ZBA Minutes 4-18-06

Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

Tuesday April 18, 2006 7:30 p.m.

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Members Present: Donald Rose

Robert Marino

Mickey Zucker

Harold Boxer

Members Absent: Max Lippolis

Staff Present: Karen Schleimer

Donald Rose: At this time will call the April 18, 2006 meeting of the Mount Kisco. Zoning Board of appeals to order. On the agenda tonight, we have no returning cases, but three new cases. Before we proceed, we will review the minutes of two prior meetings, January 17, 2006, and February 21, 2006.

Robert Marino: I moved that we accept the minutes of January 17, 2006.

Harold Boxer: Second.

Board All Ayes.

Donald Rose: As to the minutes of February 21, 2006. Are there any comments or corrections? Is there a motion for the acceptance and approval?

Robert Marino: I moved that the minutes of February 21, 2006 be approved.

Harold Boxer: Second.

Board All Ayes.

Donald Rose: The first case on the agenda this evening is application #ZBA2006-01, Louis DiLisio.

Donald Rose: The applicant has applied for both an area variance and an interpretation of the provision in the code. If you would like to proceed with the presentation of your case, and then have questions and answers from the board members, followed by any input from the public. Have all of the legal postings and return receipts been received by the Secretary?

Nancy Placona: Yes.

Greg Montelone: I want to add to the record some photographs we have for each board member as well as a little history of the company. My client runs and owns Casa DiLisio products, which make sauces. They have been operating in the rear of 486 Lexington Ave. Since approximately 1973. If you look through the informational packet, they have won numerous awards, and have been acclaimed throughout the country for the sources they have made. My client and his family have been running the operation since 1973. We have appeared before the planning Board for a conceptual review, and the planning Board gave us a conceptual approval subject to variances, which we are here for. We are proposing to put a pole barn in the rear of the property, which presently if you look for your packet, there are a series of photographs. Presently there are a number of sheds and containers, which we intend to, remove and put in its place this pole barn. They will be utilized for storage. This pole barn will not include any additional traffic. It will be to clean up and condense, what right now is a Hodge podgy of containers and sheds. I think the fourth photograph shows you what presently exists there. Those are the various sheds and containers which my client has utilized for years. This pole barn is simply going to be replacing them. Looking at the survey, I will note that the barn is in the back of the property, and we are going to need an area variance on all sides, to various degrees. The access to the storage shed is not going to be any different, that presently exists now, from cottage Place. There will not be any additional traffic, trucks or anything else. This is simply going to be taking its place of the storage that exists. In regards to the undesirable change, this will be a marked improvement. Based upon the photographs of what presently exists there. In your packet, we also have letters from most of the adjoining property owners, who have supported the proposed pole barn. I will discuss later, the landscaping plan. We intend to put substantial landscaping around the area. In the packet itself, it also shows a picture of the proposed pole barn. Which is going to have windows and this is a great thing about this particular structure. We have customized, we can put additional windows and on the areas that face the residential portion. We can also put shutters on to make it look like a conventional home. Based upon what exists there and what we have proposed, we feel that it would not be a detriment to the nearby properties. One of the adjoining neighbors, (Showing of photograph) which the barn will be facing has a pole barn in place. Because of the narrowness of the site, there is no feasible, practical location to place the storage barn. All of the pre-existing storage on the site will be removed. I do not believe that this is substantial. In view of the present existing conditions. The variance sought is going to allow this structure, which will substantially improve the lot location. With the pole barn being put in place, we are also going to clean up a lot of the shrubbery, and the worn down hedges and bushes. The landscaping will be quite nice. We do not believe it is going to have an adverse effect for impact on the neighborhood, based upon the fact that it is clearly going to improve the conditions that presently exists. The landscaping plan is going to add substantial improvement to the area. Any visual impact from the adjoining neighbors should be mitigated by the proposed plantings. We are open to any further suggestions than what has been submitted on our landscaping plan. Finally, the variance is really required to improve the site. It is not going to increase the present, storage capacity, but rather, replace what presently exists there. My client has really sought and considered this for some time, and is now ready to move forward in that regard. The adjoining properties and we have letters from Rose Cleaners, in support of it. Along with Nina Bueti, George Arcco and Anthony Fava also sent letters. Specifically, the variances that we are looking for are laid out in Mr. Cassidy's letter of denial. In regard to the rear yard setback, we would need approximately 25 feet, the side yard setback on the southerly side, we are going to need. 22 1/2 feet, and on the other side there is a noncompliance between two and 5 1/2 feet. Looking at the survey, we are going to need variances on the side, facing the residences, in the back, and a much smaller variance space next to the Italian-American club and where George Arcco is.

