Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
August 13, 2007 8 p.m.
PRESENT: Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown, Merrill Verma; Counsel Shumejda;
*Building Inspector/Engineer McGarvey; Secretary D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Chairwoman Lawrence, Ms. James
Mr. Maloney chaired the meeting in Ms. Lawrence’s absence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, that the minutes of July 9, 2007, be approved as submitted. Ms. Merrill Verma abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – CASE – 77 CREST DRIVE
No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. No one from the public appeared to speak on this application. The Secretary reported she has had no communication from the applicant regarding the outstanding portion of her application for a parking space. The Board directed the Secretary to send Ms. Case a letter and advise her that the Board will remove this matter from the agenda at their next meeting unless there are new submissions or she appears at that meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – RENHA – 3 WINDLE PARK
No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. No one from the public appeared to speak on this application. The Secretary reported she has had no communication from the applicant regarding the additional information requested by the Board. The Board directed the Secretary to send a letter to the Renhas advising that the Board will remove this matter from the agenda at their next meeting unless the additional requested information is submitted.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – DUNBAR – 94 MAIN STREET
The Secretary advised that the architect for the applicant has requested an adjournment to the Board’s September meeting since he is out of town tonight. No one from the public appeared to speak on this application. The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their September meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – SOMERSON/DOANE – 114 NEPERAN ROAD
The Board reported receipt of the following memo dated August 13, 2007, from Michael McGarvey, Village Engineer/Building Inspector:
“Variance for 114 Neperan Road (Somerson/Doane Residence) – Please be advised that subsequent to the last Zoning Board meeting of July 9, 2007, I met with the applicant and the architect to discuss requested variances and at that meeting it was determined that there was no increase in non-conformity. Therefore, Zoning Board approval would not be required.”
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – C. M. PATEMAN & ASSOCIATES – VACANT LOT AT INTERSECTION OF ALTAMONT AND FAIRVIEW AVENUES
Mr. Chuck Pateman stated they are requesting a variance from the steep slopes ordinance. They have had the surveyor do an on-site topographical survey on point. This has been presented to the Planning Board and Mr. McGarvey. They are looking for a variance to disturb 426 sq. ft. of slope. They have protected another area of steep slopes with a wall. They can build without a variance but they would prefer to grade the property so there is a backyard without a bump in the middle of it. The Planning Board has requested that the house be lowered and he will be submitting revised plans to them showing this. Mr. Pateman stated the Planning Board discussed this variance at their meetings and felt it was a minimal variance. (He submitted May and June Planning Board minutes where it was so
stated.)
Mr. Maloney questioned whether the design of the house has changed. Mr. Pateman stated it has not. The house is just being lowered 2 ft. as requested by the Planning Board.
Ms. Brown stated she realized it is a small variance; however, the applicant has said the house can be built without the variance and she felt the Board should not grant variances unless there is a good public benefit. Mr. Pateman stated they do not need the variance; however, without it there would be a bump in the backyard. This slope was actually created by a tree that fell. People don’t want a bump in their backyard and that is why the Zoning Board exists.
Ms. Brown questioned whether this house maximizes the zoning requirements. Mr. McGarvey stated the house’s front and side yard setbacks are larger than permitted and the house is below the F.A.R. but it is close to what is allowed.
Mr. Maloney questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Ms. Brown stated the Planning Board has not yet acted on this application. Mr. Pateman stated the Planning Board has, however, discussed this variance and feels it is minimal.
Counsel Shumejda noted that at the ZBA’s July meeting Chairwoman Lawrence had stated the ZBA would make a determination – with or without Planning Board recommendation – at their August meeting.
