ZBA Minutes 6-20-06

Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

Tuesday June 20, 2006 7:30 p.m.

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Members Present: Donald Rose

Robert Marino

Michael Zucker

Harold Boxer

Staff Present: Karen Schleimer

Austin Cassidy

Donald Rose: I would like to call to order the June 20, 2006 meeting of the Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight we have a continuing case and a new case before us. Before we proceed to the continuing case, I would like to take care of some housekeeping matters. You've all received the minutes of the May 16, 2006 meeting. If there is any discussion, corrections or changes, let's introduce them, otherwise I'll entertain a motion that the minutes be approved.

Mickey Zucker: I move that we approve the minutes.

Donald Rose: Do we have a second?

Robert Marino: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor? The chair votes aye.

Harold Boxer: I'm going to abstain; I wasn't here.

Minutes Approved for May 16, 2006

Donald Rose: We have also four resolutions in final form for approvals. The first was from ZBA Case 2006-01, Applicant Louis DiLisio. If there are no changes or corrections, I would like to get a motion to adopt the resolution for my signature.

Harold Boxer: So moved.

Robert Marino: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor.

Mickey Zucker: Aye.

Board All Ayes for approval and signature of resolution ZBA #2006-01 Louis DiLisio

Donald Rose: The Chair votes aye. The second resolution is 2006-02. Dave Pasquerella is the applicant. I'll take a motion unless there are any corrections or changes.

Mickey Zucker: Motion

Donald Rose: Second?

Robert Marino: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor?

Harold Boxer: Aye.

Donald Rose: The Chair votes aye

Board All Ayes for approval and signature of the resolution ZBA#2006-02 David Pasquerella

Donald Rose: The third resolution is the case brought by applicant Ability Beyond Disability, Resolution ZBA 2006-03. If there are any corrections, we'll entertain them; otherwise I will make a motion to accept.

Mickey Zucker: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor?

Harold Boxer: Aye.

Donald Rose: Chair votes Aye.

Board All Ayes for approval and signature of the resolution ZBA#2006-03 Abitlity Beyond Disability

Donald Rose: And finally, Resolution ZBA Case 2006-04. Applicant Richard and Kristine Mullen. If there are no changes, you may motion for its approval.

Mickey Zucker: So moved.

Robert Marino: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor?

Harold Boxer: I'm going to abstain.

Board approved resolution for signature ZBA#2006-04 Richard & Kristine Mullen

Donald Rose: Mr. Boxer for the record was not present during that hearing. Okay, we will now resume our public hearing in the case of Vincent and Justine Boles, 62 Eastway.

1. Vincent and Justine Boles - 62 Eastway -

Application #ZBA 2006-05 Vincent Boles applicant, Richard Torres, architect

Donald Rose: We welcome the applicant and his architect. Please for the audio record announce your name.

Vincent Boles: Vincent Boles.

Richard Torres: Richard Torres.

Donald Rose: I believe last time we requested a couple of items, perhaps trying to reduce the requested variance and still meet the objectives, and also to provide information for the apparent easement for drainage that is in the back of the property and presumably in the back of the neighboring properties as well. I am not familiar with the actual topography back there. So, with that, if you would like to present what new information you have.

Richard Torres: Sure. When last together, we had a project that needed a five foot setback. The Boles' have reduced their building to increase the need, and we are proposing now a 6 ft. request for the building. As per discussions here, alterations were made to the side elevation to include a window. These drawings that you see here were the drawings that appeared before the ARB and received approval on the 25^th of May.

Donald Rose: Now this is actually - except for that slightly footless dimension is really the same design, the same concept.

Richard Torres: The same concept and we were driven to the same concept. Vincent has some photographs of his wet backyard - based on the fact that there was no documentation found either by the Village or Vinny's closing papers <inaudible>.

Donald Rose: May I just, so the audio record is clear on the numbers. You have altered your plan to provide a six foot setback, and you're seeking relief for four. That is correct.

Vincent Boles: Yes.

Richard Torres: That is correct.

Donald Rose: Because it sort of flipped around there.

Richard Torres: I'm certain I said it wrong. So we researched, we seeked out the Highway Department and they were not able to help us locate documentation on this easement. No documentation was found. However, I guess, imperial knowledge is that there is one there. It's also quite wet back there; this is the recent photograph after recent rains back there taken by the applicant. This is a shot of his foot.

