking lot. Michael Coughlin Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 5 said Mr. Gaita stated he came to the meeting to show what is going to be done, and we are going to build it. Michael Coughlin iterated about not being noticed, not seeing it in the paper, not reviewing the plans and being advised by a patron on the street. Michael Coughlin said Mr. Shkreli called and said that the demolition people were coming to the building and wanted to know if Michael wanted to go over the plans, which he did not, as his father, who owns the property, is in Florida. The next day demolition proceeded. Mr. Gaita said he does not want a debate, but when he went to the Coughlins preliminary plans were reviewed, there was a possible easement and the concept of the building being very close to what it is today. Mr. Gaita never said that we are going to do any such thing, because he is aware of the need to go to zoning and BAR for approval. Mr. Gaita said an honest attempt was made by Mr. Shkreli to contact them to discuss the project. Tom Coughlin verified that Mr. Gaita said they are going to build anyway, and said they did not need to go for a variance unless there is an issue. Tom Coughlin said Mr. Gaita was aware the Coughlin's had an issue with the height of the building and signage. Mr. Wexler said for the record, the height of the building is not an issue. The issue is the coverage of the site and parking. Mr. Kelleher said that is important. It is an unfortunate situation. The people that are present need to get a better understanding of what is being built and what is before the Board this evening. What is before this Board this evening and at the last meeting is not the majority of what the applicant is looking for. He has an as-of-right to build what he wants to build without evening appearing before the Board. He is before the Board asking to construct an addition to the front of the building. The height and easement are not before the Board. Mr. Gunther's said he indicated to Mr. Mazin at the beginning of the meeting a motion will be made to adjourn the application until the next meeting, so that all members of the public have an opportunity to review the file and make whatever comments they wish at the next meeting which is normally the fourth Wednesday of the month. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Joe Coughlin said parking is a major issue, stating when he was before the Board they did not get one variance for the parking. Mr. Gunther polled the Board with regard to adjourning the application or moving forward. Ms. Martin is in favor of adjourning. Mr. Kelleher wants to hear from the applicant regarding his feelings. Mr. Meighan stated as before, the issues are not difficult,it is a public hearing, the issues can be discussed this evening and objections heard. As a resident of the Town there is a certain feeling that the Board wishes to give an opportunity for people to be heard. An honest mistake has been made in notification. Mr. Meighan is sympathetic to that cause, but does not wish to come back another month from now, loosing a month of construction. Mr. Gunther stated he hopes that the applicant and the other interested parties will gather the records, look at what was proposed and have an opportunity to speak among themselves before then. Mr. Gunther is not inclined to propose pushing the application beyond that time. The Board has already heard the application, there are Minutes that anyone can read, when approved, that will indicate the Board's sense of the application and what the Board's concerns were. All relevant issues were discussed on the application. The matter was adjourned to get Coastal Zone Management Commission review, which was required. Mr. Gunther is also inclined to refer to the calendar to find as short a time period as possible to call the next meeting. Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Wexler asked if this meeting can be adjourned and reopened in two weeks. Mr. Gunther said a special meeting can be called. Mr. Davis as this matter has been noticed and already opened, there is no additional requirement for notification. After further discussion, a special Zoning Board meeting was called for April 6, 1998 at 7:45 p.m. to review this application with those individuals that did not receive previous notification. On a motion made Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the application #1, case #2302, be, and hereby is, adjourned to a special Zoning Board meeting to be held April 6, 1998. Mr. Gunther stated this is the first time in twelve years a case has been adjourned to a special meeting for one application. After further discussion, Mr. Gunther said the regular Zoning Board meeting will be held on April 29, 1998. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2303 Application of Dr. &Mrs. M. Bronson requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition for a 2-car garage at the rear of the house. The one-story addition for a 2-car garage to be constructed would have a rear yard of 25 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3) for a single family residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Salem Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 304 Lot 1802. John Cotugno, architect for the project, of 16 Claremont Road, Scarsdale appeared, along with the homeowner, Dr. Michael Bronson. Mr. Cotugno said the variance is for a two car attached garage addition directly behind the existing garage that requires a variance because in the rear yard in an R-20 Zone District 40 ft. is required and the proposal is 25 ft. The purpose of the additional garage space is to house the family cars. The applicant has five cars and currently has a three car garage and will need the additional two bays. Mr. Cotugno referred to photographs submitted with the application showing the exact location of the garage