HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_10_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
OCTOBER 26, 2011 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
AGENDA
APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2888 Paul Feldman
Application of Paul Feldman requesting a variance to construct a garage and master bedroom addition on the prem-
ises located at 6 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot
422.
APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO. 2889 Snyder/Ceballos
Application of Snyder/Ceballos requesting a variance to construct a one story addition at the rear of the dwelling and
a second floor addition over the existing first floor on the premises located at 61 West Garden Road and known on
the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 51.
APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2890 Michael Witek
Application of Michael Witek requesting a variance to construct a second floor on the existing house on the premises
located at 716 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot
211.
APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2891 Herbert Meyers
Application of Herbert Meyers requesting a variance to install a 14 KW standby generator on the premises located at
7 Meadow Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of The Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 231.
APPLICATION NO. 5 Case No.2892 Saul Rueda
Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fourth and fifth apartment in a legal three fami-
ly residence on the premises located at 38 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Ma-
maroneck as Block 130, Lot118.
APPLICATION NO. 6 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda
Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fifth apartment in a legal four family residence
on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 130, Lot128.
APPLICATION NO. 7 Case No.2894 Stefan Magel
Application of Stefan Magel requesting a variance to legalize an existing basement powder room, and elevated deck
on the premises located at 10 Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 121 Lot 540.
APPLICATION NO. 8 Case No.2895 Frank and Joanne DeCabia
Application of Frank and Joanne DeCabia requesting a variance extension on the premises located at 19 Cabot Road
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125 Lot 465.2.
1
ROLL CALL
Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister
Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel , David Fishman, Liaison.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m.
Chairman Wexler explained the there are only four Board member present and an applicant would need three votes
in favor to pass, If any applicant wishes to adjourn for a full Board to hear the application they may do so. No one
spoke.
Application No. 8 Case No. Francis and Joanne DeCabia—19 Cabot Road
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Mrs. DeCabia addressed the Board requesting an extension to a previously granted variance, as they now have a
contractor and are ready to proceed with the construction.
Mr.Wexler asked how much of an extension is required.
Mrs. DeCabia responded due to the time of year they would not be able to start construction until early spring.
Mr. Ryan stated the extension is for the purpose of obtaining building permits, the Board can extend the time periods
as long as nothing has changed.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Motion: To extend the variance for one more year for the building permit to be obtained, and two years to complete
the project.
2
Action: Approved
Moved by Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Mr. Baron then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Meister and the following resolution was ADOPTED by a
vote of 4 in favor and one absent.
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application to the Building Inspector on April 2, 2008, together with
plans to construct a single-family home on the premises located at 19 Cabot Road and Municipal Parking Lot#1 and
known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125, Lot 465.2(the"Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within an R-6 District as defined in the Town of Mamaroneck
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,on May 9,2008 the Building Inspector issued a denial of Applicant's permit on the grounds that the
plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance because(i)the lot as presented has a
lot width and street line frontage of 50.24 feet where 60 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39A(2); (ii)the proposed
one-family dwelling and driveway have a lot coverage of 36.5%where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; (iii)
the proposed driveway has a 0 foot set back from the side yard lot line where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-
79B; (iv)the driveway does not have the sufficient depth to park vehicles more than 25 feet from the front property line,
also pursuant to Section 240-79B; and
WHEREAS,on May 14,2008 the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for area variances; and
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2009 the Building Inspector issued another disapproval on the grounds that the plans
submitted fail to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance because the parcel in question is an
undersized lot pursuant to Section 240-39.A(1) and, according to Section 240-70A of the Zoning Code, in order for a
building permit to be issued for the development of an undersized lot, it must have been in single and separate
ownership status at the time of the adoption of Chapter 240 or any amendment thereto, and the parcel in question was
