Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_06_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" ON June 29, 2022 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Randy Heller, Arthur Katz (alternate) Absent: Carol Miller, Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison, Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of 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. The applications were taken out of order. Application #4 - Case #3260/3288 - Ryan and Nicole Fiftal - 1122 Palmer Avenue—Extension Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request an extension of the prior variance and he stated that there have been no changes to the earlier approved proposal. Motion: To open the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance extension Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved 1 RESOLUTION 1122 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Ryan and Nicole Fiftal (the"Applicant") requested a variance for a rear screened porch addition on the premises located at 1122 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 6, Lot 319; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed screened porch will have a rear yard of 22 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); 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 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 Applicant was granted a variance for this property on January 26, 2022, which expired six months after the date that the resolution approving such variance was filed (the "Expiration Date"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant stated that although they failed to get a building permit within six months, there have been no changes to the proposal, as originally requested and granted WHEREAS, the Board agreed to grant a new variance on the same findings,terms and conditions that were stated in the prior resolution; 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. 2 The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposed porch will replace an existing, deteriorating deck and faces no other houses and further,it will not be visible from Palmer Avenue or Central School. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because there is no other place to locate the porch given the placement of the house and lot size. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it totals only 50 square feet and will be a foot farther from the property line than existing deck. 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 runoff will be captured in drywells. 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 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the Expiration Date of the prior resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 #3266/3289 - David Munroe - 767 Forest Avenue—Extension Motion: To open the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Andrew Spatz, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board to request an extension for 12 months because they also need Planning Board approval for site plan as well as a wetlands and watercourses permit. He further stated that there no changes to the earlier approved proposal. Motion: To close the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To approve the requested variance extension Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 767 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, David and Nazanin Munroe(the"Applicant")requested a variance for a proposed new dwelling on the premises located at 767 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 10, Lot 50; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed new dwelling will have a front yard of 14.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); for a residence in an R-10 Zone District (the Notice of Disapproval); 4 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 Applicant was granted a variance for this property on January 26, 2022, which expired six months after the date that the resolution approving such variance was filed (the "Expiration Date"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant stated that although they failed to get a building permit within six months, there have been no changes to the proposal, as originally requested and granted WHEREAS, the Applicant further stated that additional time is needed because the application requires site plan approval and a wetlands and watercourses permit from the Town Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the Board agreed to grant a new variance on the same findings, terms and conditions that were stated in the prior resolution; 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 proposal is better than what presently exists, as the house currently is only one foot from the front property line and proposed house will be set back 15 feet; further, the massing at that point will be only a 1-story structure. 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 existing condition and steepness 5 of the site, no other option is feasible without requiring a variance and the proposed house is deferential in contours leading to the rear. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because even though it encroaches 10 feet into the required front yard, it improves present conditions. 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 proposed house is further away from front property line and the garage in front has no windows that will be used during daytime hours. 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 twelve (12) months of the Expiration Date of the prior resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within twelve (12) 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 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 #6—Case #3242/3290 -Jawad Metni and Mona Iskander — 89 W Brookside Dr. —Extension Mr. Metni requested an extension and stated that there have been no changes to his earlier approved proved. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance extension Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 89 W Brookside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh , the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jawad Metni and Mona Iskander (the"Applicant")requested a variance for front steps and landing on the premises located at 89 West Brookside Drive, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 19, Lot 423; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed steps and landing will be 21.25 feet where 30 feet is permissible as required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 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 7 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 Applicant was granted a variance for this property on August 30, 2021, which expired six months after the date it was granted; and WHEREAS, the Applicant stated that although they failed to get a building permit within six months, there have been no changes to the proposal, as originally requested and granted WHEREAS, the Board agreed to grant a new variance on the same findings,terms and conditions that were stated in the prior resolution; 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 aesthetic changes will improve the appearance of the house by adding architectural details, transitioning the entrance to make it easier to enter and the design is attractive and similar to other nearby houses. 