Mr. McGarvey stated if the Board is inclined to approve this variance tonight, the variance should be conditioned on this site plan being approved by the Planning Board.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of the granting of the proposed variance.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the findings required by the ordinance:
1.That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
2.That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood
3.That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method
4.That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment
5.That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the
neighborhood
6. That the variance is the minimum one deemed necessary and will preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community
grants a variance to allow a 426 sq. ft. steep slopes disturbance for the house proposed at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Altamont Avenue, subject to:
1. Approval of the site plan for the proposed house by the Planning Board
2. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector
3. Obtaining a building permit for the project within two years.
The Board was polled. Ms. Brown dissented. All others assented. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – MOSA – 163 RIVERVIEW AVENUE
The Board reported receipt of the following letter dated August 10, 2007, from Ron Palmer, 86 Tappan Landing Road
“My name is Ron Palmer. I live behind the Mosa residence at 86 Tappan Landing Road. I will be out of town for the meeting on Monday night, but I have reviewed the revised plans at the Village office and my concerns are as follows:
1. The 25’ x 10’ extension is in violation of the 26’ setback requirement and is further encroaching on my property. This house was remodeled in the past adding
a full second floor and currently dwarfs the adjacent neighbors. This addition
would be out of character for the neighborhood.
2. My second concern is drainage. On heavy rain days water flows from the property down the embankment carrying soil and debris all the way to my front yard. The proposed addition of 250 sq. ft. of roof area will add to this problem and possibly cause damage to my property.
I do not believe that Mr. Mosa has presented adequate reason to the Board to grant a variance in this matter. The Village zoning regulations and guidelines have been established to address concerns such as mentioned above and to protect the rights of property owners.
I would like to thank the Board for taking the time to address my concerns.”
Mr. Maloney noted the Board has received revised plans for this application.
Mr. Mosa stated Mr. Palmer’s property is not behind his property. He stated the proposed addition is now 9 ft. x 20 ft. It has been reduced in size. He stated if drainage is a concern, he could put a dry well on his property. The size of his house has nothing to do with this application.
Mrs. Mosa stated the previous addition was done 24 years ago – no variances were required. She stated there are several houses in the neighborhood that are as high, if not higher, than their home.
Upon inquiry, Mr. Mosa stated the proposed addition is one-story – about 12 ft. high.
Counsel Shumejda stated the variance requested last month was 40% over what is allowed. With this reduction it is now 33% over what is permitted. The revised plans show a 17.45 ft. rear yard setback where 26 ft. is required. Ms. Brown stated this is a significant variance.
Mr. Maloney questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Upon inquiry from the chair, Mr. Mosa stated all materials for the addition will match existing.
Ms. Merrill Verma stated if the Board had statistics showing the size of neighboring properties – and which have received variances – it would be helpful.
Mr. Jolly noted Board members revisited the property yesterday and they looked at the Mosas’ property from the Palmer property. He stated he could not see where this would hinder Mr. Palmer’s view because he won’t be able to see this addition.
Ms. Brown questioned how the other neighbors feel. Mrs. Mosa stated she received about one-half of the green cards back. Other neighbors have asked what they are proposing and when advised, had no problem.
Counsel Shumejda stated the architect should submit a line drawing of the houses on the street. There should also be photographs submitted showing houses north, south, east and west.
Mr. McGarvey stated if drainage is a concern, the Zoning Board could condition an approval on increased drainage requirements, e.g., having all retention on site.
Ms. Brown stated she was concerned about setting a precedent because this is a large variance. Counsel Shumejda stated that is one criteria the Board reviews in considering variances but the other factors must be analyzed as well.
Mr. Jolly stated the house to the rear of this one is down hill and the windows can’t be seen. He noted the addition has been reduced a foot. He questioned whether it could be further reduced. Mr. Mosa stated if it is reduced any further, it would not make sense to construct it.
Board members unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their September meeting and stated they will again visit the property.
*Mr. McGarvey left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER OF NEW YORK – EMBREE STREET
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, August 13, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Islamic Cultural Center of New York
c/o Dr. Adel Akel, President
211 Station Road
New Rochelle, New York 10804
For an interpretation from the Zoning Schedule of the Tarrytown Zoning Ordinance, as to whether a religious use is permitted as of right in the R-60 zoning district.