not held in single or separate ownership on such date; and
WHEREAS, after publication of notice, this Board has held public hearings for the application on the following
dates:June 25, 2008, May 27, 2009,June 30,2009, July 22, 2009, September 10,2009; October 26,2011, and
WHEREAS, because the Applicant has modified its plans so that the proposed house will cover 32%of the lot;
the variance from Section 240-39F for lot coverage is no longer requested; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to reduce runoff,the Applicant has modified its plans so that the proposed driveway will
be constructed of gravel rather than concrete or asphalt; and
WHEREAS, the proposed driveway shall be coterminous with the existing driveway at 19 Cabot Road and will
require an easement from the owner of the property located at 19 Cabot Road; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the front yard lot line of the Subject Property is obstructed by an existing guardrail; and
WHEREAS, a separate driveway is not possible because the Town has refused to grant the Applicant's request
to remove the existing guardrail; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has presented evidence that the Subject Property has had a history of flooding
problems due to its low elevation relative to surrounding land; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant owns a tax lot which is improved with a single-family house adjacent to the
Subject Property, having an address of 19 Cabot Road (the"Adjacent Parcel"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has presented evidence that the Adjacent Parcel also has had a history of flooding
problems due to its low elevation relative to the surrounding land;
WHEREAS, runoff from Cabot road drains into two 48-inch storm water pipes at the base of Cabot Road that
run under 1-95; and
3
WHEREAS, the Applicant's engineer testified that the runoff that would be generated by construction of the
proposed house can be accommodated by existing offsite infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's engineer proposed to address flooding and drainage issues on the Subject
Property and the Adjacent Parcel, by raising the yard elevations of both lots to greater than historic flood levels and
constructing drainage swales on the Subject Property(the"Proposed Drainage Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, Chapter 240, Section 70.A provides, in pertinent part, that a permit may be issued for any lot
existing in single separate ownership as of the date of the adoption of this chapter or any amendment thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Adjacent Parcel and the Subject Property came into common ownership on or about July
15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 240 was amended on June 21, 2006 and other dates subsequent to the date that the
Subject Property and the Adjacent Parcel came into common ownership; and
WHEREAS, Section 240-89.D(4)(b) provides that on "appeal from an order, requirement, decision or
determination of the [building inspector] ... regarding the application of this chapter, the Board of Appeals may grant
to an applicant an area variance from the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions"; and
WHEREAS, the New York Town Law Section 267-1(b) defines "area variance" as "the authorization by the
zoning board of appeals or the use of land in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical
requirements of the applicable zoning regulations"; and
WHEREAS, Section 240-89.D(3) provides that "area variance" shall have the same meaning as it has in
New York Town Law Section 267-1(b); 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 with respect to the following variances, as identified and described above (hereinafter
referred to collectively as the"Variances"):
(i) To vary the lot width requirements of Section 240-39A(2) to allow a lot width and street
frontage of 50.24 feet where 60 feet is required;
(ii)To vary the requirements of Section 240-79B to allow the proposed driveway to have a 0 foot
set back from the side yard lot line where 5 feet is required;
(iii) To vary the requirements of Section 240-79B to allow the proposed driveway to have less
than the sufficient depth to park vehicles more than 25 feet from the front property line;
(iv)To vary the requirements of Section 240-39.A(1)to allow lot area of 5,200 square feet where
6,000 square feet is required; and
(v)To vary the prohibition stated in Section 240-70A against issuing a permit to erect a building
on an undersized lot that is not in single and separate ownership as of the date of the adoption of
Chapter 240 or any amendment thereto.
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the Applicant from the granting of the Variances 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance:
The Board finds that the development of a single-family house on the Subject Property is
consistent with the neighborhood character of Cabot Road, which contains several other
similarly sized homes on non-conforming lots. The Board also finds that because Cabot
Road is a relatively small road and not a through street, the proposed construction will not
create any traffic or circulation problems.As such, the Board finds that the Variances will not
result in an undesirable change to nearby properties.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to
the applicants other than an area variance:
4
The Board finds that due to physical constraints in the location of the Subject Property and
because of the Town's guardrail adjacent to the Subject Property, any single-family home
constructed on the Subject Property would require a driveway with a zero side yard setback.