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 design takes advantage of the existing driveway grade, with a minimum number of steps to enter the house and extends minimally into the front yard setback. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the steps and platform are low and will not be visible from the street or from neighboring properties. 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 8 conditions because the stairs will enable people to more graciously and safely enter the house and will not add bulk or massing to the house and will not add runoff or impact light and will help to mitigate a dangerous condition. 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 six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 #1 - Case #3281 —Jennifer and Ross Prussin - 10 Dimitri Place - Continued The applicant first appeared in April and adjourned due to concerns expressed by the owner of 8 Dimitri Place with respect to the shared driveway. Lisa Gilbert, the applicant's architect, explained the plans. She explained that the deck, which will be converted to interior space, had been granted prior variances and they now seek to encroach 1.5 feet beyond the existing deck into the rear yard. 9 Photos of the shared driveway burdened by a reciprocal easement agreement were circulated and entered into the record, marked Exhibit 1. Ms. Gilbert stated that in an effort to address the concerns of the adjacent property owner, the plans were revised so that the proposed addition will be further away from the easement. Public Comments: Gail Hiler, the attorney for the owner of the adjacent property at 8 Dimitri, said the approval of this request will interfere with the easement because the applicants will have to park in the driveway instead of the rear yard. The owner of 8 Dimitri, Mr. Vikrant, stated that he does not object to the design of the proposed addition but parking is a mess. The Board discussed an easement agreement which burdens both 8 and 10 Dimitri Place with respect to vehicular ingress and egress. Mr. Sacks questioned whether the proposed addition would exacerbate the current situation. He further stated that the easement is silent about whether or not it is permissible to park cars in the easement area. Mr. Heller stated that the battle over the easements should be fought in court because it is an issue of fact and not an issue for the ZBA. Andrew Spatz, the applicant's attorney, stated that the addition does not encroach upon the easement. He entered three photos into the record, marked Exhibit 2. Mr. Wexler asked if the residents back out of the driveway and Mr. Spatz responded no, they K turn for safety. Ms. Hiler submitted an affidavit, marked Exhibit 3, and a survey, marked Exhibit 4. A plan was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 5. The Board discussed the proposed addition and the easement and weighed statements by the attorney for the applicant and the owner of 8 Dimitri Place with respect to current parking difficulties and the easement agreement. 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 10 Dimitri Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 10 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, Jennifer and Ross Prussin (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 10 Dimitri Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 21, Lot 540; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition will have a rear yard of 17.9 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); 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 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, an easement agreement dated April 26, 1958 by and between prior owners of the Subject Property and prior owners of 8 Dimitri Place (the "Easement Agreement") imposes a reciprocal easement over both the Subject Property and the adjacent property at 8 Dimitri Place for common driveway purposes to provide "pleasure automobiles only" ingress and egress to and from garages in the rear of the respective properties; and WHEREAS, the Easement Agreement states that such restrictions shall remain in place until and unless such owners mutually agree to modify, amend or remove such restrictions; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has represented that the proposed addition will not be constructed within the easement area as described in the Easement Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony from the current owner of 8 Dimitri Place, and his attorney, regarding concerns about vehicular ingress, egress and parking in the common driveway; and WHEREAS, the Board determined that the proposed addition would not exacerbate the current difficulty or encroach upon the easement area; and WHEREAS, the Easement Agreement was properly executed between the parties and recorded in the land records of Westchester County (Liber 5799 Pages 82 - 85) and,by its terms, shall run with the land and bind the respective successors and assigns of each of the parties thereto; and 11 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 an existing deck will be enclosed to create additional interior space and will extend only 17 inches beyond the current deck into the rear yard and such rear yard encroachments are common among many nearby houses. 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 applicant has reduced the footprint of the original request by reducing the width of the proposed addition and the current proposal is the minimum enlargement to address the applicant's needs. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will extend only an additional 17 inches into rear yard beyond the existing deck and will only marginally increase existing lot coverage and it is well under 35% allowable lot coverage. 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 addition will not impact air, light or runoff. 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. 12 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 six(6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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. 7. This variance shall not be construed to authorize any development or conduct which is in conflict with the above-referenced Easement Agreement. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #2 - Case #3285 - Thomas Opladen—288 Rockingstone Avenue—Continued Ms. Opladen addressed the Board and explained that she went back to her contractor to see if there is a better location for the generator. She reported that the contractor explained why the original location is the safest alternative based on concern about exhaust getting into the house. The Board discussed the generator and its placement. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance extension Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 13 RESOLUTION 288 Rockingstone Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 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, Thomas Opladen (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a standby generator on the premises located at 288 Rockingstone Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 10, Lot 87; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The generator in the rear yard will be 19 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 3813(3); 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 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 generator is well screened from neighboring properties and 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 the applicant has explored different locations, all of which were infeasible and/or less safe than the requested location. 