ZBA minutes 5-16-06

Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

Tuesday May 16, 2006 7:30 p.m.

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Members Present: Donald Rose

Robert Marino

Mickey Zucker

Members Absent: Harold Boxer

Staff Present: Karen Schleimer

Austin Cassidy

Donald Rose: We are opening the Tuesday May 16, 2006 public meeting. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of April 18, 2006. I feel that there are a couple of areas that need to be addressed to make sure that is the sense of the hearing. Would the other members agree and I suggest that we table that until the June meeting.

Robert Marino: Certainly.

Donald Rose: We will then open a new case. The case of Application #ZBA2006-04. The applicants are Richard and Kristine Mullen of 14 Fairways Dr.

Donald Rose: You have applied for a variance and base on the notice of denial for the construction of a new detached 2 car garage. The denial references section 110-31 G5 of the village code town of Mt. Kisco. This requires that an accessory detached garage shall not be closer than 15 feet to the rear lot line. Your application proposes an intrusion that its closest proximity of 10 feet into the rear yard set back requirement. Thus leaving a set back provision of only 5 feet at the northwest corner and increasing to 7 feet at the northeast of this garage. Having that denial you have applied for a variance before this board. I would ask you to describe your project and the reasons why you feel that a variance is in order.

Richard Mullen: The reasons we asked for the set back is for the esthetics of the property. We felt it was best location in asking for the variance, because of the lay out of the driveway on the property and the way it is situated against the house. If it were to come forward more it would encroach on the house. In our opinion it did not look very good. That is the reason we are applying for this.

Donald Rose: To my eye this looks like a lot of floor area for a 2 car garage. You have almost as much area for storage.

Richard Mullen: As I pointed out this area here we have a relatively large yard and a lot of lawn. So we have a tractor and 2 younger children with bikes, skis and an SUV and a host of other things.

Kristine Mullen: Part of our goal in making it a large floor plan was we also have a pool. Right now all of our patio equipment, pool equipment, pumps and recreation are outside all winter. We try to cover what we can with tarps to protect, but being in the elements it doesn't work. We were hoping that this one building would suit us for all our storage for all of the items and not require any additional sheds or detached free standing buildings. One unit will encompass everything.

Donald Rose: The question comes up and you mentioned the pool equipment and other things. You presumably could take care of that equipment with other sheds or structures.

Richard Mullen: Not really, because if you notice back here. In the pool area itself the space is limited. There is a patio back here and a fireplace here. There is no place to put it. There is a small amount of lawn space back here. It would not be practical to put it there. You have a couple of pumps large umbrella for the tables and chairs. You would not have a place to put any of that stuff. It has been a large issue for us. A gust of wind and everything is all over the yard. It is basically for storage and literally gets the 2 cars in. We have a lot of trees on the property and a few cracked windshields. We felt it necessary to protect the vehicles.

Donald Rose: A lot of the old houses have big out door steps into the basement area, is yours as such?

Richard Mullen: No. We have to go through the center hall of the house and down. We also have a lot of water issues so it is not a good storage area. Right now the only thing down there is Rubbermaid style shelves to keep it raised and off the floor. It is not practical to carry all of that through the house.

Donald Rose: I can understand why you would like to move the garage back as far as you have. Unfortunately our judgments have to be based on what the rules say also.

Richard Mullen: The reason why we didn't think it would be such an issue is because back here is a commercial property. It is a very large parking lot. There is a 15 foot high wall. Our house is on top of that wall. There is 3 foot from their line to our line in addition to the 5 foot set back. There are also very tall pines.

Donald Rose: When you say there is 3 feet.

Kristine Mullen: Are you familiar with 666 Lexington? There is that big cement wall and on top of that wall they have 3 feet forward plus our 5 feet. So it is really 8 feet, some of theirs to the smallest point.

Donald Rose: The wall is completely on their property.

Richard Mullen: In addition to the tall trees from the base of the wall which are now about 5-6 feet above the wall. There is another set of pines on top of the wall. We have brought pictures.

Austin Cassidy: Just for the ad vocation of the board you will note from the plan the house faces if you will sideways in its presentation.

Kristine Mullen: The house is sideways.

Austin Cassidy: As you look at the rear property line there is a commercial parking lot.