In addition, the Board notes that the Applicant reduced the size of the proposed house to
eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. Due to the configuration of the lot, the
requested variances for lot area, lot width and street frontage are necessary to allow the
construction of any single-family home on the Subject Property.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The Board finds that the Variances are not substantial because the proposed house is
similar to other houses in the neighborhood and the requested deviations in lot area, lot
width and street frontage are not substantial from an absolute or percentage perspective.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:
The Board finds that the existing drainage infrastructure combined with Applicant's proposed
drainage plan is sufficient to absorb any increase in runoff generated by the proposed
construction. Further, the Applicant's proposal to reduce lot coverage from that originally
requested, as well as the proposal to construct a gravel driveway will mitigate runoff. In
addition, the Board also finds that because Cabot Road is a relatively small road and not a
through street, the proposed construction will not create any significant traffic or circulation
problems. As such, the Board finds that the application will not result in an adverse impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. In addition, according to
testimony of the Applicant, construction of the new home will finance improvements to
mitigate severe drainage problems affecting the Subject Property as well as the Adjacent
Parcel,which is developed with a single-family home.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
The Board finds that although the difficulty relating to the dimensional aspects is self-
created, this factor is not determinative. Furthermore, the drainage difficulties affecting the
Subject Property as well as the built house on the Adjacent Parcel appear to have been
created in part by the Town's storm sewer system upstream of the Subject Property. The
drainage solution proposed by the Applicant is a costly and effective mitigation proposal that
will not involve taxpayer dollars.
2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of these Variances 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.
3. For the reasons stated above, these Variances are 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.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Variances be and the same are GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or
modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant at the
September 10, 2009 meeting of the Board.
a. The system for handling increased runoff from the 1,692 square feet of impervious surface
must be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm.
2. The Adjacent Parcel (i.e., the property located at 19 Cabot Road) shall grant an easement to the
Subject Property, in a form acceptable to counsel to this Board, for development and use of a
proposed driveway that shall be coterminous with the existing driveway at the Adjacent Parcel.
3. The Applicant shall submit plans, including stormwater plans for both the Subject Property and the
Adjacent Parcel, reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of
the Director of Building and/or the Town Engineer prior to the granting of the building permit.
a. No Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until the Proposed Drainage
Improvements are completed, or, at the discretion of the Director of Building of the Town of
Mamaroneck, a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for the new
5
building on the Subject Property, provided that a bond in an amount to be determined by
the Director of Building is provided to the Town of Mamaroneck to ensure the completion
of the Proposed Drainage Improvements.
4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one (1) year of the filing of this Resolution,
provided that, at the discretion of the Director of Building, this time period may be extended to the
extent permitted by law.
5. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one (1) year and completed
within two (2) years of the date of said permit, provided that, at the discretion of the Director of
Building, this time period may be extended to the extent permitted by law.
6. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as
conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Application No. 1 Case No.2888 Feldman -6 East Drive
Continuation of the Public Hearing
Donald Z. Schwetter, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating he listened to the Boards comments and
concerns and returned with a smaller scale request. He entered a letter from a neighbor across the street into the
record marked Exhibit 1 in support of the plan. He further explained that he pushed the structure back from the road
2 feet at the north side of the house. Also reducing the size of the master bedroom and lowering the roof.
The Board discussed the elevation, and discussed at what point it would not be a viable project. Mr. Schwetter stat-
ed that this would be when the patio is"in a hole"and there is no view of the side yard.
Mr.Wexler stated his belief that the original developer of the property wanted a street presence. He added that the
Board needs to balance the applicant's needs and preserve the neighborhood. Mr. Schwetter stated that the house
is nonconforming and 14 feet from the street, whereas Mr.Wexler responded the house would not be allowed to be
built today.
Drawing A7 and Page 4 of the photos was discussed, as well as the stake lines.
Mr.Wexler asked for photos of the rear of the house.
The applicant Paul Feldman addressed the Board stating the concept of taking the garage and pushing it back fur-
ther will make the driveway longer and they will loose the side yard. There is basically no rear yard. He stated that he
considered building under the living room, but is convinced that that alternative is not viable. He added that the patio
will be too enclosed if the house is pushed back.
