OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/North Salem, New York/Town Board & Boards
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

North Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing – September 10, 2026

Town Board & Boards — Thursday, September 10, 2026
BodyNorth Salem, New York
SessionTown Board & Boards
DateThursday, September 10, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 36:24

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Unassigned speaker

0:04

All

Speaker 1

0:05

right, so we will call this meeting of the uh town of North Salem Zoning Board of Appeals to order.

0:11

Um if uh any members of the public have green cards, please turn them in to the secretary, and we'll set the next meeting date for uh Thursday, October 8th.

0:22

And uh can I have a motion on the minutes from the August uh 13th meeting.

Speaker 2

0:27

So move

Speaker 1

0:29

second

Speaker 2

0:31

second

Speaker 1

0:32

oh we'll give it to Emily.

0:34

Rick.

0:35

Okay, aye Cindy.

0:37

Aye, Emily, and chair votes aye.

0:40

Okay, uh we will start with

Unassigned speaker

0:50

uh

Speaker 1

0:50

BA 2628.

0:54

Uh Susan Lakola, 46 Lakeview Road, an area variance to construct a new 10 by 4 shed and legalize an existing 8 by 14 shed in an R2 zoning district requesting a 25 foot side variance, 30 feet requested, 38 rear yard variants of 50 feet requested per Article 13, Section 250-15.

Speaker 3

1:21

Uh is

Speaker 1

1:21

the applicant here?

1:22

Yeah, yeah.

1:23

Okay, if you'll just come up and give us a quick synopsis of your application.

Speaker 4

1:27

Well, thanks first.

1:28

Thanks for letting me chat about our proposed woodshed.

1:32

Um the structure was pre-existing when we purchased the house in June of 2020.

1:36

Um early on, it was noted by our neighbors that it was unsightly in an eyesore.

1:41

We didn't disagree with that.

1:42

Most recently it started to leak.

1:45

And given I have just moved back, relocated back here, it's now an opportunity to try and address

Unassigned speaker

1:50

that.

Speaker 4

1:51

The intention of the location of the woodshed was based principally on the existing space where it is, but also where there is wood currently piled.

Unassigned speaker

2:02

So

Speaker 4

2:02

the variance is in part asking to put it on the other side of where the wood is existing, the logs are existing.

2:09

Um that's what the largely request for the variance is.

2:14

Really the bottom line is we're just trying to update the woodshed, but also keep our wood

Unassigned speaker

2:20

dry.

Speaker 4

2:22

That's really

Unassigned speaker

2:23

it.

Speaker 1

2:24

Okay.

2:25

And um did you consider other locations that would not require up areas?

Speaker 4

2:31

Yes, we did, and we thought of moving it more directly into the yard, but the orientation of that would then block the the back of the yard and the view of the back of the yard in the stone wall.

2:42

And it also wouldn't be practical as far as where the wood would be stored versus where we use

Unassigned speaker

2:47

it,

Speaker 4

2:48

which would be in the house, that's where the fireplace is.

2:51

So we didn't wish to move the wood storage further away from the house.

Speaker 2

2:56

Right.

2:57

Okay.

Speaker 4

2:59

And there's an exist existing structure, so we felt really being in the the same location of the existing structure made the most sense.

Speaker 1

3:07

Yeah.

Speaker 4

3:08

Um how long is

Speaker 1

3:10

you have any idea how long that existing structure has been there?

Speaker 4

3:13

No.

3:13

No, okay.

Speaker 1

3:14

Previous to your ownership?

Speaker 4

3:16

Yes, previous to our ownership.

3:19

Okay.

3:20

So that's prior to June of 2020.

3:22

Right.

Speaker 1

3:23

Okay.

Speaker 4

3:23

So

Speaker 1

3:24

I mean, this is very simple four by 10 firewood shed.

Speaker 4

3:27

Yeah, and it's I think it's good to know that the proposed wood shed is smaller than the existing structure that's there.

3:34

So the footprint is less.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████████████████████████████████66%
Procedural████████████████24%
Community Engagement███████10%
Summary of Proceedings

North Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing – September 10, 2026

The Town of North Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Thursday, September 10, 2026, at 6:30 PM, both in person and via Zoom. The board considered two area variance applications, a discussion on amending the zoning code for cooperative properties, and approved the minutes from the August 13, 2026 meeting.

Consent Calendar

  • Acceptance of Minutes: The minutes from the August 13, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously (motion by Rick, second by Emily, all ayes).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • BA26-28 – Susan LaColla (46 Lakeview Road): Neighbor Gary Noel (44 Lakeview Road) expressed concerns about the proposed firewood shed's visibility from his property. He noted the property lines are skewed and that a new structure could obstruct his view from his two-story home. He requested a visual assessment (e.g., staking the location) before approval. He also mentioned that trees on his side had been removed due to disrepair and invasive species. The board acknowledged the concerns but concluded the shed would have minimal neighborhood impact and that the current tarp-covered shed was an eyesore.

