Loading...
29-450 (7) ri4Y.i sy • . �l . 1�► y.,j 41 1 ' Date Fi,lec� '' File No. ' 7 ;� ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION (§10 . 2) 1 . re Applicant: %1/L'R,Ew Z.�._L- r s ` , e ' - n'/. ,��f '_ - Telephone . JrAy_ ^2. 77 i - 2 . Owner of Property: /¢/1/DRE '2 DEL - Address : ' % Ammiggpmr e:1 -4e7 Telephone _cS,� r 3 . Status of Applicant: //Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain: ) 4 . Parcel Identification: Zoning Map Sheet# 2..e7 Parcel## S e, i y 1 • Zoning District (s) (_include overlays) tJ�e/`} s Street Address .2i} G -e Sf�4eW 13,E ©. - G o� #- 0/ D 6 0 1 Required 5 . Existing • Proposed by 2o:linq Use of Structure/Property (if project is only interior work, skip to #6) • Building height %Bldg. coverage (Footprint) • __ -- il Setbacks - front - side 1 - rear ---" Lot size 7, - - Frontage 090 /....— ___�_ - Floor. Area Ratio . %Open Space (Lot area minus -- —`-' b i.l.ding and parking) Parking Spaces Loading ___ _ -- Signs . • Fill (volume & location) 6 . Narrt:ive Description of Proposed Work/Project: (Use addit:icn_yl sheets if necessary) 2 C7434 — fi .5z- 2-2X24°) • 7 . • • Attached Plans : // Sketch Plan Site Plan • 8 . Certification: .I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date: 9/./9/ / Applicant ' s Signature: . el ._ o .p THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: • Approved as presented/based on information presented ./ Denied as presented/ -,lson .'or •-nia1 : cc ,o1ara_-C le--ea- c-t. / {' f. Si•naturc • Building • nspecio Date ` -- NOTE: lasuanco of a zoning pormit door not renews an apptitant' n o comply with c ling roquIrumonts and obtain al r r_qui;rc:i„•Writs horn tho Board.of HonHh, Conaorvation Commission, Dopartnwnt of Public Works .r oUi l cnblo ponnit granting authctiUc . OCTL N F! . r Air V ,■01/g/iM/If ♦\ I It) I Aed'' o O �. ; tri n b d Z to 0 CA a N Z as CO o cn O 5 > z — ,-3 N z d o o C1 - I Zoning Miscellaneous Additions,Repairs,Alterations,etc. Tel.No. J �7-S6- —2 !Q 77 Alterations a-=,.• NORTHAMPTON, MASS. 1 g Additions .i _' w Repair '•`'' 't� APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO ALTER Garage 1- 1. Location 2 4 C-).-es ti/L e .i.)Y �`'O"-,''l-1 C e ///1M_ Lot No. 2. Owners name /9/Y D R E ►'y � EL-Address / /1�� 67/+ 5f ,.,�D 7 bey 3. Builder's name //y,D REW .Z�EL- Address/9/4` ejd! S7/!�`Y/ ,5�n �i Mass.Construction Supervisor's License No. ©/o D g G Expiration Date 0�3 Df/9 _3 4. Addition 5. Alteration 6. New Porch 7. Is existing building to be demolished? 8. Repair after the fire 9. Garage // No.of cars . Cry a S Size 22 / X 241 ` 10. Method of heating 11. Distance to lot lines 3 ! © �� • �j 1 /e '.512 e� Iz 12. Type of roof ? Rrzi ` / d VI-- �oo� She {� ! S /�, 13. Siding house a LD le_ 4 ' (/ L YL L f� g 14. Estimated cost- 0.90,67 ° + The undersigned certifies that the above statements are true to the best of his, her knowledge and belief. :i f Si responsible applicant i 8 nature o f P OCT 2 i 1991 'Jy, . Remarks t 9 i i 4 . • . . __ .. ____ ._ ..__ ____ - -- - - P. , ... .. .: d 1::::7 . . . . . .:..s c.>--:::,... );)„. .. . . . . . . t� i 1. o • d 6 0 ---�«--�-� y _7._ _._.-_' _ - - /N . 1 N 11. i '&\ c N ' 1 I • i1 P _ ..,,, .r.Nt . L' T, • ro ." - 2 OCT _ _ . _ • 1 0.0 •' - Y _ i•4 A. I w t•?•' �^i/J 4'— O CI — 7 izd.00 9 .00 _ ,` O . ?L� ,.9.8z �'T �,w p 3liA- 2 ,3� ��� .. �0 3g X385 0383 i :a 6 I°� X 39 io 39 j i;3 7 .5 4 /-9''' z /a•-¢� p is •t ° ` :377 °� 393 n ,,2 �� 0 a �38i o �� e�30q_sI . .. 4� .3Kw00D �po.r .zzs.,� RAVE ��3 f 38 1 gq•8q /.3..i://t, 418 I03/ �3y48 -a� 6 ; \ �,�Q _37•!� 417 a Q �'":: 38 4� ; 38�, ;0 8�a• Ca 33.4 r?'L • ° 83•oo j 9.; .._Lf�• / �sfl�o _�4B7 - 471;,a .'. _ zT 379 �, \~ 6 _ fi 3� •oo `r� � 1. q� ' � z� � O�� � � • °° 09 N. yam oo °. �{ q °Z, yj, . °k 'off 10 'Wa ' 4 -- s 4 a '_ t �Oo . `',� _ 4t3% + 4 ,,,. o 5 90 - /\ $_n `640 ,�,, 5 a �o ° .