HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_02_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
FEBRUARY 29,2000,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman
Jillian A.Martin
J.Rene Simon
Arthur Wexler ��
Paul A.Winick
Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Esq.,Counsel 'L v
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building ta-1 ,:�
Nancy Seligson,Liaison Z���
M21 11
Barbara Terranova,Public Stenographer grit\,;c% �
II Terranova,Kazaz s&Associates,Ltd. t "Qn,
49 Eighth Street s 11 <,4'
New Rochelle,New York 10801 ��
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m.
Mr.Gunther informed those present that the previous Minutes will be reviewed at the end of the meeting.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2365(adjourned 9/23/99;10/27/99;11/23/99;1/5/00;1/26/00)
Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize the erection of an existing
air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard
of 7.64 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone
District on the premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 503,Lot 652.
Mr.Gunther informed those present that this application has been adjourned. He also said that an expert
on sound and noise will be present at the next meeting in relation to the impact of air conditioning units
as it relates case#2365 and others. Therefore,case#2365 is adjourned to the next meeting.
The secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2375(adjourned 11/23/99;1/5/00;1/26/00)
Application of Stand Development Corporation/Steven Silverstein requesting a variance to construct a one-
family dwelling. The lot on which the proposed one family dwelling is to be built upon,has a lot width
of 79.12 ft.and a frontage of 97.0 ft.where 100.0 ft.is the required lot width and where 100.0 ft.is the
required frontage pursuant to Section 240-36A(2) for a building lot in an R-15 Zone District on the
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 2
" ' premises located at 208 Mulberry Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 448.
Jeff Meighan,the attorney for Stand Development,appeared. He stated when they were present at the last
meeting, they were waiting for the Malcolm Pimie review of the Morganroth drainage report. He
informed the Board that Mr.Morganroth is also present this evening. Mr.Meighan said the Malcolm
Pimie report was submitted to the Board. It appears to say that the drainage report is adequate and made
some suggestions as to protections to be taken during actual construction. The project is in the building
permit stage. Mr.Meighan said they are quite willing to live up to the suggestions made. If there are any
questions on the drainage issue,Mr.Morganroth will address those issues.
Mr.Gunther asked if any of the Board members have any questions on the Malcolm Pimie drainage report.
He stated that Malcolm Pimie is the independent environmental engineer and consultant.and the consultant
company who handles review of soil erosion and plans of that nature. He asked if there were any
comments from Board members.
Mr.Wexler said at the last meeting when reviewing the drainage control plan,he drew in a trench drain
at the bottom of the driveway and a dry well. Ile asked if the drawing is updated to indicate that.
Bill Morganroth,the engineer for the project,addressed that issue. Mr.Morganroth said he had stated
they had taken additional water into the drainage system,so that the net runoff from the site would not be
increased because they are picking up the water from the back. They will be glad to put in a dry well if
the Town gives permission to do so,because any dry well will have to be below the ledge that is shown
on the drawings and is in the right-of-way.
Mr.Wexler said that is if it is kept on the Town side.
After some discussion,Mr.Morganroth said on the other side it is uphill.
Mr.Wexler said he thought they could put a trench drain at the property line.
Mr.Morganroth said it has to lead somewhere.
Mr.Wexler asked why it can't go horizontally into a dry well.
Mr.Morganroth said there are retaining walls coming down to the property line,the grade is at 98 on the
upper side of the driveway and the driveway at the property line is 94. They would have to be down 6
ft.to 8 ft.without hitting rock in order to put something in.
Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Carpaneto if it was alright to pick up additional drainage from the rear and allow
the driveway to drain.
Mr.Carpaneto said as long as the net result is zero.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions on the Malcolm Picnic drainage report. There were
none.
Mr.Meighan said that the Board had asked him to submit written material on the five categories the Board
considers,which he has done. He said there was a question of looking into some shrubbery or lessening
of the impact on the three properties directly affected;that being the former Kalmanash residence,Mr.
Tiebout's property and Mr.Roniger's property. Mr.Meighan asked Mr.Silverstein to address that lame.
Stephen Silverstein said the Neuman, the individuals that live across the street whose intent it is to
purchase the house,reached out to Mr.Tiebout and had a meeting with him to discuss the possibilities of
doing some screening in the back of his house. They proposed some solid screening with evergreens,
Zoning Board
• February 29,2000
Page 3
preferably flowering screening that would be more seasonal which would be terraced. He explained the
procedure that would be used. He said he also met with Mr.Roniger and talked about screening along the
left-hand property line,doing the rear yard,which would screen the outdoor living space of the house to
be built or screening the entire property line along the house and rear yard. Mr. Silverstein said he
currently has a substantial buffer,but would be willing to discuss this further. Mr.Silverstein said he tried
to reach the individuals in the Kalmanash house to no avail. Mrs.Neuman also tried to reach them to no
avail. He said he called the people in the rear,the Levys,and will be happy to meet with them as well.
Mr. Gunther asked if Mr.Silverstein knew the distance between the proposed property/house and the
Roniger house.
Mr.Silverstein said it is between 65 ft.and 75 ft.between the buildings. The rear of his house is a 15
ft.elevation above the back yard of the proposed house to be built. When they spoke about screening the
house,any screening put in will only screen the first floor level unless some mature trees are used. He
reiterated,there is currently a substantial buffer.
Mr.Gunther asked the distance to the Tiebout house.
Mr.Silverstein said he did not know that distance.
Mr.Gunther said on the plans it shows 15 ft.from the house to the property line.
Mr.Silverstein said he is probably 40 ft.,which is the nearest corner to the house. His property line might
be slightly closer. There is a stone wall on the property line and they are going to erect another stone wall
to carry the drainage. They can do some terrace screening,possible two sets of flowering screening.
They can also do some heavy evergreen screening right on his property,but that might enclose the deck
too much.
Mr.Gunther asked if he had come to an agreement of methods with the neighbors,to reduce impact on
the two adjoining properties.
Mr.Silverstein said no. He stated they are within a monetary budget and will do whatever they can.
A discussion ensued regarding the position of Mr.Roniger's house and the proposed new house.
Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Silverstein sees any other variances that will be needed to construct the proposed
house.
Mr.Silverstein said there is a 3 ft.variance on the frontage,and a 12 ft.variance on the width.
A discussion then ensued regarding the height of the retaining walls.
Mr.Silverstein said he will discuss the height of the retaining wall with the Building Inspector if deemed
unsafe.
After further discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said if the wall is in excess of 8 ft.,a variance is required.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions.
Mr.Wexler asked what variance the applicant is seeking.
Mr.Silverstein said they need 100 ft.frontage and they have 97 ft. The width they need is 100 ft.and
they have 79*ft.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 4
Mr.Wexler said at the site today,marked out in green paint,was the outline of where the retaining wall
is going to be and the driveway.
Mr.Silverstein said he estimated from the site plan where he thought the driveway cut was going to into
the property.
Mr.Wexler said Mr.Silverstein is showing a 20 ft.wide driveway.
Mr.Silverstein said he probably marked out less width,at which time a discussion ensued regarding the
width.
