Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_03_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGOF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" ON MARCH 23, 2022 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller Absent: Seth Bronheim lso Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Boardof Appeals, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Ms. Hochman asked Ms. Brill whether the documents to be discussed this evening have been posted on the Town web site 24 hours prior to the meeting. She answered yes. Ms. Brill confirmed that all applications on for public hearing were duly noticed. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Wexler welcomed everyone and stated that there was a full quorum. APPLICATION # 1 - Case 43269—Vikas Pathani—251 Murray Avenue- Public Hearing Continued The public hearing was opened last month. Greg Ralph, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and stated that after his scheduled appearance last month, they received feedback from neighbors. Taking the neighbors' concerns into account, they removed the garage from the plan. The revised proposal is for a deck with a shed underneath for storage of bikes and yard equipment. The air conditioner compressors will be moved and naturally screened with evergreens. Mr. Ralph further stated that part of the existing deck will be removed and reconfigured and the shed below the deck will be on a permeable surface to avoid disruption of the drainage pattern. Mr. Polcari stated that the property is on a County-owned Road and a turn-around is required because it is illegal to back out. Mr. Ralph stated that the existing subterranean turn-around support system consists of plastic "HexPave"under the grass and it will be shifted further back on the property to accommodate the addition. The HexPave has no visual impact because it is underneath the grass. The Board discussed lot coverage and Mr. Ralph stated that he used the as-built survey as the base line when he calculated lot coverage and that it was over 35%. 1 Mr. Marsh stated that the new plan is a step in the right direction. The Chair invited members of the public to comment. Roger Deitz, of 138 N Chatsworth Ave. stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 39 years and there is a bad flooding issue between the houses that has gotten worse since 251 Murray increased in size. He further stated that whenever is rains, water pools and it takes days to dissipate. Mr. Sacks asked which houses are impacted and Judy Harfenest responded that 144 and 142 North Chatsworth flood in their backyards now when they didn't before. Mr. Sacks stated that this should be taken up with the Town Engineer. He further stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals doesn't have expertise or authority with respect to drainage and no expert testimony has been presented. Mr. Marsh added that the applicant proposes no increase in the impervious area. Mrs. Pathani, the homeowner, stated that her pumps remove the water from her property as well as the neighbors' properties and added that her property is lower than the neighboring properties. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 251 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with 0 abstentions. WHEREAS, Vikas Pathani (the "Applicant") requested a variance for driveway expansion, accessory building and A/C compressor on the premises located at 251 Murray Avenue on the premises located at 251 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 13, Lot 103; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The driveway expansion and accessory building lot coverage will be 43% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38F, the A/C compressors will have a side yard setback of 6.5 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. 2 WHEREAS, the Applicant modified the plans to eliminate the driveway expansion and relocate the air conditioning compressors to the side of the house, o driveway expansion—ac compressors relocated to side of house, resulting in proposed lot coverage of 41.09% lot; (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because this type of encroachment is common within the area and the area well screened. Further,with respect to lot coverage, this house had an existing deck and, as proposed, the deck and the shed beneath the deck will not be visible to neighbors or from the street. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because any location on the property would require a variance and the proposed placement of the air conditioning unit is logical because it is well-screened area and close to the mechanicals. Further,with respect to lot coverage,the applicant has altered its proposal to locate the shed beneath the deck, elevated above the ground, making it less obtrusive while allowing water to pass through. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 3 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because air conditioning units are common and unobjectionable with respect to visual impacts or noise. Further, with respect to lot coverage, the applicant proposes to use a product called Hexpave, which will be permeable and covered with grass. It will not be visible because it is a subterranean paving system. In addition, all area below the deck will remain pervious, including the shed which will be raised off the ground to allow water to percolate underneath. Therefore, a negligible amount of impervious surface will be added to the property. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the DbA of the air conditioner is 70, which is considered diminimus as it is less than a vacume cleaner. Further,with respect to lot coverage, there will be no adverse impact since the surfaces added will be primarily pervious, allowing the ground to continue to absorb water and there will be no impacts related to light or air. V. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. APPLICATION #2 - CASE #3271 - Caren and Jonah Weintraub -4 Robins Nest Lane- Public Hearing Continued The public hearing was opened last month. Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and stated that she has the information the Board requested and nothing in the plan has changed. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant explored changing the roof line and Ms. Lewis responded that they did but the applicants want a high ceiling. She clarified that the variance is requested for the porch and the roof beyond the setback is as-of-right. Ms. O'Neill stated that you can't see the house from Palmer Avenue and that this is the first house to be improved on Robins Nest Lane. Mr. Marsh stated that if the pitch of the roof were reduced, it would look disproportionally flat. The chair invited public comments. Carol Carozza of 3 Robins Nest, stated that the rendering is beautiful and suggested that the addition be to the rear of the house. Mr. Sacks stated that the variance is not about the size of the house,just the corner of the front porch which encroaches into the front yard setback. Everything else is as-of-right. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Carol Miller, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill RESOLUTION 4 Robins Nest Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 5 After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Caren and Jonah Weintraub (the "Applicant") requested a variance for new front porch and addition to the second floor on the premises located at 4 Robins Nest Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 1, Lot 271; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed porch has a front yard of 20 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(1), the addition has a front yard of 26.1 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); the proposed front steps has front yard of 21 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type 11 action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the house has been designed with a front porch to soften the impact of the massing of the house to the street and the architect has attempted to reduce the pitch of the second-floor roof as much as possible, balancing the function of the second floor against the perception of massing from the street. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 6 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the property is burdened by a large right-of-way on a cul-de-sac and the front yard curves and the curbing of the pavement pulls further away from the house on the right side so that the encroachment will be the furthest point away from where the property intersects with the street, giving the appearance of being further from the street. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because as stated above, there is a large right- of-way adding dimension between the house and the curbing of the street. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the applicant will be required to submit a stormwater prevention plan which will capture rainwater that was previously not captured. V. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 7 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. APPLICATION # 3 - CASE #3274 - Allissa Herley and William Upshur -41 Edgewood Avenue Mr. Joseph, representing Crozier Gedney Architects, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He showed the existing and proposed plans for the extension of the dormer and new front entry and explained that the dormer is being enlarged to add a new bathroom. A letter from the neighbors at 43 Edgewood, and 39 Edgewood was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the requested variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 41 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Allissa Herley and William Upshur (the "Applicant") requested a variance for proposed dormer and front entry on the premises located at 41 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 25, Lot 127; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The dormer as proposed has a front yard setback of 24.3 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to 8 Section 240-39B(1), the proposed front entry will have a front yard setback of 20.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the house is currently nonconforming, extending into the front yard setback and the proposal to expand the existing dormer will improve the appearance of the house and extending roof over the front door will also improve the appearance of the house. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because, given the constraints of the small lot size and the applicant's desire to minimize encroachment, expansion of the dormer and adding a roof over the front door to provide shelter from the elements is the only feasible alternative. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because other than extension of the roof by two feet, the proposal does not increase encroachment into the front yard setback. 9 iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be a negligible increase in impervious surface and no impact to light or air. V. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. APPLICATION #4 - CASE #3275 -Pam and Brad Nodiff- 12 Plymouth Road - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 10 Action: Unanimously approved Brad Nodiff, the applicant, addressed the Board to request legalization of two existing air conditioning condensers. The Board discussed the placement of the units and Mr. Sacks stated that it is the most logical spot on the property and anywhere else would also require a variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 12 Plymouth Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Pam and Brad Nodiff (the "Applicant") requested a variance for two existing air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 12 Plymouth Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 10, Lot 650; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The existing air conditioning condenser units in the front yard are 26.9 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); the existing air conditioning condenser is 27.5. feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); for a residence in an R-6 Zone District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 11 A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the units are pre-existing with no complaints and located in the most logical place in the rear of the house. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the lot is burdened with two front yards and locating the units in back of the house, where they are well screened, is the most reasonable location and anywhere else would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they are pre-existing units and there have been no complaints from neighbors. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because they are well screened and unobjectionable. V. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 12 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy,the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. APPLICATION #5 - CASE #3276 - Susan and David Miller - 27 Rockridge Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request variances for a master bathroom, closet, guest room, play area and front porch. He explained that this is a unique location on a dead-end street backing up to the Village of Mamaroneck and there is a 20-foot drop to Boston Post Road. He further stated that the right side of the house is pre-existing nonconforming, there is no impact on the left and rear of the house and they are requesting variances for front yard setback and lot coverage. Mr. Sacks stated that there is a large right-of-way. The architectural plans and lighting plan were discussed. A letter from the neighbors at 22, 24 and 25 Rockridge was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. Mr. Sacks stated that he is concerned with the increase in lot coverage and Mr. Lewis stated that they can cut some of the existing driveway to lessen coverage. The Board discussed the proposed plan and requested Mr. Lewis to correct the numbers on the plan and attempt to lessen coverage and resubmit next month. Mr. Lewis requested an adjournment. 13 MINUTES The minutes of February 23, 2022, were discussed. Motion: To approve the minutes of February 23, 2022 Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Approved Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Abstain: Carol Miller NEW BUSINESS Jaine Elkind Eney, the Town Supervisor, appeared before the Board and stated that the Town is embarking on a process to produce a Comprehensive Plan, which is intended to be a blueprint for the future of the Town based on input from the community. She then introduced Tiffany Zesula and Kevin Dwarka from the Pace Land Use Law Center and explained that they are asking all Boards and committees for input. Tiffany Zesula and Kevin Dwarka addressed the Board. Ms. Zesula stated that they are taking a holistic approach and working with a steering committee composed of Town residents. She provided an overview of her background and experience and explained the process and estimated timeline and stated that in addition to a Comprehensive Plan, they will also help to create an implementation plan. Ms. Zesula asked Board members to share any issues of concern related to land use or zoning. She explained that frequent requests for zoning variances may signal a need for change. Mr. Marsh stated that air-conditioning units and generators take up about 30% of the Board's agenda and in 2021 100% of the requests were approved. He further stated that this is a burden for applicants. Ms. Zesula asked about use variances and Mr. Wexler responded that they are rarely requested. Mr. Sacks stated that a lot of requests come before the Board over and over such as decks, lot coverage and porticos. Mr. Dwarka introduced himself and stated that he is working on a community needs assessment and compiling information. Mr. Sacks stated that a majority of applications that come before the Board are existing nonconforming and many applicants who want a simple improvement are required to come before the Board. He further stated that there are many instances of questions arising due to of large rights-of-way, multiple front yards, trees and fence heights. Mr. Polcari stated that the Town's Tree Code is being rewritten, as it is a hot issue. He expects that it will be before the Town Board in April. 14 Ms. Zesula thanked the Board for their comments and said if Board members have any further thoughts or suggestions, they should send them to her. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 15