Robert Marino: You were unable to find any documentation on it, but the topography of the yard seems to indicate that whether it was naturally occurring or created at some point during its initial construction, there appears to be a swale there, which channels water, I guess. Does that swale continue onto your neighbor's property as well?

Vincent Boles: Yes. It starts two houses above us and goes down past us. Regarding Jim Palmer in the Assessors Office, there is nothing on file with the Village. Pete Scala, the Highway Foreman, is the one that enlightened me that it was back there a couple of years ago, and its dead center in that swale. That's a three foot diameter pipe that goes from 749 Main Street all the way down into the rear of Radio Circle.

Robert Marino: So there's actual piping.

Vincent Boles: Three foot diameter Culver pipe.

<Inaudible>

Robert Marino: Is it your position if that swale were to be disturbed that it would cause a drainage problem not only for yourself, but for your neighbors?

Vincent Boles: Definitely. First off, the age. From what Pete Scala was able to tell me about it, it was done back in the fifties. So you're dealing with fifty to sixty year old Culver pipe that's probably not structurally able to handle traffic or a building structure only. The other thing is, those pictures there - that was a light rain. It was two mornings after we had our last meeting here, and it wasn't a heavy rain. You could go in the backyard of my house tonight, and from the rains we had a week and a half ago, it's still squishy in certain spots in that swale.

Robert Marino: Do you get standing water in that swale during a heavy rain?

Vincent Boles: Yes I do.

Richard Torres: We're concerned that any building back there, and a driveway, would just exacerbate the situation. That is one of the points we make here.

Donald Rose: Has anyone ever tried to measure the amount of water? Does it seem to flow at all?

Vincent Boles: If we get a rain, it will run like a creek. How much is going through there I couldn't tell you.

Donald Rose: But where does it end?

Vincent Boles: It goes down to behind where the treatment plant is on Radio Circle. To do that, to put up another structure in the rear of our house; one, the neighbor that was here and my neighbor lower to me didn't like that idea at all. The other thing is the amount of surface area. Even though I'd take out the existing garage, the amount of surface area that I have to create to get into the garage and to go all the way around the building; I've already backed into my driveway once and caught my son in the rear view mirror. So to put a hammerhead so we could turn around and drive out as opposed to backing all the way around the house and all the way out onto Eastway, we don't have a backyard anymore. We are not gaining any area by taking any landscape or pervious area by taking the garage down, because you need the driveway to get to the rear of the house and for the turning radius of the vehicles.

Donald Rose: It's difficult when lots are that narrow. For the record I appreciate what the architect is trying to do in maintaining the general character of the house instead of doing the more difficult mushrooming of an existing house so that the original design is lost altogether.

Vincent Boles: Five years ago when we first appeared before the Architectural Review Board and decided; I wish I brought the pictures of what I bought. It was a shack. We liked the integrity of what the house is right now and we'd like it remain as it is.

Richard Torres: For the record we are 26.08% lot coverage now. We're allowed 40% in this area, but as you can imagine a building back here plus the driveway; we might really get close to the 40 anyway.

Austin Cassidy: <inaudible> it's all CMP - corrugated metal pipe.

Vincent Boles: With the plus or minus years, it's probably at its span.

Austin Cassidy: I just know as a matter of policy. The Village would want that, but not wanting exuberance over its own infrastructure property. Because then you would never be able to get at it to repair.

Donald Rose: The drainage situation in the back. It would seem to me, in speaking off the top of my head, the neighbors might be interested in trying to channel that better. It sounds as if the backyard is frequently not terribly useful if there has been a lot of rain.

Vincent Boles: Usually springtime. And if it's in the middle of the summer, when the ground is obviously not frozen, it lasts a day or two.

Donald Rose: Right. It dries up quickly.

Vincent Boles: If you walk into my backyard right now you can see the tracks from me trying to make imprints in the soil.

Richard Torres: So we find ourselves hemmed in by the side yard and the drainage situation. We were able to reduce it, but not moving much more than that.

Donald Rose: Certainly when there's an area variance granted on a side lot, in part of what we look at is the effective intrusion. If it's a very low structure, it's psychologically less of an intrusion than a two-story or more house. Here you've got something that's sort of in between. We see the gable end of the garage portion, but then the sloping roof of the balance of the addition. Jumping ahead on the assumption that the board was to grant the area variance, would you accept restrictions on not trying to build up from that sloping portion of the roof? For instance, if a future request came in to make a two-story structure in back, enlarging the flat area of the side?