Mr.Wexler said the left-hand green marker is close to the rock ledge,one of the beautiful aspects of the
property being close to the street. As an enhancement to the property,the natural rock self should not be
disturbed. He said Mr.Silverstein is showing a 20 ft.wide driveway,which is very generous.
Mr.Silverstein said he can see going down to 17 ft.and then flaring it out to 20 ft.
Mr.Wexler said the drawing on the drainage control plan is different than the survey that is on the site
plan and said the right-hand comer is closer than 5 ft.to the property line of the adjacent property.
A discussion ensued regarding this aspect.
Mr.Silverstein said when Mr.Morganroth was hired,he redesigned it.
A discussion ensued regarding the requirement on a side lot line.
Mr.Morganroth said he will redraw that line and make the driveway narrower,explaining how it can be
done.
Mr.Meighan said they have the 5 ft.elsewhere.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,Mr.
Gunther stated that Mr.Meighan answered the questions raised and presented information regarding the
questions raised. He thanked him and asked if he had anything further to say.
Mr.Meighan bad nothing further to say.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public on this application.
Bill Spellman,of 197 Mulberry Lane,addressed the Board. With respect to one of the questions asked
of Mr.Meighan at the last hearing,he had submitted a writing addressing the concerns. Mr.Spellman
asked if there is an opportunity to respond to the writing Mr.Meighan submitted and if there a deadline
for submission.
Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Spellman had a copy of the writing submitted and if he would like a copy.
Mr.Spellman said he did not have a copy and would like one.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Meighan to supply a copy of the writing to Mr.Spellman.
Mr.Spellman asked if there was a time limit to respond.
Mr.Gunther said the Board will probably hear all of the comments this evening. The Board will probably
want to discuss a sense of its direction and will then direct counsel to draft an appropriate resolution to be
voted on at the next meeting.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
• Page 5
Mr.Carpaneto asked if the wall portion will have to be renoticed.
Mr.Wexler suggested continuing the matter to the next meeting and address the variance issue that is
known. If it proceeds to be a viable project,then address the potential variances and get them all into one;
the wall,the 5 ft.at a point that is not along the property line,and the benefit to neighborhood to maintain
that rock shelf. It is an attractive natural rock outcropping. The driveway needs to be moved closer to
that point and not further away from it putting them in a position to have to chop out that nice rock. Mr.
Wexler would like that addressed at the next meeting.
Mr.Winick said in terms of considering the effect of the impact on the adjoining properties,in fairness
to the applicant and neighbors that is something that has to be expressed and included in the resolution.
What he would like to see at the next meeting,is an actual concrete proposal for remediation as conditions
of the variance. The proposal is for the Tiebout and Roniger residence on the side line of the property.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments on the application.
John Tiebout,of 48 Stoneyside Drive,addressed the Board. He said at the last meeting he made a casual
reference to his willingness to buy at least half of the property in question. He wants to be more formal
about his willingness to do that. He tried to contact Mr.Canei,the gentleman who bought the Kalmanash
residence and adjacent property,but has been unable to reach him as he is traveling in Japan. Therefore,
he does not know his willingness to buy the other half. So that the Board knows,the decision isn't
between this and nothing. There is the other alternative and he is more firm in his desire to move forward
with that than he was at the last meeting.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application.
Harriet Barrish,of 209 Mulberry Lane,addressed the Board. She said she thinks some of the properties
next to and behind the proposal were mentioned,but she lives in the house across the street. The very
large retaining wall and very large driveway is what she would be looking at. Although there was some
thoughts from the builder about some shrubbery behind,she is not sure that the neighbors agreed to it as
yet. There is still a large impact on her home that can't really be shielded,should this move forward.
In addition,she does have some concern about the angle at which the driveway comes in and the impact
that might mean on the angle at which the cars would have to come into the land;coming into the ongoing
traffic to turn around up into the driveway. She also has additional concerns should this go through about
how she will get into her driveway if there are construction trucks there,as it is not a large street and is
on a curve.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. There being none,he asked Mr.Meighan if he
wanted to comment on the concerns raised.
Mr.Meighan said he wasn't quite sure what the woman was speaking about regarding the angle of the
driveway. He thought that the driveway was coming straight out to the street.
Ms.Martin said she thought the woman meant the angle dears turning into the driveway.
Ms.Banish said it is a narrow road and it is on a curve.
Mr.Meighan said the driveway is not on an angle.
Mr.Gunther said the driveway is perpendicular to the street at that point,similar to all other driveways
perpendicular to the street.
Mr.Meighan said at earlier meetings it was talked about the driveway being angled,and that idea was
dismissed.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 6
Mr.Wexler asked how the retaining wall is going to be built.
Mr.Silverstein said he will be using natural stone,but he hasn't seen the stone yet.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on the construction trucks blocking the driveway.
Mr.Meighan said he has known Mr.Silverstein for many years,knows he is an attentive builder and will
avoid trying to have anybody blocking anybody's driveway or entrances.
Mr.Gunther asked for a general sense of the Board in terms of direction the Board might point counsel
for drafting a resolution with regard to the nature of the application.
Mr.Gunther asked counsel if this is a Type II Action,with which Mr.Davis agreed
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther and seconded,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined
by New York State or corresponding local law,therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA.
Mr.Gunther asked for a sense of the Board members with regard to the five elements of the law that the
Board must review when drafting a resolution for counsel to note.
Mr. Winick said based the narrowness of the site, what he expects to see in the application as it is
presented at the next meeting is something which mitigates any change as to the effect of this construction
on adjoining properties in some clearly expressed manner; house plans,landscape plans. His primary
concern with this application,after the technical matters such as drainage are taken care of,is evidence in
the record that the drainage will be handled in accordance with Town requirements. It is the detriment to
nearby properties that he is most concerned about. He would hope to see in the application a concrete
proposal for how to mitigate those changes. He can't see an alternative which puts a house of a
conventional size on that property given the characteristics of the property,all the rock and the fact that
the placement of the rock seems to suggest the way onto that property and accordingly a house location.
What is suggested by that is that there is not a reasonable alternative that doesn't involve the necessity of
some variance that would result in a house of normal size for the community. The variance might be
viewed as substantial in the fact that there is a 20%reduction in the width. The primary effect talked about
are on the adjoining properties. He does not mean to minimize what Ms.Barrish said. He would like to
see,if possible,whatever can be included in that proposal. The placement of a house where there is no
house has an impact on the community. He would hope there would be some discussion between the
builder and the neighbor across the street to try to soften that impact and some proposal included in that.
Mr.Davis said he thought Mr.Winick was distinguishing between the adjacent properties and the property
across the street,because the impact on the adjacent property is related to the narrowness on the site. That
is the variance being sought. The condition being considered should be proportional to that impact. He
wasn't sure what Mr.Winick is saying about the relationship of the impact of the variance to the property
across the street.
Mr.Winick said it may simply be minimal. The question is whether or not a variance is granted. How
the Board weighs this may be very different in consideration.