Donald Rose: How many properties are immediately adjacent to the pole barn area?

Greg Montelone: With regards to where we place the pole barn there will be two residences.

Donald Rose: There are two residences and two properties in the general retail zone?

Greg Montelone: Yes.

Donald Rose: You said you have letters from both the residents.

Greg Montelone: Yes and I put those in your packet. We have letters from the Italian-American club, which is to the north. George Arcco, who is next to the Italian-American club, which is also north.

Harold Boxer: He does not abut the property?

Greg Montelone: He does not abut.

Donald Rose: The property that is on the survey was formerly Neirenburg.

Austin Cassidy: I believe that is Radio Circle. It is commercial zone.

Greg Montelone: We also have a letter from the Bueti's property which is shown.

Donald Rose: The setback requirements vary according to the nature of the zoning of the neighboring abutting properties.

Greg Montelone: Correct.

Donald Rose: I understand from the notice of denial that the building inspector noted the northern side lot line abuts the GR general retail zoning district. The setback requirements is either zero or 6 feet, if any is provided. Without apply only to the Italian-American club? What would be the setback requirement to the property with the parking lot?

Austin Cassidy: It would be the same. Actually it would be commercial versus residential.

Donald Rose: Clearly the pictures of the present condition. Suggests that a lot could be done to improve things, which is part of your argument. I am not sure that the zoning board is charged with the right to make aesthetic judgments and that case. We may consider those things. As part of our analysis of the situation. Have you ever had a similar proposal, before this board?

Austin Cassidy: Before the planning board. This is bent on and off the burner for about nine or 10 years.

Donald Rose: Basically consolidating storage structure in the same general area?

Louis DiLisio: Yes. I was doing a lot of traveling and had put this on hold. This is going to be a win-win situation and will not harm anybody. We have been in business there for 30 years. The sheds will all be cleaned out.

Donald Rose: This is certainly an unusual shape, is there any other location.

Greg Montelone: It is very narrow, and there is not any other location where this could be placed.

Donald Rose: What is this section of property that extends to the north?

Austin Cassidy: Vehicular circulation.

Greg Montelone: As Mr. Cassidy said this is where vehicles are going in and out.

Donald Rose: Are there structures?

Greg Montelone: The Italian-American club being back there.

Donald Rose: Is this the only access that the Italian-American club has to their property?

Greg Montelone: They can enter from Cottage Place.

Austin Cassidy: Cottage Place is a dead end side street that is a cul-de-sac. There is the Arcco property, which has its access over on cottage Place. That is northern to the rectangular piece that you are looking at there.

Donald Rose: I think it is clear that there would be aesthetic benefits to the site and probably to the area. Probably operational benefits as well.

Louis DiLisio: Right there is a two car garage and that would fit in with that whole situation.

Greg Montelone: This is the garage to the Italian-American club, which will be right next to it on one side.

Louis DiLisio: We have trees on both sides and would be cleaning that up.

Greg Montelone: This is going to be adjacent to the Italian-American club garage. Very similar in nature to the pole barn, this is next-door in the residential area. I think ours can actually accommodate additional windows, and as I said, shutters. Just make it look more like a residence. We have a substantial landscape plan, which would buffer the adjoining owners. Basically looking where the pole barn is, that in one corner is what you would see. We are going to put extensive shrubbery in.

Robert Marino: Who is the owner of that property?

Greg Montelone: The Bueti's. It is very similar in nature to what presently exists.

Viewing of the site plan

Donald Rose: Before we continue further with the specifics of the setback questions. In your application you suggested, you were asking for an interpretation. The notice of denial that prompted your application refers to the three specific setbacks variances that would be required, in order to erect this barn. What is the interpretation question?

