ZONING BOARD MINUTES
June 21, 2004

Approved 07/19/2004

Posted 07/26/2004

Minutes of the Zoning Board meeting held in the Town Hall, lower level meeting room, 11 South Main Street, Pittsford, on June 21, 2004 and filed in the Town Clerk's office.

MEMBERS PRESENT
David Rogachefsky, George Dounce,  Larry Magguilli, Robert Shaddock, Barbara Servé, Rufus Falk and Peter Webster 

ALSO PRESENT
Richard Williams Attorney, John Higgins Town Board Liaison, Sandie Freitag Secretary for the Zoning Board of Appeals, David Rowe Building Inspector

Chairman, David Rogachefsky, called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. He gave a summary of the procedures to be followed for each Public Hearing, how the Board would deliberate, how public input would be taken, etc. He indicated that written comments are welcome until the Public Hearings are closed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

2 Ingridshire Drive
Tax #164.03-3-13
Zoned A Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-120 A
Requiring a 70' front setback

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004, for 2 Ingridshire Drive.

Rizk Youssef owner of 2 Ingridshire Drive reviewed the application and adding that with four cars in the family the need for the third bay addition onto his garage is necessary to have the cars out of the driveway. There are other homes in the neighborhood that have 3-car garage and he feels that the addition of a third bay on his home would fit into the neighborhood.
Comments from the board members:

D. Rogachefsky asked if he had a time frame in mind.
Mr. Youssef stated that he would like to start as soon as he can get through the process with the Town and have it finished by the late summer early fall.
There were no additional comments from the board or the public at this time.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

George Dounce moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Larry Magguilli
Public Hearing is closed.

840 Allen's Creek Road
Tax #138.13-1-39
Zoned AA Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Requesting relief from Code Section185-15 C (3)
Requiring a 20' side setback.

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004 for 840 Allen's Creek Road.

Ben Henderson owner of 840 Allen's Creek Road reviewed the application outlining that this location is the only alternative to the floor plan of his home to add the den behind the garage the house is already at a 16.9' setback and the addition will stay within the line of the house and go no closer to the side lot line and with two kids they need the additional space. The architect is almost finished with the final plans they were just waiting to proceed once this board has granted their approval. The home is a ranch on one side and a 2-story colonial on the other, they had looked at the other side of the lot and if they built the addition on that side it would be a very narrow room and not very functional.

Comments from the board members:

R. Falk stated that the location of the addition is the only alternative because of the layout of the house on the lot and the floor plan of the house.
G. Dounce asked about construction time frame.

B. Henderson stated that he would like to begin as soon as possible and get it enclosed before the cold weather starts.
There were no additional comments from the board or the public.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

Barbara Servé moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Rufus Falk
Public Hearing is closed.

100 Stoneleigh Court
Tax #138.18-1-12
Zoned AA Residential
Requesting Area Variances
Relief from Code Sections 185-15 C (2), (3) & 185-113 C (1), (2), (6)
Requiring that no accessory structure shall exceed 180-sq. ft. nor exceed 12' in height and must adhere to the applicable zoning setbacks in the district.

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004 for 100 Stoneleigh Court.

Charles Fitzsimmons and Mari Marschall owners of 100 Stoneleigh Court reviewed the application for the proposed detached garage and outlined why they needed it so close to the side and rear lot lines. The existing 1-car garage is undersized for their lifestyle. The house is 3200-sq. ft. and there is no room to build a 2-car attached garage as shown in the enclosed sketch. The new sketch that they submitted shows a 12 - 12-roof pitch that will be more compatible to the house roof design. There are several detached garages in the neighborhood. The lot is long and narrow and to move the proposed garage further into the yard would take up more of the backyard than they would like. They plan to start a family someday and will need the space in the backyard for the kids to play. They are planning on removing the 1-car garage that is attached to the house because it is falling down any ways and they would like to maintain as much as possible of the backyard as they can.

Comments from the board members:

1. What is the maximum on the side footage that you feel that you will need?
2. Can you downsize the size of the garage?
3. Is the 5' rear and side setback as requested necessary?
4. Can you downsize the garage to 26' x 20' and 19' 6" high?
5. If you move the garage over will it be hard to maneuver the vehicles?
6. With the new garage and driveway will there be a problem with lot coverage?
7. The 60' from the back of the house to the proposed garage is a long distance.