Ms.Martin said she,like Paul,when one puts a house on an undeveloped piece of property,one assumes
an undesirable change in the neighborhood the way the building situation is in the area. A reasonable
alternative would be great,if the neighbors wanted to purchase the property if that could happen. The
variance is substantial,a 20%variance in width. It's also created by the fact that the house is located,in
each case,each site is greater than the minimum setback that is required, 10 ft. In each case,while the
total amount is less than the normal setback,each individual site is still greater than required. It appears
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 7
that the builder is doing everything he can to accommodate the needs of the community and she commends
his efforts.
Mr.Wexler said he is in favor of the application. Looking at complexity of the adjacent properties,the
fact that this is substandard width is not out of context with any of the properties that are around it. This
is a good opportunity,because they do need a variance,to put conditions on that the Board would normally
not have to do; Those conditions can safeguard a lot of the natural amenities of the site.
Mr.Gunther stated he,too,is in favor of this application for similar reasons as Mr.Wexler stated. The
first requirement that the State Law provides,is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created by the granting of an area
variance. Whether any change to a neighborhood is undesirable,requires further review of the details,not
only historically with this particular location,but what he refers back to is the subdivision as it has
occurred over the years. He said if the tax map is looked at,the Board will get a sense of that to see how
other lots have been separated and where there are existing houses and where there are not existing houses.
In addition,there is no question that particularly the people on the Roniger property have enjoyed an open
space at no expense to them. He doesn't know if the Ronigers had a potentially park-like situation on
someone elses property to their benefit. In that particular situation,while maintaining reasonable setbacks,
it mitigates the deficiency of any negative creation with a building on that lot. With regard to the
substantial nature of the variance,if one looks at all of the elements of the application,the side yard,rear
yard,front yard and total area,and 4 of those 5 areas, the area that is included in the lot is well above
what is required. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other means
feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The only other way for the applicant to
pursue that would be by gaining access from the paper street that runs in back of the property. That,by
itself,creates a potential difficulty,because it would create a flag lot which is not normally allowed in the
Town Zoning Law, so that isn't a reasonable alternative. Lastly,whether the difficulty will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district,the
Board has heard testimony both from the person creating the environmental plan and from the Town
Consultants,Malcolm Pirnie,that the plans presented for that property are adequate for that particular
property. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created,that is not determinative by itself. Other than to
say that the property has been maintained by separate ownership for probably more years than it's been,
many of the neighbors surrounding the property maintained,under separate ownership,lot#10 as well as
lots#1 and #2,to make a larger building parcel. All these lots were maintained separately and taxes paid
separately for many years.
Mr.Simon said he approves the application as long as the owner will follow all of the recommendations
made by the Board.
Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Simon is referring to the elements to mitigate the changes on the adjoining
properties;that being shrubbery,terracing,to soften the impact,with which Mr.Simon agreed.
Mr. Gunther asked if there is anything else to add, and asked Mr. Davis whether he required more
guidance to draft a resolution.
Mr.Davis said what has been stated is sufficient.
Mr. Gunther asked Board members if there is anything else needed from Mr. Meighan for the next
meeting.
Mr.Meighan said he has the direction the Board is seeking on mitigating the impact,to investigate and
redraw the driveway and investigate the wall.
Mr.Wexler said Mr.Meighan should also address any other variances that will be needed.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
• Page 8
A discussion ensued regarding renoticing the application,stepping the application back 4 ft.,the height of
the wall and the time needed for doing so.
Mr.Meighan said this must be looked at right away.
Mr.Wexler said Mr.Meighan has to keep in mind,looking at the property from the street side,the natural
rock outcropping that falls off to a grass area. Keep the driveway within that grass area,keep the natural
rock outcropping before you enter the site,which is the beautiful part of the site as it is undisturbed. He
would prefer to see it that way. It would mean narrowing the driveway,shifting it to the right encroaching
closer to 5 ft.,which would necessitate another variance.
Mr.Davis asked if Mr.Wexler is suggesting don't do something destructive to preserve the as-of-right
condition,because the variance would be the better of both. '
Mr.Silverstein asked if they submit this proposal,would it be decided next month.
Mr.Wexler said yes,it could be.
Mr. Meighan said this needs to be decided right away, in order for proper notices to be sent out for
whatever variances are required for those two issues.
Mr. Gunther encouraged them to meet and discuss this with the neighbors to come to some amicable
resolution of proposed screening,because the Board will put some conditions into the variance.
Mr.Winick said it has been a practice,at least in his time on the Board,where they've seen a lot of these
conditions expressed in a drawing like a landscape plan. He doesn't suggest that he must come to an
agreement with the neighbors,but it is the applicant's application and the Board will consider what-is
presented. He suggests whatever it is,that it gets presented in a nice clear,concrete and graphic way so
the Board has something clear that the Board can vote on.
Mr.Davis said his colleague requested the memorandum and thanked the applicant,as he found it very
helpful.
After some discussion regarding the next meeting date,on a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by
Mr.Winick,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2375 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the March
22,2000 Zoning Board meeting.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
•
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2386
Application of Veronique and Marshall Parke requesting a variance to legalize an existing one-story
addition. The addition as built has a rear yard of 16 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-
36B(3); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming
pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Briar
Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 421.
James Fleming,the architect for the project along with the owner,Veronique Parke,appeared.
Mr.Fleming apologized for not including the elevations of the rear of the addition with the drawing,which
he submitted and was marked exhibit#1. He also had photographs of the property,marked exhibit#2,
which he explained.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 9
Mr.Wexler said there are two variances for the same property,which Mr.Fleming verified.
Mr.Fleming stated that the property is backed up to a large rock outcropping. The owner purchased the
house as situated on the property. When going through the files they saw there were no plans for this,and
the owner took it upon herself to get it legalized. -
Mr.Fleming said on the site plan he drew a red line at 25 ft.,the required rear yard setback on the site
plan,which shows the house pushed back onto the,rock so that the back door was on the ledge of the stair
going into the basement. No matter what they would do,the owners would need a variance. To legalize
this addition,it required a rear yard variance. As shown,one-third of it is inside the rear yard line.
Mr.Gunther asked what room runs vertically in that area.
Mr. Fleming said it is an existing den. There is no patio off that, at the moment. The applicant is
requesting that it be legalized. The rear yard line would be 16 ft.,where 25 ft.is required.
Mr.Gunther asked when the owners purchased the property.
Mr.Fleming said it was purchased in 1997.
Mr.Gunther asked the date the addition was built.
Mr.Fleming said sometime in the early'50's.
Mr.Gunther said needless to say,it is over 40 years or so,with which Mr.Fleming agreed.
Mr.Wexler commented it is the first time there are two separate variances for the same house on the same
evening. One variance is to legalize an existing room. The next variance is to create a new room. A
discussion ensued regarding this.
Mr.Davis said the Board does not have to vote before the conclusion of the hearing on the second request.
The Board can vote on the first one later this evening or a month from now.
Mr.Fleming said in conference with Mr.Carpaneto it was decided to split it,so there are two applications.
Mr.Davis said the Board can open the second public hearing,a single public hearing on both applications,
and with that record separate resolutions.
Mr.Winick said the Board should do that. If Arthur is concerned that there may be an impact on one
application or the other,why not hear everything at once and sort it out. He asked if the applicant wants
to do that.
Mr.Fleming said one is an existing condition,but will gladly present it with everything at one time.
