ZBA Minutes 7-18-06

Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes

JULY 18, 2006

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Members Present: Donald Rose

Harold Boxer

Robert Marino

Michael Zucker

Staff Present: Karen Schleimer

Staff Absent: Austin Cassidy

Donald Rose: Good evening, gentlemen. I'm Donald Rose, Chairman of the Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals. I'd like to welcome you and open tonight's meeting, July 18, 2006. Just some housekeeping items; to begin with, customarily we do not meet in August. Unless we decide otherwise, our next meeting would be September 19, 2006.

Resolutions of Approval:

1. Vincent and Justine Boles

62 Eastway

Case # ZBA2006-05

Donald Rose: We have approved in the previous meeting, an application from Vincent and Justine Boles, 62 Eastway, ZBA Case 2006-05. Resolution has been prepared and distributed I hope to each of you.

Karen Schleimer: Yes, I sent it to everyone. I don't know if everybody had a chance to download it.

Donald Rose: This memorializes the area variance that was approved by the ZBA at the June 20 meeting. If there are no corrections, I would entertain a motion that the resolution be approved for signature.

Harold Boxer: Motion for signature.

Robert Marino: I would second that motion.

Donald Rose: Okay, Mr. Boxer moved the motion and Mr. Marino is seconding the motion. All in favor?

All: Aye

Donald Rose: The chair votes aye. There are meeting minutes that need approval April 18, 2006. I will entertain a motion for their adoption.

Harold Boxer: Move.

Donald Rose: Mr. Boxer so moves, do we hear a second? Mr. Zucker seconds. All in favor?

All: Aye

Donald Rose: The chair votes aye. And similarly for the meeting of June 20, the minutes are in your package. Is there a motion to approve?

Harold Boxer: Motion for the approval of the minutes from June 20, 2006.

Robert Marino: Second.

Donald Rose: And seconded by Mr. Marino. All in favor?

All: Aye

Donald Rose: The Chair votes aye.

Returning Cases:

919 Mountain Avenue Associates, LLC

9 & 19 Mountain Avenue

Application ZBA 2006-06 - Doug Hertz, Bill Balter, applicants, David Menken, attorney for the applicants

Donald Rose: We have a returning case before us. 919 Mountain Avenue Associates, the case #ZBA 2006-06. After the previous meeting a site visit was arranged in which most of the board members were able to attend and have an on-site presentation of the topographical and geographical facts of the case. Please come forward, and we will continue this evening with the public hearing and entertain any additional questions from the board first and then from the public in attendance. Let me ask first of all there was some confusion on my part as to whether we have the latest plan from your engineer. The plan that I have is dated May 23, and I've seen reference to a date of May 31. Was it revised?

Doug Hertz: The only one that we submitted is indeed dated May 23.

Donald Rose: Okay. It has a general revision of May 31. So that's the date that it becomes operative.

David Menken: That is the plan that's operative.

Donald Rose: Because I know this was a little bit different from the conceptual plan which resulted in the original Notice of Denial.

David Menken: I'm David Menken attorney for the applicant. Douglas Hertz, Nancy Abramson, Bill Balter for the applicant. This is what was put in the package. What you've got.

Doug Hertz: Since your submission there have been absolutely no revisions.

Donald Rose: Okay. Is there any new information that needs to be brought to the attention of the board?

David Menken: If I leave something out, then I defer to the applicants. There is no new information we could give you. As you know we are here for variances required in connection with our application for a subdivision, lot line change with the Planning Board, and we've asked for certain variances which we have enumerated and you have those in our application. The public hearing was left open to give the board the opportunity to go and do a visual inspection, which I would imagine as many members as felt appropriate did. And so we are back and we are requesting and hoping that you will close the public hearing today and if possible vote on our request for variances.

Doug Hertz: Additionally David I know that you requested input from the Planning Board, and I am aware that that has been sent.

David Menken: Yes. Just for the record we have a letter dated July 18, 2006 from Whitney Singleton, the attorney for the Planning Board who indicates that at our request has written to us and indicates that the Planning Board has a positive endorsement of this application.

