HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_10_26 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 OCTOBER 26, 2022
Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Randy Heller
(alternate), Arthur Katz (alternate)
Absent: Carol Miller
Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board
of Appeals, Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison, 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 also 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.
Application #1 —Case #3282 -Jake Cutler - 7 Edgewater Place
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
Ms. Cutler, the home owner, presented her variance request for a fence topper and showed
photos of the fence.
The Board discussed the request.
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 Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh
Action: Unanimously Approved
RESOLUTION
7 Edgewater Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
1
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, Jake Cutler (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence on the premises
located at 7 Edgewater Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 5, Lot 180; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
addition to the existing fence will be 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;
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 rinds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because except for a small portion in the
front yard,this fence is not visible to anyone other than the applicant and their adjoining neighbor,
who has expressed no objection.
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 although there are trees, there are visible
gaps between the trees and more planting would encroach too much of their small side yard.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because such a small amount of the fence is
2
visible to the public and a large portion of the fence (below the 1-foot topper) is pre-existing.
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 not impact noise, light, air 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.
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 #2 - Case #3310 - Sonya and John Cronin - 242 Rockingstone Avenue
Motion: To open the public hearing
3
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
Liam Winters, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the variance request.
The Board discussed the lot coverage and concluded that based on corrected calculations, a
variance may not be required.
The matter was adjourned for lot coverage to be recalculated.
Application #3 —Case #3311 -Florent Benichou -30 Huguenot Drive
Liam Winters, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the variance request.
Mr. Sacks stated his observation that there is a large right of way as the patio is actually 39 feet
from the curb, and the property is well-screened.
Mr. Polcari stated that the patio is in the front yard, which requires a 30-foot setback.
Gail Hiler, the attorney for the prior owner(the seller), stated that the buyer's attorney found that
the patio was not zoning compliant and wants it legalized.
The Board discussed the request.
There were no public questions or comments
Motion: To close the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Approved unanimously
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Approved unanimously
RESOLUTION
30 Huguenot Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sachs, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Florent Benichou (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an existing patio
on the premises located at 30 Huguenot Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 29, Lot 650; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
existing patio has a front yard setback of 0 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to 240-38B(1)
and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
4
Section 240-69 for a building 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 rinds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because this patio has existed for many
decades with no complaint and it is compatible with and compliments the design of the house. In
addition, it is well screened and, since it is 30+feet from the road, it gives the illusion of having a
30-foot setback.
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 patio is pre-existing, well located and
would be costly to remove.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is well-screened, adds no bulk to the
property and more than 30 feet back from the road.
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 adds no new impervious surface and no bulk to the property.
v. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
5
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 #4 —Case #3312 - Gerald Henry- 11 Rockridge Road
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
Jim Arriaga, representing the homeowners, addressed the Board and explained the requested
variance.
Mr. Polcari explained that a variance was granted in 2004 but a certificate of occupancy was not
issued. An as-built survey was not requested at that time and measurements were calculated off
the site plan. This was previously established as a rear yard. Apple Bank is located on the
adjacent property.
6
Mr. Polcari stated that there have no complaints and noted that the encroachment is 20 feet above
the abutting property,
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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved.
RESOLUTION
11 Rockridge Road, 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, Gerald Henry (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as built addition on
the premises located at 11 Rockridge Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 12, Lot 542; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
existing addition has a rear yard setback of 8.8 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 building in an B-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.
7
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 property backs up to Apple
Bank's parking lot and there is a large elevation change to the rear yard which means that no rear
adjoining property will be negatively impacted.
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 would be costly and unnecessary to ask
the applicant to conform to the previously approved setback. The Board notes that the property
was previously granted a variance for an 11-foot rear yard setback and this is an opportunity to
close out the permit and accurately reflect the true building location. The Board believes it was
an honest mistake based on the fact that the property line is skewed.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there is no residential rear yard
neighbor and it sits well above adjacent 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 this is merely legalizing a project that was completed 15 years ago, entirely
built on bedrock and creates no additional impermeable 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:
8
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 #5 —Case #3313 - Todd and Laura Hoffman - 124 E. Garden Road
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, and the home owner, Mr. Hoffman, addressed the Board
to explain the requested variance. Ms. Lewis stated they were before the Board in 2020 for a
deck.
The Board and Ms. Lewis discussed the prior history of the property and the plans.
Mr. Sacks stated that the neighbor at 14 Brookside Drive will be exposed to the massing of the
addition. Mr. Marsh stated that if they moved the addition by 6 inches they would not trigger the
need for a variance, but the massing would be the same.
Ms. Lewis submitted two letters supporting the project from the neighbors residing at 14
Brookside Dr. and 126 East Garden and the letters were entered into the record and marked
Exhibit 1.
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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill
9
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
124 E. Garden Road, 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, Todd and Laura Hoffman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a one-story
addition on the premises located at 124 E. Garden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 14, Lot 280;
and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
one story addition will have a side yard setback of 7.4 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to
240-37B(2) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming
pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building 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
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 addition is designed as a single
story to provide a family room while minimizing the massing toward the street. The Board also
noted that the closest neighbor to the rear right side (14 E. Brookside) has submitted a letter of
support.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the
applicants other than an area variance.
10
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 there was an opportunity to modify the
plan to take advantage of"stepped down" zoning, which would have moved the setback 6 inches,
but the applicant plausibly stated that this would have created too many interior problems.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is consistent with the preexisting
nonconforming structure which encroaches into the required rear yard to the same extent.
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 pursuant to a separate required permit
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.
11
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.
NEW BUSINESS
The Board discussed the request for to extend a previously issued variance at 27 Rockridge
Road. Mr. Polcari stated that the applicant timely submitted the request to extend.
Motion: To grant extension, no change to plan.
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
EXTENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION
27 Rockridge 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 0 abstentions.
WHEREAS, Susan & David Miller (the "Applicant") requested a variance for proposed front
addition and porch on the premises located at 27 Rockridge Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New
York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 12,
Lot 411; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
front additions will have a front yard of 17.3 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to
Section 240-38B(1), a side yard is 8.1 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-
38B(2)(a); and lot coverage will be 40.3% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-
38 F; 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 was granted a variance for this property on April 27, 2022, with an
expiration date six months after the date that the resolution approving such variance was filed(the
"Expiration Date"); and
WHEREAS, at the April 27, 2022 meeting it was clarified that the front yard will be 18.3 feet,
not 17.3 feet and the lot coverage will be 37.6%, not 40.3%: and
WHEREAS, the Applicant timely submitted an application to extend their variance prior to the
Expiration Date;
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; and
12
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,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 front
addition and porch will enhance the appearance of the house and is consistent 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 the backyard has
severe slope and rock requiring any new square footage be added to the front of the
house and the applicant has examined and presented a number of different options and
it was agreed that the proposal is the best option.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because due to a large right of way,
the distance between the front of the house and the curb will be 28 feet, which is a
significant distance and, in addition, there is only 2.6% of additional 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 proposal will not impact air or light and there
will be a reduction in impervious surface by reducing the driveway and new plantings
will assist with drainage. Further, any additional runoff will be addressed with erosion
control.
V. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
13
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.
MINUTES
Motion: To approve the minutes of
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:16 P.M.
Minutes Prepared by
Francine M. Brill, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
14