Too Many People Speaking

Kristine Mullen: The taller trees are on our property. There are 2 sets of screening.

Richard Mullen: There is a lot of noise in the early morning, and when they are exchanging dumpsters. This helps screen some of the noise. It was better at one time because the dumpsters were in the middle.

Kristine Mullen: The planning board moved them. The windows in our bedroom literally vibrate when the truck comes in the morning. I did take photos and this is outside our bedroom window. You can see the dumpster right there.

Richard Mullen: We are also screening some of the noise.

Robert Marino: I did go by the property. This little survey of the property is helpful. In my own personal view it doesn't do justice to show how tight this area is where the proposed garage is. You have a front door here, the street is here. The side of the house is facing the front of the street. Any attempt to move the garage up you really starts to encroach on their walkway and block the front of the house.

Donald Rose: Am I right and there is a shed back there now?

Kristine Mullen: That is right. That will be removed.

Richard Mullen: On this side there is rock and about 3-4 feet higher than the driveway. That is not usable space. There would have to be a small retaining wall. The residents over here it slopes way down. They are down on Rt. 128.

Kristine Mullen: They are almost level with the 666 Lexington.

Richard Mullen: They are far away from this area.

Robert Marino: Is that the back yard of the neighbors?

Kristine Mullen: Yes. Their yard is a big slope.

Richard Mullen: It is about 10 feet up from the actual level of the house. They will not even see this.

Donald Rose: Have they commented on the proposal?

Kristine Mullen: They are very nice people but they are old fashion Italian. It is very limited conversation.

Mickey Zucker: I am concerned that there might be another way of accomplishing this. Obviously when we are talking about doing a variance we are charged with is there another way to accomplish this other than what is being presented. It is a very large 2 car garage. 2 car garages can typically be 20-22 feet wide.

Richard Mullen: If it were 22 feet there would be no storage capacity. The tractor alone requires at least a 4 feet of a footprint.

Mickey Zucker: The question is if it were cut down somewhat, could it be repositioned so it is right on the side line because there is no variance being asked for there. Then perhaps it could be moved down without becoming a problem for the house. I can see if we took the whole thing and tried to move down the 15 feet it would interfere.

Richard Mullen: We laid out large planks and that was an option that we reviewed. If you put it on that angle it will encroach on the house again.

Kristine Mullen: If you turn the garage this way to be parallel with the side set back the whole garage is not at a right angle to each other. It skews the angle and from an architectural stand point it doesn't look right. We tried to get a visual on it. This looks quite a bit small that we are asking for. To be able to place 2 cars and open and unload skis and children and equipment.

Mickey Zucker: If I did my math right this comes out to be about 26 feet.

Too Many People Speaking

Richard Mullen: This is a fence with an arbor and then there is a berm that runs across the front. There are trees here and this is elevated from the driveway. This slopes down to this point. Then it slopes up on this side. It is almost like the driveway is sunk. You get up here and it levels out with the house. Over here you still have that rise. We have explored this extensively. This is the best that we could come up with. We could move it forward but the appeal of it does feel like it is encroaching on the house. There are a lot of trees around here.

Austin Cassidy: I am doing some calculations. It goes beyond feeling that way. Because the rear side property line is not at right angles to each other. As you slid the garage even a 20 foot wide garage forward it would practically be up to the house because of the biased angle of the side lot line and maintaining the side yard set back to reach your rear yard set back, the garage would be up to the house.

Richard Mullen: That is why we shrunk as much as we could. We did try different angles.

Kristine Mullen: We thought putting in one structure to achieve multiple purposes would be better than having multiple structures on the property. I did meet with the owner of 666 Lexington and he had no objections. He did write a letter for us.

Donald Rose: If this were level ground it would not be a very compelling case for the variance. But the rather extreme change in elevation from the back of your property down to 666 Lexington.

Robert Marino: It is very dramatic.

Donald Rose: This is a very different situation and I think somewhat unusual in the village.

Robert Marino: It is extremely unique location. If we were to force the garage up and over as Austin indicated we are going to start to encroach on the side yard. Then we make the garage much more visible to the adjoining residential neighbors. Whereas the rear yard there is a very large commercial parking lot. What you see is the garbage pick up area. For what it is worth I was surprised when I looked at the property. When you see it, and because of walkways and a brick structure and patio and so on. You might end up causing other work to be done to realign some of that. Putting it back here in the corner is the best for this property and for the neighbors of this property.