Richard Torres: You're saying, Mr. Chairman on this long elevation here? By making that two stories?

Donald Rose: Right. And then go up further. You cannot imagine that perhaps now but there are cases where there is an existing house with an existing intrusion into a setback area, and all someone wants to do is go up a little higher.

Richard Torres: The current applicant doesn't seem interested.

Vincent Boles: To do what we're trying to do, we are financially going to be stretched to our max. To do another addition on top of this, I don't think so.

Richard Torres: And you may begin to push the envelope in terms of zoning capacity on this site anyway. For the record the design is a double-height space as it is. It's a cathedral space. It's obvious that they are not interested.

Donald Rose: Okay. It's not likely that someone would want to take that away.

Mickey Zucker: I appreciate the revision in making it less intrusive. I'm just wondering if there isn't any possibility of bringing it right to the point that you don't even have to be in front of this board.

Richard Torres: In terms of the width of the garage?

Mickey Zucker: The garage or I'm noticing there is a door there.

Richard Torres: That door exists. That's the door into the kitchen.

Mickey Zucker: That exists right now? I'm sorry; I'm looking at the proposed addition, if you bring your hand up further right there.

Richard Torres: I did that to demonstrate. This exists already. As a matter of fact, the existing garage is the same location. So we have removed the front footprint of the existing garage. We have made it wider here. As it exists, the existing garage is 10.5 feet from the side yard property line. So, we're right there already.

Mickey Zucker: What's the interior dimension of the garage as it exists now, do you know?

Vincent Boles: Nine foot three.

Mickey Zucker: That's tight.

Vincent Boles: As I stated last month, we had a Honda that; thirty pounds ago I squeezed out of it once, when it was completely empty.

Richard Torres: And if you recall, these homes have no basement. It's a storage kind of request also.

Austin Cassidy: You might, just on the basics, to state a fact that a standard parking space is 9.5 feet wide. If this is 9.3, then it's below the standard parking space without even opening the doors yet.

Vincent Boles: And the whole idea for what this addition of the garage is to do is to put my wife's vehicle in there and to line one wall with shelves to have some kind of storage.

Donald Rose: And again, just to note because there is no basement.

Vincent Boles: No basement, no attic.

Donald Rose: These houses were all built on slabs.

Vincent Boles: The existing rooms that are on the second floor right now there are two bedrooms and a bath, and that takes up the entire space what's existing.

Austin Cassidy: Just to clarify a separate point that has been re-visited, there is maybe a little distraction on one of the drawings. I was looking at your elevation and I find that the portico covering, according to what I was seeing on your elevation, looks like it had about a 2 ft. projection beyond the building roof line, and that would agree with a roof plan I saw. Then there's another plan in which it scales out to be 4 feet, so we just want to be clear. Was that measuring back to the interface with the roof, is that what it is?

Richard Torres: This house has effectively a two foot overhang. So if that line was on this plan and then I did a two foot overhang over the portico that might be the four feet you're talking about.

Austin Cassidy: On Page 2 - the floor plan question arose as to the depth of the portico, and it was scaling out to be 4 ft. on the floor plan. But then on the next sheet on the roof over here, it was coming out to be 2 ft. Plan DD1. The portico on the right hand side there, that was scaling out to be a two foot projection, and on the left hand drawing it was scaling out to be a four foot projection.

Richard Torres: What you're seeing here is the edge of the roof, and that dotted line represents the house?

Austin Cassidy: Yes, we just wanted to clarify that.

Richard Torres: I see. The dotted line represents the front of the house, so from dotted line to the new overhang is the 4 ft. that Austin was talking about, but the roof has a 2 ft. overhang, so that's the difference.

Mickey Zucker: So how does that work in conjunction with the setback?

Austin Cassidy: The setback you're showing on your site plan drawing is drawn from the overhang of the roof?

Richard Torres: Effectively out where the post would be.

Mickey Zucker: So is there any issue then that we have to be concerned with?

Austin Cassidy: No, this came up at the last meeting. You're allowed either 18” or 2 ft. whatever it is, projection into a setback of certain architectural features; chimneys and cornices and all that sort of thing.

Michael Zucker: So that's a non-issue.

Austin Cassidy: Right. We just want to get it clarified so there's no misunderstanding of the dimensions.

Mickey Zucker: Right; the only thing that we're concerned with this the side yard.

Harold Boxer: I wasn't here last month, were there any objections from the neighbors?

Donald Rose: No. The neighbor immediately to the right as you face the house was fully in favor of the addition, and as reported verbally by Mr. Boles, she would definitely not appreciate a detached garage set legally in the back of the property.

Vincent Boles: As would the neighbor to the lower side of us also.

Donald Rose: Aside from the narrowing that Mr. Torres has done with the design, he has also introduced a window on the side façade, which is not in the original proposal.

Harold Boxer: What are the plans for landscaping between the encroachments in the yard line?

Vincent Boles: There is a hedge row now that's on the property line. It is my entire hedge row.

Harold Boxer: How tall is it?

Vincent Boles: Approximately 5 ft. The rest of that was going to be left grass for garbage men and lawn mowers.

Harold Boxer: Your garbage men go to the back of your house?

Vincent Boles: Yes.

Richard Torres: This is the house as it exists today. The originals were part of the ARB package; so here are the black and whites.

Donald Rose: While these pictures are being circulated, are there other questions from the board members; any comments? I can sense that there is some unease about the variance.

Robert Marino: I think we'd all like to see less of an intrusion, but I think in this situation, once you rule out the back of the property, due to the unique characteristics of the swale, and then you've got apparently some part of the town drainage piping system buried beneath that swale, putting anything back there is a much greater detriment to the neighborhood than what the applicant is proposing. Also I think unique to this property is the fact that the applicant doesn't have a basement, which is rather rare up in this area and doesn't allow for storage in the basement. He is seeking to have a single car garage, also somewhat rare certainly with the new construction that takes place, and he simply wants a single car garage that is accessible and can be utilized as such. I don't know that he has an alternative to this. He apparently has the support of the neighbor. In fact, she was here last meeting in full support of the application. So while again we might wish it were not such an intrusion, I don't know that there is any other way to accomplish what he's trying to accomplish.

Harold Boxer: I concur with that.

Mickey Zucker: I don't exactly. I'm concerned that, even though the existing neighbor has said no problem, I'm wondering if our obligation stops there, or are we supposed to think well, what happens when that neighbor moves and somebody else comes in? I'm not really certain how we are supposed to do it. It is frustrating to me. We're required a 10 ft. setback which means that the two houses are only 20 ft. apart. What happens when the new neighbor on the right says I'd like to move over? All of a sudden, instead of having 20 ft., we now have 12 ft. between two houses. It's a question of what is the neighborhood looking like? What is the goal of this board and Board of Trustees? I just keep wondering. I'll certainly concede that this is probably the most logical way to do what is being attempted to be done, but could it be shortened another foot, narrowed another foot? Right now we're talking roughly a 13 ft. interior dimension for a garage which is very, very nice, but it certainly is not the minimum requirement to drive a nice sized car into the garage and open the doors. 13 ft. is very large; 12 ft. is more than ample. I'm wondering if we knock it down another foot, can we still have plenty of room to get a car in and out. Just make it a little less intrusive.

Richard Torres: We begin to eat up the desperate desire for storage as well as, keep in mind, I believe we mentioned this last time with this project; they will be bringing in their oil tank which is presently outside. They will be bringing it inside, and that kind of starts to drive the width a little bit to have that enclosure there to store the oil tank. You won't see it in the photographs, it's around back.

Austin Cassidy: Just reiterating for the record; the degree of intrusion we're focusing on; you're seeking relief of 4 ft., and that is at its most intrusive point. The house is not parallel to the side lot line, so it actually gets closer to compliant or near compliant.

Inaudible conversation due to fire horn and sirens.

Mickey Zucker: A 1 ½ ft. difference?

Donald Rose: Approximately, yes.

Austin Cassidy: Then looking at it from a practical standpoint, a point of diminishing returns, certainly you could physically reduce the size of the garage, but to what end? By picking up that from the outside, is the whole expense of the project worth it? Because although it would have been a nice dimension to know, typical dimension is door to door when the doors are open to a conventional car. We already can state for the fact that a parking space is 9 ½, all of us can anecdotally agree, and we all know that when you open the doors it goes beyond that dimension. So if you're talking about I guess 11 ft., 11 ½ ft., door to door, a wild guess, there is not a heck of a lot of room left to do much of anything. If you can hang a rake on the wall, you'd be lucky.

Donald Rose: Mr. Zucker was noting, maybe perhaps it's possible to narrow the garage. Theoretically you might find the storage area by lengthening the garage structure and the whole addition, but then we'd have a longer building that perhaps has a lesser intrusion, but the impact might be as bad or worse and would probably cost more. Longer and narrower would have more roof barrier for the area enclosed.

Austin Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of procedure, it does not appear that any members of the public are here to comment on your public hearing tonight.

Donald Rose: That is correct. I believe unless there are no further thoughts or suggestions, that it would be in order to close the public hearing and for the board to consider the five factors and take a vote on the matter, we have all members of the board present. The board is down one member, but all four members are here; three positive votes are required to grant the area variance. If there are no further questions of the applicant.

Mickey Zucker: I just have one more question regarding storage. Did you mention that the interior above the garage is going to be an atrium?

Richard Torres: No. The space above the garage will be attic space. The space in the den is the atrium.

Mickey Zucker: The space above the garage attic; can it be made so that it's usable storage space?

Richard Torres: I'm certain that it's going to be used as attic space.

Mickey Zucker: Yes. There are different types of attics, needless to say.

Richard Torres: There will be some functional storage space above the garage.

Vincent Boles: And there is also going to be some utilities, mechanical.

Donald Rose: Would that be accessible from another part of the second floor or just be ladder?

Vincent Boles: Pull down.

Donald Rose: Pull down in the garage.

Richard Torres: Absolutely.

Donald Rose: Which, of course, in the practical sense limits the kinds of things that you would store up there; lawn mowers, etc.

Mickey Zucker: No, certainly not everyday things. I'm familiar with attics.

Donald Rose: So if there are no further questions, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing.

Robert Marino: I move that we close the public hearing.

Mickey Zucker: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor.

Board All Ayes to close the public hearing.

Donald Rose: Then I think we should address the five factors that we are reported to consider in this deliberation and in my less than perfect memory I need a list of those five factors. Okay. The door is open for comments on whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created by the granting of the area variance.

Robert Marino: Well, as we've stated we might all wish that there were not such an intrusion into the side yard setback, but in weighing, doing our balancing test, I think the applicant's need for a garage has some actual utility and unique characteristics involved here, I think that any detriment is minimal and is outweighed by the applicant's need for a garage that can be utilized as such.

Donald Rose: I would also add that in my view the proposed design does a commendable job in maintaining the character of the original cape concept instead of forcing the house into a different configuration altogether with the sole purpose of meeting all of the setback requirements on a lot that is by its nature constrained. I think that would need to be looked at in conjunction with the thought that yes, we'd be reducing the potential distance between neighboring houses, but perhaps maintaining the architectural character of the house. The second issue is whether the benefits sought by the applicant to be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.

Robert Marino: This is probably the key here in that the only other feasible method to allow him to have a garage that he can actually use for parking vehicles and providing him with some storage would require disruption of the topography of the back of the house, the drainage swale, the town drainage pipe possible damage to that which could really be a detriment to the neighborhood, certainly to this property and particularly to those neighbors that are closest to him. So I think we've explored that, and it just does not seem possible.

Mickey Zucker: Again, I agree with that completely. My question is are we obligated to say that, yes, what you're looking for is very nice, very attractive, and certainly very practical, but are we required to say, oh sure, since that's exactly what you want and this is the best way to get that and we must give it as opposed to saying we understand that that's what you want and its very nice, but we don't feel that we have to give it because of the other impact.

Donald Rose: Certainly there is no requirement we granted because the feelings are there that yes this is a nice looking structure and this is a desirable thing for the applicant.

Mickey Zucker: And you can have lots of storage this way. The only thing in my mind is that do we say, great, I want you to have room for a car. I want you to have some storage; maybe not that much; just a thought.

Donald Rose: Well, these are all things that reasonable board members can come to different conclusion on, too. And with each of these factors, we need to consider them, we are required to by the State. If they don't require us then to make, it's not an automatic yes or no in the end. I think here we have to also consider the fact that this whole neighborhood of I think 55 houses, have no basements but they can be attractive houses if re-done sensitively, or they can be turned into something else. It's almost a sense of considering the impact of the decision. If, for instance, if this is turned down, will other potential owners in the area think, no we can't do anything with it. It is what it is and we should look elsewhere.