Greg Montelone: I am not sure that there would be. We are seeking an area variance, not a use variance. It is a continuation of a prior permitted use, and there are two examples that we put in our application.

Robert Marino: The sheds and garages and things that are there now are they used for storage as part of your business, and what would the pole barn be used for?

Greg Montelone: Everything that is in the sheds and the trailer are going straight into the pole barn.

Robert Marino: I have no doubt that you have every intention of doing that. The building of the barn is going to replace a number of sheds for storage purposes to the existing business that you are operating. They are now. This pole barn is not going to be used for additional business?

Louis DiLisio: Yes.

Greg Montelone: We have not had any objections.

Louis DiLisio: We are not going to be creating any more traffic.

Robert Marino: You mentioned the ability to make a structure as residential looking as possible.

Greg Montelone: The Company allows you to make quite a few changes that are necessary.

Donald Rose: Is this something that is more custom-built, as opposed to a prefabricated building?

Greg Montelone: I would say yes it is custom-built. I would say the inside is probably assembly-line generated. The intent is to put additional windows, other than what exists here, and we do have the options of putting shutters in, which will look like a home. On the side where the residences are we would be more than willing to add any options to make it look more residential.

Louis DiLisio: This is all going to be cleaned up.

Greg Montelone: We can include additional windows and the options of shutters. They can be various different colors. It can kind of put a residential feel to it.

Donald Rose: You have emphasized the cleaning up of the property as part of this project. Is there something that ties the ability to build this building, together with the cleaning up? What precludes the site from being cleaned up?

Greg Montelone: The sheds are being utilized now for the purpose, which we intend to have the pole barn. In regards to the shrubbery and additional plantings. It is difficult to put it in right now, with the mish mash of trailers and sheds. In place of where all the sheds are now we are going to be a adding additional landscaping. Obviously my client has considered this for over a decade, and his businesses been there forever. It is a very well-known business.

Donald Rose: We applaud the successful business, and the desire to keep it going. We also as a board we have to be concerned about the fallout from any decision that we make. However well-intentioned and seemingly good for the community it might be. We have a situation where you have a very narrow lot, and the proposal would require variances on three sides. Three sides of the pole barn would be in violation. Certainly the question arises why the barn and cannot be brought forward to the east. To minimize the setback variance on the west side.

Louis DiLisio: It is wasted land

Donald Rose: Any property owner could argue the same thing. The setback requirements are there to maintain certain character to the neighborhood. Anyone could argue if I cannot build in that area it is wasted land.

Greg Montelone: I am not certain. If we brought it up we would have that much of the difference in seeking of a variance in regard to the residential side. Because of the narrowness other than that one corner, we would have much of a difference. We would still be impacting the same amount of residents so to speak on one side and commercial on the other. The way I look at it. I am not certain that it would be that much of the difference if we brought it forward. I understand what you're saying. If we brought it forward we would still have the variance issue on the residential side.

Donald Rose: Right now, the notice of denial speaks to problems with three sides. Two of which are residential. The rear yard setback requirement is 30 feet, when you are a budding of the residential district. The side yard setback is also 30 feet.

Greg Montelone: I guess if we moved it forward. The variance would shrink on the one side, where the easement is and the parking lot. I think we still have the same situation.

Donald Rose: because of the width of the property. I don't think there is nothing that you could put in their legally. A building of zero width would not fit.

Greg Montelone: What the board is saying is that the variance on this one side would decrease, and we would have to reconfigure to figure out exactly to what degree. We might have to shift it.

Donald Rose: Is there truly no use for any of the property behind the pole barn, if you were to pull it forward? And of course the question, what would be the condition of the property?

Greg Montelone: I don't think he would be able to utilize that area at all. Mainly because the landscaping that we are proposing, which would benefit the residents would prevent any access, whether it be a pathway or pedestrian. It would be useless land back there. We do intend to put significant planting back there. I don't think that we would be able to get access on either side, if we utilized that back corner, if we moved it forward.

Donald Rose: Have you considered a structure which is narrower, but longer to reduce the side yard intrusion into the setback area?

Greg Montelone: The company we are utilizing we are utilizing does not have anything that thin. I am not too sure that if we made it thinner I think he would get more height. Right now we are at 12 feet.

