Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_06_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD JUNE 26, 1985, IN THE COURTHOUSE, 1201 PALMER AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Acting Chairman, Mr. Peter Mosher at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Peter Mosher, Acting Chairman Mr. Patrick Kelleher Mrs. Elaine Price Mr. J. Rene Simon Absent: Mr. William Boraczek Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. Steven Silverberg, Town Counsel Dr. Lawrence Lerman, Town Councilman Mr. Stephen Altieri, Town Administrator Public Stenographer from Post Reporting Service, Inc. 175 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 1E7The Board had received letters from some of the residents objecting to an application that had been approved at the February 28, 1985, meeting. The application was for Mr. Michael Dolan of 63 Vine Road (Case No. 681) . The following neighbors appeared in protest to the application: Mr. and Mrs. Peter O'Hara 61 Vine Road Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Casey 57 Vine Road Mr. Thomas L. Thompson 59 Vine Road Mr. Frederick Cuccia 19 Campbell Lane Mr. E. Robert Wassman 15 Campbell Lane Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Etkin 17 Campbell Lane Mrs. Frank Dinger, Jr. 7 Villa Lane The Board advised the neighbors to file an application with the Board for the July meeting, and at that time the Board will decide whether the appli- cation will be reopened. The Public Stenographer recorded this discussion. Mr. Mosher asked the Secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 679 (This application was postponed from the meetings of February 28, March 27, and April 24, 1985.) Application of Mr. Charles Hoffmann for modification of Article VII See- ( tion 89-41 "Construction Requirements for "B" Business District" to allow the construction of an office building and off-street parking facilities, June 26, 1985 namely, Section A (3) which permits a maximum building coverage of 25%, proposed building coverage 58%, Subsection C which permits a maximum floor area of 50% of lot area, proposed 115%; Subsection D (1) & (2) which per- mits a maximum building height of two stories and thirty feet, proposed three stories and forty feet; Subsection E which requires a minimum of 195 off-street parking spaces @ 9'x20' , proposed 141 off-street parking spaces @ 9'x18' on the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Parcel 410 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The Public Stenographer took the record for Application No. 1, and his minutes will be made part of the record. The Board had received a memo from Mr. Trachtman, the Engineering Con- sultant, in which he questioned the completeness of the Draft EIS. On motion made by Mr. Kelleher and seconded, the Board on a 4 to 0 vote decided not to accept the DEIS and advised the applicant to conform to the letter from the Town's Engineering Consultant. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 683 (This application was postponed from the meeting of March 27, April 24, and May 22, 1985.) Application of Hof-Pof Realty Co. for modification of Article X Section 89-56 E "Nonconforming Use of Buildings" and Article XI Section 89-66-A "Off-street Parking Requirements" which requires that a nonconforming use that is changed to a conforming use must conform to existing zoning regulations, to main- tain and use converted 2nd floor dwelling unit for professional offices which does not have the required five (5) off-street parking spaces on the premises located at 168-170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 657 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Hodys, the applicant, asked if the Board would postpone his applica- tion until next month since his partner was not available. Mr. Hodys said they had submitted a traffic study which he had not seen. Mr. Mosher said he was not happy with the study as he did not think just counting the park- ing spaces was an adequate job. On motion made by Mr. Simon and seconded by Mrs. Price with all four mem- bers voting in favor, the Board decided to allow the applicant to adjourn the Hearing until the July meeting, but the applicant is to complete the parking study. Mr. Mosher asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 692 Application of Mr. and Mrs. John Malloy for modification of Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (3) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet June 26, 1985 to allow the construction of a wood deck at the rear of the dwelling creating a rear yard of 23 feet ± on the premises located at 59 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Parcel 135 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or un- necessary hardship. Mr. Richard Fitzpatrick of 109 Fordham Street, Bronx, New York, the builder, represented the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Malloy. On motion made by Mrs. Price and seconded, with all the members voting in favor, the Board determined that it was a Type II action and no further environmental action would be required. It was pointed out that the variance is for the extension of an existing deck. Mr. Fitzpatrick presented the Board with a letter signed by five of the Malloy's neighbors requesting the Board to take positive action on the application. After further discussion, on motion made by Mr. Simon and seconded by Mrs. Price, the Board voted to approve the application with all members voting in favor. The following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John Malloy have submitted an appli- cation to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a wood deck at the rear, together with plans; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit IE: on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, with parti- cular reference to Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B(3) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet on the premises located at 59 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Parcel 135; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John Malloy have submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical diffi- culty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The existing deck and addition were allowed to be built within 23 feet of the back boundary line of the lot. 2. The proposed extension of the deck will be similarly built to within 23 feet and will not project further into the backyard space. 