Mr.Gunther proposes to continue to hear the case,not take any action,adjourn it and then go on to the
next application.
After further discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. There
being.none,he asked if there were any other questions from the public with regard to the request to
legalize the existing den on the right-hand side of the property. No vote will be taken,but the Board will
hear all comments then move on to the next application,which is the addition to the property,hear
comments on that and do a resolution at the end.
Janet Day of 33 Glen Eagles Drive said it is on the Leatherstocking Trail,it is not just a rock.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 10
Mr.Gunther asked if Ms.Day cared to make a comment on the application at this point. He said there
are two applications.
Ms.Day had no comment.
Mr.Gunther called case#4,2387.
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2387
Application of Veronique and Marshall Parke requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition.
The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 6 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);
and further,the,addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Briar Close and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 421.
James Fleming,the architect for the project,said as seen on the plan the Parkes want to add a modest
family room off the kitchen. He described the back of the house, as seen on exhibit#2,which is in
disrepair for several years and they have decided to do something with it. He continued his presentation
pointing out the area where the addition is proposed. He said on this set of photographs he photographed
the house back from the trail property,then stood against the house and photographed the trail property.
He continued explaining the photographs. They have a burden with the house if they want to do anything
with it,because as seen on the site plan the 25 ft.setback runs right through the back of the house,to a
substantial degree,through the actual kitchen,living room,dining room and bedroom of the back of the
house. At stated before,at some point the builder moved the house back,as evidenced in the file where
there were two different site plans. One was ruled with some decision toward properly siting the house.
There is no record of what that was,except in the two site plans in the building file. The addition is one
story,very much like people want to do with their house in the way a modern family currently lives,with ,
a kitchen open to a room. This is by no means a large kitchen,12 ft.by 16 ft.,and the kitchen is being
remodeled with the job. They do have the benefit of a great view out back of nature and that is certainly
a concern to what it is backing up to.
Mr.Davis said it is also subject to a variance,with which Mr.Fleming agreed.
Mr.Gunther said on the site plan,it's noted as being included.
Mr.Fleming said that the owner,Mrs.Parke,had James Athey at the property several times to review the
proposal regarding the wetlands, and it met with no objections from the Town either. Mr. Athey
determined it wouldn't require that.
Mr.Gunther asked who Mr.Athey is and if he issued a letter to that effect.
Ms.Parke said Mr.Athey was the Environmental Coordinator for the Town,was no longer with the
Town,and that no letter was issued.
Mr.Fleming said it was an informal visit to see it. He noted that it is the Leatherstocking Trail,but the
house is close to the Trail. The extent of the variance is an existing patio which extends 8 ft.out from the
back of the house. That is going to be covered by the proposed addition. The actual construction on the
site probably is within 12 ft.of the property line already. This will be an improvement and benefit for the
owner to have this variance. There is no perceivable detriment to the Trail,neighbors or the community.
It is by nature the house position as mentioned before,more than a usual request for an area variance,
because of where it starts from but that is how they have to proceed with it.
Mr.Carpaneto said he was not sure if there was anything in the file regarding the wetlands issue.
Mr.Fleming said he does not know if Mr.Athey is available to give an accounting on the wetlands issue.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 11
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members at this point.
Mr.Winick asked Mr.Fleming to inform the Board about the difference in the square footage of the
proposed addition in the back as compared to the patio that now exists.
Mr.Fleming said the patio is 8 ft.by 16 ft.,approximately 870 sq.ft.
Mr.Winick asked about the addition.
Mr.Fleming said the addition is 12 ft.by 16 ft.,an additional 48 sq.ft.
Mr.Winick asked if the site is on top of the existing patio,4 ft.beyond,which Mr.Fleming verified.
Mr.Wexler said that the impact is quite different on a patio that is approximately 1 ft. off the back
property line,than something that is 8 ft.to 10/12 ft.high in coverage.
Mr.Fleming said he is not saying it is different in coverage,but that is a different subject.
Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Fleming has looked at other alternatives to create the needs of his client.
Mr.Fleming said the needs of the client were directed toward the kitchen and living off the kitchen,not
through a formal dining room someplace behind the den. During this process of figuring out what to do
with the variance he looked at alternatives,but it doesn't fit where the Parkes want to live with their
family.
Mr.Wexler said it is very close to the rear property line. It is a unique relationship,as it looks like the
back yard goes back another 150 ft.,but it is still park land which is open to the public and gave an
example of a previous case. Mr.Wexler feels Mr.Fleming can achieve his client's needs by relocating
the kitchen to the dining room,build a dining room where the den is,build a den beyond the existing den
and go back a little to the rear yard. Mr.Wexler informed Mr.Fleming it is the Board's job to have a
minimal impact on the environment in a variance. He said they have a large side yard of 43 ft.,an
oversized front yard from the edge of the den,50 ft.,and there is plenty of space. Even though the
topography is difficult,something can still be created. This would give a den,the kitchen in relationship
to a dining room,all opening to the view in the back. It is just building horizontally instead of depth wise.
Mr.Wexler said the applicant still needs a variance,but it's not 6 ft.from the property line. He said Mr.
Fleming has to look at alternatives for his client's needs.
Mr.Fleming said part of his client's needs is a budget,which doesn't create a bigger house and change
things.
Mr.Wexler asked if they are doing the kitchen over,and if there is a basement under it.
Mr.Fleming said they are doing the kitchen over,but there is not a basement under it.
Mr.Wexler asked what is under the dining room.
Mr.Fleming said crawl space is under the dining room.
Mr.Wexler said piping can go under there. They now have a linear exposure around the back with even
more glass area to the view. Things can happen here that will not have this much impact. They must look
at the alternatives.
Ms.Parke said there is a drop.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 12
Mr.Fleming said there is quite a drop,looking at the house on the right side. A substantial foundation
would need to be built,probably up approximately 8 ft.to 12 ft.
Mr.Wexler said there are trade-offs.
Mr.Fleming said the trade-offs sometimes don't balance that simple.
Mr.Wexler is concerned about the impact in a very pristine area,the Leatherstocking Trail. He said that
Mr.Fleming has to be very sensitive to that,and has to accommodate both ends.
Mr. Fleming said he understands what Mr. Wexler is saying. He is aware of the Trail and the
environment. Once one looks at a number such as feet,there is still the reality of the situation. He said
they are not doing anything to any plantings,there is almost zero excavation or anything like that. The
proposal is being built directly on rock. There will be no additional runoff. The drainage will stay
exactly the same.
Mr.Davis said it is the visual impact.
Mr.Wexler said it is not the runoff but the visual impact and to maintain every step of the way that swathe
of land which we are very fortunate to have. Every time someone builds something and invades that,it
is another action. Mr.Wexler said it might be the most economical solution,but that's to the applicant's
benefit,whereas it is a detriment of something beautiful.
Mr.Davis said at this stage it seems to be an impact of significance. There are two choices. One is try
to demonstrate that the impact is non-significant. The material submitted thus far does not really address
that. The other choice is to look at alternatives. If they turn out not to be feasible,he can respond to that
and explain that to the Board. The Board will make that judgment.
Mr.Fleming said he understands the process.