� _ 4 4° 5 t, p p �2 436. ° 4 — 1-63 `�y' n ° � � 4.,08 .., 0 0 / 453 c 4� �4 . ° ° tom''- oo r¢ 437• ,A ° 4.34 - -== , " — . - 4 62 0 / P o � o - 5 9 `'c 1� 454 ogll 4 42 o Q /y_ 4.3e o ��• G 00 ..s. 460.. 'D�-456 ' i`- ., 9Lo 8'7 - ° 0 4 o O ut Y"'� 0 5� '997 O Qy i1 )r� va .+► ,5'60.// _ k ' .rv-., `fit{ n 4 r in ' 603 - � ,, d,� 1 r Y ,i"? 'h, 1— I .49.98 t 4 z :.;.--,,,,--1.:.,),-,.s 4 ,f / j -0 3h -'F_‘,.....„7-• ;fit G...S� t,_... .:J _ ':-4,i :4 ,+ �N 1%'INIA ate .•Y'.. w OCT , .1 w tf ry a x ,,,--.41. t •. F 991 �, �... .443 of ":f� i ati :.--i:4-7:44,.---)....4- :/ _ � t , : r3 �s /.......7.,...4?..r .' 3'0.. cc ." :' ;' •,• - -- x - -rt. 4 A/'� • aiv^';& Date Filed File# • VARIANCE APPLICATION 1 . Name of Applicant: A PAI A Address : • Ai Telephone: •5-SK-- 71' 2 . Owner of Property: AM/PRE W 2_2t Address: ; Telephone: 374144-2_9/7 3 . Status of Applicant: // Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain: (--2S'' 4 . Parcel Identification: Zoning Map Sheet# �2 *? Q Parcel# 4 '+� Zoning District(s) Street Address ` t:�� LVAPMFAMSO, .4" cie 5 . Variance is being requested under Zoning Ordinance Section 6 )- , Page _ 6 — e„)- . 6 . Narrative Description of Proposed WorklPro-ject: (Use ��- additional sheets if necessary) .2_ ('i i4'3 a 61R A-6- • / Z `• - o - LS/6 L L pS 7 . State How Work/Proposal Complies with Variance Criteria: (See Applicant ' s G 'de and use additional sheets if necessary) PR .0 v/L 4-Cr LI I Th 7 /S' X 5/- R P--RC F l . • E . • 8 . Attached Plans : 1-' Sketch Plan Site Plan None Required 9 . Abutters (See instructions. Use attached abutter ' s list) 10 . Certification: I hereby certify that I have read the GUIDE TO APPLYING FOR A ZONING VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT OR FINDING and that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date: /0/479/ Applicant ' s Signature: / 645-e1✓ 1991 • ACti I INCLUDE EACH ABUTTER'S MAP I.D. NUMBER - SEE EXAMPLE AT LEFT MAP : 29 PARCEL : 388 MAP 29 PARCEL 449 Bushey, Frederick A. & Jean E. Marcil, Marjorie S. 52 Brookwood Drive' 16 Crestview Drive Florence, MA 01060 Florence, MA 01060 MAP 29 PARCEL. 390 j MAP 29 PARCEL 451 Martin, James R. Jr. Picard, Frank & Anne Marie 66 Brookwood Drive 32 Crestview Drive Florence, MA 01060 Florence, MA 01060 MAP 29 PARCEL 432 MAP 29 PARCEL 452 Boerner, Kurt F. & Johanna Doble, Anna D. 11 Ellington Road 40 Crestview Drive Florence, MA 01060 Florence, MA 01060 MAP 29 PARCEL 433 + MAP 463 PARCEL 463 Koloski, Gerald C. & Nancy A. Stein, Leslie B. & Thomas E. `I 19 Ellington Road j 39 Crestview DRive Florence, MA 01060 Florence, MA 01060 MAP 29 PARCEL 434 MAP 29 PARCEL 464 Scepka, Dale Ann & Violet G. Staszko, Eugene M. & Joan M. c/o James, Dale Ann 31 Crestview DRive 27 Ellington Road Florence, MA 01060 Florence, MA 01060 MAP 29 PARCEL 435 MAP 29 PARCEL 465 Favaro, John A. Jr. Chung, Robert M.K. & 35 Ellington Road Mei-Ju-Hwang Flornce, MA 01060 1 23 Crestview Drive Florence, MA 01060 Map 29 PARCEL 446 f MAP 29 PARCEL 466 Schloesser, Wolfgang L. & Patenaude, Donna C. Narita T. 15 Crestview Drive 34 Ellington Road Florence, MA 01060 Florence, MA 01060 MAP 29 PARCEL 447 MAP 29 PARCELS 597, 598, 599 Sanborn, Lena D. Murphy, Gordon E. & Nancy E. 26 Ellington Road 76 North Elm 5reet Florence, MA 01060 Northampton, IA 01060 MAP 29 PARCEL 448 MAP 29 PARCEL 468I991 Maronn, C. Mason Young, James W. & Debra J. 18 Ellington Road 8 Crestview Drive Florence, MA 01060 Florence, MA 01060 #(j ) ,.Y ASSES-SO 0 S CE 1 FI ATION DATE : BOARD OF ASSESSORS oti AMp,O ASSESSORS Joan C. Sarafin, M.A.A., Chairwoman "�4 '°' � ;%-;•�.,��� Telephone Richard M. Sikorski, M.A.A., Secretary d 4" 586-6950 Ext. 200 Edwin M. Padeck �T= ° WALLACE J. PUCHALSKI MUNICIPAL BUILDING 212 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 TO : BOARD OF ASSESSORS FROM : 