Donald Rose: And just for the record, members of the ZBA were given copies of the pertinent sections of the minutes from the Planning Board meetings on this particular application. The number of variances is substantial. I think everyone will agree to that. But I think that it is also possible to state that conceptually it is much simpler than the number of variances might suggest. In fact, there is only one new structure proposed that requires a variance; all the other variances either inalterable consequences at the present building locations relative to the existing lot lines. Some of them could vary, perhaps according to the details of the proposed subdivision, and I guess that is something that's been discussed at great length among you, with the Planning Board and with the building inspector.

Doug Hertz: That's correct.

Donald Rose: The qualitative nature of the three houses is such that no matter where those lot lines are the appearance I think of the neighborhood is going to be pretty much the same. We'll start arguing about splitting hairs, I suspect.

Doug Hertz: Largely the lot lines will be lines on a piece of paper.

Donald Rose: My proposal to the board is that we, after we close the public hearing, are that we explore the issues of these variances in two groups. One would be for those area variances which are there because the houses are where they are, the lot lines, whether they exist lot lines or the proposed subdivision lines, are there for our approval. I don't think, unless someone wants to debate moving the proposed subdivision lines I don't think we should consider that issue. The other group is really just a single question of the new garage which does require variances for both the rear setback and the side setback. That, I think, because it's a new structure, probably deserves a couple of questions and responses up front.

David Menken: That's fine.

Donald Rose: There is one area variance that I guess belongs in the first group, but we could think about it separately, perhaps. It's the little triangular piece that's being taken from Lot Number 3 and added to the area of Lot Number 2, and it results in an area variance requirement because of the lack of perpendicularity of that line to the street. If I could just elicit any commentary to other board members on this proposal of separating it into two pieces; one, really the existing situation; either the existing lot lines or proposed subdivision lines relative to the existing structures as one group is I think all of the things that we might say about the nature of those variances from one item probably would be the same for the other items.

Michael Zucker: My personal opinion is that after having had one full meeting and after having one to the site, I personally am comfortable just reviewing the facts if we have to review quickly and voting. I feel very comfortable with all the issues.

Robert Marino: It's not crucial to me either way. Like Mickey, I'm comfortable with it as well. I think one of the things I'd like to point out is that we have an opportunity here. We have a choice. We've got a situation where we have non-conforming use, and non-conforming uses are frowned upon and use variances are frowned upon relative to area variances. So we have a situation here where we can trade off and gain compliance as far as the use of these already existing structures by granting of some area variances. I think that is a big win for us and the town, and the character of that area. So, however you would like to proceed is fine with me.

Donald Rose: I agree with that statement. I think that there is a general feeling that it's a beneficial trade-off gaining proper use of the existing structures in exchange for the area variances. I would have just a couple of questions about the proposed garage. You did show us pictures and enumerated a number of properties that have garages with anywhere from zero to a few feet of setback, but that does not mean that that automatically allows a new one to come in. There the concern always sets a precedent unless we are very careful about why this, as uniqueness factors to allow in the neighborhood still another garage that doesn't conform.

Doug Hertz: Would you like us to address that at this point?

Donald Rose: I would say that it's conceivable, let me just kick that off by saying it's conceivable to pull the entire garage into the back yard closer to the house, probably in a legal distance from the lot lines of.

Doug Hertz: Pull the garage.

Donald Rose: In other words, it could be rotated, it could be turned 90 degrees, and one could actually have a garage and meet all of the area variances. It would meet all the setback requirements.

Doug Hertz: It would essentially take up the entire back yard. There would essentially be no recreation area.

Bill Balter: It would not take up the back yard. It would take up the same amount of space. What it would do would get rid of usable yard because instead of having a big rectangle, you would essentially have four tiny rectangles; number one. Number two, it's a small lot, and one of the things we're going for is an area variance for the dimensional requirement of the lot. It's smaller. By making it comply with area setbacks, it essentially renders it a lot smaller in terms of its use, which would be consistent with the desire to have a larger lot.

