ZBA Minutes 6-19-08

MOUNT KISCO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Minutes

Tuesday June 19, 2007

7:50 PM

Mount Kisco Village Hall

Members Present: Donald Rose

Robert Marino

Michael Zucker

Harold Boxer

Staff Present: Austin Cassidy

Karen Schleimer

Donald Rose: We'll call to order the Tuesday June 19, 2007 meeting of the Mount Kisco Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the May 15^th Meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MAY 15, 2007

Motion: Robert Marino

Second: Michael Zucker

Aye: Harold Boxer

Aye: Robert Marino

Aye: Michael Zucker

Aye: Donald Rose

Donald Rose: We were going to be considering the final resolution on the case of Mount Kisco Commons, Case #2005-06, but we have received again a letter requesting a deferral to the next meeting to review that matter. So, that will be the case; it will be heard in July. If not, if there is a further adjournment it would have to be until September because the board traditionally does not meet in August.

RETURNING CASE

Marty Weldon

49 Turner Lane

Application #ZBA 07-01

Present: Mr. Marty Weldon, Property Owner

Mary Ann Lascerbo, Property Owner

Peter C. Kurth, President, Peter C. Kurth Design Studio

Donald Rose: We have a returning case, Marty Weldon. Gentlemen, please step forward. This is a continuation case begun at the previous meeting.

Peter Kurth: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, members of the board. My name is Peter Kurth; I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Weldon. At the last meeting you will recall we made a request for a variance for basically size issues. At that time the board asked us to look into and producing additional information. We respectfully submitted that about two weeks ago. You should have copies; if anyone doesn't have a copy I brought an additional copy with us. It included the complete survey of the property. Originally a piece was omitted. An issue came up of if this variance were to be granted could anybody come into the property through another property via easement. So we looked into that and provided the various deeds, and it's clear that the only way to get to this garage is from the street and through the Weldon property. We were able to get three letters of support, which are attached. The Weldon's looked into a gray water system which we did, and they have some reservations about that system, which of course we could talk about. We supplied information on the grass pavers, which could actually be mowed like a lawn and it would be in keeping with the rural nature of the property. It would just look like a green lawn going right up the garage. The Weldon's would from either a deed restriction or whatever the board would deem appropriate if the board would to approve the variance they would create any assurance that the property would never be used as a dwelling, ever. That was a concern with the board, and I think that's what brought up the issue of the water system. Then the board requested that we answer the five stated points on the zoning, which we enclosed. Regarding the gray water system, one of the neighbors that submitted a letter of support had objections to it, and again the Weldon's want to be accommodating, but we found that there are some negative aspects to a gray water system that the board should consider if they were mandating that system. They only need running water for a sink to wash your hands and things of that nature, and that water could be brought up from the house.

Marty Weldon: With a gray water system, wouldn't we be going back to the forties or the thirties doing that? How can that even be considered?

Robert Marino: The concern with the gray water system and the reason that its come up, and correct me if I'm wrong, Austin, is that it would be one way… not that it would necessarily insure, but it would make it very difficult; the turning of that property. Not be you but by a subsequent owner, into a living space where you would have toilet facilities and all that kind of thing.

Austin Cassidy: The board was trying to find a middle ground of comfort where all of the elements of dwelling would not be readily availability specifically being that there is going to be electricity here, there is going to be heat in at least part of the structure, and there is going to be water service that somehow, some element of that be limited to such a degree that it would be a hindrance for ready usage for habitation. That was the goal of the board. The gray water system, actually, we were thinking not necessarily just of the line terminating and filtering out this tank or small tank for operating for a hand sink, that then has the use of whenever, evaporation might even take over rather than having to pump it out based on the frequency of use of the hand sink. We're shooting from the hip ideas.

Marty Weldon: Well, I'm putting a toilet up there, right?

Peter Kurth: Yes.

Marty Weldon: So then why would you have a gray water system? You just hook it right into the house; its 250 feet away and you're done with it.

Austin Cassidy: The toilet wasn't on the table last meeting to my memory, as part of the description of the…

Marty Weldon: Yeah, it had a bathroom in it.

Peter Kurth: It's a powder room, there is no shower or tub, and it's just a sink and toilet.