77/P)RE V/ 72_D ( Individual or Company Name ) P H O N& V -S � f 7 7 — `j cSSS - y O G -- / g DATE : U//Syr� � I/WE REQUEST FROM THE BOARD OF AS SESSORS , AN ABUTTER ' S LIST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2- 2// r-a--e-,S �'jit/ THE MAP AND LOT NUMBERS OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY ARE .,e1 . THE NAME OF THE BOARD REQUESTING THIS LIST AND THE EXTENT OF THE LIST REQUIRED IS } c(Y ct'z i cam; /2 ( • V I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS REQUEST HAS UP TO SEVEN ( 7 ) WORKING DAYS IN WHICH TO BE COMPLETED . ( Signature of Applicant ) 19 / 16 / 01 DATE LIST WAS COMPLETED ut7 6991 • 'ev. 10/3/91 it le C. 40A ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS § 10 CASE NOTES r Record supported judge's findings that soil lowed by zoning ordinance. Guiragossian v conditions were peculiar to locus and would Board of Appeals (1985) 21 Mass App 111, cause financial hardship to developers of 485 NE2d 686. building on locus. Wolfman v Board of Ap- Hardship for variance must arise from peals (1983) 15 Mass App 112, 444 NE2d shape of locus or one of other factors specifi- 943, app den Wolfman v Board of Appeals cally referred to in ALM GL c 40A § 10, (1983) 388 Mass 1104, 447 NE2d 670. that is, that development consistent with Decision of zoning board on application zoning ordinance is prohibited. Guiragossian for relief from parking space requirements v Board of Appeals(1985)21 Mass App 111, did not affect zoning requirement with re- 485 NE2d 686. spec; to ground coverage ratio as to which Granting of zoning variance for construe- variance was required. Planning Bd. of Nan- tion of home on large, unusually shaped lot tucker v Board of Appeals (1983) 15 Mass without adequate frontage on street, was in App 733. 448 NE2d 778. excess of zoning board's authority and was cin appeal ;o Superior Court from grant annulled. Gordon v Zoning Sd. of Appeals of variance. burden is on person seeking (1986) 22 Mass App 343, 494 NE2d 14, variance and board granting it to produce review den 398 Mass 1103. evidence that each of discrete statutory re- Fact that granting of variance would al- quirements has been met and that variance is low economic use of locus without detriment • justined. Kirkwood v Board of Appeals to public good was not dispositive for zoning (1984i 17 Mass App 423,458 NE2d 1213. board or court, because it ignored express Zoning board's grant of variance to allow language of ALM GL c 40A §10. Gordon v construction of 4 unit condominium in single Zoning Bd. of Appeals (1986) 22 Mass App residence distr ict including 2 miles of ocean 343, 494 NE2d 14, review den 398 Mass front, e ...-as not warranted, where evidence 1103. showed •hat ;cus was characteristic of zon- Variance may not be granted for construe- ing district generally and that it was not, don of a residential dwelling on a land- economically unfeasible to construct single locked tract with no frontage. notwithstand- famiiv residence on locus. Kirkwood v Board ing that the parties impliedly reserved a of Appeals .1'..84i 17 Mass .App 423, 458 right-of-way under doctrine of easement by NE2d 1213. necessity nor that patties forsaw in 1852 . Reference in ALM GL c 40A §17 to when the land-locked tract was severed that =.'k'zi original "petitioner" means person who filed it would be used as the site of a single-family petition for variance with board of appeals dwelling. United States v 176.10 Acres of in accordance with ALM GL c 40A §10. Land(1983, DC Mass) 338 F Supp 1379. Butts v Zoning Bd. of Appeals (1984) 18 Variance from frontage and width require- - Mass .1pp 249, 41;4 NE2d 108. ments for "pork chop" shaped lot created in t Town hoard of appeals' granting of vari- 1920s, which was connected to street by 400 ances for construction of residential condo- foot strip 15 feet