Mr. Ryan asked for clarification as to which view will be obscured from the north side rear yard if the garage is
pushed back from the street.
The applicant requested an adjournment to discuss the matter with his architect.
Motion: To grant a temporary adjournment
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
6
APPLICATION NO.2 Case No.2889 Snyder/Ceballos --61 West Garden Road
Continuation of the public hearing
Michael Csenge, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the revised plan.
The Board discussed lot coverage, which was reduced by the removal of the enclosed walls. The variance for lot
coverage is no longer required.
Mr. Ryan stated, if the lot coverage has been reduced and is now conforming, the issue is no longer a zoning ques-
tion and is instead covered by the Erosion Law.
Ms. O'Neill reminded everyone she is recused.
Mr. Csenge stated he is now only requesting a side yard variance. He showed photos of the rear of the house.
There were no public comments or questions.
The applicant requested a non binding straw poll.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Ronald Meister, seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
WHEREAS, the applicants, Mr. Snyder and Ms. Ceballos, requested a variance to construct a one story
addition at the rear of dwelling and a second floor addition over the existing first floor.
WHEREAS, The Building Inspector 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 Section240-37(3)and 240-
69.
WHEREAS, the Director of Building has confirmed that the applicants'voluntary reduction in the percentage
of lot coverage associated with the proposed improvement eliminates the necessity for a lot coverage variance;
WHEREAS, the 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 public hearing thereon.
7
WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR
§617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance.
The Board finds that the variance requested will not cause an undesirable change to the
neighborhood as the addition will intrude only 7 inches into the side yard setback and will
not be noticeable from offsite.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to
the applicants other than an area variance
The Board finds that the placement of the house prevents the applicant from a feasible al-
ternative.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the 7 inch intrusion into the setback is not substantial.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environ-
mental conditions in the neighborhood.
The Board finds that the addition will not cause an adverse impact on the neighborhood as
it will not increase light, noise or runoff, nor will it be noticeable from offsite.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
The Board finds that although the applicants'difficulty in this case is self-created, this fac-
tor is not determinative in the circumstances presented.
2. For reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and in-
tent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or oth-
erwise detrimental to the public welfare.
3. For reasons stated above, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions;
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or
modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant.
2. As part of any application for a building permit in connection with this approval, the Applicant shall
submit plans for the review and approval of the Director of Building reflecting any conditions or
modifications required by the Board as a condition of this approval.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution.
4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months.
8
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as
conditioned or modified pursuant to direction of the Board.
Application No. 1 Feldman—6 East Drive(resumed)
The applicant requested an adjournment. The Board asked the applicant to lessen the bulk of the proposed addition.
Mr. Fishman, the Town Board Liason stated the missing Board member may not be back and there is no alternative
at present.
Motion: To adjourn the matter
Action: Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 3).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister.
Abstain: Irene O'Neill,
Absent: Seth Marcus
Application No. 7 Case No.2894 Stefan Magel --10 Dimitri Place
The Building inspector stated that the public notice was incorrect. The applicant's architect Mr. Csenge requested the
matter be adjourned.
Application No. 3 Case No.2890 Paul Witek --716 Forest Avenue
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
James Fleming,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Stating the houses in area have short side yards.
The cottage is adding 4 modest bedrooms on second floor.
The plans were made available to neighbors. Letters from 750 Forest Ave, 721 Forest Ave. 719 Forest Ave., 717
Forest, in support were entered into the record marked Exhibit 7.
Chairman Wexler stated the width of lot brings it to R-6 Zone which is substandard. In his view, the minimum re-
quired side yard can be reduced from an R10 zone to an R-6. The house has presently has side yards of 7 feet and
7.1 feet.
A schematic was entered into the record marked Exhibit 8
9
Mr. Fleming showed a photo board and topo map. Stating the relative heights of the houses results in a minimal the
shadow effect, as there is probably about 8 feet difference in elevation. Therefore, in his opinion, there will be no
significant loss of sun on the neighbor's house. Mr. Fleming and the Board further discussed the shadow effect of the
addition on the neighbor's home.