David Menken: What I'd like to do is also add to that to addressing the uniqueness in this particular situation is that the topography of the site really means that this garage is in a sense tucked into a slope.

Bill Balter: It's less visible because of the topography next to it, and it will get more visible if you pulled it and made it comply.

David Menkin: We will accept conditions to make it not that visually or aesthetically impactful upon the neighbors. I think that's how in one sense this garage is unique from other garages is its set back next to the slope and will not be as visually intrusive.

Robert Marino: If I could get some quick questions just to clarify. That garage is tucked up next to a retaining wall, is that correct?

Doug Hertz: Correct. This photo is in your packet. That is this retaining wall.

Robert Marino: And the height of that retaining wall added where the garage would be?

Doug Hertz: The retaining wall is 45 feet at that area, but what happens is the property above us continues to slope up. The retaining wall is sort of - minimally there enough to pull back the neighbor's property, to at the point of which basically this property is sloping up. If you look at the difference between the grade there and the grade here, this is all plantings. Its nine to ten feet, so on a garage I think it's required to be no more than 15. The other advantage for tucking it here is that it essentially is not visible. The house and rest of this topography really shields it as you're driving up Mountain. So the only point which this is going to become visible is essentially when you are directly in front, which is the view that we showed. There is an evergreen wall - this long retaining wall that is required to be there as per this subdivision of the above property. So he is required to maintain that evergreen wall exposing perpetuity. The house is right here, so there is about an eleven foot point on Mountain Avenue, which is about the only point that you really see the -

Bill Balter: Just one other point about exactly where the garage is. As the garage sits, as I mentioned before, this lot we need an area variance for is because of its overall size. We need one for this as well. One of the benefits of having it at this location is that it screens this house from this house. If you were to pull the garage more this way, then this house and this house see each other more. This is just another example of where this serves a purpose. In addition to being a garage it serves a purpose of screening this house to this house.

Donald Rose: Of course it's impossible to ask the future owners of this house if they would prefer to see the back of a garage or just a row of trees.

Bill Balter: Well, actually they have that choice because the houses are being marketed, and when they market the house they will do the due diligence and say there's a garage next to it. So they can make that choice with their wallet.

Doug Hertz: One other thing. We used a garage that was in existence to photograph and superimpose. As we're removing the asphalt shingles that cover this, we will expect to bring whatever detailing that we're bringing back on this house, we expect to repeat on the garage. So what we're seeing is fishtail shingles up in the gables, and I expect that that detail will be carried through so that architecturally it will appear to be an original structure.

Robert Marino: And the drive that is shown on the plan to serve that garage in its present location, that drive exists at this time?

Doug Hertz: The drive exists. Currently it goes to here, and it's been more or less abandoned, and it had continued around. Our proposal is to pull up the extra couple of feet and to have an area to park a second car next to it. The other thing - we talked about other garages in the area. When we did our survey what we discovered was that single or two car detached garages are the - you can call them almost - the art deco signature of the historic houses in the neighborhood. More than 75% of the houses in the neighborhood built; the colonials and the Victorians that are turn of the 20^th century; more than 75% of them by our town did have detached garages on or near the lot line somewhere - two car garages or single car garages. So while I wouldn't propose a new house being built that might take a different architectural tone, I wouldn't suggest a detached garage near the lot line for a modern house. My feeling is that it's appropriate for the style of this house, and it's appropriate within the neighborhood. It wouldn't be at all intrusive.

David Menken: In addition, just to complement what Doug said, one element also why we believe this is a unique situation, is it will in fact benefit the neighborhood and certainly not be an aesthetic detriment to the immediate neighbors or the neighborhood. We feel this garage located on the property would encourage the residents to park on the property in the garage rather than where they park now, which is along Prospect Street. In your record is a letter from a resident of Prospect Street in front of who these residents have to park saying that he would be happy to see them park on the lot themselves.

Donald Rose: I assume that they are parked only overnight, because isn't that in the restricted parking zone.