3. The existing deck is only 5'x8' and is too small for any outdoor furniture. 4. The side extension will make it a more reasonable size for family use. 5. There is a gas grill on deck, and having a uniform June 26, 1985 size deck will make it easier to maneuver food and utensils back and forth to porch. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the applica- tion, and heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board grants the applica- tion on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or con- ditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The proposed addition is the extension of an existing deck and will not project any further into the backyard than it does now. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-35 Sub- section B(3) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 3. That the granting of the 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; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (3) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a wood deck at the rear of the dwelling creating a rear yard of 23 feet ± on the premises located at 59 Hill- crest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Parcel 135 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be June 26, 1985 void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 693 Application of Enclave Associates for modification of Article VI Sec- tion 89-31 Subsection B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-20 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard set- back of 15 feet to allow the construction of a dwelling having a side yard setback of 10 feet on the premises located at 24 Prince Willows Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334 Parcel 6 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. Mr. Albert Campbell, an attorney at 271 North Avenue, New Rochelle, repre- sented the applicant. On motion made by Mrs. Price and seconded by Mr. Simon, the Board, with all members voting in favor, determined that it was a Type II action and no further environmental action was required. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Shapsis, one of the partners in Enclave Assoc. , was also present. Mr. Campbell stated that the subdivision is for lots, and house No. 6 is under construction. He further stated that the purchaser of this house decided he wanted a side entrance rather than a front en- trance and because of an error when the Job Superintendent left the site for a short time, the line was changed and the foundation was moved over. It was pointed out that Mr. Paonessa had discovered the discrepancy, and since the job had progressed, the applicant felt it would be a hardship to move the foundation. It was stated that Mr. Shapsis had been building houses for a long time, and nothing like this had ever happened before. Mr. Campbell suggested that they could construct the house on the other side 25 feet so that there would be 35 feet between the two houses. Mr. Mosher asked,if the variance was granted, whether a restrictive covenant could be filed. After further discussion, on motion made by Mr. Kelleher and seconded by Mrs. Price, with all members voting in favor, the application was approved, with the condition that a restrictive covenant be duly recorded on Lot No. 7 and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Enclave Associates have submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a dwelling having a side yard setback of 10 feet, together with plans; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the June 26, 1985 Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VI Section 89-31 Subsection B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-20 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, on the premises located at 24 Prince Willows Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 334 Parcel 6; and WHEREAS, Enclave Associates have submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty . and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. Building was constructed with less than the required side yard setback and the adjoining plots cannot be modified to correct the condition. 2. Relief is sought to allow this condition to remain. WHEREAS this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after pub- lication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board granted the appli- cation on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or con- ditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances andi6r conditions are as follows: 1. It would be expensive to tear down the founda- tion. 2. The lot line was changed in error. 3. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-31 Subsec- tion B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-20 One Family Residence District" would de- prive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordi- nance and will not be injurious to the neighbor- hood or otherwise detrimental to the public wel- fare; and it is June 26, 1985 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-31 Subsection B(2) (a) "Construc- tion Requirements for an R-20 One Family Residence Dis- trict" be varied and modified so as to allow the construc- tion of a dwelling having a side yard of 10 feet on the premises located at 24 Prince Willows Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334 Parcel 6 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application, subject to the following condition, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck: That a restrictive covenant be duly recorded on Lot No. 7 providing that no structure shall be constructed within twenty-five (25) feet of the side lot line abutting Lot No. 6, such covenant to run to the bene- fit of the owner of this lot number 6 and the Town of Mamaroneck; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regu- lations of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck where a variance is granted, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and com- leted within two years of the date of said permit, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. Mr. Mosher asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 694 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Giampietro for modification of Article VIII Section 89-55 D "Supplementary Regulations Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in a residential dis- trict to 4 feet to allow an existing 83.2 linear feet of 6 foot high solid wooden fence on the premises located at 98 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Parcel 41 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. Mr. Richard Ocskasif of Richbell Road represented the applicants and said he had installed the fence and was not aware of the fact that he needed a permit. Mr. Ockasif said there was a fence there already, and they were replacing it because it was old. It was stated that children cut through from the school. Mr. Simon asked why they had left a space, and Mr. Ockasif said so they would be able to see the traffic on Weaver Street. Two letters were presented to the Board requesting that the Board approve the application: Mr. James Monahan, 104 Weaver Street, and M. A. Soriano, 84 Weaver Street. June 26, 1985 The Board determined that it was a Type II Action and no further environmental action was needed, with motion made by Mr. Kelleher and seconded by Mrs. Price, and all members voting in favor. After further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Kelleher and seconded that the application be approved, and the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Giampietro have submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow an existing 83.2 linear feet of 6 feet high solid fence, together with plans; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, with particular reference to Article VIII Section 89-55 D "Supplementary Regulations Walls and Fences" which re- stricts the height of fences in a residential district to 4 feet on the premises located at 98 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Parcel 41; and WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Giampietro have submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To prevent children attending the Town of Mamaro- neck's Central School from injuring themselves, discarding refuse, or committing vandalism while using the subject property and the adjoining school easement strip as a means of ingress and egress from the school grounds. 2. Although said property is zoned R-7.5, a nonconform- ing, commercial use is located adjacent to said property, and the construction of the aforesaid fence shall limit the amount of refuse, noise, automobile fumes, and general commotion caused thereby. 3. That a pre-existing, conforming fence on the same prop- erty line was recently removed due to its age; that a hedge with a height in excess of 10 feet was also re- moved because the health of the residents (appellants) prevented them from maintaining same; and that as a result, a low-maintenance, 6 foot high stockade fence was installed. WHEREAS this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the applica- tion, and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board granted the application on the following grounds: June 26, 1985 (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subse- quent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The fence will protect the children attend- ing the school by preventing them from in- jury by using the applicant's property for cutting through from Weaver Street. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article VIII Section 89-55 D "Supplementary Regulations Walls and Fences" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and that the vari- ance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in har- mony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Arti- cle VIII Section 89-55 D "Supplementary Regulations Walls and Fences" be varied and modified so as to maintain an existing 6 foot high, solid wood fence on the premises located at 98 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Parcel 41 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. Mr. Mosher asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 695 Application of Mr. Victor D. Xistris for modification of Article VI Sec- tion 89-33 Subsection B(2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet to maintain existing wood decks which have been constructed having a minimum setback of 5.3 feet on the premises located at 11 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221 Parcel 313 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or un- necessary hardship. June 26, 1985 Mr. Joseph DiSalvo, 7-11 South Broadway, White Plains, New York, an attorney, represented the applicant. On motion made by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, with all mem- bers voting in favor, the Board decided it was a Type II action and no further environmental action was required. Mr. DiSalvo said that the application for the variance is for a deck that is already existing and at the time the variance had been granted for the addition to the second floor, the contractor had put in the framework for the deck. Through an error, the contractor did not in- clude the deck in the permit application. It was pointed out that Mr. Xistris had received a Certificate of Occu- pancy for the addition, but the deck was not included. Mr. DiSalvo said they had discussed the situation with the attorney for the buyer, and they had agreed if the variance is allowed, they will work something out. Mrs. Price questioned the proximity of the next door neighbor whose back yard is taken up by the driveway and garage, and they have very little backyard. Mr. DiSalvo stated that because the terrace was more than 6 inches above the ground, it required a 10 foot setback, and in the five years since the deck was installed there has been no complaint from the neighbors. Mr. Simon pointed out that it is feasible to cut the deck back and the cost is not important. Mr. Mosher and Mr. Kelleher both expressed