Mr.Wexler said there are alternatives that can be done that meet the goals.
Mr.Fleming said he will have to approach the subject with the client to discuss this and the costs involved.
Mr.Wexler asked if the 20%or 30%gets the client a physical structure against no structure. That is the
value Mr.Fleming has to look at. This has to be weighed against the impact.
Mr.Winick picked up Mr.Davis'point saying it is not sufficient for him to address an alternative by
simply saying it is not going to work or it is too expensive. Mr. Winick thinks it is their burden to
demonstrate, as pointed out by Mr. Wexler, that there is another way to configure this and add the
functionality the client wants. He said he does not have enough to go on now to agree or disagree with ,
the statements made,that it is physically expensive,and that might tilt the decision on whether there really
is a reasonable alternative that doesn't require a variance. Mr.Winick said Mr.Fleming is saying it is
not what his client wants. If Mr.Fleming comes backs to the Board with a drawing on a site,whether it
costs money to do that or not,that is some evidence the Board can look at and consider. Mr.Winick fully
understands that all the Board has when an applicant comes before the Board is that they come and ask for
what they want. That is not the issue in front of the Board. The Board is concerned with a very sensitive
part of the Town and the Board is trying to deal with that concern. Mr.Winick doesn't feel the applicant
has addressed the alternatives.
Mr.Fleming said he understands that,but this does not impact the view of the Trail.
Mr.Winick said he was on this property and is equivocal about whether it has a detrimental effect or not,
after the comments made. He has a great deal of trouble considering it as an enhancement under any
circumstances.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 13
Mr.Wexler said that the addition enhances the rear elevation. The building as presented is a better looking
building than what is there. Anything that is done to the rear of the house can solve Mr.Fleming's client's
needs by addressing it in some other direction that might not impact the encroachment of the
Leatherstocking Trail.
Mr. Fleming said he understands what Mr. Wexler is saying. However, he does have a client who
requested it. If they elongate this house,a wall of white house will be seen along the Trail rather than a
compact area that you don't visually see against the house that is there. It has no mass effect on what one
is seeing as they come down the Trail. If elongated down the hill,there will be a huge structure and the
cost will be three times as much.
Mr.Wexler said suddenly the use of the ground is now pushed further into the Trail. There is no fence
'that goes from the rear of the addition and the Leatherstocking Trail. It is open space. Visually it looks
like a part of the property. When that happens it becomes a part of the property,as activities occur on that
property especially at 6 ft.away.
Mr.Gunther called a five minute recess at this time.
Mr.Gunther called the meeting to order and asked Mr.Fleming to move along to the next point. Mr.
Gunther said that he too has a problem with the location of the rear addition,because it is in the proximity
to the Town conservation area. Mr.Gunther said that he just received a memo,and will provide a copy
to Mr.Fleming,regarding this matter from Stephen V.Altieri,the Town Administrator,and is the subject
of Mr.Fleating's application,which was read that into the record and made a part of the record.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the Board members before the matter is opened
to the public.
Mr.Davis said Mr.Carpaneto referred both matters to the Westchester County Planning Board,and Ms.
Gallent informed him there will not be a response from the Board.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application.
Janet Day,of 23 Glen Eagles Drive,Larchmont,New York,addressed the Board. She lives on the other
side of town and has been in her house for 27 years. When she first moved in,even in the winter time,
she could not see anyone behind her,only one white house. Progressively,in the last several years in
particular,trees have been cut down,construction has been done and all of a sudden she sees lights and
a lot of houses she didn't see before. She values the privacy and open space. Ms.Day then read from
a prepared statement voicing her concerns,which is a part of the record.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments.
Nancy Seligson,the new councilwoman in the Town of Mamaroneck who lives at 9 Munroe Avenue,
addressed the Board. Ms.Seligson reiterated what the memorandum from Steve Altieri said and asked
the Board if they would consider referring this matter to the Coastal Zone Management Commission
(CZMC). She chaired the CZMC for five years prior to her new appointment and thinks it is a valuable
resource that there is in the community. They are a dedicated group of experts who could give a
professional opinion that might be helpful to the Board in this case. She made comment about her
experiences in Colorado about what a proposed development would look like and passed a structure that
was ropes and lines that were attached to stakes with flags coming off of them that were very high and
wide and tried to create a map to show people what it would look like if the building was built from the
people proposing it. She was told it was their attempt to show the neighborhood and the community what
a future building might look like in terms of size and bulk. She mentioned it,because she didn't know if
that was ever considered in the Town,as it might be a helpful way to show the mass of what a building
might look like.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 14
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application.
Dorothy Rainer,of 21 Summit Avenue,Larchmont,addressed the Board. She informed the Board that
she is on the board of the Life Center involved in the environment,is a naturalist with the Life Center and
lead nature walks through the preservation area,the Sheldrake Trails and the Leatherstocking Trail,both
with children and adults. She said it has become a problem for the past 15 years or so that she has been
doing this,that there is more and more of a sense of houses and their trees and plantings coming closer
and closer to the trails losing the affect of being outdoors,because you are in someone's back yard. She
very strongly feels that the Zoning Board needs to look closely at any further building that is coming closer
and closer to these trails.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application.
Mr.Fleming said he understands everybody's sensitivities towards what is happening on the trail. Each
case is unique. There are no precedents of the zoning, as each property is different. He said he
approached it with a conservative approach as he does to all his work,because reduction is the best thing
possible. He said this is really a very small addition. Looking at it from the trail,one would not see
anything in terms of visual mass. However,if extended to the side,there would be a bigger wall of light
as one meanders down the trail. He pointed out that the trail is in a residential area and one cannot deny
the existence of the houses. He believes it is the most impervious position for this small addition,12 ft.
by 16 ft. He asked to talk to the owner to see what she would like to do in terms of proceeding with the
application. He would like on record as their position that they are presenting the most minimal impacting
addition that they possibly can with respect to the owners goals,etc. He said they can provide anything
in the future,in terms of bulk and positioning.
After speaking with his client,Mr.Fleming said it is requested by the owner that each matter be considered
separately. He asked if the Board would consider a smaller addition cut back to the position of the patio,
which is 8 ft.off the house. That would be something like Mr.Wexler suggested about the fact that the
addition could go elsewhere,but in the wrong position for the owner. Taking 4 ft.off the addition would
still give them some kind of room off the kitchen,and asked if the Board would consider that at this time.
Mr.Gunther said it is hard for the Board to respond to a"what if'if they don't have a plan that addresses
that. He would be happy to poll the sense of the Board. He said he is opposed to most variances that
would be imposing upon a Town or County park merely because it is there. The impact can be quite
substantial,especially in such a small area as the Leatherstocking Trail. He would be inclined to look
more favorably on something that is not going into that area. He would not approve what is currently
proposed. Also,he would propose that the application be referred to the CZMC for their approval,before
the final decision is made.
Mr.Winick sees a problem with the application. The comment made that this would be an addition and
improvement to the view of the house from that aspect is some kind of an aside. The Board is concerned
about the impact of all structures going on the natural area of the Trail. There is an existing structure
there. Looking at the photographs presented to the Board,he is not 100%opposed or 100%in favor of
any addition which encroaches further toward the Leatherstocking Trail. The one that is proposed has this
large massive white triangle and will have a strong visual impact. His concern is one way to soften the
impact would be to deal with the roof in some way; there is an existing roof line,dark in color that
intrudes. What is proposed creates a large visual impact against the roof. Mr.Winick is sure Mr.Fleming
can come up with something that will soften that. He takes Mr.Fleming's point about widening the house,
but that also will have an impact. The alternatives are either there is no change to the external structure,
which would least impact the Trail. To try to accommodate the owner's needs,the Board is obligated to
consider those two alternatives,but both of them will have an impact to some extent. Mr.Winick said if
they are going to proceed with this,he would want to see it softened to the maximum degree. He would
also like to hear from people who are more expert than himself in dealing with natural areas like this. He
also endorses Mr.Gunther's suggestion that this be referred to the Coastal Zone for their comments.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 15
Ms.Martin said the problem is there is nothing one can do with this house that does not require a variance,
given the setting of the house. She would not approve the plan based on what it is,given the letter from
the Town,and would entertain other options.
Mr.Wexler said there are other options,not necessarily elongating the house. He pointed out the rear of
the addition which is 6 ft.and the Leatherstocking Trail. He is not opposed to approving the as-built,and
the Board can go back to that part this evening.
Mr.Gunther reiterated what the statute provides regarding the elements reviewed for granting a variance,
the second one being whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible
for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance or one that has less of an impact.
Mr.Fleming said he is aware of the criteria for a zoning variance.
Mr.Simon said he agrees with Mr.Wexler that more research is needed to find out details to satisfy the
Zoning and Planning boards. He would not grant a variance the way it currently is. It is too close to the
Leatherstocking Trail.
Mr.Gunther asked how Mr.Fleming would like to proceed.
Mr.Fleming would like if the Board can address the existing portion and get it settled in one way or
another,as it is straight forward. He would recommend to his client to either withdraw or adjourn the
other matter. Mr. Fleming said that Ms.Parke is asking for guidelines. He then reiterated what has
already been stated;if they soften the roof line,and can imagine several ways to do that where the triangle
spoken about would be softened by any visual appearances from the Trail. The Trail itself is actually
behind the rock as one passes the house. He said if his client will consider lesser footage out from the
house,they could bring it back a few feet,modifying the roof line,bringing the proposed addition back
toward the house line. He is asking for approval of the existing part and will come back for case#2387
after CZMC comments.
Mr.Winick said it is beneficial that they staked out the outline of what they are proposing to do. He said
it will be helpful if there is a way he get a sense of the actual mass of the proposal,what the impact will
be and an outline or whatever.
Mr.Fleming suggested making guidelines for any properties regarding the Leatherstocking Trail in the
Town,so that there are criteria to meet and things to consider beforehand.
Mr.Wexler asked if it did not back up to the Leatherstocking Trail but backed up to another house in the
same Zone District,would he propose a rear line of 6 ft.
Mr.Fleming said it is a different case.
A discussion ensued regarding that matter.
Mr.Carpaneto said under normal circumstances,any wetlands matter is referred to the CZMC.
Mr.Fleming said to his knowledge and his client's knowledge,and he spoke to Mr.Athey personally,they
did follow the proper procedure in getting a determination from the CZMC.
Mr.Davis asked Ms.Parke if there was a determination from that office.
Ms.Parke said yes,there was a determination from that office. It has to be determined it is more than
100 ft.from the wetlands. For that reason, it was determined they were more than 100 ft. from the
wetlands and they did not need to be concerned.
•
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 16
Mr.Davis said from the Board's point of view,the record has to contain information regarding this matter.
Mr.Fleming said that Mr.Athey is not available and there is no paperwork,but did follow procedure.
Mr.Wexler asked if this matter is required to go to the CZMC.
Mr.Davis said no,it is a Type II action and is not required.
Mr.Wexler said the topography of the land in the rear slopes toward the house,so the impact of what is
being done has an environmental impact of drainage runoff and does not affect the wetlands as the direction
of the flow is away from the wetlands. It is a visual impact.
Further discussion ensued regarding this matter,not the visual but the actual proximity and the use that
occurs,an invasion onto property that is not your property. The Board has to look at alternatives to not
give the most for a variance but the least.
Veronique Parke commented about using the back of the land. She said the land drops and is sitting above
the Trail,which is why the visual impact is less. When you are on the Trail and,look up,you can't see
it. The land cannot be used,as it is a cliff.
Mr.Fleming with regard to what has been said about the use of the property that rolls out onto the rest
of the land,that would happen to anyone,at which time a discussion ensued.
Nancy Seligson said that the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has a policy that governs all the
actions of the Coastal Zone Management Commission and probably does have policies that address
aesthetics and aesthetics next to natural areas in the Town. Even though it isn't a drainage issue in this
case,it might be helpful to look at those policies.
Mr.Gunther said Mr.Fleming has some sense from the Board and asked if he wanted to proceed with the
first case,#2386,to legalize an existing one-story addition and asked if he wished to withdraw case#2387.
After some discussion,Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Fleming if he is going to present something significantly
more of a variance than what has been proposed,it will have to be renoticed. If it is something less than
what was noticed,he must see the Building Department in time to be included in the packets to the Board.
Mr.Fleming'said it will probably be something less.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2386 and case#2387 be,and hereby is,adjourned
to the March 22,2000 Zoning Board meeting.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Simon,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2386 and case#2387 be,and hereby is,referred
to the Coastal Zone Management Commission.
Mr.Gunther informed those present that he is calling the next case out of order.
The secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2389
Application of Carol Loreto Maddox requesting a Certificate of Occupancy. The deck as built has a side
yard of 7.4 ft.where 8.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further,the deck increases
• Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 17
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6
Zone District on the premises located at 87 Hickory Grove Drive West and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 751.
Ms.Maddox submitted pictures,marked exhibit#1.
Mr. Davis said this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and there was no
response.
Mr.Gunther said it was referred to the County,because it is in close proximity to a County road.
Carol Loreto Maddox,the owner,and Andy DeFiore,the builder is also present.
Ms. Maddox said when she looked at the plan, of which the Board has a copy, and met with Mr.
Carpaneto and looked at his plan,she realized the plan that the architect left Mr.Carpaneto was not the
same as the plan the architect left the builder. There is a difference in the plan. On the plan Mr.
Carpaneto has there is a difference showing 20 in. The plan the Board has, the second page of the
blueprint,does not show any specified amount. When she spoke to Mr.DeFiore,he said he did it to scale,
but it is 8 in.too close to the edge. When it was being built,Mr.DeFiore informed her to get a certificate
of occupancy. She is now going to sell the house and needs the certificate of occupancy before she can
do so. Ms.Maddox said Mr.DeFiore is present to answer any questions the Board may have.
Mr.Wexler said he doesn't feel she has a problem.
Mr. Carpaneto said the approved plan did have the setback on it. After noticing the error, moving it
proved to be difficult.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions on this application. There being none,he asked if
there were any questions from the Board on this application. There being none,on motion of Mr.Wexler,
seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0.
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.Martin,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Carol Loreto Maddox has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy. The deck as built has a side yard of 7.4 ft.
where 8.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further,the deck increases the extent by
which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District
on the premises located at 87 Hickory Grove Drive West and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 751;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such Certificate of Occupancy on the
grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with
particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(a),Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Carol Loreto Maddox 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
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 18
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 fords 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. Based on review of the record and personal observation of the property,no
undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties created. The deck has existed without a problem
for a good number of years;
B. The applicant cannot achieve its goals without a reasonable alternative that does
not require an area variance. It is not reasonable to shave off 8 in.from the
existing deck;
C. It is not a substantial variance,but only a few inches on a large deck;
D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district;
E. An error occurred during construction,which indicates it is not a self-created
difficulty;
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 19
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2388
Application of Dr. Bruce Robinson requesting a variance to install two (2) central air conditioning
condensing units. The central air conditioning condensing units as proposed have a side yard of 8.0 ft.
where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the condensing units increase
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5
Zone District on the premises located at 83 Lookout Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117,Lot 84.
Mr.Gunther asked if he is looking to add an additional unit to one already there.
Dr.Robinson said he wasn't aware there were guidelines for getting approval and found out it needed
approval. They did not place the other unit there,upon knowing that. Aesthetically from the standpoint
of the house it is actually under a back stairwell,which can be seen in the pictures provided to the Board.
From the other points,the air conditioning units would be very appreciable from the street and from the
house next door where there is a 13 ft.side yard.
Ms.Martin asked if there are other rear yards,and who designates the rear yard.
Mr.Carpaneto said it depends on whether there is any past history. It is a corner lot,it has to have the
two fronts and a rear yard.
Ms.Martin asked which is the rear yard on this property.
Mr.Carpaneto said the rear yard is behind the deck.
A discussion ensued regarding which is the rear yard property line and side yard.
Dr.Robinson informed the Board that he has been looking for a house in the community for four years,
and was taken by the fact that someone he knew did not get a Certificate of Occupancy for something done
in their house. When he had work done,before he bought the house,he made sure everything was legal
and legalized whatever wasn't. After work was started on the air conditioning,he decided to check into
it.
Mr.Gunther said the placement of the unit is so close to another property,and asked if there was any
reason it couldn't be in some other location of the property that falls within the normal setback due to
impact.
Dr.Robinson said the front yards are very obvious from the street and it would look unappetizing. To put
it in the other yard,the gentleman from the house next door came this evening because he was concerned
that was the yard it was going in. He left because Dr. Robinson told him it was going in the back
underneath the stairwell,because he has a back yard there.
Ms.Martin said it is a lot closer to them and their playground.
Dr.Robinson said,aesthetically,it is underneath the stairwell and well hidden.
Mr.Wexler said the issue the Board is concerned about is not visual. Anything put against a building,the
sound is magnified outward. The fact that Dr.Robinson has a small side yard makes the proximity of that
noise very close to the active area of their back yard. The sound is becoming the problem.
Dr.Robinson informed the Board that he bought the gentleman from AMPAC,Mark Berman,who is more
experienced with the sound decibels and the unit.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 20
Mr.Winick stated that the Board is not passing on the sound level of his unit. The reason Dr.Robinson
is present is because some time ago the law was interpreted and the Board's interpretation was that an air
conditioner unit such as this one is a structure. Because it is a structure,it cannot encroach on the side
yard. In his view it can't encroach if it is quiet,it can't encroach if it is noisy,it can't encroach if it is
quiet if it's a structure and there are no grounds to grant a variance. The problem is one that the placement
is forbidden by the code. When the Board evaluates whether or not to give a variance,the Board does not
have the authority to say this one is quiet enough. That issue has been sent to the Town Board to regulate
air conditioners in some way for them to deal with this retroactively,which they could do. They have not
acted yet. There may be a regulation that will resolve this in the future. Right now Dr.Robinson is under
the Board's jurisdiction,purely on the grounds of a variance. If there is a place to place it,an alternative
that doesn't require a variance,it should be considered.
Mr.Wexler commented on case#1 that was adjourned numerous times,because the Town has hired an
acoustic engineer to give the Board guidance as to what the impact these units have on sound and location.
He said he was trying to explain to the applicant that this is the issue the applicant falls into. That issue
alone is the major reason for doing this;the sound these units produce as an impact on someone next door.
The applicant is putting this unit in the small southerly yard,which happens to be a yard that links to a rear
yard of a house closer to an access area not much different to what happened in the first case. He has
options where he might not even need a variance. The Board is wrestling with the sound and its impact.
Mr.Davis said the reason they are wrestling with the sound in the variance context,is because they are
trying measure the detriment to nearby properties. He said it is not clear to him that a variance is required.
The placement of the air conditioner does not increase the encroachment in the yard,because it is to be
placed under the stairs and is already encroached.
Mr.Gunther said any building within an existing area is nonconforming.
Mr.Carpaneto said Mr.Davis is trying to say Mr.Carpaneto deems the space under the stairs to be open
space. Mr.Davis is looking at it as interior.
Mr.Carpaneto said that the Town has no regulations over interior space.
After further discussion,Mr. Wexler said the reality is what is the impact this will have on adjoining
properties.
Mark Berman,from,AMPAC said in terms of the installation itself,avoiding the variance the issue,if the
Board decides this is not acceptable,the units would be forced to go in the legal zoning right around the
corner.
Mr.Wexler said the only place it can be put is on the side facing the street,as the rear yard has already
been established. The matter can also be adjourned for submission of more material.
Dr.Robinson said he didn't want that to happen. He thought the function of the meeting was that if
anyone had an objection,they would appear and voice there concerns.
Mr.Winick said this is not a democracy in that sense. This is a much larger issue and the Board needs
a rational and consistent way to apply the law. The Board never knows why a neighbor doesn't come.
The Board is concerned that these units are scattered all through the Town and that they come to some way
of dealing with this issue.He suggested that Dr.Robinson take an adjournment.
Mr.Gunther is proposing that the application be adjourned,because the Town Board is trying to meet and
consider regulations to discuss this issues of this type. They may grandfather all and set some rules,or
they may leave it alone. There is another case,application#1,which has been adjourned for 6 months.
It is a similar application. The only difference is that unit is existing and running.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 21 •
Mr.Wexler said Dr.Robinson's unit is not running.
Mr.Gunther informed Dr.Robinson that he has two options,one is do nothing and wait,or adjourn the
application. The other option is remove both units and place them someplace on his property that doesn't
need a variance. He suggested speaking with the Building Inspector regarding available options. Mr.
Gunther informed Dr.Robinson that at the next meeting there will be a sound expert,hired by the Town,
to testify and give the Board some guidance regarding the mitigating factors to consider in the placement
of these units. It is possible,after that hearing,that the Board will be in a better position to be able to pass
judgement on the application. Without that information,the Board cannot consider the application.
Dr.Robinson asked if the unit stays where it is now,until the Board makes a decision.
Mr.Gunther said it is a pending application,and the Building Inspector is not going to take any action.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application.
John Hamblet,of 72 North Chatsworth Avenue,Larchmont,addressed the Board. Mr.Hamblet asked for
clarification as to what the status is on the legislation the previous Town Supervisor said that would be
finished by December 31,1999. The decision was dated 2/24/99. It has been one year and five days and
asked where do they stand.
Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Hamblet that the Board cannot speak for the Town Board. He referred Mr.
Hamblet to the Supervisor or the Town Administrator who can probably give Mr.Hamblet the status of
where the Town Board is regarding this issue.
Mr.Hamblet said his track record as a Town,as far as administering due process when it comes to people
with central air conditioning who are seeking a variance,is not very good. Mr.Hamblet said if were in
Dr.Robinson's situation,he would make sure he has a copy of the record that states he was not going to
be prosecuted by the Town.
Mr.Gunther said the Director of Building is the building inspector who enforces the Building Code. Any
application that comes before the Board,while it is a pending application,no action is taken.
Mr.Hamblet said that is not the case. If the Board makes a decision on a variance,the applicant has a
certain number of days to respond to that variance. He said the Town can override that,step in after one
week and say you have to do something now or you are going to court.
Mr.Wexler asked if that statement is true.
Mr.Davis said once the Board decides,the decision is final. If the applicant chooses,he can bring an
Article 78.
Mr.Winick said by adjourning this,there is no decision.
Mr.Davis stated the application remains pending and the applicant will not be prosecuted.
Ms.Seligson said she does not know of any pending legislation that the Town Board is working on. It is
a major issue and there has been talk about it. There is no law that is in the process of being written at
this point in time. She will bring it back to the Town Board and try to discuss this issue a lot faster.
Mr.Hamblet pointed out that everyone that has air conditioners is in violation of Town Law.
Mr.Wexler asked if it is a violation of required setbacks.
Zoning Board
•
February 29,2000
Page 22
Mr.Hamblet said no,because it is a structure. Those things were erected without a building permit. If
you don't get a building permit for the air conditioner,one is in violation of Town Law. Everyone with
a central air conditioner is in violation of Town Law,unless they have a building permit. The 40%to 70%
of the people in the Town that do have central air conditioners are in violation of the law.
Mr.Wexler made comment that people who park in their driveway are in violation of the law,at which
time a discussion ensued.
Mr.Davis said tht there is a line of argument that a change in interpretation is treated the same way as a
change in zoning,so that equipment that was placed under the interpretation that prevailed that is not a
structure is lawful and grandfathered.
Mr.Hamblet said his air conditioners went in three years ago. The Town forced him to move them,
although they had been on the ground for two years.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application.
Ms.Seligson asked what is it exactly that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the public is looking for in
terms of a law in regard to these structures. Air conditioner condensing units are considered structure right
now. The issue is whether they are put in areas of setbacks and the noise coming out of them.
Mr.Winick said there is a lot of history regarding this. There is talk about what they are considering,as
stated at public meetings. Individuals can opt to regulate sound, as some communities do, opt to
grandfather in.all the air conditions or take some other action that deals with the structure question,or
some combination of the both of them. The fact finding they are engaging in,is to gather information
about sound and look at what other communities have done so that the Town Board can make a legislative
determination about how to handle these units.
Mr.Gunther informed Dr.Robinson that he would like to adjourn the application to the next meeting,
March 22,2000. At that meeting,the Board expects to have a sound expert who has been hired by the
Town to give testimony on these kind of units. Thereafter,the Board will be happy to hear Dr.Robinson's
case and proceed on it. By adjourning this case,the application will be on the calendar again,as long as
no changes are made to it.
Mr.Winick said the applicant is new to this,but it may be before the next meeting he will be able to
determine that it is in his interest to adjourn this further. He suggested Dr. Robinson contact Mr.
Carpaneto shortly before the meeting,to make sure everything is in order.
Dr.Robinson asked the Board,as a new member of the community and feels strongly about where the unit
is,if there is any additional information the Board would like provided other than the testimony of the
sound expert-that would help the Board in its decision.
Mr.Gunther said he is going to refer back to the basis on which the Board grants variances and read and
commented on the five elements considered by the Board.
Mark Berman,of AMHAC,asked if there are any landmarks at issue in the Town,and if the location is
approved if all the regulations of code are met. Mr. Berman said there is also a noise issue and is
wondering whether they should get some sound data.
Mr.Wexler said the Board has hired a consultant to give the Board guidance on the sound issue. Mr.
Wexler said sound data is meaningless,unless the Board knows what the quantitative result of that is.
Mr.Berman said he will speak to the sound individuals and see what his intents are. He informed the
Board that AMHAC is one of the leading installers of air conditioning and wants to set an example to all
the other contractors in Westchester.
•
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 23
Mr.Davis commented about the specs on the plans regarding the decibel ratings,which Mr.Berman
addressed.
Mr.Berman said the noise issue of the variance has to be addressed in a scientific manner. Counsel,the
Board and the Town has to come up with some kind of guidelines regarding noise that should be considered
in terms of granting air conditioner condensing unit locations,at which time a discussion ensued.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Simon,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2388 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the March
22,2000 Zoning Board meeting.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2390
Application of Darren and Shari Levine requesting a variance to construct a new roof. The new roof
construction as proposed has a front yard of 28 ft.where 30.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-
37B(1);and further,the new roof increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant
to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 81 Holly Place and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 380.
Darren Levine,the owner of 81 Holly Place,addressed the Board. Mr.Levine asked the Board how they
want hint to go about presenting his case.
Ms.Martin questioned the need for the variance.
Mr.Carpaneto said Mr.Levine is doing work in the setback and explained the 2 ft.portion of the new roof
in the setback.
Mr.Gunther said the applicant is adding a tremendous amount of living space.
Mr.Levine said not square footage,but useable space. He is trying to add another bedroom.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked
if there were any questions from the public. There were none.
Mr.Davis said this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board,and no comment was
received.
Mr.Carpaneto said realizing the length of the agenda,and in the absence of Mr.Athey,the Environmental
Coordinator and the fact that nothing had been referred to Westchester County,he called the Director of
Planning of Westchester County who said to send the whole package which was done.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously,5-0.
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:
WFIEREAS,Darren and Shari Levine have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a new roof. The new roof construction as proposed has a front yard of
28 ft.where 30.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);and further,the new roof increases the
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 24
extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone
District on the premises located at 81 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 380;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(1),Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Darren and Shari Levine 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 applicant is dormering the roof. Of the proposed dormer,only about 2 ft.
of it requires a variance because the entire front of the house sits within the
setback. Given that and upon examination of the property,that 2 ft.increase
of the dormer will not create any change at all in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created;
B. Given the square footage of the house,the applicant cannot achieve the goals of
additional living space via a reasonable alternative that doesn't require an area
variance;
C. Given the 2 ft.involved,it is not substantial for the reasons stated above,as the
house is a small one.
D. There is no self-created difficulty;
B. 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.
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.
Zoning Board
February 29,2000
Page 25
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Simon,the Minutes of the January 5,2000 Zoning Board
meeting were unanimously approved,4-0,Mr.Simon was absent.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the Minutes of the January 26,2000 Zoning
Board meeting were unanimously approved,4-0,Mr.Simon was absent.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 22,2000.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Marguefte Roma,Recording Secretary