Discussion Items

  • BA26-28 – Susan LaColla: The applicant sought an area variance to legalize an existing 8 ft x 14 ft shed and construct a new 10 ft x 4 ft firewood shed. The property is an R-2 district on 1.04 acres. The requested variances were: side yard set back of 5 ft (required 30 ft) and rear yard set back of 12 ft (required 50 ft). The existing sheds are pre-existing nonconforming. After discussion, the board recommended that the new shed be placed on the existing footprint of the old shed, maintaining the existing side yard set back of 9.5 ft (rather than the proposed 5 ft). The rear yard variance remained at 12 ft. The board found the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood and would improve the current unsightly condition.
  • BA26-29 – Zuzanna Slusarczyk (5 Hilltop Drive): The applicant, represented by landscape architect Robert Sherwood, sought an area variance to install a Generac 24 kW standby generator on a concrete pad. The property is an R-1 district on 1.69 acres. The requested variance was a side yard set back of 5 ft (required 20 ft). The generator would be placed near the corner of the house where utilities enter, concealed by existing ledge and topography. The board discussed generator testing times, agreeing to restrict operation to weekdays, midday, to minimize noise impact. The variance was deemed not substantial and would have no adverse effect.
  • Code Amendment – Cooperative Properties (Appendix E.2): The board discussed a proposed amendment to Appendix E.2 under §A261-4 (Special Permits) to increase the abutters notification radius from 50 ft to 150 ft, aligning with recent changes to the Town Code. The board was uncertain whether the appendix could be amended by the ZBA alone or required Town Board approval. A motion was made to endorse the change and forward it to the Town Board for final action. The motion passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

  • BA26-28 – Susan LaColla: The board granted the area variances as modified: side yard variance of 20.5 ft (30 ft required minus 9.5 ft existing set back) and rear yard variance of 12 ft. The condition required the new shed to be placed on the existing footprint of the old shed, no closer to the side or rear yard. Motion by Rick, seconded, and passed unanimously (4-0). The action was determined to be a Type II action under SEQRA.
  • BA26-29 – Zuzanna Slusarczyk: The board granted the area variance with the condition that the generator’s weekly test run occur only on weekdays (Monday through Friday) during midday hours. Motion by Rick, seconded, and passed unanimously (4-0). The action was determined to be a Type II action under SEQRA.
  • Code Amendment: The board voted unanimously to endorse the change to Appendix E.2 (50 ft to 150 ft notification radius) and refer the matter to the Town Board for formal adoption.

Meeting Transcript

All right, so we will call this meeting of the uh town of North Salem Zoning Board of Appeals to order. Um if uh any members of the public have green cards, please turn them in to the secretary, and we'll set the next meeting date for uh Thursday, October 8th. And uh can I have a motion on the minutes from the August uh 13th meeting. So move second second oh we'll give it to Emily. Rick. Okay, aye Cindy. Aye, Emily, and chair votes aye. Okay, uh we will start with uh BA 2628. Uh Susan Lakola, 46 Lakeview Road, an area variance to construct a new 10 by 4 shed and legalize an existing 8 by 14 shed in an R2 zoning district requesting a 25 foot side variance, 30 feet requested, 38 rear yard variants of 50 feet requested per Article 13, Section 250-15. Uh is the applicant here? Yeah, yeah. Okay, if you'll just come up and give us a quick synopsis of your application. Well, thanks first. Thanks for letting me chat about our proposed woodshed. Um the structure was pre-existing when we purchased the house in June of 2020. Um early on, it was noted by our neighbors that it was unsightly in an eyesore. We didn't disagree with that. Most recently it started to leak. And given I have just moved back, relocated back here, it's now an opportunity to try and address that. The intention of the location of the woodshed was based principally on the existing space where it is, but also where there is wood currently piled. So the variance is in part asking to put it on the other side of where the wood is existing, the logs are existing. Um that's what the largely request for the variance is. Really the bottom line is we're just trying to update the woodshed, but also keep our wood dry. That's really it. Okay. And um did you consider other locations that would not require up areas? Yes, we did, and we thought of moving it more directly into the yard, but the orientation of that would then block the the back of the yard and the view of the back of the yard in the stone wall. And it also wouldn't be practical as far as where the wood would be stored versus where we use it, which would be in the house, that's where the fireplace is. So we didn't wish to move the wood storage further away from the house. Right. Okay. And there's an exist existing structure, so we felt really being in the the same location of the existing structure made the most sense. Yeah. Um how long is you have any idea how long that existing structure has been there? No. No, okay.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com