Charles Fitzsimmons responses are as follows:

1. If we move the garage over it will take up too much of the backyard.
2. A 26' x 22' would be the smallest that he could work with. But the requested 26' x 24' and 24' high would allow him some storage space, because at the present time there is no storage space for him to put things away.
3. They would have liked to move it over closer to the lot line but they want to leave a land around the garage to cut the grass and maintain the property.
4. They could downsize if the board so chooses but they would rather stay with the proposed size if they could.
5. The existing driveway now would go straight back to the proposed garage and if you move it over the swing in the driveway would make if very hard to maneuver the vehicles into and out of the garage.
6. The lot coverage was never addressed and if it is a problem they could have the plans redrawn to show this.
7. The distance to the garage is not a problem for them. They would rather have the backyard as open as possible.

R. Williams commented that the if the lot coverage is a problem then they would have to return to this board to get a variance to approve the requested lot coverage.

There were no additional comments from the board or the public.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

Barbara Servé moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: George Dounce
Public Hearing is closed.

17 Wind Tree Circle
Tax #192.02-2-4
Zoned RRAA Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Relief from Code Section 185-113 C (2)
Requiring that no accessory structure shall exceed 12' in height.

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004 for 17 Wind Tree Circle.

Paul, from Boardwalk Designs, presented the application for the owners of 17 Wind Tree Circle. The gazebo will have open rafters and not a closed roof. The gazebo will be built in the pool area on the existing deck, which is 2 ½' off the ground, which will make the gazebo height of 15 ½'. The backyard slopes and narrows as it goes back and leaves very little room for this structure. All of the neighbors have been notified and none of them have a problem with this application.

There were no comments from the board or the public.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

George Dounce moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Rufus Falk
Public Hearing is closed.

22 Greylock Ridge
Tax #164.15-2-64
Zoned A Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Relief from Code Section 185-23 C (1)
Requiring a 50' front setback

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004 for 22 Greylock Ridge.

Scott Fisk, the architect, presented the application for the owners of 22 Greylock Ridge. The owners would like to put a cover over the front porch because when it is raining or snowing the people standing on the front porch gets very wet. With the addition of this front porch roof it will give visitors some cover.

P. Webster asked if there will be a change of the footprint of the house, and what is your construction timetable?

Scott Fisk stated that there would be no change to the footprint because the foundation for the covered porch is already there and the owners are just adding a roof over the front stoop. The owners would like to start away.

There were no additional comments from the board or the public.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

Larry Magguilli moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Rufus Falk
Public Hearing is closed.

1 Park Square Lane
Tax #163.02-2-46
Zoned AA Residential
Requesting Area Variances
Relief from Code Sections 185-121 A & 185-120 A & 185-15 C (1)
Requiring a 70' front & 50' front setback and not fence shall exceed 3' in height within the front setbacks.

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004 for 1 Park Square Lane.

Jeff Constantine, architect for the application, reviewed the proposed location of the 4' high fence along the property lines. Outlining the need to enclose the area for the play ground for the owner's children and his two dogs. This property is a corner lot therefore, it has two front setbacks, and 70' from Jefferson Road and 50' from Park Square Lane, the requested 4' high fence is to protect the owner's children and also to keep the dogs in. The design of the fence will be a scalloped look with a low center of 4' and the posts will be 5' high. The owner could have taken down the trees and move the fence in but moving the fence in would present a problem for the play area and not give the children much room. He plans on landscaping the fence to hide it from the street as much as possible. They do not feel that it will compromise the neighborhood. The neighbors to the west and south have no problem with the fence.

Comments from the board members:

1. What kind of dogs do you plan on containing?
2. What types of trees are in the playground area?
3. Could you move the fence in more from Jefferson Road and eliminate the need for this variance?
4. The requested feet from Park Square Lane is 35'?
5. Is there room to fence in more of the backyard and not just the pool area?
6. Is this fence to be constructed to contain the animals and not for screening?
7. What color would this fence be and would it be natural wood?

The architect's responses are as follows:

1. The owner has two German Shepherds, one of the dogs is older and is not the one who would need the 4' high fence but the younger one could go over a 3' high fence therefore, the request 4' high fence is to contain the younger dog and the children.
2. The trees are a mixer of 50 -60' high pine trees and deciduous trees. The owner would rather not take any of these trees down.
3. The owner would consider the replacement of the fence off of Jefferson Road thereby removing the need for this requested variance.
4. The owner would like to maintain the requested 25' from Park Square Lane to maximize the use of the lot and to get as much space for the playground as possible, and because of the vegetation that they would like to keep.
5. There is no room to enclose more of the backyard there is a concrete pool deck and the area has a lot of shrubs. It only takes him 5 minutes to cut the grass in this area that is how small as area is left of the backyard.
6. This fence would be for both for containing the animals and to protect the children while they play.
7. The color of the fence would be whatever the Zoning Board and Town Staff would like it to be. It would be a natural wood and painted. They have tried an electric fence before with the younger dog and he goes right though it and therefore, a 4' high wooden fence is the only way they can go. The owners would sleep better knowing that their three daughters would be protected with the installation of the fence. The safety of the children is most important to the owners.

Additional comments from the owner and architect:
Because of the configuration of the lot the client is restricted by the shape of the parcel, most of the play area is to the side of the house. With the pool and concrete patio to the rear of the house it does allow a play area in the backyard.

Public comments:

Susan Miller, 3 Park Square Lane, she did review the application and she also has small children. The size and location of the fence will drastically alter the neighborhood. The entrance to the subdivision is a park like area. The Town code does not allow a 4' high fence within the front setbacks for good reason. It is to preserve the openness of the front lawns. The law does require a 4' high fence around an inground pool, which this owner already has. The proposed fence will be very visible being the first house you see as you enter the neighborhood. This fence will be very visible from Jefferson Road. All of the playsets in the area are behind the houses. She does not have a problem with wanting to contain the dogs and to protect his children but, there are no other fences in the front yard in the neighborhood therefore, it is out of character to install this fence. She has driven through other neighborhoods such as the Sunset Blvd. area and there are 3' high fences in the front yards and it just does not fit in. The owners dog did try to dig his way out under the other fence and the owner fixed it so the dog could not dig in that area again. The vegetation would be a problem cause they do not maintain the vegetation on their property now. There is already a natural wooden fence and it has not been painted and Andy Costanza has not taken care of this fence and she feels that he would not take care of the proposed fence either. The fence would stand out too much and they take pride in the park like feel of their neighborhood.

Gerry Beckerman, 11 Bridge Water Court, is opposed to this application because it would have a great impact on the entire Park Square community. There are expensive patio homes in the area and he urges the board to visit the site. They have a close community and they are proud of their entrance. They have put in a lot of money into fixing the wall that is at the entrance of the neighborhood, and to put up the fence where he would like it would have a terrible impact on the neighborhood.

Marilyn McClellan, 4 Tiffany Court, the repairs on the wall was to fix the crack that was all the way down to the foundation, 22 of the 29 homeowners in the neighborhood hired a contractor to repair the wall. Mr. Costanza was very nice to let them come onto his property to repair this wall and offered to have his own mason help them repair it. He cooperated with them completely and he never mentioned that he would like to install a fence for protection for his children. He never brought this application before the Homeowners Association. The applicant presented 6" for the separation between the fence openings, a small child or a puppy could get its head caught in it, and a 5" separation would be a better size for the openings
.
R. Shaddock asked of the resident as to how often does the Homeowners Association meet?

The architect thanked the residents for their imput. The wall was on Mr. Costanza's property and he was agreeable to the neighbors regarding the maintenance of the entrance wall. The 6" opening in the fence is not big enough for a child or a dog to get their heads caught in. A three-foot high fence could go up regardless if they stay out of the front setbacks.

D. Rogachefsky proposed to keep the hearing open until the applicant can meet with the Homeowners Association.

Joyce Burg 2 Masters Cove commented that the agenda for this month meeting has already been set. They would have to readjust the schedule for the meeting with the approval of the board members. Even though Mr. Costanza was very good to the residents regarding the repairing of the wall does not change their attitude on this fence and the maintenance of it.

The residents who were in attendance unanimously stated that they would like to address this matter at the meeting on Wednesday night June 23, 2004. The meeting will be held at 2 Masters Cove at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Costanza will be in attendance to try and resolve this matter with the surrounding neighbors.

There were no additional comments from the board or the public.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

The board members all agreed to hold this meeting open until the applicant and the residents can meet and discuss this application.

This Public Hearing remains open.

2 Canal Park Place
Tax #150.19-1-5.8
Zoned AA Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Relief from Code Section 185-121 A
Requiring that no fence shall exceed 3' in height within the 70' front setback.

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004 for 2 Canal Park Place.

Jesse James, from Design Pool & Spa, presented the application for a 4' high fence to be installed within the 70' front setback from Canal Park Place. The fence would be 52' from the start of the setback. If the board members would take a moment and look at the placement of the fence on the map submitted they could see that the area that is fenced in to surround the pool is very tight. They will need to come into the front setback in order to make room around the pool because of this property being a corner lot. As per code the height of a 4' high fence is required to enclose an inground pool.

D. Rogachefsky asked if the fence would be behind the trees.

Jesse James stated that the fence would be black vinyl and will blend in with the trees. The color is subject to change if the board decides that the black is not acceptable. The owner would like to stay off the berm, which the owner feels would make the fence very visible from the street; there will be a small portion that will be visible from the street but not very much.

There were no additional comments from the board or the public.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

Larry Magguilli moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Rufus Falk
Public Hearing is closed.

9 Candlewood Drive
Tax #163.03-1-31
Zoned A Residential
Requesting Area Variances
Relief from Code Sections 185-113 C (3), (6) & 185-23 C (1)
Requiring that no accessory structure be forward of the rear wall of the main structure and requiring a 50' front setback.

Richard Williams, attorney to the board, read the Legal Notice as published in the Brighton Pittsford Post, Wednesday edition, June 9, 2004 for 9 Candlewood Drive.

Sharon & Rick Dapson owners of 9 Candlewood Drive presented the application for 9 Candlewood Drive. They have lived there since November 2003. This is a corner lot and it would very difficult to put the pool in the back yard. The footprint of the house makes the proposed location the best possible one cause it puts the pool right out the back door of the home. The applicant submitted pictures for the board to review.

Comments from the board members:

D. Rogachefsky stated that the other option is to the other side of the house and the lot slope is to steep and there is no access from the house to this side yard. The neighbors are not opposed to this application. Will there be other plantings to buffer this pool from the street?

Sharon Dapson commented that once the pool is in they will be adding additional plantings and eventually a deck to the pool and a decorative 3' high fence will be added.

G. Dounce wanted to know as to how close this pool would be to the house?

Sharon Dapson stated that the pool is pretty close now and if they move it any closer to the house will not allow any room for a deck or steps.

R. Falk asked if the neighbors to the west are okay with this and will there be plantings to buffer the visual effect for these neighbors?

Sharon Dapson stated that the neighbors to the west have no problem with the placement of the pool. They are okay with this placement because their garage is on the side of the house where the pool will be and their living area is to the other side of the house. There will be additional plantings installed to screen the pool for the neighbor on the west side of them. The neighbor across the street will be the one most affected, and they are okay with the placement of the pool.

There were no additional comments from the board or the public.
This is a Type II Action - no further action taken. Local matter, no SEQRA required.

George Dounce moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Robert Shaddock
Public Hearing is closed.

RESOLUTIONS:

2 Ingridshire Drive
Tax #164.03-3-13
Zoned A Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-120 A
Requiring a 70' front setback

Discussion:
R. Falk stated that this application is a minor request and sees no reason why it should not be granted.