con- cern about the work being done without permits and when residents are caught, they come before the Board. Mr. Kelleher also said that he could see no reason why the deck could not be moved over another 5 feet. After further discussion, Mr. Simon moved that the application be denied and that the applicant be required to comply with the Zoning Law. Mrs. Price seconded the motion, and all four members voted for denial. The following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS Mr. Victor D. Xistris has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to maintain existing wood decks which have been constructed having a minimum setback of 5.3 feet, together with plans; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaro- neck, with particular reference to Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B(2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on the premises located at 11 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221 Parcel 313; and WHEREAS, Mr. Victor D. Xistris has submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the grounds of practical dif- June 26, 1985 ficulty and/or unnecessary hardship and for the following reasons: 1. The slope of the terrain necessitated a partially elevated deck which requires a greater side yard setback, majority of deck at ground level. 2. Practical difficulty based on builder's error. WHEREAS this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the applica- tion, and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board denied the applica- tion on the following grounds: 1. The Board felt that the deck could be cut back to conform to the zoning without any great financial problem. 2. That there were no special circumstances or condi- tions applying to the land and/or building for which the variance is sought which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 3. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the C applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land. 4. That the granting of the variance is not in har- mony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighbor- hood and detrimental to the public welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 696 Application of Mr. Robert A. Stachenfeld for modification of Article VI Section 89-31 Subsection B(3) "Construction Requirements for a One Family R-20 Residential District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 40 feet to allow an existing carport having a rear yard setback of 25 feet ± on the premises located at 1011 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 325 Parcel 265 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved that the applica- tion was a Type II action and no further environmental action was re- quired. Mr. Benjamin Taylor, 500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Harrison, an attorney, repre- i June 26, 1985 sented the applicant and said that Mr. Stachenfeld is a doctor at United Hospital and put up the carport himself. Mr. Taylor said that the house is over 100 years old, and because of the rock, the carport could not be placed in any other location on the property. Mr. Taylor further said that the applicants have a two-car garage and three cars, and rather than have the cars sitting outside, Dr. Stachenfeld decided to build the carport. Mr. Kelleher said that since there is an existing one-car garage, he did not see what the difference was if one or two cars were parked in the driveway. Mrs. Price questioned whether a one-car garage and one-car carport would be effective since, with three cars, one car would have to be moved. Dr. Stachenfeld said he had intended to put in a two-car garage. Mr. Simon said that if there was a fire in the garage, the applicant would have a hard time moving the car out of the garage. After further discussion, on motion made by Mr. Kelleher and seconded by Mr. Simon, that the application be denied, with all members voting approval, the application was denied, and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS Mr. Robert A. Stachenfeld has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow an existing carport having a rear yard setback of 25 feet ±, together with plans; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VI Section 89-31 Subsection B(3) "Construc- tion Requirements for a One Family R-20 Residential District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 40 feet on the premises located at 1011 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 325 Parcel 265; and WHEREAS Mr. Robert A. Stachenfeld has submitted an appli- cation to this Board for a variance on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. Family requires carport in addition to existing garage as parking on the street is prohibited and family has three drivers. 2. Applicant is often called out on medical emergen- cies and cannot move other cars. 3. When original building was constructed, a planned two-car garage could not be erected due to rock condition requiring extensive blasting. June 26, 1985 4. Location is the only suitable one due to location of existing garage. WHEREAS this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the appli- cation, and has heard all persons interested in this applica- tion after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denied the application on the following grounds: 1. The Board felt that the carport could be located in other areas that would better solve his park- ing problem. 2. That there were no special circumstances or condi- tions applying to the land for which the variance is sought which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply gener- ally to land in the district. 3. There has been no showing of practical difficulty which would require the variance. 4. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of his land. 5. That the granting of the variance is not in har- mony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance and would be injurious to the neigh- borhood and detrimental to the public welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this Board, this meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Recorded by Rita A.Johnson Transcribed by Jane H. Marion