Public comments
Joe Fernandez, the architect for the Blacks, 718 Forest Avenue, stated he brought his own pictures and he stated the
design is not appropriate for the area. He stated a concern about the accuracy of the lot coverage. If the Blacks
were to fully utilize their property and add to their home, the entire addition would be shaded as the applicant's home
is already too close to their property.
Mr. Ryan asked if the photo presented by Mr. Fernandez is a composite. Mr. Fernandez responded yes. The photo
was entered into the record marked exhibit 9.
Board discussed the application, they Looked at page A2 and asked about modifications.
Photos and chart handed out to Board, showing differences in neighboring home styles, marked Exhibit 10.
Joe Fernandez stated the applicant's are living in the house and have bedrooms and asked why the second floor
mass which is affecting his client necessary.
The applicants asked for a temporary adjournment.
Motion: To temporarily adjourn
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Application No. 4 Case No.2891 Herbert Meyers --7 Meadow Place
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Herbert Meyers, the applicant, stated that he has a generator that was in the basement when he purchased the home
and would locate a new generator outside in his yard.
Dean DeFeo, the applicant's contractor, showed the proposed location in the front yard stating there is no other fea-
sible location. The applicant selected the front yard facing Meadow Place. If the generator is located in the rear it will
not be near the service panel and will be near the screened porch. The proposed location for the new generator is a
2X4 foot area 3 1/2 feet from the house. The face of the generator will be 5 feet from the southwest corner of the
house.
10
Public questions or comments.
Gail Heiler, of 1 Meadow Place, the neighbor on the left of the applicant's addressed the Board, stating the Meyers
are good neighbors, but that the house has had a previous variance and the plantings that were required for that var-
iance are dead. The yards is water logged. The screened porch use to be a deck before a variance. She asked that
the Board look at the proposed location of the generator and any possible noise impact that might come with it.
The Board discussed the application and requested the applicant return with a site plan and a sound mitigation plan.
The Board also requested copies of the existing variance for the subject property.
Motion: To adjourn the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Application No. 3 Case No 2890 Michael Witek (reconvened)
Mr. Fleming, the architect, explained the reduction to the rear protrusion showing it on both the elevation drawing A3
and plan A2. The rear bedroom would be smaller but usable. The plan was showed to both the Blacks and Mr. Fer-
nandez.
Mr. Fernandez stated that the existing ridge line side elevation on A3 will cause a shadow, as the house takes up a
good part of the lot. Mr. Black stated that since the beginning of this application all he and his wife have asked for is
compromise from the applicant. He claims that the applicant has not offered any compromise. He added that a room
in the basement that has been converted to a bedroom.
Mr. Fleming asked for a non binding poll of the Board.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Mr. Meister asked if the Board can act on this application as described. Mr. Ryan stated that an approval could be
fashioned, but it would have to be strictly in accordance with the plan changes discussed between the applicant and
the Board. He added that an approval could make reference to the discussed plan revisions and require any plans to
be submitted for a building permit to reflect such plan revisions to the satisfaction of the Director of Building.
The Chairman asked the applicant to return with an amended plan.
On motion duly made the application was briefly adjourned.
Application No. 5 Case No.2892 Rueda--38 Lester Place
11
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Ronald Meister.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Lawrence Engle, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board stating at present there are 7 apartments in a legal
three????family residence. The owner Mr. Rueda purchased the building as it presently exists 14 years ago.Ac-
cording to Mr. Engle, 2 units are in the process of being removed. 1 unit in the basement of the back building will be
vacated and returned to garage space. The kitchen in that space will be removed, but the bathroom will remain. The
upstairs apartment in the garage is legal. The attic is storage. The apartment has 3 bedrooms a kitchen and no living
room.
The main house presently has 5 units. The applicant intends to remove one basement unit.
Mr. Zapata, the applicant's architect, stated that the idea is to renovate the main building. The basement unit present-
ly has a dining room, living room and bedroom. That apartment would be joined with one apartment on the first floor
by making a stair case to connect both. The plans call for two bedrooms on the first floor and a family room in the
basement. Unit#3 on the first floor has a living room, kitchen, and bedroom and will remain unchanged.