Donald Rose: You did make the point in your submission and whatever land is behind the garage would basically be unused.

Richard Mullen: Plus you have the buffer in the back from the commercial property.

Mickey Zucker: I am questioning whether it needs to be this size, but I do agree this is the best spot for it. Is there any way of making the variance less onerous by making it smaller. I don't know if it will make any difference to the board.

Donald Rose: Were other configurations tried for instance asymmetrical?

Richard Mullen: We did change the width and the depth of the garage several times. We shrunk it and made it narrower than wider. So then you eliminate some space and turn it into shelves. Our main concern is the tractor. This side would be the tractor and shovels, rakes and power tools. We still need to be able to open the doors.

Donald Rose: As it is it looks like you are using a single garage door instead of a double.

Richard Mullen: The architect did try 2 doors and it did not look as nice and we lost space.

Donald Rose: Is there any sense from the board to visit the site and where there might be some other solution? Or do you feel we have enough information?

Mickey Zucker: Personally even though it is a large 2 car garage being proposed I truly don't see it hindering the neighborhood. Obviously since it backs onto commercial property no neighbors have complained and it is dead space behind it.

Donald Rose: At this point we are down 2 members of the board so that if any vote takes place to grant the variance would need to unanimous. In the past we have taken straw polls to get a sense of the board before. You have the right to postpone a vote if you desire. A straw pole is an unofficial pole to see what the sense of the board is. Before we do that I would invite any members in the audience to speak on this application.

Robert Marino: Let the record reflect that there is no one in opposition.

Mickey Zucker: Is there a concern regarding precedent?

Donald Rose: I think we have other issues and we need to go over the 5 factors.

Austin Cassidy: Historically detached garage variances particularly relevant to rear yards most common area variance in recent years and the issue here does not relate as much to the physical size of the garage as to the degree of the rear yard. In balancing which of course protruding into a rear yard that then is a functioning parking lot that is not in compliant in today's set backs requirements of the parking lot.

Donald Rose: We then should explore the five issues the zoning board is required to do. The balancing that was mentioned between the benefit to the applicant that the variance is granted verses the possible determent to the neighborhood or the community. The first item to consider in this test is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a determent to near by properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.

Robert Marino: I think and as I have indicated and certainly the applicant has stated. There is some consensus on the board. The property is extremely unique and the large commercial neighbor and parking lot it is certainly not a determent to them and they have indicated as much by consenting in writing to the applicant. I think quite frankly the location of the garage pushed back as it is in the best spot for the other neighbors. From what we have seen here by the architectural drawings it's an attractive design in keeping with the existing residence. For all those reasons and also to rather than having things out all about the yard in an attempt to try store them outdoors and find a place where they can all be stored indoors I think is a benefit. I don't feel there is any undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to the nearby properties.

Mickey Zucker: I agree.

Donald Rose: I also agree with that summarization of the first point. The second is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. I think we have explored the possibility of multiple structures. You have pointed out the difficult site constraints in terms of locating even the one second structure large enough to house equipment. Assuming that the smaller structure would just be a 2 car garage. We have also considered the possibility of pulling the entire structure forward. While this is perhaps technically feasible, and you pointed out in your application as well. This would limit the ability to turn cars around and might require backing out into the street rather than driving out.

Mickey Zucker: I agree. Technically it can be done but I think if it were done then it would end up creating an undesirable change.

Robert Marino: I agree with that.

Donald Rose: The third point is whether the requested area variance is substantial. Of course this is almost always substantial. You are required to 15 feet and at one point 5 feet be the distance to the property line. It is 66% violation of the set back. I believe the mitigating factors here are that there is a dramatic elevation difference at the garage level. The adjacent property is not a residential property, but commercial property. There would be no benefit in my mind to increase that space in this particular instance. Because of the uniqueness of the topography and the orientation of the existing house. It would be different if the house was not so centrally located on the lot and that is not the case. Item four is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.

Robert Marino: No, I don't think it raises any environmental concerns. As far as any adverse effect on impact on the physical environment I don't see that. It doesn't pose any problems in that regard.

