1/22/1997 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

N Board of Appeals Minutes - January 22, 1997 4. Mr. Glaser, the applicant, said there were no elevations of the house but reviewed a proposed layout of the house and garage, He said the neighborhood had a problem with a recently built Douse across the street. This house appears to be on top of the road because of an error in the road layout. He explained that his lot could be built upon without a variance but would result in a 2200 sf box on the land and he wanted to have a first floor bedroom and felt his plan would be an improvement in the use of the site. He said there was a garden easement at the corner of the lot and discussed several driveway options. He said he had met with the direct abutter, Mr. Forman, and explained that he was asking for a 10' setback and that Mr. Forman agreed. Mrs. Glaser showed pictures of previous homes they had owned. Leonard Lauer, a direct abutter and President of the Little Neck Bay Association, stated neighborhood. He also considered the location of the proposed driveway wohis opposition to construction on this lot. He said the Association was concerned with tuld create e he I and the scale of the proposed house and considered it out of scale with the size of the safety hazard. Mr. Dorgan asked if they knew how many vehicles passed this entrance per hour in the summer and was told there were no traffic studies but estimated there was a vehicle every two or three minutes. Mr. Govoni asked Mr. Hauck if this was a buildable lot and was informed that it was buildable without a variance. Mr, Govoni said that the zoning board could only address zoning. Mr. Lauer asked that the Board consider the danger of the driveway. Mr. Grotzke explained that a house built without variances would be more detrimental. Comments were received from residents of Little Neck Bay objecting to the variances and from one resident who was critical of the Little Neck Bay Association's actions against the applicant. Harvey Forman, a direct abutter, objected to the sideline variance to his Property and felt that the proposed house would cast his home in shadows. Mr. Govoni moved to deny the application without prejudice. Mr. Regan seconded. All agreed.