Donald Rose: Why would there be more height? Do they change the pitch of the roof?

Louis DiLisio: That is what happens.

Greg Montelone: We would have to investigate it. I think the narrower; it is the less ability, we have to actually get a forklift in there to spread the supplies and out. Making it longer would actually make it a bigger structure, and I think the adjoining neighbors would be happy.

Robert Marino: The height of the building, as proposed, is 12 feet to the roofline?

Greg Montelone: From the peak to the bottom it is 12 feet.

Austin Cassidy: The acceptable height would be 15 feet.

Greg Montelone: It is 12 feet.

Donald Rose: Is that the maximum height, or is that the average?

Greg Montelone: That is the specs for this type of pole barn.

Donald Rose: I did take a look at that web site, and they did not have any dimensional information. I guess because of the semi custom nature.

Louis DiLisio: This Company built the one that is up next to the independent firehouse.

Austin Cassidy: The aesthetic of what is in the photograph is not exactly what is there. It is a wood structure, and it is very countryside looking.

Greg Montelone: I think one of the reasons why we chose this building, is that it looks similar to the pole barn next to it. With shutters and being white it could be blended in to the neighborhood.

Donald Rose: Are the other buildings in white with black shutters?

Greg Montelone: The other pole barn in the back is white, it does not have shutters. It is very similar in nature to the property that it will be abutting.

Donald Rose: Let me just ask the other board members if any of you feel a need to visit this property, due to the unusual shape and type of space that is there. Or are you comfortable with the presentation? (No comment from the board) If there are no other questions from the board at this time, are there any members of the public who cared to speak to this issue, please step forward.

Joseph Cerbone: I spoke to Mr. DiLisio before all of you arrived. My sister and I owned this a lot. (Viewing of the site plan). Our problem is people that delivered to Mr. DiLisio are parking tractor-trailer trucks here. I think it would be to our advantage, if you permit this, because then the trucks would be coming in here to deliver. I also spoke to Mr. DiLisio had told him that I was there one Saturday and the people were bringing garbage from here, a crust are property. He said no. I went to see Jim Palmer, about a year ago, and I wanted to put stone or brick block, so that they could not do it anymore. If you have a tractor-trailer truck here it is dangerous, and that is my concern, and also coming of course our property like that. I have known Mr. DiLisio for many years, and he knows the situation and that is the problem that we are having. Again I would assume, if you put this here all the tractor-trailer trucks would be coming in here to make the deliveries. Also, I noticed over here, they have outdoor storage, which might be able to be put in to the pole barn. Are these yellow drums oil cans?

Louis DiLisio: Olive oil.

Joseph Cerbone: I did not know. That is my sisters and my concern.

Donald Rose: The nature of your property is?

Joseph Cerbone: Vacant land. We have had it for about 20 years.

Donald Rose: The zoning is what?

Joseph Cerbone: Business. We have never wanted to develop it.

Donald Rose: If this improvement is made, does it allow better access by delivery vehicles, or is it too narrow space for them to go into?

Louis DiLisio: The delivery trucks are not supposed to park there and I tell them all the time. We are still able to put our storage back there without interfering with Mr. Cerbone's property. I understand his concerns. As far as I'm concerned, no trailer trucks go through here.

David Kuritsky: I am the owner of Kuritsky Glass Company and the owner of 487 Lexington Ave. My father built this building in 1956, just to give you an idea of the history. I am in support of Mr. DiLisio's endeavor. I feel that the board should grant the variance for the setback. No matter what it will always be a commercial property abutting a residential property. The Bueti's know that. They realize there is encroachment based on the current regulations. They are saying it is ok to do it. They are the owners of the property. Unfortunately Lexington Ave was built in the 50's and earlier than that, and certainly the regulations and variances, zoning laws were not in play then. It is increasingly difficult to continue to grow a business and survive in a small community in the same size building and the same size lot. Unfortunately if want to continue you have to grow. You try to squeak every square foot that you can. Mr. DiLisio has found that he is trying to consolidate all of the storage that he has in to a nicer looking pole barn. I feel that the variance should be granted.

Donald Rose: Thank you. Are there any comments from the public?