wide, met requirements of miniums in industrial zone annulled, where ALM GL c 40A§10,first paragraph. Pauld- ' 5 a+ , shape and hardship prerequisites to grant of ing v Bruins (1984) 18 Mass App 707, 470 t' variance were not met. Guiragossian v NE2d 398. s' Board of appeals (1985) 21 Mass App Ill, Hardship requirement satisfied by finding '. s, 485 NE2d 686. that lot could be sold only if variance were ■ Requirements for grant of variance are granted for building of home. Paulding v t: °a' •conjunctive, not disjunctive. Guiragossian v Bruins (1984) 18 Mass App 707, 470 NE2d .i Board of Appeals (1985) 21 Mass App 111, 398. j rk 485 NE2d (:86. Granting of variance which incorporates i Roughly triangular shape of parcel lacking plans requires strict compliance with plans. street frontage, with access by limited rights Di Giovanni v Board of Appeals (1985) 19 rr ., of way,did not meet "shape"prerequisite for Mass App 339,474 NE2d 198. grant of variance- Guiragossian v Board of Absence of hardship is valid reason for 1 0l Appeals(1985) 21 Mass App Ill, 485 NE2d denying variance. Di Giovanni v Board of Appeals(1985) 19 Mass App 339,474 NE2d g' ', Statutory hardship is usually present when 198. n; landowner cannot reasonably make use of Construction of buildings where they CC his property for purposes or in manner al- should not be is not hardship justifying vari- i va For latest statutes and case citations,call 1400-527-0430. ■ • s, • d Of er ha § 10 § 11 SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTERS 40-40A C. 40A ;ossian v ance. Di Giovanni v Board of Appeals(1985) Karet v Zoning Bd. of Appeals (1989) 27 .App 111, 19 Mass App 339,474 NE2d 198. Mass App 439,539 NE2d 81. NIlli Zoning board did not act unreasonably or Lot cannot qualify for variance if circum- ise ' • arbitrarily in requiring landowner to con- stance creating hardship is itself result of • rs st form construction to express terms of previ- transfer that violates in some"respects appli- .0A 1,v, ously granted variance. Di Giovanni v Board cable zoning requirements for buildable lots. ent with of Appeals (1985) 19 Mass App 339, 474 Karet v Zoning Bd. of Appeals (1989) 27 ragossian NE2d 198. Mass App 439,539 NE2d 81. App Ill, Landowner's sale of adjoining lot for Where landowner failed to apply for build- which variance had been granted was sufpi- mg permit within statutory one year period construe- cient exercise to avoid lapse. Hogan v Hayes after variance had been granted and ap- iaped lot (1985) 19 Mass App 399,474 NE2d 1158. proved by Superior Court, collateral estoppel principles did not apply to new application t, was in Variance to build garage within 6 and for variance and landowner was required to and was one-half feet of private way so as not to prove anew existence of each of statutory Appeals disturb ancient oak trees annulled, where conditions for variance. Lopes v Board of E2d 14, other locations for garage were available Appeals (1989) 27 Mass App 754, 543 NE2d without disturbing trees. Martin v Board of 421. vould al- Appeals (1983) 20 Mass App 972, 482 NE2d Lapse provision in ALM GL c 40A § 10, etriment 336. voiding variances not used within relatively r zoning Grant of variance for lot which did not short period of time (one year) is expression express meet minimum width requirements was im- of policy that power to grant variances iordon v proper, inasmuch as no hardship existed. should not be abused. Lopes v Board of ass App Shafer v Zoning Bd. of Appeals (1987) 24 Appeals(1989) 27 Mass App 754, 543 NE2d -)8 Mass Mass.App 966, 511 NE2d 635. 