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property owned by the Islamic Cultural Center of New York is located on Embree Street, Tarrytown, New York, and is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 27, Parcel 9A.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Ms. Mary Ann Stecich, attorney for the applicant, stated they are asking for an interpretation of the Tarrytown Zoning Code on the question of whether a place of worship and religious education is permitted in the R-60 zoning district. In the spring of 2001 they had an application before the Planning Board on a 5-1/4 acre parcel of land they own on Embree Street. While the application was bending, Mr. Shumejda, then counsel to the Planning Board, wrote to Kevin Plunkett, then the Village Attorney, for an opinion as to whether the R-60 district allows a religious use as a Principal Use. Mr. Plunkett’s opinion was that it does not. Mr. Plunkett’s opinion was based on the fact that when the R-60 and R-80 zoning districts were added to the Zoning Code, Section 305-25(A) was not amended to
permit religious uses in the R-60 and R-80 districts. He stated the rationale for not permitting religious uses in the new R-60 and R-80 zoning districts was to encourage single family residential development in a lower density to preserve open space. The error in Mr. Plunkett’s opinion is that the section that permits uses is Section 305-9, which provides that the use is permitted in each residential zoning district. One need not look any farther than the schedule to see that it is permitted. Section 305-25 referred to by Mr. Plunkett is entitled ‘Additional requirements for R-40, R-30, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7.5 and R-5 Districts.’ This cites that churches and religious education uses must have at least two acres of property and no more than two persons unrelated by blood, adoption or marriage shall reside therein. Section 305-25 does not provide which uses are permitted and not permitted. That is in the schedule.
That the R-60 and R-80 are not included in 305-25 means they are not affected by that section. “My position is Mr. Plunkett’s opinion is dead wrong and under the Tarrytown code, religious uses are permitted in all R zoning districts.” Ms. Stecich stated the Court of Appeals has consistently held that religious uses have to be permitted in all residential zones. They may be regulated but they are permitted.
Mr. Maloney questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Sonya Schur, 66 Embree Street, submitted a petition with about 200 signatures from people opposition this kind of use in their neighborhood. She stated there is a problem with access. Embree Street would be the only access for any religious use on this property. Ms. Brown stated there is no application for any type of project. The applicant
is just asking whether a place of worship is allowed any place in the Village in an R-60 zoning district.
Counsel Shumejda stated there is no pending application. It is a question of interpretation of the code whether it is permitted in any residential zone. The concerns of residents are Planning Board issues and if there is an application, the Planning Board would have to address the issues.
A resident questioned who makes the interpretation whether this is a permitted use. Counsel Shumejda stated the Zoning Board; however, in 2004 the United States Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act and as interpreted in recent case law, a religious activity such as an Islamic Cultural Center would constitute a religious exercise which cannot be banned from residentially zoned districts.
Ms. Brown stated even if the Zoning Board interpreted it is not allowed, that interpretation would be superseded by State and Federal law.
Counsel Shumejda stated any municipality can use its zoning codes to review any application in regard to height, access, traffic, etc. The Planning Board has the right to review and make a determination. The only issue for the Zoning Board tonight is whether it is a permitted use in the Village of Tarrytown in a residential zone. Ms. Stecich stated she did not believe there has ever been a question that it is permitted in all R districts except R-60 and R-80.
Mr. Dan Rizzi, Walnut Street, stated it may be allowable but the question is whether it is appropriate. Everyone should be aware of the tax-exempt land already in the Village. It is pulling away tax income where maybe three houses could be built on this property.
Counsel Shumejda stated if an application is filed, the Planning Board will have to make a determination what kind of environmental review is required. If they require a full Environmental Impact Statement, that would be a detailed document. The Planning Board would determine what type of things they would want reviewed in a Scoping Document. That is where members of the public should let their views be known.
Mr. Rizzi questioned whether a Village has the ability to limit how much tax-exempt land is allowed within their Village limits. Counsel Shumejda stated it does not.
Mr. Cromwell Smith, 58 Embree Street, stated the most important thing is safety. There are many young children on this street.
Mr. Bob Jones, 20 Woodlawn Street, stated the question before the Zoning Board is a legal issue. He stated he does not want a large religious institution in his neighborhood; but he did not feel the law in Tarrytown actually prohibits it. The Planning Board, however, can have a lot of say about whether something like that gets developed.