Tony Giardina: I have known Lou my whole life. He runs a very neat and clean operation. I have been in his operation. You would be amazed at how clean he runs his food establishment. The only place that needs help is where these sheds are. What he is proposing to do is going to do nothing but help. You said you were not going to make a site visit, if you are familiar with the area. You go by there and see that everything is neat and clean, you will notice that that is the only area that needs help. If my property was near his, I would be like Mr. Kuritsky and say let him do what, because it will do nothing but help the area. I am all for what he needs to do.

Austin Cassidy: Just to recap. The purpose here is to potentially replace the structures, located on the property, which are all performing storage functions in support of the business. In putting in a single consolidated storage and only one place to put it from the applicant's perspective. In putting it where he is proposing is the point of the fact that one setback alone excludes any buildings being there. It is only give or take 30 feet wide, and the setback on the residential side, a small variance. The planning Board has noted that there is a reference to two buffers. The planning Board has the authority to diminish and eliminate the buffer requirement. They have indicated in doing that so now the applicant is not before you relative to the buffers. To my understanding the planning Board is in not so much in favor of the variance, but of the proposal. And the variance would be your board's decision.

Donald Rose: I would note to the applicant, we do have a quorum. There are three regular members and one alternate present. Any action that we do vote on board required three votes affirmatively or three votes negatively to have any affect. You do have the right if you wish to postpone a vote until there is a full board present. There is no prejudice to your case. If not we need to quickly review the factors that are required by the state in order for us to make this balancing determination between the benefits to you, if the variances are granted, versus any detriment to the health safety and general welfare of the community.

Greg Montelone: I believe we lay that out in our memo which the board has.

Donald Rose: Without laboring to those points, let's take a quick look at them. I would ask any of the board members. If they would like to comment. The first is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance. We have any comment from the board.

Robert Marino: In view of the fact. There appears to be a significant cleanup of the property that will take place. There will be the removal of the existing trailers and storage sheds. A landscaping of the property and the fact that we had numerous neighbors, either in writing or in person testifying to the benefit to granting the variance. I find that there is no detriment to the neighborhood.

Mickey Zucker: I think it is a positive.

Donald Rose: Can this benefit, and this would be the second point, and be achieved by some feasible method other than through granting a variance? Are there any comments on that?

Robert Marino: Because of the very unique dimensions of this lot. We have a long-standing business here, and it is rather unique and does not appear that there is another way to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish here.

Mickey Zucker: I agree. This cannot be achieved without a variance.

Donald Rose: Point three is whether the requested variance is substantial? I would comment on that, if I may? Your letter in support of your proposal, speaks to the cleanup. Again, this is more of a rhetorical kind of test. And this has been established in the denial that the variances, the three separate variances would be substantial. Because of the narrowness of the lot and the building, in fact. I think. The zero width of the building would probably be in violation of the setback requirements. At least on the sides. The rear variance. I am still not truly happy with. I think the land back there may not be readily accessible. The building could be brought forth with a reduction of that variance. Perhaps that would not be the best use.

Greg Montelone: I think we would lose some use of the building to bring a forklift in and out, and the space and back would be dead space.

Donald Rose: The forklift. I guess would be used primarily, to go in that garage door in front of the building, to transport supplies.

Louis DiLisio: By putting it in the back it is hidden by the trees. And I think it would be an eyesore to close to the road.

Donald Rose: There is presumably a desire all around to improve the landscape and are you committed to maintaining that landscaping and screening?

Greg Montelone: Mr. DiLisio has been around in town for a long time, and he will maintain everything that he puts in.

Louis DiLisio: We get inspected annually, and we received 959 out of a thousand. You don't even get that on a big plant. That is how clean are things are inside. Outside the same way. I want it to be clean.

Donald Rose: Are there any other comments from the board members. On the question to whether the requested variance is substantial?

Robert Marino: I think on a new numerical basis it is. But again, you have a very unique piece of property. That really leaves little room.

Donald Rose: Question four is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood for district?

Harold Boxer: I think that has already been answered.

Robert Marino: To the extent that question might raise or that portion of the test and raises the concerned about traffic. It would seem that there would be no increase in traffic, and will it desist as it is presently. From an environmental standpoint, I think you might be able to argue that there will be some improvement.