421. Zoning board's desire to maximize taxes Zoning board's grant of variance for onstruc- for town from land for which variance house lot having less than required frontage a land- would be granted is not adequate reason for was in excess of board's authority and was thstand- variance. Shafer v Zoning Bd. of Appeals therefore annulled. Lopes v Board of Ap- erved a 1987 24 Mass App 966, 511 NE2d 635. peals (1989) 27 Mass .App 754, 343 NE2d ment by Variances are not normally available to 421. in 1852 Twenty foot slope of lot was not type of red that remedy deficiencies in frontage and area. Di Cicco v Berwick (1989) 27 Mass App 312, hardship "owing to topography of land," e-family _37 \E2d 1267. since slope did not prevent erection of house. acres of Mitchell v Board of Appeals (1989) 27 Mass 379. Variances are limited to situations of hard- App 1119,337 NE2d 3395. require- ship resulting from soil conditions, shape or Board of appeal had no authority to grant Bated in' topography. Di Cicco v Berwick (1989) 27 variance because lot was too small to qualify by , Mass App 312, 537 NE2d 1267. as buildable lot or achieve exemption under lent? Deficiency in frontage of lot is not circum- grandfather clause of ALM GL c. 40A or . Pauld-' stance relating to soil conditions, shape or local zoning ordinance. Mitchell v Board of 07, 470 i topography of land that will satisfy one of Appeals (1989) 27 Mass App 1119, 537 several statutory prerequisites for variance. NE2d 595. finding' ce werej § 11. Notice and Publication; Review of Special Permit Applica- Iding vi tions; Certificate of Special Permit or Variance. NE2d [No change through third paragraph.] porates [The fourth paragraph is amended to read as follows:] t plans. Upon the granting of a variance or special permit, or any extension, 385) 19 modification or renewal thereof, the permit granting authority or special ;on for permit granting authority shall issue to the owner and to the applicant if • )ard of other than the owner a copy of its decision, certified by the permit • I.NE2d granting authority or special permit granting authority, containing the • name and address of the owner, identifying the land affected, setting forth - _ - _ they compliance with the statutory requirements for the issuance of such . - . tg vari variance or permit and certifying that copies of the decision and all plans 89 For latest statutes and case citations,call 1-800-527-0430. • • • I City of Northampton, Massachusetts 04 pT0 Office of Planning and Development • City Hall • 210 Main Street • J � 1 ,� Northampton, MA 01060 • (413)586-6950 3 =�! • Community and Economic Development �� r• .t 1r" • Conservation • Historic Preservation �T�� -������% • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 RE: THE REQUEST OF ANDREW BZDEL FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE CLOSER TO THE SIDE YARD THAN IS PERMITTED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Pursuant to the Provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter 40A, Section 15, notice is hereby given that a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the above date DENYING the requested VARIANCE. If you wish to appeal this action, your appeal must be filed in Superior Court within 20 days of the date this decision was filed in the Office of the Northampton City Clerk. _.mac /K'Ar Robert C. Buscher, Chairman / t S DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS At a meeting held on November 20, 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to DENY the request of Andrew Bzdel for a Variance under Section 6 . 2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of constructing a two-car garage which will have less than the required setback at 24 Crestview Drive, Florence. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, M. Sanford Weil, Jr. and Dr. Peter Laband. The Board found that: The applicant' s request met none of the criteria for granting a Variance. No hardship was demonstrated and no uniqueness of topography was described. Robert C. Buscher, Chairman M. Sanfo d Weil, Jr. Dr. Peter Laband. illir 4• Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals November 20, 1991 The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:45 p.m. November 20, 1991 in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building to conduct a Public Hearing on the Application of Andrew Bzdel for a Variance under Section 6. 