Mickey Zucker: I feel the same.

Donald Rose: The fifth item is whether the alleged difficulty was self created.

Robert Marino: Technically from the legal stand point it is self created. The property was purchased without the garage. At some point the owner new that they would have to put up a garage. They selected this location. I am satisfied that they selected the location after a lot of consideration and have sought professional advice. From the technical legal stand point it is self created, but that doesn't preclude us from granting the variance.

Austin Cassidy: Noted for the record. There are no persons signed to speak at this public hearing.

Donald Rose: If there are no other comments from the applicant or the public I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Robert Marino: Second.

Board All Ayes.

Donald Rose: I would entertain a motion to approve the variance as requested incorporating the discussion of the factors that go into the balancing of the benefit to the applicant verses the possible determent to the community.

Robert Marino: I would move that we grant the variance as requested. With the garage site as shown on the plans DKS Architects and dated 3/23/06.

Donald Rose: Revision 1 dated 4/3/06.

Mickey Zucker: Second.

Board All Ayes.

Donald Rose: I am asking the council to draft a resolution incorporating the sense of our discussions on this case. You have you variance.

Richard & Kristine Mullen: Thank you for your time.

Vincent & Justine Boles, applicant, Richard Torres architect

Donald Rose: The next item on the agenda is a new case application ZBA2006-05. You have applied for a permit for an addition to an existing residence. The plans were drawn knowing that there would be variances required in order to build the addition. The notice of denial notes that the subject property is in RS9 low density single family zoning district. Section 110-9C1F3 of the code of the village town of Mt. Kisco requires a minimum side yard set back of 10 feet for any such construction. Your application proposes an intrusion of 5 feet into the southeastern side yard set back. Thus leaving a set back provision of only 5 feet for this addition. Therefore the building inspector issued a notice of denial for the building permit application. You filed an application before this board. Notices have been received.

Richard Torres: There is also the front portico on this job that is into the front yard set back.

Donald Rose: I noted that in your application you referenced that there are 2 variances needed and you have been denied on one. Perhaps the building inspector can take a look. I did not know if there was a later drawing.

Austin Cassidy: I have reviewed that point and you are allowed a coronus overhang into a yard set back. So when I calculated that you would not need the variance.

Richard Torres: I just wanted to be certain.

Donald Rose: in which case we will be dealing with just the variance that would be required by the notice of denial. I would ask you then to present you case.

Richard Torres: This is the house as it exists today. The addition is to refurbish the garage and make it larger and add a family room at the rear of the property. Viewing of plans. The front face of the garage doesn't move. We are putting right where the existing one is. It does get larger putting us five feet in the side yard set back. The garage that you see today is barely adequate for today's cars. As it happens Mr. Boles drives a truck, which is a larger vehicle. That is the substance of what we are trying to do. At the rear of the project is a family room.

Donald Rose: Does anything in your drawings show where the present garage door is?

Richard Torres: it is about 10 feet wide.

Donald Rose: Does it conform to the set back requirements?

Richard Torres: It currently conforms. A garage of today's standards would need a variance either way. Moving the driveway is certainly not feasible. We have tried to be sensitive in letting this great cape be a cape and set the new building back.

Mickey Zucker: This addition to the left does not require a variance?

Richard Torres: That is correct.

Mickey Zucker: Are you creating a mother daughter out of this?

Richard Torres: No. It is currently a 2 bedroom and it so happens the other addition is a bedroom. Here are additional photographs.

Donald Rose: The character of the neighborhood has nice lawns around many of the houses and decent space between them. They are centered on their lots. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of crowding.

Richard Torres: These are the homes directly across the street. Showing of photographs. As you can see the neighborhood has these great capes that have begun to be altered. The overall height of the existing building which we are matching. We are matching and not getting taller and that is 19 feet.

Donald Rose: The ridge line on the addition would be the same.

Richard Torres: Correct.

Donald Rose: It seems like a long wall without windows. That is in the family room.

Richard Torres: That is where the TV is going.

Austin Cassidy: Can you break that up visually with outside landscaping treatment?

Richard Torres: Certainly. I am sure the Boles would be willing to plant.

Austin Cassidy: It would get rid of that blank wall and break it all up.

Richard Torres: As you tell from the photographs they are sensitive to that already with the landscaping on the front of the house.