Donald Rose: It would certainly be beneficial to the environment to remove rusted storage containers and other things that might be leaching onto the ground. The fifth test is whether the alleged difficulty was self created.

Robert Marino: As in many of these situations, I think there is an argument. How long have you been operating?

Louis DiLisio: 33 years.

Robert Marino: There have been significant changes in the zoning since then.

Louis DiLisio: My first proposal was significantly different.

Donald Rose: The property line has always been what they are now?

Louis DiLisio: Yes.

Robert Marino: I think because of the long-standing ownership and the significant changes in zoning. I think there might be an argument. This situation is not self created, but even if we were to find that it were.

Louis DiLisio: We have been there since 1933.

Donald Rose: If there are no other questions from the board.

Robert Marino: If a motion is to be made. I would like there to be certain conditions. Just to make it clear that there are not problems for you. The additional windows that could be placed. How many windows, do you have as an option, so that we can make this structure, and I am thinking about the residential neighborhood.

Greg Montelone: I think there would be three as we proposed.

Robert Marino: Three as shown on the plan.

Greg Montelone: On the residential side. We are proposing three.

Robert Marino: I would like the windows to have shutters.

Greg Montelone: Fine.

Robert Marino: Evergreens for screening. You have a plan here. Do you intend to implement this plan as it is written here?

Greg Montelone: Yes. We fully intend to follow the plan. We would be happy to include additional plantings.

Robert Marino: I am thinking about evergreen plantings of sufficient sizes in height. You are going to have a screen particularly for the residential side.

Donald Rose: There is a note on your drawing. Only says, considering planting screen, shrubs around proposed barn to obscure building.

Louis DiLisio: This area here already has screening.

Greg Montelone: If we are able to put in evergreen, and we will.

Louis DiLisio: This is what we have now. If we can put evergreens, in there we certainly will.

Donald Rose: Presumably some of those trees probably will have to be removed anyway.

Greg Montelone: We should be able to put some evergreens. Even if it is being tight.

Robert Marino: Just so we are clear. Instead of considering planting screening shrubs around proposed barn to obscure the building, I would remove the word consider.

Greg Montelone: That is fine.

Robert Marino: Also so that we are clear that all of the existing storage and sheds and the trailers is to be removed.

Greg Montelone: Ok.

Donald Rose: If everyone is fine with those conditions and there are no other comments, I have the board, make a motion.

Austin Cassidy: Procedurally have a motion to be made to close the public hearing as opposed to the vote.

Robert Marino: I move to close the public hearing.

Harold Boxer: Second.

Board Votes All Ayes.

Donald Rose: I would ask for a motion that would incorporate the requirements vis-à-vis the screening of the property, the shutters on the windows, and the three windows along each side. Removal of all existing facilities that are to be replaced. We will need a statement of that resolution, if council will take care of the language.

Robert Marino: I move to variance be granted as requested, to the building in the position as shown on the survey that was revised as of 7/28/05, with the following conditions. At the windows of the pole barn are to have shutters. That there is evergreen screening, to obscure the building, and that the existing storage facilities shed and trailers, will be removed.

Donald Rose: Let me just ask counsel that if the three separate area variances can be incorporated in one vote. Or does there need to be separate motions?

Karen Schleimer: You can do them in one vote.

Donald Rose: We are going to incorporate this into one vote, as Mr. Marino stated.

Harold Boxer: Second.

Board All Ayes - For the passing of this variance.

Mike Testa, representing the applicant, David Pasquerella, owner

Donald Rose: The second application before us tonight is from David Pasquerella, for the property at 23 Kiscona Rd. The application is based on a notice of denial dated March 3, 2006. The facts of the denial are that the subject premises are located in the SC-Service Commercial Zoning District. It is now a legal non-conforming single family residence. The applicant has proposed to expand the building by adding a second story storage area over the existing single story flat roof addition on the building. The side yard setback for this lot in this district is 10 feet. The side of the building is presently located at this point only 1.3 feet from the eastern side lot line. Therefore is a legal non compliant building. In fact 3 Section 110-35 (E) of the code of the Village Town of Mt. Kisco requires a variance for any enlargement of a legal non-compliant building or a new non-compliance is created. Point 4 is advice by the building inspector noting that the minimum side yard buffer requirement for the district is 10 feet. The proposed site plan provides 5 foot side yard buffers. You must seek and obtain a waiver by the planning board for these lesser provisions. However if you do not obtain said waiver this plan is not compliant and would require an additional variance for each side. If the applicant would come forward.