Ms. Laurie Hrbek, 61 Walnut Street, submitted a petition signed by a number of residents. She stated other houses of worship are on major streets or near major intersections or in the inner Village. She stated Embree Street is the only access to this property and it is a narrow street lined with single-family homes. There are no sidewalks and it is already a congested neighborhood not designed for the traffic and safety concerns generated by a house of worship.
Ms. Marge Bartos, 61 Embree Street, stated last winter the entire street was stuck for about a month because of the ice.
Ms. Schur questioned where access would be. Ms. Stecich stated when they were previously before the Planning Board they hoped to gain property from Unification Church so there could be access on Sheldon Avenue. The Church seemed interested but then they stopped talking with her clients. When the Church’s plan for Jardim Estates East came before the Planning Board she requested in the scoping that the Planning Board consider Unification Church reconfiguring a bit to give the Islamic Cultural Center a piece of the property but Mr. Shumejda advised them not to consider that. The Islamic Cultural Center is still open to that.
Mr. Jolly questioned if the Islamic Cultural Center felt Mr. Plunkett’s decision was wrong, why it has taken six years for them to come to the Zoning Board. Ms. Stecich stated you cannot appeal an attorney’s decision to the ZBA. She has been trying to get this application to this Board for some time and decided to apply for an interpretation of the zoning code. World events also slowed things down and they were trying to work out the land swap with Unification Church.
Ms. Marion DeLuigi stated her family moved to Sheldon Avenue in 1959. There has been a lot of change in the neighborhood since then. Traffic is horrendous. There is no way to get in and out of this property safely.
No one further appeared to address the Board.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the Zoning Board of Appeals determines a religious use is permitted in an R-60 zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING – ROTH – 7 WHITETAIL ROAD
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, August 13, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Michael Roth
7 Whitetail Road
Irvington, New York 10533
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located in the Village of Tarrytown at the above address regarding joining existing house to the existing garage allowing for a kitchen addition between the house and garage requiring the following variance:
1. Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
Width at front of building is required to be 100 ft. and 83 ft. 5 in. exists
2. Side yard setback is required to be 12 ft. and 8 ft. 2 in. is proposed (§305-9)
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 29B, Block 126, Lot 33 and is located in an R-10 (Residential) zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Board members visited the property.
Mr. Miguel Sostre, architect, stated this property has a modest structure – well below the permitted Floor Area Ratio. There is an existing garage, which is not conforming and is connected to the house by an open breezeway. They are proposing a modest addition and framing in the breezeway to create a mudroom. Once the garage is connected to the main house, it is no longer an accessory structure but becomes part of the main building.
Mr. Sostre noted the first variance cited in the notice is not needed. The property does have the 100 ft. at the front.
Board members questioned how large the kitchen addition area would be. Mr. Sostre stated it is 60 ft.
Board members reported receipt of the following memo dated August 13, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“7 Whitetail Road - I have reviewed this application for connection of house to garage with kitchen addition and find the proposal poses no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Mr. Maloney questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of a variance granted for connecting the house to the garage with a kitchen addition at 7 Whitetail Road.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the findings required by the ordinance:
1. That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
2. That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood
3. That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method
4. That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment
5. That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the
neighborhood
6. That the variance is the minimum one deemed necessary and will preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community
grants a variance to permit the side yard setback to be 8.2 ft. where 12 ft. is required for the property at 7 Whitetail Road subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector
2. Obtaining a building permit for the proposal within two years.
PUBLIC HEARING – WALTER/NOVICK – 33 POWDERHORN WAY
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, August 13, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Linda Walter & Charles Novick
33 Powderhorn Way
Tarrytown, New York 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding a partial second floor addition and removal of rear wood deck and replacement with a one-story screened porch incorporating a kitchen addition requiring the following variance:
Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
1. Minimum lot size is required to be 15,000 sq. ft. and 13,817 sq. ft. exists
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 29C, Block 131, Lot 11 and is located in an R-15 (Residential) zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Board members visited the property.
