4 2 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

11 • The upgrades to the building will actually improve its relationship to Main Street and to those homes around it. Visually, this is going to have a much better, more attractive facade than that which exists. • The added story does not equate to height relief or parking relief. Visually and functionally, the degree of departure from that which is contemplated in the zone plan is not substantial. As it’s been said, the site is sunk relative to the homes behind it. That lessens the impact and we talked about trees and terrain mitigating potentially adverse impacts. • Any development has impact. What the board needs to consider is the extreme weight of those positives and what McDonough believes is very little weight in terms of the negatives on the adjacent properties. • Yes, there'll be impact, but will it be substantial is the question. • The setback is an existing condition. Going up will not impede the privacy, the use or enjoyment or have a greater effect on the surrounding neighborhood than a permitted use could have, even if it were set further back from those homes. • There's a mitigated measure in terms of terrain and trees. There's going to be an improved facade. There will be no negative shadow effects here or blocking of scenic views and not generating a population density that will exceed the carrying capacity of the land. • Indicators of carrying capacity, parking demand, water demand, sewer demand, waste generation are all within the carrying capacity of the land given the relatively modest population density here. • The coverage, again, it's in a longstanding existing condition. It's not worsening and based on the aerial photos; the coverage has been this way since 1979 and can continue this way for perpetuity. • It's been there for 46 years and can continue this way forever. • In conclusion, the application is simply to expand vertically what's there now. It's not going outward, it's going upward. • No height relief is required, no use relief is required, no density relief is required, no parking relief is required. In essence, this is going to give this building a nice facelift. It's a longstanding building on Main Street. • It'll give it a fresh new look that will complement the positive change with good sensitivity to the area. • McDonough believes the statutory tests for all the relief are met and approval is warranted here. • Before

fresh new look that will complement the positive change with good sensitivity to the area. • McDonough believes the statutory tests for all the relief are met and approval is warranted here. • Before McDonough closes, he did want to put a couple of snippets before the board to consider with respect to the Hawrylo case that he spoke about, which he thinks is on point with the case before the board. • Mr. McDonough quotes from this land use treatise by Mr. Cox, which planners turn to. It's a 900-page treatise. The courts have recognized it as an authority on land use and let's see what that says in the 2025 edition on page 427. • It reads, subsection C under C-1 speaks of an “extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon. This language recognizes that hardship can be created not only by the physical characteristics of the land, but by the existence or by the reason of the existence of a structure already located on it, which may create an exceptional situation sufficient to justify a zoning variance.” • On page 48 of the same book in Hawrylo, “a C variance was granted to rebuild the upper portion of a barn, which was closer to the road than the current regulation allowed. In upholding the variance, the appellate division found that the foundation was a unique