Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATE 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals March 6, 2012 D V I Meeting at 8:00 p.m. MAY - 1 2012 DD VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AGENDA BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN,JR. Adjourned from 111112011, 1 216120 11, 113/2012, 21712012 8 Wilton Road Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking 2) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER Adjourned from 111112011, 121612011, 11312012,21712012 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use 3) #12-001 66 BOWMAN AVENUE REALTY CORP. 66 Bowman Avenue Modifications to Existing Special Use Permit and Site Modifications BOARD: Steve Berger Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the March 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals who speak at the podium state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. i Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 1 He called for the first item on the agenda: 1 #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN JR. (Adjourned from 11/1/2011) 8 Wilton Road Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking Mr. Moscato noted that Mr. McGowan requested an adjournment due to a personal matter. With the consensus of the Board, this matter was adjourned to the April 3, 2012 meeting. Mr. Moscato took the next item out of order, with the consensus of the Board: 3) #12-001 66 BOWMAN AVENUE REALTY CORP. 66 Bowman Avenue Modifications to Existing Special Use Permit and Site Modifications Mr. Moscato requested that Village Counsel, Jennifer Gray, Esq., explain the procedural history of this application. She noted that this application is a request for a modification of an existing Special Use Permit and certain site modifications. The application was referred by the Board of Trustees to the Zoning Board of Appeals, instead of referring it first to the Planning Board, because at the time of referral a Use Variance was requested. The Village Code contains a requirement that when a Use Variance is requested in connection with a site plan, subdivision or special permit application, it must be referred to the Zoning Board before the Planning Board. Since that time and upon the applicant's submission of additional information, the Building Inspector has determined a Use Variance is not required because all but one of the persons operating out of the premises are non- professionals. Since the Use Variance component of this application has been eliminated, Attorney Gray recommended the Zoning Board refer this application to the Planning Board to allow that Board to review the site plan for parking, impervious surface coverage and storm water management issues prior to any action on the requested area variances. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board. The owner of 11 Barber Lane, Mr. Szerejko, addressed the Board. He noted that since the applicant expanded the parking lot and constructed the patio and fountain, his yard has been flooding. He has done work to try and solve this problem. He put in drains, at his own cost, and they have not worked. Mr. Szerejko believes the j Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 2 i additional impervious surface will make the situation worse. He asked for clarification regarding the proposed plans. Mr. Moscato noted that a storm water management plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board. He explained that the Mr. Szerejko should appear at the Planning Board meeting to address this issue. He also noted that all residents can review the plans by going to the Building Department. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, suggested that Mr. Szerejko submit comments in writing. In addition, Mr. Izzo or Mr. Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, can review the plans with anyone who has questions. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp. for 1) a total impervious surface coverage variance of 2,009.32 square feet; and 2) an off-street parking variance for 12 parking spaces, in connection with the proposed modification of an existing Special Use Permit to increase the number of employees from seven to seventeen, legalization of an expanded parking area and rear flagstone patio with water feature, and proposed expansion of the existing parking area, on property located at 66 Bowman Avenue, in an R-2F zoning district on the south side of bowman Avenue, near the intersection of Barber Place and bowman Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID # 141.27-1-24; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals desires input from the Planning Board regarding the planning considerations concerning the adequacy of the proposed stormwater management plan and adequacy of the proposed number of off-street parking spaces to meet the demand associated with the use of the property as a professional office with seventeen employees; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Village Code, Section 250-13(G)(5)(a) the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby refers this application to the Planning Board for input on the planning considerations relevant to the requested impervious surface coverage and off-street parking variances. Dated: March 6, 2012 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals j Match 6,2012 j Page 3 i _JillMAR - 7 2012 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK j ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J rRESOLUTION E WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp. for (1) a total impervious surface coverage variance of 2,009.32 square feet; and (2) an off-street parking variance for 12 parking spaces, in connection with the proposed 1 modification of an existing Special Use Permit to increase the number of employees from 7 to l 17, legalization of an expanded parking area and rear flagstone patio with water feature, and proposed expansion of the existing parking area, on property located at 66 Bowman Avenue, in an R-2F zoning district on the south side of Bowman Avenue, near the intersection of N Barber Place and Bowman Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141.27-1-24;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals desires input from the Planning Board regarding the planning considerations concerning the adequacy of the proposed storm-water management plan and adequacy of the proposed number of off-street parking spaces to meet the demand associated with the use of the property as a professional office with 17 employees. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Village Code'5250- 13(G)(5)(a) the Zoning.Board of Appeals hereby refers this application to the Planning Board for input on the planning considerations relevant to the requested impervious surface coverage and off-street parking variances. - --- Dated March 6;2012— Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: . Steven Berger Voting: `'A,,e- Nay Abstain Michele Fredman Voting: ✓'�1ye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ','Ape Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting. Zr. �jye Nay Abstain j Din Moscato Voting: � Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays J Abstain, i I it III 1 Mr. Moscato called for the next item on the agenda: 2) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that the public notification sign was not displayed. Ms. Michele Fredman noted that her term was ending, and asked about the fairness of hearing the presentation knowing that there may be a new member on the Board next month. It was noted that any new members appointed to the Board would be responsible to familiarize themselves with any pending matters. Ms. Fredman suggested adjourning the matter until the April meeting. Mr. Simon agreed and noted that there were too many outstanding issues to hear this matter, and that it would not be fair to the community to make a decision at this meeting without the public notification sign being posted at the property. Mr. Moscato stated that he had questions that needed clarification. Mr. Kaminsky noted that he also had questions and hoped the matter would be moved forward. After discussion regarding whether the application should be heard and/or decided that night and with the consensus of the Board, Mr. Moscato read a resolution waiving the requirement of the notification posting. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Section 240-40(A) requires that at least seven (7) days prior to a Zoning Board meeting, a public notification sign shall be posted on the property which is the subject of an application to be heard at such meeting; and WHEREAS, Section 250-40(G) permits the Zoning Board to waive the notification requirements set forth in Section 250-40 unless required elsewhere by county or state law; and WHEREAS, neither county nor state law requires an applicant to post a public notification sign on property subject to a pending application prior to a meeting of the Zoning Board at which such application will be heard; and WHEREAS, the application for 558 Westchester Avenue is on the March 6, 2012 agenda of the Zoning Board, but the Applicant has not complied with Section 250-40(A) because the public notification sign has not been placed at the subject property for the March 6, 2012 Zoning Board meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rye Brook hereby waives the requirement to post a public notification sign for the March 6, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board for the application. of 558 Westchester Avenue. Dated: March 6, 2012 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Nay Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 6 C 0 V March 6, 2012 MAR - 7 2012 LVILLAGE: CLERK'S OFFICEj RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT OF POSTING A SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PRIOR TO A ZONING BOARD MEETING S`� THE VILLAGE OF RYE ONING BOARD OF APPEALS WHEREAS, Section 240-40(A) requires that at least seven (7) days prior to a Zoning Board meeting, a public notification sign shall be posted on the property which is the subject of an application to be heard at such meeting; and WHEREAS, Section 250-40(G) permits the Zoning Board to waive the notification requirements set forth in Section 250-40 unless required elsewhere by county or state law; and l WHEREAS, neither county nor state law requires an applicant to post a public notification sign on property subject to a pending application prior to a meeting of the Zoning Board at which such application will be heard; and WHEREAS, the application for 558 Westchester Avenue is on the March 6, 2012 agenda of the Zoning Board, but the Applicant has not complied with Section 250-40(A) ' because the public notification sign has not been placed at the subject property__for the____.____ March 6, 2012 Zoning Board meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rye Brook hereby waives the requirement to post a public notification sign for the March 6, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board for the application of 558 Westchester Avenue. f V\J Leo Napior, Esq, attorney for the applicant from the firm of Friedman Harfenist Kraut and Perlstein LLP, addressed the Board and noted that the floor plan for the building has been changed since the application was initially submitted. One of the occupants has been eliminated. The parking variance request included a parking study which has been completed. The study found that the onsite parking spaces are adequate. There are seven onsite parking spaces, and the office of F.P. Clark & Associates states that five parking spaces are adequate based on the information presented in the applicant's study. It was noted that the applicant is looking to legalize what has been in existence for the past thirty years. Mr. Simon noted that residents have previously complained about parking issues such as cars blocking their driveways. This is a very busy street and parking in this area is dense. Ms. Fredman noted that there are safety issues in connection with parking on Westchester Avenue. Mr. Steven Linder, the applicant, noted that there is no reason for his tenants or clients to park in the street with the exception of an occasional new patient who is unaware of the parking lot behind the home. Attorney Napior noted that Mr. Linder is a salesman and he travels most of the day. One of the doctors is in the office approximately eleven (11) hours per week. The parking study shows that there is ample parking. The patients may park on Westchester Avenue for ease. There is no indication that there is a parking lot in the rear, but people who have visited the building before know about the parking area. They have five professional persons in the building but four are permitted. This includes the shared office use. Sworn statements from Dr. Jesus A. Lago and Dr. Karel L. Banks, submitted to the Board and made part of the record, lays out the issue of the shared office space, and the doctors have had this agreement in place for the past seven (7) years. They have a schedule worked out and there is never any overlap. The doctors do not have access to other rooms in the building. The applicant felt that the use of one office suite should be considered one occupancy. There is one conference room in the building which will be converted to a showroom for Mr. Linder's use. Access to that space will be limited to the applicant. Attorney Gray recommended that the interpretation issue be decided by the Board. The request from the applicant for an interpretation deals with the language in the Zoning Code pertaining to the maximum number of professional persons permitted to occupy the premises. Section 250-25(c)(3) of the Code was read by Mr. Moscato. The Board has been asked to decide whether the determination of the Building Inspector regarding Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 8 it I 1 i Section 250-25(c)(3) should be upheld or reversed. Mr. Moscato reminded the Board that the initial request for six professionals was reduced to five. Attorney Gray noted that the public has had the opportunity to comment on the Y p PP Y interpretation issue, but there were no members of the public in attendance at this meeting. The meeting was noticed on the Village's website and notice was published in the Westmore News. The public will also continue to have an opportunity to comment on the applicant's request for a use variance and a parking variance. Mr. Moscato noted that the public is aware of this application from prior meetings, the initial public notice sent via mail by the applicant, the signage placed for prior meetings, and the ability to review the meetings online. He felt comfortable moving forward with making the determination regarding the interpretation issue. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder for a use variance to allow a total of five (5) professional person to occupy the premises and an off-street parking variance for five (5) off-street parking spaces, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing commercial office use, on property located at 558 Westchester Avenue, in an R2-F zoning district on the south side of Westchester Avenue, approximately 110 feet from the intersection of Division Street and Westchester Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.83-144; and WHEREAS,the applicant has also submitted a request to the Zoning Board for an interpretation of Zoning Code 250-25(C)(3) in regard to the Building Inspector's determination that a use variance is required; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has the authority to interpret provisions of the Zoning Code pursuant to Zoning Code 250-13(G)(1) on an appeal of a determination by the Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing regarding the application for an interpretation of the Zoning Code was held on December 6, 2011 and March 6, 2012 at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 9 I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby adopts the attached Decision sustaining the Building Inspector's determination for the reasons set forth therein. Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman Dated: March 6, 2012 Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Nay Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 10 I i VILLA.GE OF RYE BROOK R M A R - 7 2012 _ � J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS V11! €'': ', i` RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder for a use variance to allow a total of five (5) professional person to occupy the premises and an off-street parking variance for five (5) off-street parking spaces, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing commercial office use, on property located at 558 Westchester Avenue, in an R2-F zoning district on the south side of Westchester Avenue, approximately 110 feet from the intersection of Division Street and Westchester Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.83-1-44;and WHEREAS, the Applicant has also submitted a request to the Zoning Board for an interpretation of Zoning Code X250-25(C)(3) in regard to the Building Inspector's determination that a use variance is required; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has the authority to interpret provisions of the Zoning Code pursuant to Zoning Code §250-13(G)(1) on an appeal of a determination by ( ) the Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing regarding the application for an interpretation of the Zoning Code was held on December 6, 2011 and March 6, 2012 at -- ----which--time-all-those-wishin - beto=be-heardwere- ven-such-o ottani . g PP �------------ ----- — — NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby adopts the attached Decision [sustaining/ the Building Inspector's determination for the reasons set forth therein. Dated: March 6, 2012 �,'� NIr. Don Moscato; Chairman 1313/12/4170901"1 315112 Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Michele Fredman Voting: -/Aye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: �` Al e_Nay^Abstain Joel Simon Voting: Ye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes 0 Nays Abstain I p i i i l' Y i I I i j i �J 13131121417090v1 315112 i ! DECISION ON APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 558 WESTCHESTER AVENUE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Aventura Realty Corp. ("Aventura") is the owner of an improved parcel of land located in the R-2F Zoning District at 558 Westchester Avenue in the Village of Rye Brook. The parcel is designated on the Town of Rye Tax Map as Section 135.83, Block 1, Lot 44 (the "Property"). The Property is presently improved with a two-family dwelling converted to professional offices, parking lot, and related improvements. Professional offices is a Special Permit use in the R-2F Zoning District, however, the Village has no record of the issuance of a Special Permit for the Property. A. History of Application On October 13, 2010, Leonard Brandes, AICP, filed an application for a building permit on behalf of Aventura to legalize the existing offices and parking lot. After revised plans were submitted on November 3, 2010 and January 11, 2011, Michael Izzo, Village of Rye Brook Building & Fire Inspector, issued a Notice of Disapproval on February 24, 2011 denying the building permit application on the grounds that the use of the Property by eight (8) professionals persons is in violation of Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code ("Zoning Code") §250-25(C)(3) requiring a Use Variance, and insufficient parking was provided. The two parking variances required were as follows: (1) pursuant to Zoning Code §250-25(C)(3)(a) a total of 12 parking spaces are required, however seven (7) parking spaces are proposed; and (2) pursuant to Zoning Code §250- 25(C)(3)(a) public parking for professional offices shall be from Bowman Avenue or Westchester Avenue only, however, access to parking is provided from Division Street. Aventura filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") seeking a use variance and two area variances to legalize the existing professional office use and parking. The ZBA considered the application at its June 7, 2011, July 5, 2011 and August 2, 2011 meetings and at its August 2, 2011 meeting voted to grant the variance permitting access to parking to be provided from Division Street, but denied the remaining parking variance and the use variance. Thereafter, Aventura submitted revised plans and the Building Inspector issued a Notice of Disapproval on August 22, 2011 denying an application for a building permit. Since the ZBA's denial of the prior use variance application the number of proposed professionals was reduced from eight (8) to six (6). A parking variance for 5 spaces would also be required. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 13 I i On October 4, 2011, Aventura filed an application to the ZBA seeking a use variance and an area variance from the parking requirements of Zoning Code § 250 - 25(C)(3)(a). Prior to Aventura's first appearance before the ZBA on the October 2011 application, Aventura submitted a request pursuant to Zoning Code §250-13(G)(1) seeking an interpretation of Zoning Code §250-25(C)(3) which states professional offices are permitted by Special Permit "provided that there shall not be more than two such professional persons occupying any one dwelling." This is the matter currently before us. The ZBA considered Aventura's request for an interpretation at December 6, 2011 and thereafter on March 6, 2012. Section 250-25(c)(3) provides the following use is permitted by special permit in the R-2F District: Professional office space for use by physicians, surgeons, dentists, attorneys, accountants, insurance agents or similar professions, not residents of the premises, in dwellings on the northerly and southerly side of Bowman Avenue between South Ridge Street and the Port Chester Village boundary line; and in dwellings on the northerly and southerly side of Westchester Avenue between North Ridge Street and the Port Chester Village boundary line, presently zoned R2-F, provided that there shall not be more than two such professional persons occupying any one dwelling, and provided further that there shall be no hospital facilities in connection therewith in any case. (emphasis added). Aventura takes the position that in the event an office suite is shared by two (2) or more professional persons and no more than one (1) professional person occupies the office at the same time, this would not violate Section 250-25(c)(3). In other words, more than four (4) professional persons' can be tenants of the building as long as there are no more than four (4) professional persons physically occupying the building at any one time. Members of the ZBA questioned the applicant and the applicant's 1 Up to four(4)professional persons are permitted to occupy this premises because the premises was formerly a two-family dwelling and Zoning Code 5250-25(c)(3) permits up to two (2) professionals to occupy any one dwelling. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 14 I representative closely concerning the nature of the professional persons' occupancy of the premises. The legal issue posed by Aventura's request for an interpretation of Zoning Code §250-25(C)(3) is whether such provision permits two or more professional persons to be counted as one professional person under two scenarios: (1) if they are sharing an office but their physical usage of the office does not overlap, or (2) if there are more than four professional persons operating from the premises, but never more than four professionals are physically present at the same time. The Building Inspector has determined that the Zoning Code does not permit two or more professionals to be counted as one professional person under either of these scenarios. Based on the record, the Board must decide whether to uphold, reverse or modify the Building Inspector's determination. After reviewing the applicant's submissions and after reviewing the statements made on behalf of the applicant at the December 6, 2011 and March 6, 2012 public hearing, and after reviewing the matter with our counsel, the ZBA determines as follows: The ZBA discussion focused on what it means to "occupy" the premises, as set forth in the Zoning Code. Each of the professional persons is a tenant of the premises and as a tenant they are each deemed to be occupants. Whether they choose not to physically occupy the premises on certain days or during certain times does not mean that they cannot. By example, take a single-family dwelling which has five (5) people who sleep there during the day and work at night, and another five (5) people who sleep there at night and work during the day. The reasonable conclusion is that there are ten (10) occupants of the single family dwelling; not that there are only five (5) occupants because no more than five (5) are present at any given time. To this end, the conclusion is the same whether the scenario is presented as two people sharing an office, or whether the scenario is presented as each individual professional having their own office but using their offices on different days such that there are never more than four professionals present at any one time. Either way the number of professionals occupying the premises is the same. If the professional person has the right to occupy the premises then that professional person must be counted individually toward the maximum number of professional persons permitted by Zoning Code §250-25(C)(3). In this regard, the language of the Zoning Code is unambiguous and there is no other reasonable interpretation. The language of Section 250-25(C)(3) does not suggest the potential for two (2) professional persons to be treated as one (1) professional person due to intermittent or shared physical occupancy of the premises. If the legislative body intended such a result the legislative body could have easily inserted language stating, for example, "provided that there shall not be more than two such professional persons Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 15 i it occupying any one dwelling, at any given time." Perhaps recognizing the impossibility of enforcing such a provision, this language is absent from Section 250-25(C)(3). As set forth above, the only issue before the ZBA at this time is whether to sustain, reverse or modify the Building Inspector's interpretation that Section 250-25(C)(3) does not permit two or more professional persons to be treated as one professional person under the scenarios presented herein. We believe the Building Inspector's determination is reasonable and supported by the clear and unambiguous language of Zoning Code §250-25(C)(3). Accordingly,the determination of the Building Inspector is sustained. I Dated: March 6, 2012 i Zoning Board of Appeals Alarch 6,2012 Page 16 i I Attorney Napior presented the Board with comparables for the area in support of the application for a Use Variance. He noted that this building is operating at a loss and the applicant hoped to have this matter move forward. Mr. Andrew Kaminsky noted that he reviewed the financial information for the building. He felt that the building was earning a profit. The applicant does not pay rent and this should be accounted for in the financial information. Mr. Moscato stated that a Profit and Loss statement was presented to the Board by the applicant. He questioned who prepared the information, noting that an audit is certified by a CPA and a review has less detail than an audit. If it is self-reported, the information doesn't have the weight of an audited statement. The reply was that the information was compiled for this application. Mr. Moscato noted that there was a lot of information in the Profit and Loss statement that needed to be clarified. The tenant who is leaving was paying $700.00 per month. Mr. Moscato reviewed the P&L statement. Attorney Napior stated that he could provide copies of the leases. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant would need to have an accountant prepare the information. The Board needs well documented information. The Board also needs to see cancelled checks, or statements sent to the tenants. Mr. Moscato asked the Building Inspector to review Exhibit 4 of the applicant's submission. Mr. Izzo reviewed the Permit to Occupy which referenced Uses Permitted at the Discretion of the Board. Mr. Izzo explained that there is no record of the Town Board of the Town of Rye considering or approving a Special Permit to allow professional offices at this property prior to the issuance of the Permit to Occupy. Mr. Izzo noted that the Certificate of Occupancy has been revoked. Mr. Moscato summarized; what the Board is asking for is a reputable, professionally prepared document with material line items. The Board would like to include the entire lease in the report -- including all line items. Attorney Napior noted that it is difficult to find comparable space. Mr. Linder noted that one of the reasons the tenants stay there is that it is a quiet, well- maintained building. Dr. Banks has been there 21 years. The leases will be renewed after the application has been processed. Attorney Gray reviewed the standard of review for the use variance. Mr. Moscato noted that information must be presented to the Board prior to the meeting. The Board needs this type of information in advance in order to review it. Mr. Moscato gave the applicant notice that he would not be here for the May meeting and Ms. Fredman's term ends in April. The public hearing will remain open and the application will be adjourned to April P Zoning Board of Appeals Match 6,2012 li Page 17 6. 1 I The February minutes were not listed on the agenda, therefore, procedurally the Board must wait until the next meeting to review them. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, b and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky,the review of the minutes was adjourned. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. I Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2012 Page 18 I