Donald Rose: What is the increase in area of the house?

Richard Torres: About 1,000 square feet.

Donald Rose: What is the present square footage?

Vincent Boles: 1,600 feet.

Donald Rose: You are just about doubling the size of the house. This is truly the minimum size for a truck?

Richard Torres: 14'11” from sheet rock to sheet rock.

Vincent Boles: the reason we are looking to make it a couple of feet wider is that we do not have any basement space.

Austin Cassidy: As a note to the board the majority of those homes back in the 1950 the issues are not what they are today in terms of storage so they have no basements.

Richard Torres: The Boles wish to bring their oil tank which is presently above ground outside inside.

Donald Rose: It is above ground now?

Vincent Boles: Yes. Every winter through the thawing and freezing we have ended up having an ice blockage on the coldest night of the year.

Robert Marino: You will be putting the tank inside the garage?

Vincent Boles: Yes.

Donald Rose: What is the depth of the lot?

Richard Torres: At it's longest 174.1.

Donald Rose: It would be architecturally feasible to take down the present garage and have the driveway extended to the back and fit all of these things in the back yard area without encroaching on the set back line.

Richard Torres: Absolutely. In floor plan that works. But in elevations if we were to wrap the building around the corner as you are possibly describing. We need to keep these windows. Those are bedroom windows. That was a consideration, and then we have a bedroom that is a trap.

Vincent Boles: With the rear yard there is a 3 foot pipe that runs from Main Street down through Radio Circle through everybody's back yard. This is about 30 feet from the back of the house. If we tried to move the garage back that would hinder the pipe. The village has an easement for this.

Donald Rose: That would be a serious issue. You found no other solutions to creating the space including the garage except for this.

Mickey Zucker: Is the garage right up against the property line now?

Vincent Boles: About 7 inches.

Donald Rose: Is it to narrow for your truck?

Vincent Boles: the picture there shows a Honda Accord which is what we owned 5 years ago when we bought the house. The time there has been a car in there was the first day we owned the house. My wife was trying to get out of the car and scratched the mirror against the door opening. Even if we had a car that size you can't open the doors to get out.

Mickey Zucker: So it is roughly 10 feet now?

Vincent Boles: The inside maybe a little less.

Mickey Zucker: My personal concern is the fact that it is 5 feet closer to the property line and I am concerned that is fairly substantial. It looks very attractive.

Donald Rose: I also have a concern that it might appear somewhat wide for the neighborhood.

Richard Torres: This is precisely why the additions are held back. It is a very attractive cape and I did not want to introduce something nearly as large. Now I am making it long across the front. It is on purpose these additions are set back the way they are.

Donald Rose: Bringing them forward doesn't resolve anything. You would be into the setback zone. There would be no benefit. What other people have done is to start adding shed dormers.

Richard Torres: The first project we did was a shed dormer on the back. The overall height of the building is 19 feet. Because it is attractive as a cape we did not want to violate that with a second story. You can go around the neighborhood and see second story additions that have happened and the Boles have chosen to be sensitive to what they have.

Donald Rose: I believe Josephine Charabini is signed in to speak.

Josephine Charabini: I have no objections to what they want to do. None what so ever. They have explained everything to me. I am the closest neighbor.

Robert Marino: You are the neighbor on the right.

Josephine Charabini: Correct. I think it is great idea and it certainly adds to the neighborhood. They keep their property in preteen condition. That is why I am here, they are good neighbors.

Donald Rose: For the record there are no other members in the audience. That would be it for the public comments. Has there been other letters from neighbors?

Vincent Boles: Neighbors down from us have no objection. He has been very supportive. The neighbors across from us have no problem with what we are doing.

Donald Rose: Do the other members see a possible alternate way to achieve this?

Mickey Zucker: The only thing I can see is to make it a little narrower to reduce the intrusion. My main concern was for the neighbor and the neighbor does not care.

Donald Rose: That is the present neighbor and once the addition is built it could be different.

Josephine Charabini: I am there for the rest of my life.

Donald Rose: A generation from now is what we have to worry about and the effect on the neighborhood. We also have to worry about setting a president because the zoning set backs are there after hard study and they are not arbitrary and well thought out. They are intended to be for the general benefit of the entire community.