which is shown as a canopy now over the rear wall of the garage. The minimum garage space needed to accommodate two cars is 20 ft. by 20 ft. The Bronson's have experienced two acts of vandalism and two thefts from their automobiles, which is why they want to keep them inside. It is directly behind the building and not visible from the road. Due to rock outcroppings and heavy vegetation along the rear property line, it is not detrimental to their adjoining neighbor. The property is large, there is a drop-off in the back and due to its odd configuration the back part of the property is unusable. Even a detached garage would require a variance. The whole area could not be used, because it would have to be in the rear third of the property when alternatives were being considered that would not require a variance. Dr. Michael Bronson appeared and stated his sons two cars are currently parked in the area where the canopy is. Dr. Bronson said he has resided at 9 Salem Drive for nine years, has had two cars stolen and three cars vandalized. In the cul-de-sac of Murdock Woods there is a high rate of car theft and he would like to have the ability to enclose the cars with a garage for safety. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Cotugno indicated Dr. Bronson has five cars, the letter states eight cars. Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 7 Dr. Bronson said his hobby is the restoration and collection of classic and antique automobiles. He uses the inside of the garage to work on the cars and parks the other vehicles outside. When the cars are parked outside they get vandalized and houses these vehicles in Tarrytown. Dr. Bronson is not able to enjoy working on the classic cars at home and garage space for his other vehicles. Mr. Wexler asked if the garage was high enough to install a lift. Dr. Bronson said it is not high enough to install a lift. Mr. Wexler said the site plan indicates a pitched roof over the garage, and asked if there is a flat roof over the garage. Mr. Cotugno said there is a flat roof over the garage. Mr. Wexler asked if Dr. Bronson considered making the current three garages deeper, into tandem garages, giving enough space for six cars. Mr. Cotugno said there is not enough space for tandem garages, with which Mr. Wexler disagreed. A discussion ensued regarding the encroachment on the driveway and setbacks needed to the property line. Dr. Bronson said it would visually change the building. Mr. Wexler asked if five garage doors doesn't visually change the building. Dr. Bronson said the garage spots are behind the building and cannot be seen from the street. To build the garage to the right changes how the house will look from the street. Mr. Cotugno said because of the topography on the right, a retaining wall will be needed on that side. The turnaround area would be minimal, as the applicant must stay 5 ft. from the property line. Dr. Bronson said his goal is not to change the aesthetics of the house. Mr. Kelleher asked if there has been any discussion with the neighbors and are there are objections. Dr. Bronson said there has been discussion with the neighbors and there are no objections. Mr. Gunther asked if there are any other questions from Board members or the public. Mr. Wexler questioned whether there are other homes in the community with five garages on similar parcels of land. Mr. Gunther said there are homes in the community with three and four garages, but did not know of any with five garages. Mr. Wexler's reaction is that it looks very commercial, he doesn't know how to soften the look given the building and it doesn't happen anywhere else in the Town. Mr. Cotugno said the doors can be doubled, making only three doors instead of five. The building can also be set to the south a couple of feet to be less visible. Dr. Bronson stated if he thought the added garages would detract from the look of the house, he guarantees he would not be before the Board requesting same. Mr. Wexler asked what is behind the AC condenser on the rear wall of the house and various elevations. Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 8 Dr. Bronson said there is a greenhouse. Mr. Wexler asked if a tandem garage can be in built in that area and demonstrated the elevation on the plans before the Board. Mr. Cotugno said he understands what Mr. Wexler is saying. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the storage of five cars, the use of a tandem garage and the fact that a smaller variance will be needed. Mr. Wexler stated he finds the current proposal oppressive. Mr. Wexler said the obligation from his point of view is to try to minimize the variance. It is the applicant's obligation to look at alternatives to present to the Board that would be the least encroachment on the setbacks. Dr. Bronson stated building a tandem garage would necessitate moving all the AC plumbing and electrical work. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the Board of the public. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked for a motion on the environmental impact. Mr. Davis said this is a Type II action and requires no further review. On a motion made by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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. Dr. Bronson asked if the current proposal is approved and he chooses to construct the tandem garage, which is not something he previously thought about, does that mean he has to have a collusion(?) in the variance. Mr. Gunther said he will answer preliminarily. The answer is no, the applicant can do something less as long as the applicant is not further encroaching on the variance that is granted. Mr. Wexler said the Board has been approving variances granted, tying it to the plans submitted. Mr. Wexler asked when the applicant want to start the work. Dr. Bronson said soon. Mr. Wexler said the Zoning Board has a meeting on the April 6th. Mr. Davis said it is a better practice for the Board to require that the variance would have to be modified to permit the construction in another location. Mr. Gunther told Dr. Bronson that the Board has another matter to be discussed. Dr. Bronson can take ten minutes and discuss same with the architect. Dr. Bronson said he would like the Board to approve the initial submission and is willing to think about considering Mr. Wexler's idea of the tandem garage. Mr. Wexler said if the 25 ft. rear setback variance is granted this evening and the applicant decides to come back to the Board with the tandem garage, Mr. Wexler feels a variance will be granted because it is less than what was originally granted. Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Davis said he agrees that would be the likely outcome, but would have to caution the applicant that he has no legal rights to depend on that. Mr. Davis said this Board cannot tell the applicant today that it will legalize something the applicant starts building without approval. Mr. Wexler stated there have been times when people deviate from the plans and it has caused problems. Mr. Gunther asked Dr. Bronson how he would like to proceed. Dr. Bronson asked the Board to proceed with the plans submitted this date. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0 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 Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED 3-1; Mr. Wexler was opposed: WHEREAS, Dr. & Mrs. M. Bronson have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story addition for a 2-car garage at the rear of the house. The one- story addition for a 2-car garage to be constructed would have a rear yard of 25 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3) for a single family resident in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Salem Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 304 Lot 1802; 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 240-35B(3); and WHEREAS, Dr. & Mrs. M. Bronson submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Taking all the factors into consideration and the general conditions in the area, an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood; B. The variance does not appear to be substantial in the context of this property; C. There will not be an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; D. There may be another reasonable alternative, which the applicant is invited to consider; Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 10 E. The variance is only authorizing the construction of a single story, two car garage addition to the property and is not intended to approve any alteration to the plans as presented to the Board this evening. F. 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. G. 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. H. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. There followed a discussion regarding the requirement that the variance granted be the minimum necessary, following Ms. Martin's comment that she would have preferred the alternative presented by Mr. Wexler, on aesthetic grounds. Mr. Gunther questioned whether the applicant's proposal was the minimum variance, in light of Mr. Wexler's suggestion, that a tandem garage be constructed. Mr. Davis referred the Board to Section 267-b of the Town Law, pointing out that the variance had to be the minimum, that was necessary and adequate,not necessarily the smallest variance, and that both of those words had to be given meaning. Mr. Davis said that the Board was free to determine, in light of those factors, whether the applicant's proposal was the minimum variance. The Board then discussed the applicant's proposal in light of the minimum variance finding. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours to secure the building permit. It will indicate the permit must be issued within six months and will be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years. Dr. Bronson thanked Ms. Martin and the Board. Dr. Bronson asked if the Board would be willing to approve the construction of a lesser garages this evening,as indicated by Mr. Wexler with less of a setback and less obtrusive. Zoning Board March 25, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Gunther said bearing in mind what counsel said, if that application were before the Board this evening he would be inclined to approve it. Mr. Kelleher stated he is not in favor of approving something that he cannot look at, even though he understands the concept. Mr. Kelleher said he would not vote in favor of an approval of something that is only a conceptual statement. Mr. Gunther stated while a special meeting is planned for April 6, 1998, if Dr. Bronson wanted to come before the Board with a different application it would require notice. There is not sufficient time for that notice. Mr. Gunther said the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board will be April 29, 1998. Mr. Gunther advised Dr. Bronson to check with the secretary for future filings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Gunther, the Minutes of February 10, 1998, 1998 were unanimously approved, 4-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on April 29, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded, the public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. at which time the executive session convened to discuss pending litigation. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Gunther made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals direct counsel to appeal the last decision received from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the matter of the Hoffmann litigation and ratifies the steps taken to effect the appeal, which was seconded by Mr. Wexler and unanimously approved, 4-0. tki Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary