Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_10_07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 7,2003,IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Absent: Jillian A. Martin Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Eileen Agnoletto,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther said before we start the meeting, I'd like to mention the fact that one of our board members is not here tonight. The Board will be happy to hear your case and proceed. For an action to occur, we have to have three votes in favor for whatever action is being proposed. If you would like us to hear your case and not move to a vote,just tell us what you're requesting. APPLICATION NO. 1 -CASE 2569(adjourned 5/28/03;6/24/03;8/6/03) Application of Peter A. Gerardi requesting a variance to construct a single-family residence on the premises located at 805 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 101, Lot 12. The residence as proposed has a front yard of 42 ft. 4 in.where 50 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34 B(1); a rear yard of 20 ft. where 50 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(3)for residence in a R-30 Zone District. Michael Fanelli (applicant's designer) stated the notice that went out to the neighbors was incorrect. He added that changes were made to match exactly to what it is that they are doing. He requested to have a vote. Chair Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Chair Gunther then asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. He stated this application has been held over from multiple meetings because there was a failing in the notice requirements last time. There was no response. Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 2 The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of October 7,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Peter A. Gerardi has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a single-family residence on the premises located at 805 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 101,Lot 12. The residence as proposed has a front yard of 42 ft. 4 in. where 50 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 34 B(1); a rear yard of 20 ft. where 50 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(3) for residence in a R- 30 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-34 B(1), Section 240-34B(3); and WHEREAS, Peter A. Gerardi submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This is a piece of proposed new construction. The house is on the corner of Pengilly Drive and Weaver Street near the Bonnie Briar Country Club. As a consequence, the property is separated from neighbors on the two sides where there is road frontage. We learned as we looked at the plans and visited the site that there are two other sides to this property where there are neighbors. It is on the rear of the property, the property line opposite Weaver Street, where there is a 20-ft. proposed setback at the closest point where 50 ft. is required. The neighbor's house on the other side of that property line is quite well set back from the property line and the applicant has agreed to install screening of 2 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 3 different trees and bushes that will soften the impact, if any, of the encroachment toward the property line. On the side opposite Pengilly Drive there is a neighbor, but there is a driveway which separates the two properties right along the property line so, again, the distance is sufficient so that the shortening of that distance as requested by the application will not have an adverse affect on the adjoining property. The plans also call for the installation of screening along that property line to soften whatever affect there might be from the placement of the house. B. It is a large lot and the variance will allow the design,which puts the driveway closest to Weaver Street, setting back the house, which will have a desirable affect of softening the noise from Weaver Street on the occupants of this new house. Given that goal, there is not an alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. C. The variance is substantial, two- thirds of the distance to the rear property line and more toward the side property line where the driveway is,but the effects,if any, are in our view,mitigated by the installation of screening. D. Other than the impact that it might have on the two adjoining properties given the lay of the land and the fact that the property is on a corner,there will not be an adverse impact in any other way on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. The difficulty here is not self-created. The original house is for smaller than what is expected today. The proposed design,while generous, is not out of line with current expectations. Even if the condition requiring a variance was to be considered self-created,that factor is not determinative. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other and that the screening on the plan be maintained continuously and permanently. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 3 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 4 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for your building permit. APPLICATION NO. 2—CASE 2572(adjourned 6/24/03/revised/renoticed 8/6/03;9/24/03) Application of Melron Amusement Corp./Ronald Getlan requesting a variance to construct two buildings on the premises located at 1265 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Lot 449. The site plan as proposed has a landscape buffer varying from 0 ft. to 5 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-45B(3). In addition,parking spaces are proposed in the front of the bank building,which is set back 37 ft. where 75 ft. is required to permit parking spaces in the front of a building pursuant to Section 240-45B(1)for buildings in a"B"Business Zone District. Paul Noto (applicant's attorney) addressed the Board and stated that revisions were made in order to accommodate concerns of the neighbors and to make for a more efficient project. Mr. Noto stated the two substantial changes that were made to the revised plan were that the proposed loading zone and one drive- through was eliminated. Mr. Noto presented to the Board pictures of the rear property and marked these pictures as Exhibit #1. Mr.Noto stated that the arborist and the architect are present to answer any questions. Mr. Noto said our Arborist is here tonight to advise us of his opinion. We will have him speak in reference to that. We did try to save all the other trees and make a more compact structure. Obviously, we have a good handle on some of the issues that have been raised. Mr. Noto said, the architect is also present who can give you the site lines, so you can see where it is and what it looks like on the site. Mr.Noto entered pictures of the rear of the property from one end to the other,marked Exhibit#I. Mr.Noto said in these pictures,there are a lot of heavy deciduous trees. The Board discussed the placement of the buildings, the buffer and the plantings in the buffer, parking spaces,the loading zones and refuse container placement.. Mr. Noto asked Chris, the arborist, step up. He said that Chris made a presentation at the last meeting and he will not redo that. I just want him to address the issue of the tree. Chris Neal, an ISA Certified Arborist, said the one particular tree that was supposed to be removed is a 12-in. Maple tree. At its present state about 40% of the crown has already died. There is mushroom growth, fungal growth about 4-ft. up on the base stem itself and the bark is already peeling away, so there is a substantial amount of decay that is already coming out. For whether we needed to remove it,the tree would have to come down anyway,not just for safety. Mr. Gunther asked if all the other trees there would remain. Mr. Neal said, yes the existing trees will remain. 4 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 5 Mr. Salanitro said that's correct. There is no parking in the rear of the property line whatsoever. We showed the vehicles to show that will be the travel lane behind the bank. In the original plan,we removed the loading zone along the residential property behind the post. We agreed that loading zone will be intermittently used with parking spaces. There was no revisions as to the curb cuts. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members on the plans. There were none. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any other questions or comments on this application from the public. Thomas Kirchoff(25 Rock Ridge Road resident) addressed the Board stating the neighbors still need the relief of distance from the proposed structures and the screening that is supposed to be provided by builders/landlords. Mr. Kirchoff presented pictures to the Zoning Board representing several issues. Mr. Kirchoff said to he would only be in favor of reducing the number of required parking spaces and not reducing or eliminating the 10-ft. screened buffer area. Robin McWilliams of 21 Rock Ridge Road addressed the Board. She said her property is what is directly behind the parking lot on the south side and I am behind the proposed garbage dumpster for the Duane Reade. I'd just like to say I'm here tonight to implore the Zoning Board to deny granting a variance to Melron Corporation allowing them to develop the former Cook's site without the required 10-ft. evergreen screen required by the Zoning regulations. Zoning regulations in the Master Plan were developed to protect residential neighbors that backed to commercial properties. Please let them do what they were enacted to do. All residents are entitled to the 10-ft. evergreen screening buffer. It's my understanding from the plans that only some of the neighbors are going to get screening and my property is going to get no screening according to the plans. Allowing a plan to go forward without the required buffer will victimize the residents of Rock Ridge Road. Ms. McWilliams said you had specifically asked, we have the deciduous trees and the difference in the fall and the winter, there is a tremendous amount of difference when there is nothing there in the winter it's incredible. Recently there was a truck parked in the empty parking lot behind our building. It made the windows shake on the house. There has to be some type of protection. I want the evergreen screening to block out noise and to block out the pollution coming from the trucks that are going to be behind our building and the garbage. Marsha Kirchoff, who lives at 25 Rock Ridge Road appeared and spoke at length. Ms. Kirchoff submitted a folder to the secretary including correspondence and photographs, marked exhibit #4, regarding the different items of concern. Ms. Kirchoff said I have correspondence regarding Mings, also in Exhibit #4, and in actuality we are really glad they are not there. There is correspondence in there and a 1999 to Marilyn Reader and Mr. Carpaneto about the garbage odors coming from there with virtually no help from the Town relative to eliminating them where we could not use our yard. We're happy that Duane Reade and the bank will be there,but we're skeptical about what happens in the future. Scott Hacker of 23 Rock Ridge Road appeared to address the Board. Mr. Hacker said I'm opposed to this variance. It is against the Zoning Laws that were implemented to protect the people of this community. Granting this variance will not only hurt us, but the future of this neighborhood. A 10-ft. buffer with 5 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 6 proper evergreen screening is not asking for a lot. It's the law and it should be obeyed. Anything less is not a buffer and it's unacceptable. Our health and property value should not be sacrificed when better alternatives can be made within the laws to make both sides happy. Dan McWilliams of 21 Rock Ridge Road appeared to address the Board. He said, I too am against this development for a number of reasons. One,they're getting closer to the buffer, 5-ft. down to nothing and I happen to have the nothing. We're right behind Duane Reade. They've got the garbage dumpsters. It's going to be extremely noisy and loud. The deciduous trees in the fall are very stark. It is extremely stark and it is extremely noisy and I don't think it's acceptable when these regulations in the Master Plan and the Zoning Regulations are there to protect the residents and neighborhood from commercial development when other plans can be met. It seems like something can be done to change this plan to give us the buffer. We're all very adamant about this buffer. Mr. McWilliams made one last point stating that the screening should be properly taken care of. Karen Orenstein of 27 Rock Ridge Road appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Orenstein said I am opposed to the variance and one thing that I truly do not understand is the Board asked Melron to go back and come forward with a plan for the 10-ft. buffer zone. I don't know who made the decision between the Board and Melron that it was acceptable for them not to come back for a plan for a 10-ft. buffer zone, I don't understand why they never came back for the plans that would acknowledge the rights of the residents on Rock Ridge Road. That remains an enigma to me why it was requested and it was never produced. It seems like there has been some kind of placid agreement that it's O.K.not to come back with a plan for that. Ms. Orenstein said I would be interested in understanding how it was determined that the 5-ft. is acceptable as opposed to 8-ft. to 10-ft. I don't know where the 5-ft. came up being an acceptable number. I think under the law,we're entitled to the 10-ft.buffer zone for very explicit reasons. Karen Robb of 24 Rock Ridge Road appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Robb said I'm not on the side abutting the old Cook's property. I'm on the other side of the street, but these are my neighbors and I have school aged children and we play on this side. Aim opposed to the site without the 10 ft.buffer. Ms. Robb stated that the arborvitae that was planted there are already dead. Gerry Glaser of 19 Rock Ridge Road appeared to address the Board. About his particular problems. Mr. Glaser said, I am behind this ledge at this point and as a result there is no buffer that is to be found, except on this plan for my property. Melron suggested that they would plant upon our property and create a green belt upon our property. Now I think that that's "chutzpah". They have property and they are implying that the plantings should be upon our property. Mr. Glaser suggested evergreens will grow on the outcropping,because they are growing on his property, the rock outcropping is on their property. Mr. Glaser suggested downsizing the building. So they wouldn't need the extra parking and there would be no problem with the 10-ft. buffer zone. Second, if you do give a variance at all,we appeal to you to give a variance related to the parking. Mr. Glaser continued saying I would appreciate it if you would consider the neighbors on Rock Ridge Road. Thank you very much. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments. There were none at this time. Mr. Gunther asked Mr.Noto if he would like to address a number of points that have been made. 6 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 7 Mr. Noto said we understand that the Town has very strict requirements as far as garbage and things of that nature and that the Town would aggressively enforce those codes Mr. Noto continued saying the dumpster is actually more than 10-ft. away from the line, the Planning Board will certainly address the issue of screening if we agree it should be screened or fenced in. Mr. Noto said there was no agreement or no passive understanding at all. We are back here because we have to be here. In order to do this,we need a variance. It is that simple. If we don't get a variance,this plan cannot go through. Mr. Noto said there is no zero setbacks. I'm not sure where that came from. We have a minimum of 5-ft. over here as we said earlier. These buildings are farther away from the line than the existing Cook's building. You have a much larger distance between the property line and these proposed buildings than we have today. In fact, as you all know, this property has never had a 10-ft. buffer. In fact, it's never even had a 5-ft.buffer,because the Cook's property has been there for so long. Mr. Noto said I think that this is an improvement. The Arborist has testified about the planting of the trees on the rocks and testified last time that it would work. I'm not going to second guess him, as I'm not an arborist. I think it makes good sense. There is a lot of green here, there is lot of natural buffer. Putting up the 10-ft. and having evergreens there, at 5-ft. or whatever the height will be, it might provide some additional buffer I'm not sure. I really don't know that 5-ft. or 10-ft. would make a substantial difference. The neighbors disagree and I understand that. We've gone through this. We originally started at 25-ft. it's now 10-ft. Whether it is or it isn't deep, this property is substantially higher at a much higher elevation and the applicant could never put enough coverage to reach the base of everyone else's property and we understand that. Beyond that, I think this is a much improved plan. It does represent a good faith effort on the applicant's part to accommodate a lot of the issues raised by the neighbors. I'm not sure what more they could do. Mr. Gunther said the residents on that street are convinced that an evergreen buffer of 10-ft. would give them what they are looking for. , I recommend that you go back and alter your plan and have Mr. Salanitro take one more stab at it. I understand that you have the appropriate parking spaces which are required by the square footage of the building. Mr. Davis said let me comment on SEQRA. SEQRA is a State Environmental Quality Review Statute and Mamaroneck has something called NEQRA, which is the Mamaroneck Environmental Quality Review Regulation. There are several kinds of actions that SEQRA reviews. When we're talking about a Type II Action in that the state locality has already decided that it doesn't have significant impact so you don't have to do anything. The other requires some kind of study and I think it would be a mistake for the Board tonight to decide in the abstract what kind of study is required. Unless the applicant tries to persuade us, and it has the right to do that,that they are not required to do an environmental review,they are going to file an environmental document for your review. Those documents will include whatever level of traffic study or another impact study they think are required, the Board will assess what they file and decide whether it is sufficient for the Board to reach a decision without the extent of the environmental impact for the proposal. The Board can't do that tonight,because there has been no filing and nothing for the Board to review. Ms. Harrington said when you come back before us next time, could you come back with plans that we've asked you to come back with and not something like this that doesn't satisfy what we've asked you to do. It's very simple. We asked you to give us something with the 10-ft. We asked you to work on it and you're just coming back with something that doesn't work for us. Obviously it's not working for us and while you're at it, can you come back now with a landscaping plan for the front of the building because you've moved everything to the front, all the parking spaces. I, for one,would like to see your plan for the front of the building. It's fine to say we're going to do planting and this is in the works and we are 7 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 8 thinking about and sure we're going to do it, well if you're before this Board for a variance,then I'd like to see what you're asking for and I'd like to see the end results. Mr. Noto said if we don't get a variance, we would change the plans and we might not need a variance. In that case, we won't come here at all. We'd go right to planning. If we didn't need the 10-ft. or any other variance we wouldn't be standing here. After some discussion, the next meeting date was scheduled to be held on October 29, 2004. The Board requested a referral to the Traffic Committee. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, and unanimously approved, application file #2572 is adjourned to the next meeting APPLICATION NO. 3—CASE 2581 Application of John Gross and Robin Levine requesting a variance to construct a batting cage in the rear yard on the premises located at 129 East Hickory Grove Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 209. The batting cage as proposed has a fence 17 ft. high where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a rear yard fence in an R-10 Zone District. Mr. Gunther stated the application was withdrawn. APPLICATION NO. 4—CASE 2582 Application of Frank Giattino requesting a variance to construct a mudroom on the premises located at 130 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 261. The mudroom as proposed has a side yard of 6.17 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-378B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Frank Giattino of 130 East Garden Road appeared to address the Board. Mr. Giattino said it's actually a mudroom and a bathroom there presently is no bathroom on the first floor level. In addition, the door from the outside runs right through the middle of the kitchen, so by doing what we've done we've taken a piece of the garage area and changed the door to open into a mudroom. The perimeter walls were not moved in any way. After some discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from Board members on this application. There were none. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. There were none. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Yes 8 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 9 Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of October 7,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Frank Giattino has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a mudroom on the premises located at 130 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 261. The mudroom as proposed has a side yard of 6.17 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 378B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-378B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Frank Giattino submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The mudroom addition will not adversely impact the neighbors or neighborhood, as it is a relatively small addition and will, in fact, spruce up the rear and side of the residence. The area in question is on the side and rear of the house and is partially screened by shrubbery. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via any alternative that would be any less intrusive. C. The applicant is doing major renovations to a portion of the residence and this variance request is for a small portion of the area that does not meet the required setbacks. The variance is not substantial at less than 4 ft. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The houses are all relatively close together in this particular area. There appears to be no indication that this addition will cause additional runoff or other adverse impact. As we have had no negative 9 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 10 communications from the surrounding neighbors, it appears that there are no complaints or adverse impact on the surrounding neighbors or area. E. This is not a self-created difficulty, as the residence itself is nonconforming and it is not unreasonable to request a variance nor for it to be granted. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther advised the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. APPLICATION NO. 5—CASE 2583 Application of Deana M. Colon requesting a variance to erect a fence on the premises located at 7 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402, Lot 112. The fence as proposed has a total height of 15 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 52A for a fence in an R-2F Zone District. Deana Colon of 7 Blossom Terrace appeared, along with her husband, Tim. Ms. Colon said the notice is a little deceiving,because it sounds like we're asking to put up a 15-ft. fence. This is not the case. We're asking to put our existing 5-ft. fence on an existing retaining wall that runs down the left side of our property. This retaining wall already has holes in it. The height of this retaining wall at its highest part is 10-ft. high and then it graduals down to the end of the property. I'm just asking to put my fence on top of this wall,because I have children that are getting behind the fence and walking along the wall which is a 10-ft. drop into my neighbor's property. Some of my neighbors have asked that I maintain the property 10 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 11 behind my fence where the wall is and I have been maintaining it as far as weeding it. If I get to move my fence on top of this retaining wall, I create a safer environment for my children and I can maintain my property on my side of this fence. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. Dominic Ruggiero of 10 Garit Lane addressed the Board. Mr. Ruggiero said my property backs right up onto 7 Blossom Terrace. First of all, I've reviewed the so called plans submitted. I think the plans are insufficient. All I see is a yellow line along one side of the property. I believe that a profile should be submitted showing the actual height of the fence. It says 15-ft. at the highest. I have no way to know where the 15-ft. is. How does it vary from one end to the other? Secondly, as an engineer I question when you put something that high onto a retaining wall, I want to see the structural components that are going to support that fence. If I have a 15-ft. high fence and it's not properly supported and I get snow drifts and wind against it,the fence is going to overturn. I want to see proper structural supports and how it is to be supported. Thirdly, the people have already started filling in an area in front of that fence. I believe that they should be required to submit a grading plan, how far they plan to fill in, what they plan to do, how they plan to direct the water from draining off of it. I already see two black drainage pipes running from a higher area to a lower area in this area there. Mr. Ruggiero said I believe that insufficient plans have been submitted. I'd like to see sufficient plans submitted first, before this Board gives them a variance at that height. I am a professional engineer, licensed in the State of New York and I do feel that structural and grading plans must be submitted. Thank you. Tom McGuire of 6 Garit Lane addressed the Board. concerned because 7 Blossom Terrace is much more elevated than where my property comes in. My property is approximately 7-ft. to 8-ft. below grade level at the lowest grade level point at 7 Blossom Terrace. I'm concerned about if it's a 15-ft. fence at the lowest point with the 7-ft. difference,that's about 22-ft. of fence I'm looking at. I'd feel like I'm living on the New England Thruway with the sound barriers up. I'm severely concerned about that and whatever runoff comes, will come down to my grade level as opposed to remaining at 7 Blossom Terrace. Those are my concerns. Joseph Spano of 8 Garit Lane addressed the Board. Concerned, seeing a lot of dirt and soil being put into lower areas of that property, a lot of runoff water has been coming down that hill and collecting at the bottom. The Board discussed this application. Mr. Gunther said,if I may suggest that where we go from here,the Board is not ready any decision on this application tonight, as a number Board members need to go back and take another. look at the site. There has also been a request to have a plan that specifically and clearly elucidates what it is you're proposing to do so that we can readily understand what the proposal entails. I think the Building Inspector may want something either in a plan or from your fence person indicating how the proposed fence will be entered from the wall as well. With those three items in mind, I would propose that we adjourn the application for another month. APPLICATION NO. 6—CASE 2584 Application of Renee and Fred Feuerbach requesting a variance to construct an entry porch and 2'/2 story addition on the premises located at 188 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 445. The front entry as proposed has a front yard setback of 19.13 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 24038B(1). The 21/4 story addition as proposed has a 11 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 12 front yard of 27.83 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Robert Motzkin, (applicant's architect) appeared to address the Board. He said this property is a difficult property, it's a corner lot at the intersection of Rockingstone and Valley Road. The building was constructed in 1922 on the lot in violation of the current front yard setback requirement at that time, only on the Rockingstone frontage is he in violation. On the Valley Road frontage there is a variance. After some discussion,Mr. Motzkin said there was also a variance issued for the extension of the garage Mr. Motzkin said addressing the first issue that is the entrance portico, the entrance portico exists now and the owner simply seeks to enclose it to create a vestibule for the residence. The second issue is to expand the residence by adding another bedroom, family room and two baths. The only way to do it is to construct on the Valley Road side of the house an addition, a modest addition, because of the front yard requirements along Valley Road would encroach very little, a small triangular area on the Valley Road yard approximately 2-ft. 2-in. into the yard and that's shown on the drawing as well. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. Mr. Motzkin said that the owner does have letters of support. Mr. Gunther said there are letters that I think all read the same In support the application of Renee and Fred Feuerbach requesting a variance to construct an entry porch and 2'/2 story addition on the premises located at 188 Rockingstone Avenue; from residents at 17 Valley Road, 192 Rockingstone Avenue, 4 Valley Road, 8 Valley Road and 1 Seton Road. On the one for 1 Seton Road they also add in, "The proposed addition enhances the property to the benefit of the neighborhood." Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of October 7,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: 12 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 13 WHEREAS, Renee and Fred Feuerbach have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an entry porch and 2'/2 story addition on the premises located at 188 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 445. The front entry as proposed has a front yard setback of 19.13 ft.where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1). The 21/4 story addition as proposed has a front yard of 27.83 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Renee and Fred Feuerbach submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This is a property that is a corner property,the house is on a point of land,with frontage on both Valley Road and Rockingstone. Under the Zoning Code the property is considered to have two front yards, which has some difficult consequences in trying to conform to the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant here has asked for two variances; one, on the Rockingstone side, is the addition of a decorative portico to provide shelter at the front door. The proposed portico is 4-ft. deep and, of course, is a very small area relative to the frontage of the house on that side. It is a very attractive portico as depicted on the plans submitted, and will enhance the appearance of the house on that side but because of its size and will not materially affect the massing of the building on that side. On the other side of the property the applicant has proposed a 2'/2- story addition. Only a very small triangular section of the addition falls outside of the permitted zoning envelope, so the variance application is only for that small triangle which is a few feet on the side. B The applicants cannot achieve their goals, at least with a normally shaped addition, without being able to protrude that little triangle of structure outside of the zoning envelope. C. Neither of the variances is substantial. The 4-ft. portico is quite small compared to the overall mass of the house, as is the triangular section of addition that has to go outside the permitted zoning envelope. D. The incremental impact of that triangle, compared to the part of the proposed addition that's within the zoning envelope,is negligible. As a consequence,the Board should find that there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 13 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 14 E. This difficulty is not self-created. This is a function of zoning ordinance as applied to this difficult corner property. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7—CASE 2585 Application of Gil Schwartzman requesting a variance to construct a fence on the premises located at 1025 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 326, Lot 1. The fence as erected has a total height of 6 ft. 6 in. where 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-20 Zone District. The Board discussed this application ,and on motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick and unanimously approved, case # 2585 was adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting to be held on October 29,2003 APPLICATION NO. 8—CASE 2586 Application of High Tech Car Wash, LLC requesting renewal of a variance to maintain an awning sign issued November 23, 1999. The awning letters as exist measure 2.0 ft. in height and the awning numerals as exist measure 1.0 ft. in height where 6 in. is the maximum height permitted for awning graphics 14 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 15 pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign Law; and further, the lettering consists of two separate lines where a single line is the maximum permitted for awning lettering pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign Law for a business use in an SB Zone District on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1. Kevin Ryan, the attorney for High Tech Car Wash, LLC, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Ryan said the chairman indicated that High Tech Car Wash is here to renew an area variance previously granted in 1997 and I think renewed twice since then. The car wash is here for its third renewal on a two-year basis. Mr. Ryan said in any event, there have been no changes in position at the car wash since the previous renewal variance. The letters are still the type they were the last time we were here and they deviate from the required sign law the same way. There have been no violations cited against High Tech Car Wash in the last two years as well, and there is really nothing new with respect to this application. The package did include a short form EAF, but Mr. Davis' colleagues noted that the Planning Board had been corrected in that this would be considered a Type II action. At this point,I just ask for Board approval of the renewal. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion. There was none. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of October 7,2003 it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. WHEREAS, this application is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, High Tech Car Wash, LLC requested a renewal of a variance issued November 23, 1999 to maintain an awning sign. The awning letters as exist measure 2.0 ft. in height and the awning numerals as exist measure 1.0 ft. in height where 6 in. is the maximum height permitted for awning graphics pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign Law; and further, the lettering consists of two separate lines where a single line is the maximum for awning lettering pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign 15 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 16 Law for a business use in an SB Zone District on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 175-15C; and WHEREAS, High Tech Car Wash submitted an application for an extension of a variance issued November 23, 1999 to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by Town Law §175-15 and New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The variance does not create any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, as it merely permits the continuance of an existing condition; B. The non-complying condition appears to be the only reasonable alternative, because the awning, which was replaced after storm damage, cost $15,000.00 and the letters cannot be removed without replacing the awning; C. The variance is not substantial; D. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the environment; E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance shall expire two years from the date hereof in accordance with Town Code §175-15(c). A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. 16 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 17 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther advised the applicant to see the Building Department for your building permit. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 9—CASE 2587 Application of Abbey and Steve Moses requesting a variance to install a fence on the premises located at 41 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111, Lot 119. The fence as proposed atop of the existing wall has a total height of approximately 8 ft.where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52 A for a fence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Steve Moses requesting a variance to install a fence 30-in. high on top of a retaining wall. The retaining wall starts at street level and rises to a maximum of 5-ft. high. The retaining wall runs parallel to a concrete driveway. They wish to install the fence to keep their child and the neighborhood children safe. Mr. Moses stated that he wants to use a fence that will blend well with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of October 7,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Abbey and Steve Moses have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install a fence on the premises located at 41 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111, Lot 119. The fence as proposed atop of the existing wall has a total height of approximately 8 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-7.5 Zone District; and 17 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 18 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-52A; and WHEREAS, Abbey and Steve Moses submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The fence is the minimum height for safety reasons for their child. This is a 3- ft. height, given the configuration of the property slope to the land, it will be almost impossible to put a fence above the highest point of the retaining wall at 5-ft. and the grade on the driveway side without having any fence there in fact. Any fence would necessitate a variance at 3-ft., and also looking at the building code from protection from falling into a void space, 3-ft. is the minimum required to relieve the applicants' problem without a driveway. B. Given the topography of the land, the driveway, the retaining wall,there is no other way that the applicant can achieve that. The applicant has demonstrated that he has planted rather substantial density bushes there and it did not relieve the problem. C. Given that the retaining wall goes from 5-ft.to 0-ft. and the height of the fence that is allowed is a 5-ft. high fence and the differential at the highest point is 8-ft. a small area of the length of the fence, the Board does not find that this is offensive. D. There are many fences in the community that are 5-ft. or 6-ft. or 7-ft. given the condition that this will not be a detriment to the community. E In this case the condition that this applicant faces was not created by the applicant, but was created possibly by the builder that built the house, and the applicant is trying to correct the mistake that was made. If it was created by the contractor that built the house, whether it was self-created, that is not dispositive in any event. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. 18 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 19 NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther said before any discussion or seconding, I just want to be sure that all have seen a card, I think there is a post card that was received in the mail as follows: Dear Mr. Gunther: The 5 ft. height limit in total including a wall,pursuant to Section 240-52 for a fence in an R-7.5 Zone District should not be exceeded. I would not want this variance allowed. Sincerely,William Byrne at 19 Villa Road. At this point, Mr. Gunther asked if there was a second on this application whereby Mr. Winick seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Gunther advised the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for your building permit. Mr. Gunther then read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 10—CASE 2588 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pisani requesting a variance to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 128 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 267. The deck as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft. 1 in.where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); a total side yard of 22 ft. 5 in. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(b); and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Mike Csenge, (applicant's architect) appeared to address the Board. He said the proposal is for a wood deck to the rear of the house aligning with the existing right side of the house. The house is nonconforming, the existing house sets back 6.8-ft.; the proposed deck is a setback of 6-ft. 1-in. where 10-ft. is required. Mr. Csenge stated they were not adding any new impervious surfaces, or new roof top. We're purely extending the deck in line with the existing house. The deck would be elevated with wood lattice underneath for screening. After further discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. 19 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 20 The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of October 7,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pisani have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 128 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 267. The deck as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft. 1 in. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); a total side yard of 22 ft. 5 in. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pisani submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The addition of the deck, which is in line with the existing main dwelling will, in part, replace an existing covered patio. The area of the property in question is generally lower than the surrounding neighbors and/or screened by vegetation. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via any other alternative that would be less intrusive. 20 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 21 C. While the variance is substantial, the residence is already nonconforming due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There appears to be no indication the addition of the deck will cause additional significant runoff or other undesirable results. As we have had no communications from the surrounding neighbors, there appears that they have noted no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or area. E. This is not a self-created difficulty. The structure is already nonconforming, due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPROVAL OF MINUTES NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board will be held on October 29,2003. ADJOURNMENT 21 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 22 On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Prepared by Francine M.Brill 22 Zoning Board October 7,2003 Page 23 These appeals are taken under Article XII Section 77 of the Zoning Ordinance adopted June 29, 1959, entitled"Board of Appeals". All persons interested in the above applications are invited to attend the meeting at which time they will be given an opportunity to be heard. Plans for the above cases may be inspected at the Office of the Building Inspector at the Town Center, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck,New York during regular business hours. This notice is sent to all property owners within a 400-foot radius of each new application. NEW SAMPLE ZBA MINUTE FORMAT 8/12/02 Date: Application/Case Number: Agenda Item/Public Notice: Remarks(a discussion took place regarding this matter;(include information from Notice of Disapproval): The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther Linda S.Harrington Jillian A.Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A.Winick Contents of Certification(when finalized): If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of(include date),it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. 23