Austin Cassidy Noted for the record, the 5 foot intrusion does diminish at the back corner.

Richard Torres: It does diminish a bit. We gain another foot and half. Moving the building forward would exacerbate the situation. It would make the need for a variance greater.

Donald Rose: Was it a builder's error that the original slab was slightly off.

Vincent Boles: The history of Williams Town was when Suttons Row which was Kisco Avenue was bulldozed to be revamped. That was done as a temporary development which was supposed to be a 15 year house. They did 63 houses between east and west. What they did was everybody originally had the same exact house. All they did was skew some of them slightly just to have them look different.

Austin Cassidy: It was a Levit town concept.

Donald Rose: Do any of the members see a need for a site visit to explore the land. The land is relatively flat.

Richard Torres: It slopes up a bit in the rear.

Donald Rose: The solution for adding to a house with these constraints involves either an extended set of wings as you have done. Keeping the original character in tack. Or changing the character all together. Then it would not be a cape anymore.

Mickey Zucker: I am not concerned with the overall appearance I think it is great. I am concerned with the intrusion.

Donald Rose: If you were to explore the otherwise ignoring the concept of staying with the cape. Would you foresee a more extensive project?

Richard Torres: Reason number one is only five years ago the Boles sunk a serious chunk of change into this house to renovate it. At that point cast their dye to keep it a cape. Number two I think this from a pocketbook stand point of view might be the easiest. The framing on this is pretty simple and I need to be mindful of that for them.

Austin Cassidy: I think the board is looking to you to solidify the uniqueness and the constraints of this property where there is no other choice.

Richard Torres: The no other choice on the width of the garage is the width of a garage. The garage there is all but abandon for its intended use. They store stuff there because they can't get their cars in there. They have come to a point where they might have an opportunity to improve that. The only way to improve it is to encroach on the set backs. Not withstanding its width on this thing is driven by a couple of things. The desire for the space and more specifically the need for the space. The size of the vehicle the oil tank.

Austin Cassidy: Because of the municipal drainage there is no place else on the property to put this.

Donald Rose: To amend that thought. It would probably be technically feasible to do something bridging over and being very creative. But it would also take away whatever backyard and lawn area.

Austin Cassidy: Going over to uniqueness very few people have a municipal drainage use easement going across their yard, which would prevent any structure from being located within.

Karen Schleimer: Do you have the survey showing the easement.

Richard Torres: No.

Robert Marino: Another point of uniqueness. This is home built on a slab. This is rather unique so they lack the storage that most of us use our basements for. It is single car garage. Most of what we are seeing now is 2 car garages.

Mickey Zucker: One of the problems is the set backs are designed in order to preserve an overall look of an area. Typically when houses are larger set backs actually increase. What we are talking about now is creating a situation where the houses are getting larger and now we are asking the set backs to be reduced and that gives the illusion of a more congested area. That is the part that I am concerned with.

Austin Cassidy: Perhaps with a three member board tonight you may want to do a straw pole. To where everyone's thoughts are at the moment.

Donald Rose: I think there had probably had been sufficient doubts expressed to suggest that perhaps this hearing should be adjourned to next month. I would ask in the meantime if you could obtain a survey that shows the location of the easement.

Justine Boles: we have a personal survey of when we purchased the house. I don't believe it shows the easement on it.

Karen Schleimer: If you have a proper survey it should.

Austin Cassidy: You can check with the assessor's office.

Donald Rose: I think Mr. Zucker has noted and I also earlier in the meeting noted that the general character of the neighborhood right now where the houses are nicely situated with a lot of lawn area. If the neighborhood is changing and going through a metamorphous and the character is changing that might be something for you to address next time. To say here are X number of houses that have been made wider, bigger and started changing the character of the neighborhood but in a way that the community felt was fine.

Austin Cassidy: The trend has been and the majority has had construction. Is that many people have moved their living space into the garages. Here the applicant is seeking to continue use of the garage for its intended purpose.

Donald Rose: The other possibility is to consider a detached garage perhaps set back further. That is where the survey would be very important for us to see. We could see if there are other ways that are within reason to approach this. What we have to be aware of is that there may be 20 other properties on these two streets where someone else might want to come up a similar solution. The neighbor next to the encroached set back line mi