Mike Testa: The proposal as you laid out in front of you is to add a second story partial addition to the rear of the existing structure. So that the second floor could be used as a partial storage in the area where the proposed addition is to be. The current building is a pre-existing non-compliant single family dwelling as you stated. It currently sits along the 1.3 feet off the side set back. The proposal is to bring the rear addition which currently exist and the pre-existing structure. (Showing of the plans) To continue up with an addition matching the existing architect of the proposed building. To continue the exact same line and the same rear elevation that you currently see. There will be no change to the elevation, other than the fact that we would bring it in vertical. We are currently before the planning board. We've gone before them for conceptual review and formal review application. The next step in this process was to come before the zoning board and attempt to get the waiver for the setback addition. We are aware of the statement from the building inspector. With regards to the buffer zones, requirements. We can meet the buffer zone, if we had to, so it is not going to necessitate a variance. But we are requesting the 5 foot waiver from the 10 foot that is proposed. The building would be added as frame construction, and no change to the other. It would be vinyl sided, to match what is currently on-site. We think it would have a great impact. With regards to the architectural character of the building. In reviewing the principal point's necessary to try and obtain a variance, we realize there are five standards that must be met. I tried to outline those for you. If I may I would like to review those five standards with you. The first one is whether an undesirable change produced by the character of the neighborhood, or detriment to the nearby properties will be created by the variance. When this house was constructed in 1920, it was constructed based on the zoning laws at that time. Since then, there have been numerous zoning changes and zoning amendments. Right now the SC commercial zone does not allow single-family residence as a permitted principal use. The proposal will comply with the use standards. So we will eliminate the fact that this will be a nonconforming use on site. The building still would remain noncompliant in regards to the setback. The use will become compliant. The only issues with regards to the southerly setbacks. We were trying to match the architecture of the building. If we were to try and knock that portion down and comply with the template set back. I think it would be severely be detriment to cost. I don't think that we could do it. Therefore, we feel that particular requirement would not be desirable. We feel that by putting a roof on this certainly would be an enhancement to the character of the neighborhood. And not a detriment. We feel. With regards to the issue number 1, I think it will be an improvement to the character and not a detriment to that neighborhood. Pertaining to the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance. Given the fact the structure is pre-existing and non-complying and by virtue that municipality to modify the original setbacks required. The new yard setback of 10 feet would require the applicant to demolish the existing non-complying portion of the residents to achieve compliance. I think there is a cost factor involved in pursuing this avenue of compliance. Whether requested variances is substantial. Variance request is consistent with the existing noncompliance setback and does not encroach further into the setback that currently exists on the site. I believe that setback that has been requested is not substantial. With regards to this particular issue, that we are continuing the line of the existing nonconforming vertical. We're come not propose to encroach any further into that existing setback. We certainly wish that the building was setback slightly more than the 1.3 feet, but we are planning to propose. Heavy planting details along the property line as well as shrubbery and buffer. The planning board is currently reviewing those. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I can see no adverse physical or environmental issue to the neighborhood for district. That would result if this second story addition was to be constructed above the first-floor. We're not changing the footprint of the building. The building footprint is remaining as is. I feel it is an enhancement, and do not feel it would have an adverse physical or environmental condition affect on this neighborhood. In addition, any drainage of sheet flows off the property. We are required by law, under the planning board to take care of this on-site, and we will be retaining that into a 25 years storm. According to the engineer, Mr. Stein. So there will be substantial, dry wells and other drainage factors that will be installed on this site. Whether this difficulty was self created. I believe that this requested variance was not self created, given the fact that the proposal is to construct a partial second-story over a pre-existing first-floor area. In meeting the standards, this provision shall not necessarily preclude granting of the area variance, and I feel that by adding the second-story addition. It would greatly enhance the existing building. In addition by removing the existing single-family dwelling, from the property. In terms of the uses