David Rogachefsky moved to grant to the owners of 2 Ingridshire Drive the requested Area Variance to construct a new garage addition within the 70' front setback at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: Peter Webster

Roll Call:
Webster Yes
Servé Yes
Dounce Abstained
Magguilli Yes
Falk Yes
Shaddock Yes
Rogachefsky Yes

A resolution was passed granting the requested Area Variance to construct a new garage addition within the 70' front setback allowing a 63' front setback at the above-mentioned property. Completion date December 31, 2005.
See the Zoning Board of Appeals file for the resolution for Findings of Fact and Special Conditions.

840 Allen's Creek Road
Tax #138.13-1-39
Zoned AA Residential
Requesting Area Variances
Requesting relief from Code Section185-15 C (3)
Requiring a 20' side setback.

Discussion:
Peter Webster stated that as long as the applicant is going no closer to the lot line than the existing house he has no problem with the application.

Rufus Falk moved to grant to the owners of 840 Allen's Creek Road the requested Area Variance to construct a new addition within the 20' side setback at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: Peter Webster

Roll Call:
Webster Yes
Servé Yes
Dounce Yes
Magguilli Yes
Falk Yes
Shaddock Yes
Rogachefsky Yes

A resolution was passed granting the requested Area Variance to construct a new addition within the 20' side setback allowing a 16' 9" side setback at the above-mentioned property. Completion date December 31, 2005
See the Zoning Board of Appeals file for the resolution for Findings of Fact and Special Conditions.

100 Stoneleigh Court
Tax #138.18-1-12
Zoned AA Residential
Requesting Area Variances
Relief from Code Sections 185-15 C (2), (3) & 185-113 C (1), (2), (6)
Requiring that no accessory structure shall exceed 180-sq. ft. nor exceed 12' in height and must adhere to the applicable zoning setbacks in the district.

Discussion:
After discussing the size of the detached garage it was decided that the size was not an issue.
P. Webster stated that there was no opposition from the neighbors and he has no objections with any of the proposed variances. The applicant can build the detached garage proposed as far as he is concerned. He has no problem with the 5' rear and 5' side setback as proposed.
G. Dounce commented that the applicant has submitted a flexible plan and it appears that he would be willing to change the size if needed.
R. Shaddock stated that the size of the proposed garage would enhance the neighborhood and increase the value of the home.
D. Rogachefsky wants consistency in the neighborhood.

Dave Rowe commented to the board members is to keep in mind that the lot is only 60' wide and to move the garage over 10' would take up 2/3 of the backyard.

The board members are comfortable with the 5' rear and side setbacks as requested by the applicant, because of the unique circumstances of the parcel.

Barbara Servé moved to grant to the owners of 100 Stoneleigh Court the requested Area Variances to construct a new oversized accessory structure exceeding 180-sq. ft and over 12' in height and within the rear and side backs at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: Larry Magguilli

Roll Call:
Webster Yes
Servé Yes
Dounce No
Magguilli Yes
Falk Yes
Shaddock Yes
Rogachefsky Yes

A resolution was passed granting the requested Area Variances to construct a new 624-sq. ft. detached garage, 26' wide x 24' deep and 24' in height and within 5' of both the side and rear property lines at the above-mentioned property. Completion date December 31, 2006.
See the Zoning Board of Appeals file for the resolution for Findings of Fact and Special Conditions.

17 Wind Tree Circle
Tax #192.02-2-4
Zoned RRAA Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Relief from Code Section 185-113 C (2)
Requiring that no accessory structure shall exceed 12' in height.

Robert Shaddock moved to grant to the owners of 17 Wind Tree Circle the requested Area Variance to construct a new oversized accessory structure exceeding 12' in height at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: George Dounce

Roll Call:
Webster Yes
Servé Yes
Dounce Yes
Magguilli Yes
Falk Yes
Shaddock Yes
Rogachefsky Yes

A resolution was passed granting the requested Area Variance to construct a new 13' gazebo on a wooden deck which is 2 ½' above ground level, at the above-mentioned property. Completion date December 31, 2005.
See the Zoning Board of Appeals file for the resolution for Findings of Fact and Special Conditions.

22 Greylock Ridge
Tax #164.15-2-64
Zoned A Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Relief from Code Section 185-23 C (1)
Requiring a 50' front setback

Discussion:
B. Servé does not problem with the covered front porch as long as it remains within the same footprint of the existing front stoop.