Mickey Zucker: But I have an interesting question regarding that. Let's assume it's granted, and now we have the other homeowners saying, wow, that's great, I can do that with my house. And now everyone wants to do that and all of a sudden you drive through and all the houses are twelve feet apart.

Donald Rose: There is always a concern about establishing a precedent that can come back to haunt the board in later years, but that's why we try to focus on any of the unique characteristics that may be shared; not just in this house, but maybe several others on that particular side of that street that has the swale. I think clearly if that drainage situation did not exist in the back, the feeling of the overall board could be quite different. I can't speak for them but I think I would certainly feel that we would be hard put to grant the variance since there is another way to achieve some of the garaging and storage requirements without requiring a variance. Let's move on and consider Point 3, whether the request for an area variance is substantial. There is always a question of whether something is half full or half empty, I guess. 10 ft. set back is not a large setback to begin with, and the revised plan requires an intrusion of 4 ft. at one end, and diminishing to about 2 ½ ft. at the far end of the structure so that you look at it as a simple percentage of 40% down to 25%. There's an intrusion. As a physical dimension, 4 ft. is probably up to the beholder as to whether that's a large intrusion or not. 4 ft. out of 10 ft. is a small percentage, it's a setback with 30 ft., and I guess we could look at it a little bit differently. But that's not the zone we're in here. It is what it is.

Richard Torres: This sheet of paper is 3 ft. long.

Mickey Zucker: I agree exactly the way you put it. The 4 ft. by itself-you think of 4 ft. by itself is not a big deal. But if you think of it as being 40% of the required amount, it becomes a much bigger deal.

Donald Rose: The chair recognizes that, and in the sense it becomes double if the adjacent house wanted to mirror that request and come closer, but then the issues would need to be substantially the same.

Austin Cassidy: Exactly. You can't speculate on whether or not the next door neighbor has the same conditions as the garage on that side of the house. Is the garage equally narrow or is the property encumbered by the infrastructure? You can't speculate on that point.

Donald Rose: Item 4 is a question of whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I believe we've established that for the contrary this proposal would have less of an environmental impact than the legally available position. Are their other comments about Item 4 and the impact on the physical or environmental conditions if the area variance were to be granted?

Robert Marino: No, certainly no adverse environmental impacts.

Donald Rose: And 5, whether the alleged difficult was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

Robert Marino: Austin, has that lot and side yard setback been changed?

Austin Cassidy: To my knowledge that has been the typical side yard setback since the origin of the project. I'd say to the point you're looking at, one thing to evaluate is the existing condition of the garage's dimensions. It was not a doing of the applicant.

Robert Marino: I think you could argue that the side yard setback was what it was when they bought it, it was right on the 10 ½ ft. away. You can argue that yes it was, self-created. Any extension of that garage was going to require a variance. But as Austin stated I think it's open to discussion, and in any event it doesn't preclude us from granting the variance. Okay. If the Board Members feel we've adequately discussed those five factors, do I hear a motion considering all of the presentation that we've heard, and considering the fact that the setback variance has a maximum of 4 ft. and diminishes to 2 ½ ft., that the applicant is willing to not come back, I'm not sure how this might be stated, but is not going to submit a further building plan to make a two-story structure out of that present addition.

Austin Cassidy: Probably words to the effect if not using this variance is so granted, has the basis for further enlargements of this addition.

Donald Rose: Right.

Richard Torres: If that ends up being how it works out, is that something that lives on with the piece of property? So when the Boles' go to sell, the next buyer needs to know that they can't put a second story into it.

Austin Cassidy: On that part of the addition.

Karen Schleimer: When you say that part of the addition, the garage?

Austin Cassidy: The part seeking the relief.

Karen Schleimer: The garage?

Mickey Zucker: I think if you look at the lower part of the drawing, if I understand correctly.

Richard Torres: Are we talking about this entire elevation or are we talking about the garage?

Donald Rose: We're talking about the entire elevation.

Austin Cassidy: The future owner - could they come in with a plan to for whatever reason raise the roof on the left side of the building? They could, and it's up to the board at the time to decide whether or not it's aesthetically pleasing.

Richard Torres: So this restriction will be limited to this side of the house.

Donald Rose: With the objective of trying to contain Pandora's Box, in a sense, that we don't suddenly start seeing things becoming larger and larger using an existing variance as the mechanism. And also to dissuade future applicants in the area from initially coming in with a large, 2½ story addition with the flat side right on or all of it in the set