2 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. He proposes to construct a two-car garage at 24 Crestview Drive, Florence which would have less than the required side setback. Present and voting were: Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. Chairman Buscher read the Legal Notice as published twice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, M.G.L. 40A Section 10, and correspondence from the Northampton Planning Board dated November 18, 1991 which stated that the Board had voted to recommend in favor of this application with 3 in favor, 2 opposed and 1 abstaining. The Board noted that the request did not meet the criteria for a Variance. Mr. Bzdel said he has lived on Hatfield Street for twenty years as is planning to move into a smaller house on Crestview Drive and he wishes to have a two-car garage which will lack only four feet of the required setback. He stated that the driveway will not change much. S. Weil asked if he had considered a detached garage. Mr. Bzdel said that, as a builder, he feels if wouldn' t be convenient and it wouldn't look good. S.Weil pointed out that the conditions for a Variance relating to topography or hardship are not met. Mr. Bzdel reiterated that he was requesting the Variance for his convenience. P. Laband noted that the Planning Board recognized that the conditions had not been met. S. Weil disagreed with the Planning Board member who suggested that four feet might be considered "de minimus . " Ch. Buscher noted that, if Mr. Bzdel did not attach the garage, he could do something else that would look awful. P. Laband told the applicant that the City has wrestled with the Ordinances trying to make them equitable. Board members offered suggestions. P. Laband asked whether the garage could be longer. Ch. Buscher suggested shrinking it to an 18 ' structure noting there is no other place to located an attached garage on the property. The applicant responded that the alternatives would be inconvenient and S. Weil pointed out that a variance could not be granted on the basis of convenience. Ch. Buscher said he realized that the proposal might be more attractive than the alternatives. The applicant inquired into the rationale behind the setback regulations. S. Weil pointed out that the State established the qualifications under which variances can be granted. Ch. Buscher asked if anyone wished to speak in .favor or in opposition. Frank Picard, 32 Crestview Avenue, said he has no problem with the garage since there is adequate screening (bushes across a chain link fence) between their houses and there is sufficient room to store snow. S. Weil moved to close the Public Hearing. Peter Laband seconded the motion which passed unanimously. S. Weil stated that, linden view the rththe fact that the requirements cannot be met, he would Y P. Laband concurred. He sated that there is no hardship, no uniqueness of the lot. He would vote no since to do otherwise would derogate from the intent of the ordinance. Herd noted Hance that, while there is no detriment to the public good, certain number of feet for a detached garage. Ch. Buscher concurred. He found no hardship or no uniqueness on the lot. He said the applicant set a can buil and violate the but clea� grant a variance wo uld mandate of the law. P. Laband made a motion to deny the request for a Variance. S. Weil seconded the motion which was passed unanimously. Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was Penelope G. Kim, Acting Board Secretary. 1 \ Robert C. Buscher, Chairman