Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_06_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 47 � k\ MINUTES 0 r Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting w j m June 28,2023 Conference Room C,First Floor 7:00 PM • FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chair Irene O'Neil, Board Vice Chair Stephen Marsh, Board Member Carol Miller, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member ABSENT: Jonathan Sacks, Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari,Building Inspector Francine Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Chair Wexler welcomed everyone and announced that this would be Francine Brill's last meeting as Secretary of the Board. The Chair and Board Members thanked Ms. Brill for her years of service to the Town. Ms. Brill stated that all items on the agenda had been properly noticed and all documents to be discussed this evening had been posted on the Town website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. AGENDA MINUTES The draft minutes of May 24, 2023 were discussed. Motion: to approve the draft minutes of the May 24, 2023 meeting Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 Application No. 1 - Case No. 3334 -Lindsey and Evan Cohen -107 North Chatsworth Avenue Motion: to open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Lindsey and Evan Cohen, the home owners, addressed the Board. Mr. Cohen stated that they received a permit and installed the unit in 2021, but the contractor's numbers were wrong and a variance is required. The Board discussed the request and the original resolution to see if the findings still apply. It was noted that there have been no complaints received by the Building Depai intent. 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 Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 107 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Lindsey and Evan Cohen (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an existing air conditioning compressor on the premises located at 107 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 14, Lot 466; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The condensing unit in the front yard is 20.8 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); a front yard of 24.3 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 38B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and 2 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 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 condenser will be set back far from the street in an area that functions as a side yard and at a considerable distance from neighboring 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 house is burdened by two front yards on a corner lot, each requiring a 30-foot setback, and there is no other suitable location on the property that would be less intrusive than what is proposed. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the two units are 25 and 30 feet from the front lot lines and located in an area which functions as a side yard but, because it's a corner lot, requires a 30-foot setback. 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 units have a low DBA rating, below 60, and will be located a considerable distance from neighboring houses. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but 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. 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 2. Application No. 2 - Case No. 3346 -David Sesay - 19 Dillon Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved David Sesay, the home owner, addressed the Board to request a privacy fence in the front yard. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 19 Dillon Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Steve Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, David Sesay(the "Applicant")requested a variance to install a fence in the front yard on the premises located at 19 Dillon Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 5, Lot 16; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed fence in the front yard will be 5 feet where 4 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in an R-6 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 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 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 fence is on the applicant's property and not near the edge—it is between the house and the driveway —not abutting a neighbor's property. Further, to the extent it is visible from the street, the Board found that it is attractive. 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 explained that a fence with the proposed dimensions is necessary to create a usable yard that provides adequate privacy for the homeowners. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the fence is set back from the boundary line of the property and exceeds the maximum height by only one foot. 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 impervious surface,no shadows and no noise. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but 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. 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 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. 3. Application No. 3 - Case No. 3347 Thomas Ducrot -45 Shadow Lane-ADJOURNED 4. Application No. 4 - Case No. 3349 Judith Bernstein - 3 Carroll Place Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jim Fleming, the applicant's architect, and Judith Bernstein, the home owner, addressed the Board. The Board discussed the request. Ms. Bernstein submitted a map and sign off from the closest neighbor in favor of the request and it was entered into the record and marked Exhibit !. There were no public questions or comments. 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 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 Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 3 Carroll Place,Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Judith Bernstein (the"Applicant")requested a variance for an AC condenser and deck on the premises located at 3 Carroll Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 22, Lot 428; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The AC condenser will have a front yard of 11 feet where 30 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the deck will has a rear yard of 20.5 feet where 25 is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37 B(3); 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 the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 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. 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 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 (i)the condenser will be on the side of the house, well-screened and there is a large right-of-way making it visually unobtrusive to neighbors and from the street; (ii) the existing deck will be extended into a small niche in the back of the house with no visual impact. 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 (i) given the configuration of the lot, the layout of the house and proximity to neighbors, the proposed location for the condenser is ideal; and (ii) the least intrusive way to expand the deck is into the rear yard niche, which will encroach less than the existing stairs from the current deck. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because (i) the condenser is next to a large right of way and heavily screened; and (ii) the deck is relatively small and tucked away behind the house. 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 (i) the condenser is far from neighboring houses, quiet and well screened; and (ii)the deck is small in sign and pervious, allowing water to pass through. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but 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. 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 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. Carried 5. Application No. 5 - Case No. 3351 Caroline O'Hara - 2 Forest Place Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved. Chuck Toothill, the applicant's architect addressed the Board to request legalization of an existing deck. The Board discussed the request. 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 Randy Heller, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 2 Forest Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 10 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Steve Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Caroline O'Hara (the "Applicant")requested a variance to install a deck on the premises located at 2 Forest Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 23, Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As-built deck has a side yard setback of 0.7' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-50, and further the deck increases the extent by which the property 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 the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 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 deck is near grade and functions more like a patio, it was built more than 20 years ago and existed through three prior owners without complaint and it is almost invisible because it is well screened by dense plantings and an ivy-covered fence. 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 is a corner lot, on rock and without this "deck"there would be no flat usable surface on that side of the house. 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is close to grade and well- screened, making it barely visible from neighbors or the street. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it contributes no massing to the property. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because they did not install the "deck" and had no reason to believe it was nonconforming. 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. 12 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 6. Application No. 6- Case No. 3352 -Jason Hanlon & Dara Liotta - 2 Wildwood Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved. Benedict Salanitro, the applicant's engineer, Jessica Zavaliga, the applicant's landscaper, and Mr. Hanlon, home owner, addressed the Board to request an on grade patio, hot tub and retaining wall. Mr. Hanlon stated that he has letters from neighbors in favor of his proposal. The Board discussed the request. Ms. Hochman stated the pergola/fence as proposed was not properly noticed and therefore cannot be 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 2 Wildwood 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, Jason Hanlon & Dara Liotta (the"Applicant") requested a variance to install a hot tub and patio/grill area on the premises located at 2 Wildwood Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 16, Lot 201; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed hot tub will have a rear yard setback of 9.3' where 20' is required, pursuant to 192-5 A (1) (b); Proposed hot tub will have a side yard setback of 5'where 15' is required, pursuant 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 to 192-5 A (1) (a); Proposed patio/grill area will have a front yard setback of 6.9' where 30'is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (1) is required for a building in an R-7.5 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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, the plans show a 10-foot-high lattice fence, which, according to the Building Inspector, requires a variance; 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 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, given the extent of the deep, dense and high vegetation along Wildwood and up toward back of their property, the patio area can't be seen from the street or from the neighboring property along Wildwood and it is also screened by vegetation from the neighboring property along Rockingstone. 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 configuration of the lot and the placement of the house would require a variance for any change to the patio area. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the patio is at grade and not visible from adjoining streets or properties and the hot tub will be well screened. 14 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 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 lighting, no additional sound and will meet all applicable drainage and safety requirements. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but 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. Notwithstanding submitted plans, no fence or wall shall exceed five (5) feet in height unless another variance is granted by this Board. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 15 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2023 ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Minutes prepared by Francine Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 16