14 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the generator will be well screened and will run only when it is exercised once a week and during power outages. 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 it will be well screened and will be quiet most of the time. 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 six(6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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. 7. The generator will be exercised only during weekdays between the hours of loam and 2pm. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 15 Application #3 —Case #3287 -Brian and Jodie Sherman - 4 Dundee Road - Continued Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, stated that plans were revised to respond to comments made by Board members at the prior meeting and conversations with the neighbors. She explained that the garage addition is now smaller and the second story has been eliminated and the massing has been shifted over to the other side. She further explained that the driveway will be re-pitched and elevated to address flooding. Mr. Sacks stated that that as redesigned, the addition is less intrusive, further away from property line and further away from the street. Public Comments: Richard Weston, of 7 Avon Road, requested plantings for screening and entered into the record photos marked Exhibit 1. Mr. Marsh asked whether there is room to landscape in the side yard between the neighboring property and Ms. Lewis answered, yes. Motion: To close the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance extension Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 4 Dundee Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Brian and Jodie Sherman Roger (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a garage addition on the premises located at 4 Dundee Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 8, Lot 247; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition as proposed has a side yard of 4 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36A(2)(a),a combined side yard of 15.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240.36A(2)(b); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District (the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, after revisions, the proposed side yard will be 6.1 feet and the combined side yard 16 will be 17.8 feet; 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 addition is compatible with the design of the existing house, consistent with nearby homes and in character with the neighborhood. 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 it was noted that the applicant revised their original proposal to respond to previous concerns expressed by Board members and neighbors. Further, it is necessary to rebuild the garage and raise the grade to resolve a water problem. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because after the addition is constructed, the house will be only 6 inches closer to adjacent house and the proposed massing has been reduced to be in scale with the neighborhood. 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 no additional lighting from the rebuilt garage, the added bulk is 17 small given the scale of the property and there will be negligible increase the impervious surface. 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 six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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. 7. Evergreen plantings at a height of six (6) feet in height (above the root ball) shall be placed along the new addition facing the property line. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #7 - Case #3291 -Andrew Hahn- 29 Cornell Street David Goessl and Frank Diodati, the applicant's engineers and Mrs. Hahn, the homeowner, were present to address the Board to request an inground pool on a corner property. 18 Mr. Polcari stated that the Town Code's requirement about distance from the house has no known purpose and is no longer required in NYS code. Mr. Goessl stated that engineering plans have been submitted for erosion controls. Mrs. Hahn explained that her daughter needs aqua therapy to treat a serious illness and public pools are no longer a feasible option. Mr. Diodati stated tht the area for the pool is well screened and he entered into the record photos, marked Exhibit 1. He further stated that there are letters of support from neighbors in the packet. The Board discussed the request. Motion: To open the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no public questions or comments. 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 Irene O'Neill, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 29 Cornell Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Randy Heller,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Andrew Hahn(the"Applicant")requested a variance for an in-ground pool on the premises located at 29 Cornell Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 2, Lot 121; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed in-ground pool as proposed has a side yard setback of 10 feet where 15 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(a),set back to the principle structure will be 10.9 feet where 15 feet is required pursuant to Section192-5A(1)(a),the inground swimming pool will have a rear yard setback of 12.5 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 192- 5A(1)b),the side yard placement of the swimming pool equipment is not permitted pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(c); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-30 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 19 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 pool will be located in a far back corner of the property and will be well screened and not visible from nearby properties or 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 the house sits on a corner, burdened by two front yards and the rear back corner of the property is the only suitable location. Further, the applicant studied alternatives to lessen the variance, all of which were found infeasible. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that although the size of the pool and decking is substantial, the impact is not substantial because an inground pool adds no massing and, further, its location in the lower part of the yard and screening mitigate visual impacts. 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 are four Cultecs to capture the water so it will not generate additional runoff to the neighborhood and there will be no visual impacts. V. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 20 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 six(6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 #8 - Case #3292 -Robert Cho - 30 Colonial Avenue Mr. Cho requested a variance for a built-in grill. The Board members discussed the request and expressed frustration that under the Town Code, an accessory building would be permissible, but not an accessory structure. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no public questions or comments Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 21 Motion: To approve the requested variance extension Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 30 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Robert Cho (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a built-in grill on the premises located at 30 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 20, Lot 275.2; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed built in grill will have a side yard setback of 5 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39(2)(a) and will increase the lot coverage to 35.3% where 35% is permitted pursuant to 240-39F 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 built-in grill has the same impact as a portable grill. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 22 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 alternative of a portable grill, which would be permissible as-of-right, would not have discernably different impacts. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because a built-in grill has essentially the same impact as a portable grill. 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 it increases impervious surface by only .3% which is negligible and it gives rise to no other impacts. 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 six(6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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. 23 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 #9 - Case #3293 -LM 1329 Boston Post Road- 1329 Boston Post Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Daniel Forst,the applicant's representative, addressed the Board to request variances for two signs, and further stated that they were approved by the Town's Board of Architectural Review. The variance for the front facing sign is needed for the overall size of the sign panel; the lettering size is conforming and the goose neck lighting is conforming. The other sign needs a variance because it is proposed to be installed on the side of the building. Public Comments: Michael Dick, who resides at I Rockridge Road, stated his concern about the proposed lighting of the side wall sign, which will be visible from his bedroom windows. He further stated that he is not concerned with the sign itself, only the lighting. Mr. Forst stated that their goal is to minimize light pollution with dark night certified lighting on a timer to shut off after the business closes. Mr. Dick stated that he is familiar with gooseneck down lighting but since the tree canopy was removed, any lighting will make the signs visible from his house. Mr. Sacks stated that the lighting aspect of the side wall sign is not part of the variance request. The Board discussed the request and Mr. Dick's objection. Mr. Furst agreed that in order to address Mr. Dick's concerns about lighting, the side wall sign would be unlit and unilluminated. 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 1329 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York 24 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, LM 1329 Boston Post Road (the "Applicant") requested a variance for two new signs on the premises located at 1329 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 12, Lot 309; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The two new signs at 40 inch high are not permitted(32 inch permitted) pursuant to Section175- 11B, the sign on the side wall is not permitted pursuant to Section 175-11B (the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, in response to concerns expressed by a neighbor who objected to the lighting of the side wall sign, the Applicant agreed to modify the proposal so that the side wall sign would be unlit; 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 signs as designed are unobtrusive, not backlit and consistent with other nearby business signs on Boston Post Road. Further, the Applicant agreed that the sign on the side wall will not be lit to reduce impact to the neighboring property. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 25 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 restrictions of the logo and site conditions, the size of the sign cannot be reduced. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the signs are in harmony with current area signage in the commercial district on Boston Post Road. Further, although the sign is larger than the 32 inches allowable,the lettering is only 10 inches in height and the background is neutral to the building. 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 additional lighting on the front facing sign will be negligible on Boston Post Road, which is a well- lit road, and the side wall sign will not lit. 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 six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months. 26 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. 7. The sign to be installed on the side wall shall remain unlit and unilluminated. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #10 - Case #3294 -Kenneth Stier -50 Country Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Drew Gambles, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board to request a generator to be installed two feet from the property line and the neighbor's driveway. She further stated that the property is irregularly shaped and the generator would be over 100 feet from the neighbor's residence and screened by arborvitaes. Mr. Wexler asked why the generator could not be closer to the applicant's house, which would require less of a variance. Ms. Gambles responded that alternate locations would interfere with landscaping. Mr. Sacks stated that they will have to dig up for the trench from the generator to the propane tanks either way, which would also impact landscaping. Mr. Stier stated that the proposed location was chosen because it is a dry spot and other areas of the property have been impacted by flooding. A photo was entered into the record, marked Exhibit 1. The location of the propane tanks was discussed and Mr. Sacks asked whether the placement of the generator and tanks could be switched. Public Comments: Courtney and Garret Stanley, who reside next door at 52 Country Road, stated that they object to the proposed location of the generator because it is in front of the house by the driveway and by their son's bedroom. They asked why Mr. Stier did not adhere to the Town Code requirements, as they had done when they installed their generator. Mr. Marsh stated that the proposed location is almost in the neighbor's driveway. Mr. Sacks asked why it could not be located in a place that would not require a variance. Mr. Wexler stated that the generator could be placed 10 feet from the property line, which would require less of a variance. 27 Ms. Gambles stated she understands the Board members' concerns and will explore alternatives. The matter was adjourned to July 27t'. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Wexler stated he would prefer not to have a meeting in August, perhaps earlier in September and September 7fl'was suggested as a date. Ms. Hochman explained the new local law which would allow remote participation under "extraordinary circumstances"but cautioned that there would have to be a quorum of members present at a location where the public can attend. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes of the May 25, 2022 meeting Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 28