Austin Cassidy: Yes, and the board was talking about whether or not to do a hand sink because of the need of washing hands, but they were, as I recall, concerned about the full elements of a bath in there. But anyway, as I say, we were trying to problem solve.

Harold Boxer: I would like to make another proposition that since none of us are knowledgeable in gray water systems, and there's pros and there's cons, we could request that the Weldon's allow the compliance officer to make an inspection once a year.

Austin Cassidy: If we're going to have a bathroom with solid waste, that's a whole new ball game.

Donald Rose: And by definition not a gray water system.

Marty Weldon: I definitely want to connect it to my house to have the toilet there. Don't penalize me for something that somebody might do twenty years from now or if I ever sell the property.

Peter Kurth: If there is a restriction that runs with the property, that restriction would carry over after sale.

Marty Weldon: I understand that. But don't penalize me now for something that could happen later on.

Austin Cassidy: In all fairness to the board, I think penalizing is the furthest thing that we're trying to do. We're trying to work with you to find a middle ground.

Marty Weldon: There is no ground there. I'm putting a garage in, I want a toilet. Just hook it right up to the house and it's done. It's silly to even think about it.

Michael Zucker: Why don't you have the garage just without the toilet? You just said its 250 feet away.

Marty Weldon: I don't like walking that far. I'm taking a leak now up in the corner of the barn there. I'd rather go in the toilet. That's what this is all about. I'm 53, I want to build something and have it.

Peter Kurth: They're proposing an exercise room upstairs and I suppose there is a convenience factor of just having a powder room, toilet, sink up there. That wouldn't make it a dwelling unit, just to have that. You have situations like that in any out building or area related to a pool. It's a convenience factor.

Harold Boxer: I would like to take my suggestion and turn it into a motion if I have seconds? The suggestion was twofold; one we put the restriction on the land, which definitely will run with the land, we just have to phrase it properly, and two, that we just do regular inspections, maybe on a yearly basis, just to make sure that there has been no habitation in there.

Donald Rose: I don't think we are at a point where a motion is called for because your proposal will assume that it is a gray water system.

Harold Boxer: No it doesn't. I'm not prepared to vote yes or no on a gray water system because I don't know enough about it.

Austin Cassidy: It's off the table now anyway.

Marty Weldon: I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do the project if I had to do a gray water system.

Donald Rose: And so then the question is if we grant the variances including the toilet facility, what protection can be obtained for the town just to make sure?

Peter Kurth: That's why he proposed the yearly inspections.

Harold Boxer: That's why I proposed the restriction in the… well, it would have to be a declaration because they already own the property; and the annual inspections.

Peter Kurth: The Weldon's would agree to that.

Donald Rose: If this is the solution then we would incorporate that in the overall resolution. Are there other thoughts on that particular issue?

Robert Marino: I would just ask; Austin, that would be something that you or your office would have to deal with?

Austin Cassidy: Right. There would have to be obviously a crafted document of essentially perpetual consent for the inspection to the satisfaction of counsel, and then there would be executed …but it would be a guaranteed waiver of otherwise a refusal for now and forever relative to the…

Peter Kurth: Yes, they would agree to that sir.

Karen Schleimer: The problem with anything that you're setting it up for an enforcement mechanism; if people want to sin they are going to sin till you notify them that they are in violation till you actually bring an action, and get them in court, it continues for quite some time. So the Weldon's don't have any intentions or wouldn't do such a thing, but somebody someday may, and it's not easy regardless of what deep restrictions or preparations are on the property, or what kinds of inspections are authorized. We had a stipulation; the guy agreed to inspections on no notice because we just hammered him in October and golly gee, he's violating again. And we have every right to go in; weekly, if we like. It didn't stop him.

Harold Boxer: I think there is a limit to how much we can safeguard everything. We can put every safeguard in place, and it still does not guarantee anything. If there's a toilet, I'd much rather see the sewage going into our sewage system.

Austin Cassidy: It has to. As I say, it's off the table. The solid waste; we cannot discuss anything else.

Harold Boxer: Okay.

Marty Weldon: You can take people's word, too. An old thing, but it would be nice if that was still around.

Peter Kurth: They are worried about if you sell.

Donald Rose: It's the subsequent owners, because once this facility is built, its available then to any future owners.

Marty Weldon: I understand that, but I think that should be a problem then not now.

Karen Schleimer: Our experience is that these things have become problems, so we're trying to set it up so we don't create a situation that will end up being a problem.

Donald Rose: That building and the access to it is I believe fairly visible to neighboring properties, is that correct? Neighbors have eyes, and if future owners should be renting that out, then someone is going to blow the whistle.

Mary Ann Lascerbo: That was the question asked by our neighbors to us; if we were going to rent it, and we said no, we have no intentions of renting it.

Peter Kurth: Yes, that came up when you were asking for support.

Donald Rose: I can see why this whole issue kind of raised the flags for the board and the building inspector, because we are trying to avoid setting up a situation or just greasing the skids for a possible misuse of the property at a later date under a future owner.

Marty Weldon: On that piece of property, I'm not sure, but I told the neighbors if I wanted to do that I would subdivide it and put a house up there, which they were trying to originally do before we bought it.

Donald Rose: I'm just reviewing quickly; you said there are three letters?

Peter Kurth: They should be included here?

Donald Rose: One from Glenn Davis and Phyllis Stone in support? A second letter from Arlene Fitzmaurice at 37 Turner Lane, the first letter was from an address of 41 Turner Lane. How do they relate to your property?

Peter Kurth: It shows on the map.

Mary Ann Lascerbo: They sit right here. Fitzmaurice fits here, and Glenn and Phyllis sit here. They sit looking; their yards face our property.

Donald Rose: Those would be their backyards?

Peter Kurth: Those are the closest neighbors that are affected visually.

Michael Zucker: Last time we had somebody who is behind, looking down?

Marty Weldon: Yes, that was the big guy that was here.

Mary Ann Lascerbo: He also sent a letter.

Donald Rose: Is that Mark Maffio?

Mary Ann Lascerbo: Yes.

Donald Rose: At 33 Turner Lane. Where is his driveway?

Mary Ann Lascerbo: His driveway actually runs here right behind.

Donald Rose: So the numbers are increasing…

Mary Ann Lascerbo: As you go down.

Donald Rose: After the submitted date we received a letter from Michael Dolan, 184 Croton Avenue, now are they contiguous to the property?

Mary Ann Lascerbo: They are over here.

Marty Weldon: Their barn is right here.

Donald Rose: They are contiguous.

Marty Weldon: On their property, the driveway used to go from this right through their property.

Peter Kurth: That's the one we checked where there is no easement that goes through.

Marty Weldon: How did that letter turn out?

Mary Ann Lascerbo: He did that without us knowing. He called us today and told us he did that, and we're not aware what's in there.

Donald Rose: Actually, we prefer letters like that. They're not scripted.

Robert Marino: He was very supportive.

Donald Rose: Would it be appropriate to read the contents of that letter into the minutes? It's from Michael C. Dolan 184 Croton Avenue, dated June 18. Dear Members of the ZBA, please consider this correspondence in support of Mr. Weldon's proposal for a two-story addition to his barn. The barn directly abuts our property, and our property has the greatest acreage and exposure to the proposed structure. The barn is located in the rear of the Weldon property and is not visible from the roadway. The proposed addition is both size and architecturally consistent with the two-story barn on our property, as well as the 2/3 story home on the front Hamilton lot, and the high ranch style homes on Turner Lane. Accordingly the proposed structure is well within the character of the neighborhood and does not pose a detriment to nearby properties. Mr. Weldon's hardship is not self-created and will have the least environmental impact. In the event his application is denied, Mr. Weldon may be forced to build a separate structure or an addition to his home on the front or side of the property, where trees and vegetation would have to be removed. The original Hamilton property suffered enough environmental damage when the wetlands on the front lot were removed to build the enormous plane structure that now sits on it. Finally, the proposed addition does not require a substantial variance as Mr. Weldon's lot is one and one half acres, much greater in size than the average lot of the majority of Mount Kisco residents. In sum, the expansion of the barn is the most tasteful, least destructive and intrusive action. As such, the Weldon's application should be granted in its entirety. I thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, Michael C. Dolan. Apparently unscripted.

Peter Kurth: Sounds like a lawyer wrote that. He's been through this process before.

Donald Rose: We might react to certain of the characterizations and conclusions, but obviously that's not terribly pertinent this time. You clearly have all neighbors in favor of the application, which is very important when there is a variance of this type, because, more than anything we seek to avoid creating a precedent such that we'll have ten more cases down the road where someone will say well, if you approve this case, you have to approve ours because ours is the same. I think further on that point we want to explore just for a few minutes what the unique features are if there has been anything additionally that you thought of that can cement the case.

Peter Kurth: Just the fact that it's a, to me, a historical structure built in the early 1900's, and in dilapidated condition, this solution would create a use for this structure which is not in good repair, rejuvenate the structure, and make it useful for the homeowner without it being a detriment to the neighbors, and the letters say exactly how. They love their house on the road. We looked into the expansion of the house; aside from being very close to the road it's not very feasible. To add a garage down there, would be, I think visually unpleasant to the Weldon's and the neighbors, and makes no realistic connection to the infrastructure of the house. The driveway is on the master bedroom wing of the house. So, this solution keeps the structure, enhances it, re-stabilizes it and makes it useful and yet keeps the character of the original tent of that structure in tact.

Donald Rose: I think in our previous meeting we did have discussion at some length about the specific variances that would be needed. One was the fact that the accessory detached garage will be in excess of the maximum of 15 feet that's in the code. I believe your building height is going to have an average of 21 feet, I guess that's from the average grade to the average height of the room. And then the second, perhaps more significant is the overall size and square footage of the structure.

Peter Kurth: Yes.

Donald Rose: Since the existing garage is already larger than the maximum for a new accessory detached garage, and then the addition of course makes that even…

Peter Kurth: The first I would mention is the height. If that would be a deterrent with the board, we could scale that back even though we feel that aesthetically relating to the existing roof lines, this is more pleasing. We could remove the cupola if the board would so desire. Again, I think aesthetically its better this way and the neighbors that are affected didn't seem to mind the height factor. In fact, it never even came up. If any neighbor had objected, they were willing to provide landscape screening, and it never came up.

Austin Cassidy: Just to point the cupola, you don't have to offer to take it, it's not part of the height connection.

Peter Kurth: It's about a five foot roof height number and again I think its better to go with good aesthetics because the structure is larger in character, if that's correct. But clearly the second variance is the most important.

Donald Rose: If you were to reduce the height it would presumable reduce the slopes on the roof.

Peter Kurth: Yes. Or we could actually keep the slope, come up, and lop it off. Again, not desirable in my view. One of those two alternatives; you have to have enough usable headroom for the gymnasium area, which is eight feet.

Austin Cassidy: There is also a third element of variance there that you need to focus on because it's already a non-complying building to start with, and that bearing element as well as increasing the degree of non-compliance.

Peter Kurth: Yes. Anything we do to the structure, even cleaning up basically, would require a variance.

Harold Boxer: Once they get a variance it's compliant with the code based on the variance.

Peter Kurth: Yes.

Donald Rose: I think there had been a request from the board to address the five factors that we would have to consider, and you did that?

Peter Kurth: Yes. It's on the last page.

Donald Rose: Are there any other issues that the board feels should be explored at this point?

Michael Zucker: I'm satisfied. I've got enough information.

Donald Rose: Everyone else? I think perhaps the most important factors going into this are to have the provisions that do whatever we can in order to protect the Village from future misdeed, but we also want to make sure that we consider the uniqueness of this property if we are to grant the variances so that we aren't faced with this all the time. Not that that is necessarily bad, it may be that the case like this, a very finely tuned zoning ordinance would allow this kind of situation, but we didn't write the ordinance and all we can do is deal with the way it is. Are there any members of the public that wish to comment on the application? For the record there are no members who wish to comment. If there is no further questioning by the board then I would suggest we close the public hearing.

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING

Marty Weldon

49 Turner Lane

Application #ZBA 07-01

Motion: Robert Marino

Second: Harold Boxer

Aye: Michael Zucker

Aye: Robert Marino

Aye: Harold Boxer

Aye: Donald Rose

Donald Rose: Then the question becomes one of considering the five points. We can either use Mr. Kurth's analysis as a starting point or comment on it separately. Usually board members will take a different tact, but that's part of our charge. The first element when granting an area variance 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 area variance.

Harold Boxer: I agree with Mr. Kurth's letter.

Robert Marino: My view is the same.

Donald Rose: I think in general it's an attractive solution, possibly creates a structure that's more handsome than many of the dwelling units in the neighborhood, but that's another matter. Certainly it helps establish a benchmark should there be future requests for variances of this nature, they've got to demonstrate the kind of faith and effort that is produced in this kind of work. Second question 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?

Robert Marino: My understanding is that the alternative is to remove what is there and then build a modern compliant structure which I think would possibly create more of an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. You wouldn't be saving the old stone structure and there would be no requirement that certainly they would need to put in the time, effort and money that has obviously gone into the design of this structure. So, while there are alternatives, I think it would be foolish in this case, this unique case, to force them to go that route.

Donald Rose: Are there any further comments on that particular point?

Michael Zucker: I agree with that analysis.

Donald Rose: And number three, whether the requested area variance is substantial, and I believe the applicant agrees with the board that it is substantial by simple calculation, but again, this is a rather unusual situation and it seems to have a desirable end result of improving the appearance of a somewhat antique building and retaining the character.

Robert Marino: The property itself, being somewhat over an acre in size, long and deep from the roadway, which means that this structure is visible only to a few of the neighbors, all of whom have written in support, I think mitigates the substantial of the request.

Harold Boxer: I feel it's also further mitigated by the uniqueness of the property and the uniqueness of the barn.

Donald Rose: And the applicant has noted the issue of the height. If that were an issue, the roof line could be redone, but in my opinion the proposal is the better looking. I think it's a case where forcing conformity there would not be the desirable product.

Harold Boxer: It would be ugly.

Donald Rose: Number four… whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; that's the end of number four.

Harold Boxer: They've already agreed to the grass pavers which in itself is an environmentally friendly solution and I don't think there are any other; we haven't come up with any other adverse environmental problems on this.

Donald Rose: No, not that I'm aware of. Perhaps we're stepping into one with consideration of a gray water system but that is taken away.

Harold Boxer: That's gone.

Donald Rose: The fifth item was the difficulty 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.

Harold Boxer: I think we've already gone over that. It is self-created but I refer back to all the other four issues.

Donald Rose: And of course it's initially self-created by the desire of the applicant to make better overall use of his entire property and create usable spaces in the accessory building that would be difficult or expensive to create on the primary dwelling. Any other thoughts on those issues?

Robert Marino: No. I would agree. As is usual in these cases, technically, legally, it is self-created, but for the reasons that we've mentioned previously, that point does not control here.

Donald Rose: I think the nature of the case is such that I would request board counsel to draft the final resolution assuming that we grant the variances that are needed for this project, but for the record, we would be voting on granting the variances in accordance with the plans as submitted, of course reference the date of the plans.

Robert Marino: Do you have Mr. Kurth, a copy of the plan showing the site and the foot print and all that that we might reference?

Peter Kurth: This is the site plan showing the existing and the proposed. These are the actual.

Donald Rose: There is a drawing submitted.

Peter Kurth: It is dated, I believe.

Robert Marino: I'm speaking for myself here. I'm prepared to make a motion that we approve the variances, we approve the application and that the structure be built in compliance with the plans from Mr. Kurth dated September 13, 2006, and that's Sheets A1, A2 through A4 and that the language of the deed restriction and language regarding the inspection of compliance that the structure not be used for anything but the storage of vehicles and gymnasium on the second floor be worked out with you, perhaps, rather than try to come out with that language now.

Karen Schleimer: For this owner or a subsequent owner would you not permit the upstairs gymnasium use was abandoned to be used for storage? That was an issue.

Robert Marino: Certainly, as long as the new structure is not used as a residence.

Michael Zucker: Garage storage and exercise.

Robert Marino: Yes. Garage storage and exercise studio.

Donald Rose: And would that satisfy the board as to the specific requirements? I think that was all that was discussed. The deed restriction and some type of an inspection.

Harold Boxer: That's fine with me.

Donald Rose: Then that is I believe a motion on the floor from Bob.

Motion for Approval

Marty Weldon

49 Turner Lane

Application #ZBA 07-01

Motion: Robert Marino

Second: Harold Boxer

Aye: Michael Zucker

Aye: Harold Boxer

Aye: Robert Marino

Aye: Donald Rose

Mary Ann Lascerbo: Thank you.

Marty Weldon: Thank you.