Doug Hertz: No they park overnight.

David Menken: I don't think it's restricted.

Donald Rose: Isn't it restricted during the day? It is on certain streets.

Bill Balter: I don't know if they are parked illegally.

Nancy Abramson: They also park on the weekends, and that's when you get the bulk of it. That's I would have to say is when it's most dangerous.

Donald Rose: When people are home from work.

Bill Balter: Just to your point and for the record, I think we should just tick through the things that allow the precedent setting. Because I think that's really the big issue - the precedent setting and we don't think it is. We have letters of support from three surrounding neighbors, right?

Doug Hertz: All the neighbors.

Bill Balter: Who support the application for the variance - we've talked about the existing houses that are there, the screening of the houses, the location based on the topography of the property. We talked about the ability because of how we're doing it, to maintain the most usable yard given the situation. And as part of what we're doing to bring these back to conform so we're not out of use in terms of the pre-existing non-conforming, this allows this house to have a garage in a way that's consistent with the neighborhood and the architecture of the house. And that's one of the things that encourage us to do this and get rid of the pre-existing non-conforming.

Karen Schleimer: Can you speak to the height of the garage? I believe during the site visit there was some discussion about how tall the garage was?

Doug Hertz: I believe there is a code to that. So we were not looking for a height variance.

Karen Schleimer: And you'll agree to make it a one-story.

Doug Hertz: Yes, it's one car.

Bill Balter: I think a one story is a good thing to put in, because 15 feet you could probably figure out a way to do two stories, so I would say that would be a good thing to put in the resolution, that it's a limitation in addition to the height and the code, it cannot be more than one story.

Doug Hertz: We're not looking to put a room above.

Donald Rose: If there are no other questions from the board, I would ask if there are any members in the audience who are here to comment on this particular application. For the record, there are no public members wishing to comment on the application. I would therefore entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Robert Marino: I move that the public hearing be closed.

Harold Boxer: I second.

Donald Rose: All in favor?

All: Aye.

Donald Rose: The chair votes aye. This set of area variances will require certainly a rather detailed resolution. There are a number of issues, and I think we can't rush that part of it. There are a lot of issues and changes from the conceptual application that led to the Notice of Denial so that some of the numbers in fact changed and specific items changed. I don't think, however, that those changes have any bearing on the outcome as far as the ZBA is concerned. I think going from the table and the original presentation listing the variances requested, in group one - let me just reverse the order. Since we've been talking about the new garage which is the only new structure, let's review the five factors that we must consider just for the new garage by itself, and then we will vote on that area variance and then consider the rest of the lot. With respect to the garage, the first item is whether an undesirable change will be produced and the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Anybody?

Robert Marino: As the applicant has indicated, I do feel that there are numerous new characteristics of this site. The topography, the existing retaining wall with high evergreen screen that presently exists, the height of the neighboring properties, the fact that to move the garage to any other location would make it more visible and thereby conceivably more detrimental; there is an existing driveway that services that proposed garage, there are parking issues that certainly with regard to Mountain and Prospect and particularly Mountain, which is an awfully steep grade. Anything that can be done to get vehicles off that, particularly during inclement weather, I think there are safety factors that would be benefited. So for all those reasons - there maybe some that I've missed - I think the variance and the issue that we're dealing with here, the property is a unique one, and I feel that this garage would be much less visible in the location that's proposed, therefore not a detriment to the neighborhood.

Donald Rose: Number two is whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.

Michael Zucker: No. I'm going to keep it simple.

Robert Marino: Again, while it's theoretically possible, at least I'm convinced that the character of the neighborhood is better protected with its present location than trying to move it elsewhere. I don't know that even that can be accomplished without variances as well.

Donald Rose: That would require a special study, obviously. I think we've established that it could be done, but the effect on the property and possibly the neighborhood would be negative. The garage would probably be more visible from more places and the character of the yard for lot number one would be adversely effective.

David Menken: Can I just make a correction on this chart?

Donald Rose: Yes.

David Menken: The 4^th row down under required for rear yard setback should be 15' not 30'.

Donald Rose: Right.

David Menken: That was an error on my part.

Bill Balter: 15' not 30? So it's less?

Donald Rose: Actually the 4^th item down was not mentioned in the Notice of Denial. Is there confusion there? There's a redundancy there. The 5^th line is distance of detached garage from rear lot line, and that one was referenced in the Notice of Denial. Perhaps the counsel might have some clarification?

Karen Schleimer: Where it appears the side yard setback of the garage, which is #7 in the Notice of Denial. Detached garage, Lot 1 is located at 3.5 plus ----------- side lot line.

Donald Rose: That would be the 3^rd line of the applicant's chart.

Doug Hertz: I understood that there were two separate issues, almost identical, but they were different sections of the code. But essentially they were the same issue, but we need a variance for both, even though they are both regarding the setback.

Bill Balter: I remember now. The 5^th line down is specifically referring to detached garages. I think there is a section of the code that refers to rules for detached garages, and the rear setback is any structure. So because we are both a structure and a detached garage, they are two separate items. So while it's redundant, we did have to address both.

Donald Rose: Does counsel agree with that interpretation?

Karen Schleimer: I can't really hear.

Bill Balter: What I said was detached garages have a section in the code that talks about the rules. So while this is a structure, it is also a detached garage, and therefore we need both.

Doug Hertz: We erred on the side of caution and even where Austin did not call out a specific denial, we requested a variance on what our determination was that was needed, and it goes beyond Austin's denial letter.

Bill Balter: Because if the building official had missed it, we would have no recourse, we would have to come back and get a new variance, so we were playing it safe. But I do think that the 30' should be changed to 15.

Karen Schleimer: I'll check this.

Robert Marino: Just to finish on this unique characteristic, I think also to be kept in mind in the event that future applicants were to seek such a garage location, this garage, if it is approved, would be approved as part of the approval which brings into conformity this non-conforming use. So I think that is a unique characteristic that you are going to very rarely see in the future. And I think we should keep that in mind.

Donald Rose: Okay. Again, while those specific questions are being researched, the 3^rd item to consider on the garage, whether the requested area variance is substantial. I believe that whether we're talking about the rear yard setback requirement of 15' where two feet is proposed, or whether we're talking about the distance of a detached garage from the rear lot line under a different section of the code. Again, the 15' required and two feet proposed; the issue is the same. The area variance is substantial in numerical or percentage terms, placing the structure virtually at the lot line instead of the required 15' away. But whether it was two feet or five feet or ten feet, I think it gets to the heart of the question. I for one would say that if it has to be anything at all, it's probably best to go for the maximum in this particular case. Because the lot is small, the topography is adverse. The house occupies a good portion of the site, and so the available room for maneuverability of the cars is affected, and therefore there are mitigating factors to consider when looking at the amount of the variance. Item four is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. And whether - there's a missing line.

Robert Marino: In regard to the environmental impacts, I think clearly, but for the garage, if we're dealing only with the garage there are no environmental impacts to speak of.

Michael Zucker: As we discussed several times, a positive impact on the physical condition of the neighborhood due to the fact that it would relieve congestion on the street.

Donald Rose: And the 5^th item is whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relative to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

Robert Marino: It is self created but again not a deterrent.

Doug Hertz: We freely admit it self-created.

Donald Rose: By simple logic, it's self created.

Robert Marino: Guilty as charged.

Donald Rose: And the chair agrees that this does not preclude the granting of the area variance.

David Menken: In a sense, not to interrupt, except for the garage, we had said that our need for the area variance was not self-created in a sense that the zone and the houses pre-existing just created <inaudible>.

Doug Hertz: Just on the garage.

Donald Rose: We will have a different answer for the rest of it as well.

Karen Schleimer: Mr. Chairman I just want to point out that Mr. Balter's assessment is correct, Sec110 31 G5 in fact has to do only with garages, and the other section is the typical setback.

Bill Balter: I was afraid I made the whole thing up.