Mr. Reuda agreed with this description.
Further, according to Mr. Zapata, units#4 and 5 on the second floor will remain the same. The drawings show the
existing layout.
Mr. Engle repeated the building is exactly as it was when purchased 14 years ago. There are several multi-family
homes in area. In Mr. Engle's opinion,this is not a self-created hardship. He argued that legally it is permitted as a
3 family??? residence and at some point it was listed as a legal nonconforming 4 family dwelling unit. Mr. Engle
noted that the Building Department file is incomplete.
Mr. Ryan stated the prior legal nonconformity allowing 4 units at 38 must be proved by the applicant.
Mr. Carpaneto stated that the term"nonconforming"in the Building Department files is in reference to the fact that the
buildings are in a two family zone.
Mr. Engle stated he can't give exact dates as to the levels of occupancy at the property because some of the work
there may have been done without permits. He said the structures may be 70 years old.
Mr. Baron stated that would make it nonconforming the question is the legal status. The Board needs to see docu-
ments being discussed.
Mr. Engle stated that the applicant would not be able to get a reasonable return if he only had 3 units his loss would
be over$8,000.00 per year.
Mr. Ryan stated that the criteria for a use variance are difficult to meet. For the Board to act, it needs a great deal
more information: each number must be supported by documentation, such as, purchase price, appraised value, mor-
tage, rent stream and operating cost as well as comparables in area.
The Board discussed the application and Mr.Wexler requested the opportunity to present revised plans showing the
proposed changes to the buildings.
Mr. Ryan stated that the hardship to the applicant is self-created inasmuch as the structure was acquired as it pres-
ently is, unless there is some factor that the Board is not aware of.
Mr. Engle stated the applicant would rather answer the threshold use variance questions first, before incurring the
expense of architect drawings.
12
Mr. Rueda stated that when he bought the building the seven electric meters were there.
Public questions and comments.
Mike Chairtou, the developer of the property behind 38 Lester Place has been asking Mr. Rueda to clean up. The
Board answered that they have no jurisdiction that is a code enforcement matter.
Chris Bourdain, of Lafayette Street directly behind both 30&38 Lester Place, stated that he knows the property has
been this way since before 1994. He feels the new single family residences on Varela Lane are more nonconforming
to the area. He further stated that Lester a good street and he would not like to see people kicked out, but he is wor-
ried about safety.
Mr.Wexler stated that the building must comply with NYS building code there are a lot of standards the building must
meet.
Mr. Baron stated the Board must consider the legal criteria for a use variance. To which Mr. Bourdain responded he
would not like to see people lose their home.
The applicant asked for an adjournment.
Motion: To adjourn the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
Application No. 6 Case No.2893 30 Lester Place
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes = 3).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister.
Absent: Seth Marcus, Irene O'Neill.
Mr. Engle, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board stating there are presently 7 units they are vacating 2
apartments and requesting to legalize the fifth apartment.
The legal issues will be addressed.
Mr. Baron asked if there is anything else special that distinguishes 30 Lester from 38 Lester.
Mr. Engles stated that if the applicant can show sufficient parking for the fifth unit it should be considered.
Mr. Ryan asked if the parking space for the fifth unit would be located on site and asked for a drawing how the park-
ing will be accommodated.
13
Mr.Wexler stated if an area variance for the space would be required it would be an additional area variance.
Public Comments
Alex Pappalardi, of 26 Lester Place, opposed the requested use variance because parking is bad and the tenants of
30 Lester Place park on the street. He suggests that Mr. Rueda should have the spaces assigned to specific apart-
ments as his tenants park on the street now. He believes that increasing the square footage of an apartment will
increase the amount of people living there and the number of cars can increase.
Keith Mcksoud, of 38 Lester Place, stated he just received permit parking in 2010; parking is not a problem. People
from New Rochelle are the ones parking on the street.
Motion: To adjourn the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes =4).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron.
Next Meeting is scheduled for December 5, 2011
Minutes prepared by
Francine M. Brill
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
14