Donald Rose: Thank you for making the case and presenting a professional set of drawings.

Peter Kurth: Thank you very much.

NEW CASE

Mr. and Mrs. DeMarco

31 Valley View Terrace

Application No: ZBA 07-03

Present: Deena DeMarco

Jonathan DeMarco

Frank Loiacono, Architect

Harold Boxer: Before I start the new case, I'm going to officially recuse myself from this case, as I was one of the residents that received Notice of the Applicant for Variance.

Donald Rose: Yes, and for the record, we will note that Mr. Boxer did give us prior written notice that would recuse him. So we are down one member. We still have a quorum; a minimum number required would be three, and we presently only have four members on the board.

Austin Cassidy: For the edification of the board that the board would have taken the action on this, while there are only three members of the board it would have to be unanimous in order to pass.

Donald Rose: Then we will open the public hearing for the case brought by Mr. and Mrs. DeMarco, 31 Valley View Terrace, ZBA Case # 07-03. The action has been brought as a result of a Notice of Denial for a building permit request and the denial is based on the following facts, one, the subject single family residence is located in the RS-6 Medium Density Single Family Zone, Section 110-10C 1F3 in the code of the Village/Town of Mount Kisco requires a minimum of five feet side yard building set back on one side with a total of 15 feet. The residence presently provides a total setback of 13.5 feet. The proposed northern addition would diminish that to a total setback of 10.5 feet. Therefore, the building permit cannot be granted. Have you received the application fee and proof of mailing and all of the requirements of the proof of application, Donna?

Donna Meyers: I did not receive any information that says I didn't, so I am sure they did.

Deena DeMarco: I brought these because I didn't seem to get all of them back. I didn't know if you needed those too.

Donna Meyers: Yes, that would be fine, thank you.

Deena DeMarco: I only got 19 out of 25 back and one letter back.

Donna Meyers: Thank you.

Deena DeMarco: And Nancy Placona called and said she received the Affidavit directly about the letter in the Journal News.

Donna Meyers: You spoke to Nancy about it?

Deena DeMarco: She called me, because they didn't send it to me, they sent it directly to the town.

Donald Rose: I think for the edification of the board would you like to describe the project and how we are at this juncture?

Frank Loiacono: The DeMarcos currently bought their residence a time ago. There is an existing one-car garage to the north, and there is an existing wood deck walkway to the south. It's a non-complying structure from years ago. Their family is growing; we are adding a master bedroom, bathroom over the proposed addition to the north. Since space is at a premium these days and the existing structure for the existing one car garage is not capable to sustain the additional loads, we are forced to remove the existing one car garage and the foundation itself and provide a brand new one. Since space in the existing residence four bedrooms is tight, and our contractor recommended the additional cost for the foundation would be negligible in the long run, and use of the residence we decided to go a little bit bigger keeping the five foot minimum distance to the north and the existing wood deck walkway from way, way back is the limiting factor. With the proposed variance we do have the proper setbacks to the existing residence, so the site lines are fairly visible based on the setbacks to the house. But since it is to a wood deck, which is not an enclosing structure, and it does not block the view totally, and it does provide access from the existing kitchen which has a door to the south to the rear wood deck when there are summer barbeques going on.

Donald Rose: Would the northern face of the new building be parallel to the property line?

Frank Loiacono: Yes.

Donald Rose: And your site plan indicates that the information is based on a survey but you have the statement that the wood deck walkway is five feet, plus or minus. I don't think the survey would show a plus or minus figure.

Frank Loiacono: This particular survey did have plus or minus dimensions, but based on my foundation foot print of the existing house and figuring what the surveyor said for the northern setback and the southern setback, those dimensions are accurate.

Deena DeMarco: I have the actual survey here if you like it.

Frank Loiacono: Just too actually see it. But I know based on my foundation dimensions, and what the surveyor calls plus or minus for the northern and the southern setback, I can say that those dimensions are fairly accurate.

Donald Rose: So for the record, reading from a copy of the survey done by Edward Mihalczo, he does show 10.0 feet, plus or minus, as the distance from the southern face of the existing house to the southern property line, and, 8.0 feet, plus or minus, from the northern side of the existing garage to the property line.

Frank Loiacono: You could submit that too into the record for the board.

Donald Rose: Okay, we'll appreciate that.