Karen Schleimer: And in both cases it's 50.

Donald Rose: I would suggest then that we've reviewed all of the situations relative to the garage, it being the only new structure proposed by the applicant requiring area variances, and in consideration of all of the factors and discussion that has gone into it, I would request the counsel, assuming a positive vote by the board, that the factor be mentioned in the resolution memorializing the decisions. I would entertain at this point a motion to approve the area variances for the new garage on Lot Number 1.

Harold Boxer: I so move.

Robert Marino: I second.

Donald Rose: I would add that that resolution will incorporate the restriction that it be a one-story garage and meet all of the other requirements for a garage, including the height as well.

Karen Schleimer: Any screening requirements, or any other conditions?

Robert Marino: Just that the existing screening should be maintained.

Michael Zucker: The existing screening is on the neighbor's property.

Doug Hertz: We are intending to put a fence on the lot line between Lots One and Two to help delineate that if you want to make that a requirement …

Bill Balter: The fence doesn't really screen the garage.

Doug Hertz: We can only go to six feet.

Bill Balter: And the screening you're talking about actually is memorialized, it's just memorialized on the resolution.

Robert Marino: We have no control over that. But our understanding is that another unique factor is that you've got on the neighbor's property an existing screen that rises up alongside the garage and is memorialized by deed, or their subdivision approval?

Doug Hertz: It's in the subdivision site plan for number 27, the neighboring property.

Bill Balter: And that's a great thing in terms of uniqueness, because you're never going to find that.

Doug Hertz: Right. And it's already well above where we could build.

Karen Schleimer: So we want to memorialize the west fence?

Bill Balter: If you do it, I wouldn't do it in this section.

Donald Rose: I think that's something that maybe requires separate discussion because some neighbors prefer to have no fence between their properties.

Bill Balter: In mature neighborhoods you often have a few planned fences, and then they put landscaping. And when the landscaping takes, they take the fence down. So my preference, if the board doesn't feel strongly about it, would be not to have that requirement. Because we certainly would put the fence in, if the board requires that a fence is installed. I still don't think it's necessary. Ultimately, landscaping is nicer than fencing.

Robert Marino: I think another unique factor with regard to that fencing is that you've got all these properties that are being proposed to be separated will be in common ownership for a period, and then sold to willing buyers. I think that we might be better off leaving it to those buyers to determine what they prefer as far as screening and fencing goes.

Harold Boxer: I agree. There will be no room to get behind between the garage and the fence. There's a maximum of three feet.

Robert Marino: So they'll be no requirement for the screening?

Donald Rose: No requirement for the screening. Okay. This may be a lot to digest for a resolution, but I think that the situation is relatively clear.

Bill Balter: I think she's up to it.

Donald Rose: Okay. Let us vote then on the motion that is on the table which has been seconded. All in favor?

All: Aye to grant the variances for the detached one story garage

Donald Rose: And the chair votes aye. Let us now consider the five factors with regard to the numerous other area variances required and for the record, there are first two area variances required, one for Lot 1, one for Lot 2 because of the minimum lot area. The zoning requires 12,500 square feet and Lot 1 as shown on the subdivision plan has 7,396 square feet. Lot 2 has 7,622 square feet.

Karen Schleimer: The denial says 7,181 square feet.

Doug Hertz: Again, the denial was based on the conceptual and based on the input from Austin, originally we had proposed moving this line farther, this triangular lot line, which would have required a variance from the barn when it was his determination that this was not a structure, and therefore did not require a setback. We made sure that we moved this line to be 15 feet so there would be no variance required, and that's why those areas changed slightly. If I might, there is one other thing that has changed in the conceptual which has not changed on your plan so that you understand why that square footage area changed slightly, based on the building departments input, we moved this lot line from one side of the retaining wall to the other so that this distance that does require a variance, with the smallest variance that could be required. So right now, we tried to move this internal side lot line between Lot 1 and the driveway in Lot 2 to 15'. We couldn't accommodate that because it essentially fell in the middle of the driveway. So we brought it to the edge of the retaining wall, which is the farthest you could reasonably pull it. That is the other reason for the slight difference in square footage between Austin's denial letter and the current conditions.

Donald Rose: The additional area variances are these: minimum lot width for this zone is 100', Lot 1 has a minimum of 62', Lot 2 has a minimum of 13', and for the record that is obviously due to the flag lot nature of Lot 2. It's a driveway basically. It has been discussed and is clear from site visits the flag lot is not a frowned upon new subdivision to build a new house on a flag lot, it's to accommodate the already pre-existing houses and provide adequate access to the street without getting into easements over neighboring parcels.

Harold Boxer: What are those two encroachments?

Doug Hertz: They are roof overhangs.

Donald Rose: There is also for Lot 1 a requirement for an area variance for middle of a side yard setback. And again this relates to the discussion that was just presented about the driveway. 15' is required, 13 ½' is the proposed subdivision line, and that is really due to the location of the driveway and the fact that it really can't be any greater. The additional side yard setback is due to the garage, and the garage we have just voted on as a separate item being the only new structure. If that wasn't mentioned properly, Madame Counsel, the garage requires three area variances, not two. One is a side setback and the other two are rear yard setbacks. If necessary, we could re-open that motion and make sure that we're voting positively on the side setback, would that be appropriate, dotting the I's?

Karen Schleimer: Sure.

Donald Rose: We can either move to amend the previously approved area variances for the garage to include as well the area variances of 12' for the minimum side yard setback that's required. Do I have a motion for that amendment?

Harold Boxer: So moved.

Robert Marino: Second.

Donald Rose: All in favor?

All: Aye to amend the previously approved variances for the garage to include the area variance 12' for the minimum side yard setback required.

Donald Rose: The chair votes aye. The additional area variances for the rest of the existing property are these; there is a side lot line that is not at right angles to the street, resulting from the re-distribution of area between Lots 2 and 3. The purpose of the applicant of course, being to enlarge the area of Lot 2 to decrease the efficiency in the minimum lot area and to make better use of an otherwise unusable triangle of land behind an existing barn garage structure. The other area variances required are for the maximum development coverage. Lot 1 has coverage of 52.1%, and the maximum required under the code is 40%, Lot 2 has 50.2% coverage, again compared to the 40% maximum. So I think as was suggested earlier that if we group all of these in one, the specific details need to be spelled out carefully in the resolution, but I think the factors that we consider for any one of these, our discussion of one would probably apply to all of them rather than go through them in a long sequential list of votes. I think it would make sense to treat it as a group of existing situations.

Robert Marino: I agree.

Donald Rose: So with that in mind, again let's go back to the first test; whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties graded by the granting to the area variance.

Robert Marino: As we stated, these are all existing structures. They affect the various boundary lines presently. In my view there would be no detrimental change in the neighborhood. As we've also discussed, by granting these variances for existing structures, we are able to get this property and those structures into conformance as far as their use is concerned, and I think that's a big plus for the neighborhood.

Donald Rose: Item 2 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.

Harold Boxer: Again, because it's pre-existing.

Donald Rose: So there are nothing short of moving houses and existing structures, which are not feasible - three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. I think again it's a question of the math, In virtually every case, the area variances are substantial; whether it's the minimum lot area, the lot width, rear and side yard setbacks and maximum coverage, but again, mitigated in each case by the fact that the structure; the houses are existing, the overall lot lines exist, and the only natural subdivision lines fall on topographical features such as edges of driveway or tops or bottoms of steep slopes with walls and doing other things would not make practical sense and may not eliminate the area variances in any case. Item 4 is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions on the neighborhood or district.

Michael Zucker: No - just the opposite.

Donald Rose: The chair agrees that to the contrary, the granting of the variances will have a positive affect by restoring the original single family use that these structures most likely had when they were built whenever - eighty, ninety years ago. The benefits to the neighborhood by having single-family ownership on properties that have been long neglected would be in the chair's opinion substantial and desirable.

Robert Marino: I agree.