Mr. Novick submitted letters from the residents at 25 Powderhorn Way, 30 Powderhorn Way, 22 Powderhorn Way, 26 Powderhorn Way, and 21 Powderhorn Way expressing no objections to the proposal.
Mr. Howard Albert, architect, stated they are proposing an addition at the rear of the house. It will be within all the zoning parameters. The only issue is that the lot itself is smaller than the minimum lot allowed in this area. It is 13,817 sq. ft. instead of 15,000 sq. ft. The house conforms in all other manners to a house in this zoning district on this lot.
Mr. Albert reviewed with the Board the plans showing the layout of the house.
Mr. Maloney questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Board members reported receipt of the following memo dated August 13, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“Walter/Novick – 33 Powderhorn Way - I have reviewed this application for partial second floor addition and removal of rear wood deck and replacement with a one-story screened porch incorporating a kitchen addition and find the proposals pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact resulting from granting the requested variance for the property at 33 Powderhorn Way.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and the record reflect the Board’s having arrived at the Findings required by the ordinance:
1.That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
2. That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood
3. That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method
4. That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment
5. That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the
neighborhood
6. That the variance is the minimum one deemed necessary and will preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community
grants the requested variance subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector
2. Obtaining a building permit for the proposal within two years.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – BORITZ – 10 POWDERHORN WAY
Mr. Maloney stated at the last meeting the Board asked the applicant to submit information about other homes in the neighborhood.
Mr. Bill Witt, architect, submitted a grid showing lot size, stories, house size, and F.A.R. for houses on Powderhorn Way, Tarryhill Road and Old Forge Lane. Mr. Witt stated he obtained the information from the Town of Greenburgh’s web site. The houses had F.A.R.s ranging from .12 to .32. The house at 10 Powderhorn Way with the proposed addition will have an F.A.R. of .29 not including the basement level (Greenburgh’s F.A.R.s exclude basements and garages.) It will not be the largest house in the area but it will not be the smallest either.
Mr. Witt stated the house at 10 Powderhorn Way is currently 2,695 sq. ft. and the proposed addition is 755 sq. ft. The house will be 3,450 sq. ft. Mr. Witt submitted photographs of houses in the area.
Mrs. Boritz stated they have two children and are expecting a third. The master bedroom is not on the same level as the children’s rooms. The proposed addition will allow them to have the master bedroom on the same level as the children. She stated they purchased this house because they wanted to live in this area.
Mr. Witt stated they tried in the architecture to reduce the massing. The house is well in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Originally they talked about doing a full second floor as some other houses in the area have done, but they scaled it back.
Ms. Brown stated currently this is the biggest house on that cul-de-sac. Mr. Witt stated the appearance of the house is not disproportionate. The existing house has an awkward plan. They are also not increasing the footprint of the house.
Mrs. Boritz submitted letters from the residents at 14 Powderhorn Way and 21 Powderhorn Way stating they have seen the plans and feel the proposed addition fits the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Maloney questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Ms. Brown stated it seems everyone on this street is updating their homes. The addition would allow this family to have a master bedroom upstairs with the children. The neighbors don’t have any objections.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the granting of the variances for the proposed addition at 10 Powderhorn Way, poses no significant adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the findings required by the ordinance:
1.That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
2. That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood
3. That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method
4. That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment
5. That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the
neighborhood
6. That the variance is the minimum one deemed necessary and will preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community
grants the requested variances:
Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
1.Minimum lot size is required to be 15,000 sq. ft. and 11,846 sq. ft. exists
2. Width at the front of building is required to be 115 ft. and 97.5 ft. exists
3. Required minimum street frontage is required to be 115 ft. and 95 ft. exists
4. Minimum combined side yard setbacks is 30 ft. and 29.83 ft. exists
5. Maximum height permitted is 2.5 stories and 3 stories exist
6. Total gross floor area (F.A.R.) permitted is .328 ft., .373 exists, and .436 is proposed
Subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector
2. Obtaining a building permit for the proposal within two years.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 10:15 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
