Excessive similarity to any other structure or structures existing or for which a permit has been issued or to any other structure included in the same permit application, or any structure located on a contiguous lot, or structure located on lots on the same street within 1,000 feet of the subject site, in respect to one or more of the following features of exterior design and appearance: substantially identical facade; substantially identical size and arrangement of either doors, windows, porticos or other openings or breaks in the facade facing the street, including reverse arrangement; or other significant identical features, such as but not limited to material, roofline and height or other design elements. A finding of excessive similarity shall state not only that such similarity exists but further that it is of such a nature as to be expected to provoke one or more of the harmful effects set forth in § 205-32 and that the finding is not based on personal preference as to taste or choice of architectural style.

Excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness in relation to any other existing structure, or structure for which a permit has been issued, or to any other structure included in the same permit application, or any structure located on a contiguous lot and structure located on lots within 1,000 feet on the same street of the proposed site, in respect to one or more of the following features: inappropriate relationship to the contours, shape or natural characteristics of the site; inappropriate location of features incorporated into the structure, including but not limited to windows or air-conditioning equipment, or of features ancillary to the structure, including but not limited to patios or refuse storage areas; and other significant design features, such as materials, quality of construction or architectural design. Before the Site and Building Permit Review Board makes a finding of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness, it shall conclude that one or more of such dissimilarities or inappropriateness exist and further that such dissimilarities or inappropriateness are of such a nature as to be expected to provoke one or more of the harmful effects set forth in § 205-32, and further, that the finding is not based on personal preference of Site and Building Permit Review Board members as to taste or choice of architectural style.

Inappropriate building site selection or location of improved surfaces including driveways, or excessive site disturbance in relation to the surrounding environmental, ecological, natural, other features of the subject and neighboring lands, including but not limited to topography, vistas, existing patterns of tree and shrub growth, property lines, and accessibility or proximity to wetlands, preserves, historic sites or areas.

There is existing landscaping on the lot between the pool or court and the property line(s) equal in effectiveness, height and density to the required evergreen screening.

There is a preexisting six-foot-high opaque fence or wall on the lot between the pool or court and the property line(s), which is totally owned and controlled by the lot owner and which is in conformity with applicable fence height regulations, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that the increased height of matured evergreen screening is not necessary to screen the pool or court from the view of the abutting property.

The existing topography of the lot where the pool or court is to be located, relative to the topography of the abutting property, is such that the pool or court will not be within the view of the abutting property, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that it is reasonable to expect that this topographical relationship will not be adversely altered in order to facilitate future development of either property.

The soil conditions where the landscaping strip would be required to be installed are such that the evergreens cannot be expected to survive or to properly mature, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that the pool or court cannot be reasonably placed in another location with suitable soil conditions, and further provided that a preexisting six-foot-high opaque fence or wall which conforms to applicable fence height regulations exists between the property line and the pool or court in place of the landscaped strip.

The property line which would otherwise be screened is along the Long Island Sound, Cold Spring Harbor, Lloyd Harbor or Huntington Bay, and provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that the landscaped strip is not necessary to screen the pool or court.

Conditions exist which are not specifically covered in Subsection B(1) through (5) above, but which are of a similar nature, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that approval of the waiver will not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this section or less protective of the view from the abutting properties.