Peter Webster moved to grant to the owners of 22 Greylock Ridge the requested Area Variance to construct a new covered front porch at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: Robert Shaddock

Roll Call:
Webster Yes
Servé Yes
Dounce Yes
Magguilli Yes
Falk Yes
Shaddock Yes
Rogachefsky Yes

A resolution was passed granting the requested Area Variance to construct a new covered front porch allowing a 45' front setback at the above-mentioned property. Completion date December 31, 2005.
See the Zoning Board of Appeals file for the resolution for Findings of Fact and Special Conditions.

2 Canal Park Place
Tax #150.19-1-5.8
Zoned AA Residential
Requesting an Area Variance
Relief from Code Section 185-121 A
Requiring that no fence shall exceed 3' in height within the front setback.

Discussion:
R. Falk feels that the fence will not be noticeable from the main highway.
D. Rogachefsky stated that these were well thought out plans.

Larry Magguilli moved to grant to the owners of 2 Canal Park Place the requested Area Variance to construct a new 4' fence within the front setback at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: George Dounce

Roll Call:
Webster Yes
Servé Yes
Dounce Yes
Magguilli Yes
Falk Yes
Shaddock Yes
Rogachefsky Yes

A resolution was passed granting the requested Area Variance to construct a new 4' fence 52' within the required 70' front setback at the above-mentioned property. Completion date December 31, 2005.
See the Zoning Board of Appeals file for the resolution for Findings of Fact and Special Conditions.

9 Candlewood Drive
Tax #163.03-1-31
Zoned A Residential
Requesting Area Variances
Relief from Code Sections 185-113 C (3), (6) & 185-23 C (1)
Requiring that no accessory structure be forward of the rear wall of the main structure and requiring a 50' front setback.

Discussion:
D. Rogachefsky commented that he would like to see some heavy shrubby along Candlewood Circle, preferably to the west. There is 37' to the street and additional 17' of r.o.w, which will minimize the effect.
R. Shaddock stated the other neighbors have had pools but has since taken them down, he has no problem in granting this variance.
R. Falk stated that the hedges should be trimmed for vision sake then the pool would be more visible to the lightly travel street.
D. Rogachefsky commented that there were no neighbors present to oppose this application and it will have no impact on the neighborhood.

David Rogachefsky moved to grant to the owners of 9 Candlewood Drive the requested Area Variances to construct an oversized accessory structure within the front setback and forward of the rear wall of the main structure at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: G. Dounce

Roll Call:
Webster Yes
Servé Yes
Dounce Yes
Magguilli Yes
Falk No
Shaddock Yes
Rogachefsky Yes

A resolution was passed granting the requested Area Variances to construct a new above ground pool within the 50' front setback and forward of the rear wall of the main structure at the above-mentioned property.
See the Zoning Board of Appeals file for the resolution for Findings of Fact and Special Conditions.

OTHER:

1. REVIEW/APPROVAL OF THE May 17, 2004 MINUTES
   Unanimous approval of the minutes.
   Seconded: All Ayes


2. POINT PERSONS FOR THE July 19, 2004 MEETING

Area Variances:

1. 42 Brook Road, for a garage in the front setback. Peter Webster
2. 57 Sunset Blvd, detached garage Larry Magguilli
3.  26 Old Farm Circle, new addition within the front setback George Dounce
4. 264 Alpine Drive, an addition to side porch Rufus Falk
5. 10 Kalleston Drive, front porch Barbara Servé
6. 10 Turtle Creek, over sized accessory structure Dave Rogachefsky
7. 560 Clover Hills Drive, rear addition within the front setback Robert Shaddock
8. 39 Saddle Brook, a new addition within the side setback Dave Rogachefsky
9. 496 Thornell Road, a detached garage Peter Webster
10. 15 Shelwood Drive, a new addition within the front & side setbacks Rufus Falk

Continued Public Hearing:

1. 1 Park Square Lane, a 4' high fence within the 50' & 70' front setbacks Larry Magguilli

The board members voted unanimously to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sandie Freitag
Zoning Secretary

OFFICIAL BOARD MINUTES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK