Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 1, 2008 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #08-518 Church of Our Lady of Mercy (Re Appearance) 319 South Ridge Street Construct an addition to the existing mausoleum and a new maintenance garage 2) #08-515 Mr. & Mrs. Eric Bittleman (Re-Appearance) 28 Country Ridge Circle Construct a new front porch 3) #08-517 Ms. Maria Rusciano (Re-Appearance) 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family house 4) #08-534 Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Raphael 11 Country Ridge Drive Legalize the existing rear deck 5) #08-526 Mr. Lawrence Sullivan 8 Sunset Road Construct a second story addition; a new covered front porch and interior alterations 6) #08-531 Mr. & Mrs. Marc Schlueter 1 Sunset Road Construct one front, and one rear second story addition 7) Discussion of proposed amendments to Village Code Chapter 250 8) Approval of June 3, 2008 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 1 BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Don Moscato Jeffrey Rednick Michael Siegel Excused: Salvatore Crescenzi STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Dean Santon Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the July 1, 2008 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He began the meeting by addressing old business. He called upon Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, and asked if the Village had obtained the final numbers in connection with the repair of a carport on property owned by Mrs. Lillian Albrect Sands of Hillendale Road. Mr. Izzo noted that he did not have the correct numbers but that he would research the matter and obtain the information for the Board. Mr. Harmon addressed the application for Mrs. Benson of 4 Deer Run and noted that the application has been withdrawn. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Board was to grant the applicant's request for withdrawal. Mr. Harmon called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #08-518 Church of Our Lady of Mercy (Re Appearance) 319 South Ridge Street Construct an addition to the existing mausoleum and a new maintenance garage Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 2 Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he received the Affidavit of Posting of the Sign and found it to be incorrect. The applicant was asked to correct the Affidavit and re-submit it to the Village. Daniel Laub, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy and Feder, addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicant. Mr. Laub noted that he had new information to present. Since last the applicant was before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant has submitted a re-design which sets the front of the mausoleum addition back further from Ridge Street. Previously the proposed addition followed the line of the existing mausoleum. Mr. Laub pointed out that the property line moves away from South Ridge Street and then back towards it. It was noted that the jagged property line is the result of an eminent domain taking by the State during the construction of the thruway. Anthony Gioffre, Esq., also from the firm of Cuddy and Feder, noted that pulling the building back further allows for more room for landscaping, which will serve to further mitigate the visual impact of the building. Mr. Harmon noted that a question was raised at a prior meeting regarding whether or not the previous construction required a variance. Village's Counsel has reviewed this matter and found that no portion of the existing mausoleum required any governmental action. The Zoning Board is satisfied with this response. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he turned to the Board for comments and/or questions. There were no additional comments and the public portion of the meeting was closed. The Board went into deliberation. Mr. Harmon noted that it would be inappropriate for the Zoning Board to withhold its determination of the variance at this time. The applicant has scaled back the plans and now a smaller variance was being requested. Mr. Harmon reiterated that the reason that the variance request was needed was because of the unusual property line, which was a result of the taking of a portion of this property by the State under eminent domain. He felt that a 3.8' front yard and a 0.132 front height setback ratio variances were not substantial variances. With the assistance of the Board members and Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, Mr. Harmon prepared the resolution. Mr. Harmon read the following resolution into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by the Church of Our Lady of Mercy for 3.8' front yard setback variance and a 0.132 front height setback ratio variance, in connection with the proposed construction of an addition to the existing mausoleum and a new maintenance garage on property located at 319 South Ridge in an R-2F District on the east side of South Ridge Street, at the intersection of High Street and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.43; Block: 1; Lot: 39; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 1, and continued on May 6, June 3, and July 1, 2008 at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) Applicant has modified the proposed construction to reduce the variances required and meet concerns of the Board; 2) The variances required, especially the setback ratio, is demimmus and not substantial; 3) The need for the variance is created in part by loss of available property through prior eminent domain proceedings; 4) The proposed addition requires smaller variances than appear to have been granted in the past for similar structures built at this site; and 5) The addition to the existing mausoleum will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: July 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted by four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 5 2) #08-515 Mr. & Mrs. Eric Bittleman (Re Appearance) 28 Country Ridge Circle Construct a new front porch Mr. Harmon noted that unless there were additional changes, the only question from the prior meeting was that the Building Inspector had not yet had an opportunity to review the plans in order to determine that the revised application was consistent with the revised plans. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, concurred with Mr. Hannon's statement. He noted that since that time he did have an opportunity to review the plans and found that the plans coincide with the application and the variances requested. Mr. Harmon noted that having heard the presentation from the applicants and their representatives at the prior meeting, and since no further information or comments were being made, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Harmon noted that this was the second application for this property which resulted from current dissatisfaction with the condition of the house following renovation work after the earlier variance was granted. Now the applicants have scaled back their initial request. At this time the applicant is asking to do construction work to the front portico of the home, within the current building envelope. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he did not receive the Notice of Posting for this application. Mr. John Scarlato, architect for the applicant, assured the Board that the sign was posted and he stated that he would supply the Village with the Affidavit. There were no additional comments or questions from members of the public or members of the Board. The consensus of the Board was to approve the resolution and, therefore, the public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Harmon prepared the resolution with the assistance of Mr. Izzo and the Board members. The Board discussed existing non-conformities and the results of the construction and the dates this matter was previously before the Board. Upon completion of the discussion, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 6 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Eric Bittleman for a 6' front yard setback variance and a 1.6 percent total lot coverage variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a new front porch, on property located at 28 Country Ridge Circle, in an R-15 District on the west side of Country Ridge Circle, 325 feet from the intersection of Country Ridge Drive and Country Ridge Circle. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 129.74; Block: 1; Lot 21; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 1, and continued to June 3, and July 1, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The proposed construction will reduce or maintain, but not enlarge existing legal non-conformities; and 2) The purposed construction will not adversely impact or alter the character of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Applicant must submit proof of compliance with the posting requirement for the July 1, 2008 hearing. Dated: July 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted by four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 8 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda. He noted that this application required multiple variances in order to convert an existing one family house to a two family dwelling. He noted that at the last public hearing, the question was raised as to whether or not the application should be considered under the Use Variance and/or the Area Variance standards. Village Counsel has returned a decision that no portion of this application implicates the Use Variance provisions of the Village's Code. The only consideration in determining whether or not to grant this application should be those relevant to an area variance. Of particular importance and consideration is that one of the major differences between Use Variance and Area Variance is consideration of whether or not the property can be reasonably used in its current state. This is not a consideration for an Area Variance although it would be for a Use Variance. It was the consensus of the Board that they had heard sufficient information on this matter in order to make a decision in favor or opposition to the application. 3) #08-517 Ms. Maria Rusciano (Re Appearance) 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family house John Scarlato addressed the Board as the architect for the applicant. He offered to respond to any questions or comments that the Board member or members of the public had. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the matter of rear access to the home is not addressed by the State's Code, but is noted in the Village of Rye Brook's Code. Therefore, this is one of the variances that the applicant must apply for. Mr. Harmon noted that there was no real guidance as to why this means of egress is required. Mr. Izzo responded that he had no knowledge as to the reasoning behind this requirement. The Board discussed whether or not they were in consensus in regard to the application. Mr. Harmon noted that he could not see how a two family residence could be created on that site and make a lesser impact. This is a corner lot and there are a number of variances that are required to effect this change. These are substantial variances. He also felt that this change would have an impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Don Moscato noted that he was in favor of the application. The remaining Board members agreed with Mr. Moscato. The public portion of the hearing was closed and Mr. Harmon requested assistance from the applicant's representative in ensuring that all of the variances requested were properly noted in the resolution. Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 9 RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Maria Rusciano for relief from the requirement that conversion from a one-family to a two-family home not require a change in the exterior appearance of the building (Code Section 225-25.L.(2)(b)), relief from the requirement that both units of the dwelling have service access to the rear yard (Code Section 250- 25.L.(2)(c)), a 9.45 foot front yard setback variance at Irenhyl Avenue, a 2.5 percent front yard impervious coverage variance; a 69 square foot gross floor area variance, a .92 front height setback ratio variance at Irenhyl Avenue, and a 1084 Square foot usable open space variance, all in connection with the proposed construction of an addition and performing interior alternations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling, on property located at 52 Hillcrest Avenue in an R-2F District on the west side of Hillcrest Avenue, at the intersection of Irenhyl Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.76, Block: 1, Lot 11; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 1 and continued to June 3, and July 1, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The neighborhood affected is comprised of many two-family homes; 2) Although there are many variances sought, most are not individually substantial; and 3) The conversion to a two-family home cannot be accomplished with fewer variances or variances of a lesser degree. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: July 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Nay The application was granted by three ayes to one nay. Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 11 4) #08-534 Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Raphael 11 Country Ridge Drive Legalize the existing rear deck Mr. Harmon began the discussion on this matter by noting that he had a technical concern since the application was not signed by the owners of the property. In addition, no statement was submitted to the Village by the owners that the attorney has been appointed on their behalf. Mr. Harmon stated that although the applicants are in Switzerland, he felt that it was possible to obtain a notarized statement and one should have been prepared and sent to the Village. Lori Lee Dickson, Esq., of the law firm of McCullough, Goldberger & Staudt, LLP, addressed the Board as the legal representative for the applicants. She noted that Robert A. Rifkin, Esq. of her law firm signed the application. The Raphaels, her clients, reside in Switzerland and she has a signed retainer between her firm, Attorney Rifkin, and the applicants authorizing her to act on their behalf. She stated that she would provide the Village with a redacted copy of this retainer. Ms. Dickson noted that the application before the Board was to legalize the existing rear deck, which has been in existence since at least 1989. She presented the Board with letters from the owners of 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, and 19 Country Ridge Drive in support of the application. She stated that the granting of this variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, and there is no negative impact. In addition the benefits to the applicants outweigh any detriments. Ms. Dickson noted that her clients have sold the home and there is an escrow that will be held in place until the variance has been granted. She presented the Board with photographs of the rear of the home and the deck. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he had some technical questions for the applicant. He requested the names of the new owners of the property so that he could issue the Certificate of Occupancy. In addition, he noted that some construction work may be required to bring the deck up to the State Code. Once the deck is up to Code, the C.O. can be issued. Mr. Harmon asked for verification that if the variance is granted and then it is found that the deck must be torn down and reconstructed in order to comply with the State's Code that it would not be any larger than the existing deck. Mr. Izzo noted that if by some reason the only way to legalize the deck is to knock it down and re-build it, the new deck would be constructed as per the variance. In addition, an as-built survey would have to be Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 12 generated and it would have to be verified. If it was larger, or didn't conform, it would have to come back before the Zoning Board. At this time the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began deliberation. After a brief discussion, Mr. Harmon prepared the resolution on this matter. Upon the Board's return, the resolution was read into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Raphael for a 7.85 total of two side yard setback variances, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing rear deck, on property located at 11 Country Ridge Drive in an R-15 District on the east side of Country Ridge Drive, 275 feet from the intersection of Whippoorwill Road and Country Ridge Drive North. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 129.60, Block: 1; Lot 26; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 1, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The existing deck, sought to be legalized, extends but does not enlarge the existing legal conforming dwelling; 2) It does not adversely impact the neighborhood; and 3) The surrounding neighbors have voiced their support to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) A Building Permit must be obtained with respect to the existing deck, which may not be enlarged or altered except to obtain compliance with current Building Code requirements. Dated: July 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted by four ayes to zero nays. Mr. Harmon reminded counsel that the retainer must be submitted to the Village. Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 14 5) #08-526 Mr. Lawrence Sullivan 8 Sunset Road Construct a second story addition; a new covered front porch and interior alterations Mr. Tim Wetmore, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that this property is located on the south side of Sunset and two (2) variances are needed in association with the second floor addition. There will be two (2) bedrooms constructed on second floor. The first variance required is in connection with the front yard setback; 30' is required and the existing setback is 27.9'. This is a slight increase to 27.6', for a total 2' 4" to extend the existing front porch along the front of the house. The second variance is for gross floor area. On this site the allowable floor area would be 2,665 square feet and the applicant is seeking 2,798 square feet. The variance required would be 130 square feet. This home was constructed slab on grade so there is no basement. The bedrooms that are proposed will be a modest size, approximately 13' x 13'. The idea is to get all of the bedrooms on one level. Mr. Wetmore noted that the front yard setback is increased only by a portion of the porch extended in the front of the garage. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public in support or opposition to the application. There being no one wishing to address the Board, he turned to the Board for comments and questions. As there were no questions, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation and preparation of the resolution. Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 15 RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Lawrence Sullivan for a 2.4' front yard setback, and a 133 square foot floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition; a new covered front porch and interior alterations, on property located at 8 Sunset Road in an R-10 District on the south side of Sunset Road; at the intersection of Jean Lane and Sunset Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.73, Block: 1; Lot 32; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 1, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The requested variances are not substantial; and 2) The proposed additions will result in a home consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: July 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted on a vote of four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 17 6) #08-531 Mr. & Mrs. Marc Schlueter 1 Sunset Road Construct one front, and one rear second story addition Mr. Michael Siegel noted that there was a discrepancy in the application. He pointed out an issue with the non-conforming deck. Mr. Harmon agreed, and noted that it is important for the Board to know whether or not there are parts of the home and/or site that are not legal conformities. It has not been the Board's practice to grant variances for a portion of a home unless the entire home is in compliance with the Zoning Code. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the application is also deficient in the letter of the posting of the sign. It was noted that the sign was posted. Mr. Harmon noted that the Affidavit in Compliance of the Posting of the Sign must be submitted to the Village. Mr. Izzo noted that he completed a search and there is no building permit for the deck and no Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the deck. The question is did this deck ever have to conform to the set back requirements and did it require a permit? To answer that question a timeline with this structure must be reviewed. It should be noted that the deck is existing and will not be worked on. The construction of the houses in this area date back before the Code. Some of the homes in this area do pre-date the Zoning amendments, but Mr. Izzo noted that he was unsure of the date of construction for this dwelling. Michael Csenge, the architect from MSG Group Architects and Planners of New Rochelle, noted that the deck is 9" off the ground and prior to the Zoning Code amendments made in 2003, this deck would not have needed a permit. Mr. Izzo noted that prior to 2003 a deck of this type of construction, 18" or less above grade, was treated like a patio. Mr. Schlueter, the applicant, noted that he purchased the house in October of 2003. The deck was there at the time of the purchase. Mr. Izzo noted that the Code was codified in August of 2003. At that time the discretion of the building inspector was utilized when a construction was considered minimal. Mr. Harmon asked when the Certificate of Occupancy for the house was issued. Mr. Csenge noted that he and Mr. Izzo reviewed the entire file and it was found that the house did have a valid Certificate of Occupancy. The house was originally built with a garage attached to it, with the driveway on Lincoln Avenue. That space was converted to living space and the driveway was removed. There was a question early on whether the portion of the house that was a garage was Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 18 converted properly and it was found that everything was in order. During the review it was found that the deck was not mentioned at all. Mr. Izzo noted that the non-conformity of the deck relates to the Scenic Roads Overlay District, which was recently codified. He also noted that no work is taking place on the deck or regarding the deck. Mr. Harmon noted that the deck would not have needed a permit if it was built before 2004. Mr. Izzo agreed, noting that this type of deck was considered a patio. Mr. Harmon noted that as a condition for the granting of the variance an inspection would be required to ensure that the deck, as currently constructed, meets the Code requirements. Mr. Harmon stated that this was more of a technical concern, however, he was hoping that the Village could determine when the deck was constructed and whether or not it required a variance at that time. Mr. Izzo pointed out that the Scenic Roads Overly District came into effect on August 10, 2004. The home was purchased in October, 2003. Mr. Izzo also noted prior to August 2003 this structure was not viewed as a deck. After a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Board that the deck was constructed prior to August of 2003. Mr. Csenge noted that the proposed construction was for a second floor addition. As noticed, the application is over the setback for the Scenic Roads Overlay District setback, but it is within the building setbacks. The proposed construction is 43.8' away from Lincoln Avenue where 45' are required. Mr. Csenge noted it was not the entire addition that falls in this area, but rather a small portion of it. The construction is going straight up and a 1.2' front yard setback variance is required. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. He then called upon Board members for their questions and/or comments. There being none, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberations. The resolution was prepared. Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 19 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Marc Schlueter for a 1.2' front yard setback variance and Scenic Roads Overlay District variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a one front, and one rear second story addition, on property located at 1 Sunset Road in an R-10 District on the north side of Sunset Road, at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Sunset Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.73; Block: 1; Lot: 24; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 1, 2008 at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The requested variance is not substantial; 2) The proposed construction does not enlarge the existing legal non- conformity; and 3) The proposed construction will not adversely impact the charter of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector that the existing deck is compliment with the current building code requirements. Dated: July 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted by four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 20 Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 21 7) DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO VILLAGE CODE CHAPTER 250 Mr. Harmon noted that at the last meeting the proposed amendments to this portion of the Village's Code were reviewed, and comments were taken from the Board members. A meeting was held and the Zoning Board members' comments were presented to the Board of Trustees. Most of the comments, in one form or another, were adopted into the re-drafting of the Code. The Zoning Board members have expressed their satisfaction with the amendments and it is believed that the proposed changes are sound. Mr. Harmon noted that he did not have additional comments, but called upon the Board members for their comments and/or questions. Mr. Moscato noted that the functions of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board are different. The expectations for the applicant coming before these two Boards are very different and he felt that text should be added to this portion of the Code so that the applicants are aware of the differences. Mr. Harmon noted that professionals involved are aware of the differences and this information is shared with the applicants. Mr. Moscato felt that it should be made clear that a positive referral from one Board does not necessarily mean a positive reaction by the second Board. Mr. Harmon noted that he has never seen an applicant surprised that they would need approval from both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Izzo noted that as a matter of course the Building Department is consistently meeting with applicants before any action is taken. The Building Department tries to prime the applicants, giving them as much information as feasible. Chapter 209 of the Village Code has a laundry list of requirements. This list sets the tone for the type of procedures that the applicant has in store for them. It is unusual for an application to come in "cold." There is always some sort of discussion before any action is taken. This is standard operating procedure at the Building Department level. Mr. Harmon called for the final item on the agenda: 8) Approval of June 3, 2008 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 22 It was noted that changes and corrections were submitted by Mr. Harmon, Mr. Siegel and Mr. Moscato. A motion was made, and the summary was approved as amended. Mr. Harmon called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The summary was approved by a vote of four ayes to zero nays. Mr. Harmon noted that he would not be able to attend the August 5, 2008 Zoning Board meeting. The meeting would be chaired by the acting Chairman. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals July 1,2008 Page 23