The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002_04_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 24, 2002, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler CEIVk.� Paul A. Winick � MAY 24 2002 ?MIA A.INCIOCCIO Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel i0w! CUM Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Iowa�LA t1.Cil Nancy Seligson, Liaison Danielle Prisco, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary 1 fir CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:47 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding previous open Zoning Board Minutes. Mr. Gunther said a letter was received from the applicant, which is a part of the record, for Application No. 1, Case #2471, requesting an adjournment APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2465 (adjourned 9/19/01;11/28/01) Application of Joy and Robert Greenberg requesting a variance to install air conditioning condenser units Town of on the premises located at 19 West Drive conditioning c and known on the Tax ondenser unit Asssessment as proposed have ahear yard of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 40. The 6.5 ft.where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);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-10 Zone District. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2465 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gunther said the next application as follows: " APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2471 (adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01;12/19/01;2/26/02;4/4/02) Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M.WHigh a Road and known on the Taxuesting a variance to construct aAssessme n the Map of the property on the premises located at 4 g g • Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 2 Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 8.5 ft. where a maximum of 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked if anyone is here for that application. There was no response. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Carpaneto when we adjourned this case once before at our last meeting,we requested that the Town secure the services of a'sound expert to evaluate some of the information we received from Mr.Friedman. He asked Mr.Carpaneto if we've been able to secure an expert. Mr.Carpaneto said no,not at this time. Mr.Gunther said just for your information,we will not hear the case because we don't have anymore information as requested at this point. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2471,Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr.Gunther said I'd like to set the date for our next meeting. It's normally on the fourth Wednesday of the month. That would make it May 22,2002 and asked if that's O.K.for other Board members? The Board members were O.K.with that date. Mr.Gunther asked if anyone is here with regard to the application of Robert Stavis. No one responded. APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2484(adjourned 1/23/02;2/26/02) Application of Robert Stavis requesting a variance to legalize three stone buttresses at Carriage House wall and to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall on the premises located at 211 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417,Lot 77. The buttresses as constructed have a side yard of 29 ft.where 35 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-33B(2);the pier as constructed as part of the front wall has a height of 6 ft. 3 in.where 5 ft is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;and further,the buttresses increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 Zone District. Mr.Gunther said I won't read the application. He said we have a letter from the applicant,which is a part of the record,requesting a two-month adjournment on case 2484 regarding the stone buttresses of 211 Hommocks Road. Last month I had initiated a number of activities related to this application. I have done a new survey of the affected area and engaged an architect to design,engineer and present an alternate repair plan and am researching the ownership question of the reserve strip. By the May meeting,I will be able to provide the Board with the appropriate additional materials. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Mr.Gunther said the record should also note that we received a letter from the homeowner Lauren Martin Miralia at 210 Hommocks Road asking that the application process continue for this application tonight. Mr.Gunther said I won't read. It's here for the record. Mr.Gunther if there's any discussion from Board members whether or not they want to continue with the application or adjourn the application one month to our May meeting. There was no objection. (I�) On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,and unanimously approved,application No. 3,case 2484 application of Robert Stavis be adjourned to our next meeting. Zoning Board • April 24,2002 Page 3 0) Mr.Gunther said next is application No.4 and asked if anyone is here for Michael and Carla Mathias. Thomas Fanelli said I am here on their behalf. The secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2491(adjourned 2/26/02;4i4i02) Application of Michael D. &Carla Mathias requesting a variance to construct a tennis court on the premises located at 5 Cornell Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 201,Lot 205. The tennis court as proposed is not within the rear one-third of the property as required pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(a);and further,the fence has a total height of 10 ft.where a maximum of 8 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(e)for a tennis court fence in an R-30 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Fanelli represents the applicant. Thomas Fanelli said yes I do. They would be here normally,but they were called out of town on business and were unable to be here. Mr.Gunther said before you proceed I would just like to ask our counsel,because where we left off at our last meeting the application was presented to us and the Board had some questions regarding the appropriate legal procedure for us to hear the application,since it appears that what was being requested was identical to a similar application that this Board heard and denied. Mr.Davis said the first determination you have to make is whether it is in fact the same application or not. If any differences are substantial enough so that in your judgment it is a different application,then you can proceed to hear it as if it were a new application. If you determine that it is the same application as the one previously dealt with,then your actions are regulated by Town Law,Section 267a(12). That section provides that you can rehear,if the Board unanimously decides to do so. After rehearing,you can change the previous vote only on a unanimous vote of all those present and voting subject to a finding which is required that nobody who relied on a prior decision will be injured as a result of taking new action. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Fanelli,I understand from our last meeting that the application that was presented was identical to what was presented originally and was denied. Mr.Fanelli said that is correct. At the last Board meeting the application was,in fact,identical. At this time we have done some additional research,because this property will straddle the Town lines between the Town of Mamaroneck and the Town of Scarsdale,in order to comply with the zoning in the Town of Scarsdale the court would have to be repositioned to create a 30 ft.side yard on the adjoining property. This is different,in that there is now a 30 ft.side yard and we are also showing additional shrubbery, boundary area and sight and sound barriers as required by Scarsdale. Ms.Martin said the shrubs for planting that are shown here,would those be surrounding the entire court? Mr.Gunther said just for the portion on the plans,I would assume. Mr.Fanelli said they are required,as shown on this plan,as required by the Town of Scarsdale. If Mamaroneck were to consider the application and were to request plantings in that area,my client would not be opposed to considering that. Mr.Davis said is there a drawing that shows the differences between the two applications? Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 4 Mr.Gunther said that's what I'm saying. What is the substantial difference between the things requested now and requested prior. Mr.Fanelli said the original request was setting forth only a 60 ft.setback at the southerly corner of the property,whereas now we'll be calling for a 24 ft.setback on the southerly corner of the property so that where the property is in the Town of Scarsdale,we are then meeting the 30 ft.setback as required in Scarsdale. Mr.Fanelli said that's correct. The Town of Scarsdale requires a side yard and back yard setback of 30 ft. Mr.Gunther said the rear of the court that faces the rear of the property is placed identically to how it was originally,is that correct,16 ft.? Mr.Fanelli said it's a 16 ft.setback. It's not in the exact same position. It is shifted to the left on the drawings as you are reading them. Mr.Gunther said in other words,it is substantially the same as the original request say for movement of a couple of feet to the left and put shrubs around the court in the front. Mr.Fanelli said it also is showing a retaining wall which will be required because of the contour of the land which was not shown prior to this. Mr.Fanelli said our noncompliance in Mamaroneck would be the amount of the property that would come forward of the one-third,two-thirds property line. There is not really a very substantial difference in what would come forward to the one-third,two-third property line. In fact,if we were staying to the left,less of the court would be in the Town of Mamaroneck in violation,standard rights. By moving it to the left, we're actually probably increasing the areas that would be in violation. Mr. Davis asked, in the resolution on their other application what were the reasons set forth in the resolution for denying it. Mr.Gunther said I don't have the original resolution. After some discussion,Mr.Winick said there was an explanation,I made it. The explanation was that by moving out of the bottom back third of the property,the burden,the impact of the tennis court,was shifted to the house. Mr.Gunther said west of the house. Mr.Fanelli said that would be west,yes. Mr.Winick said the way that house is set up...inaudible,habitable part of the house that looks out over what is now a great expanse and is where the tennis court will be shifted throughout the rear of his property. Mr.Davis said does the movement,the repositioning of the tennis court as is now proposed,respond at all to that concern? Mr.Gunther said not substantially. gMr.Winick said no. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 5 Mr.Gunther said I think also there was discussion at the time that there was another alternative to the homeowner in terms of putting the court on the other side of the property,so hence under our original determination,I believe,was that since there was an alternative we weren't about to grant a variance. Mr.Fanelli said the nature of the property on the other side of the house,the diagrams shown do not show that that has natural trees and growth in that area and that land is rocky and is more sloped. It's not appropriate or available for placing the tennis court on that side of the house. The land where the court is,is relatively level. It is already cleared. Mr.Gunther said that slopes down as well. Mr.Davis informed Mr.Gunther,you have to decide whether this is the same application or not. If it is, then you have a hearing you can proceed with. If not,you have to ask the Board for a vote on whether to rehear and it has to be renoticed. Unless there are some changed facts or circumstances,you have to have a unanimous vote to proceed with the hearing. Mr.Gunther said we had a discussion before you arrived here about the requirement of whether or not we would hear it. It's a matter of unanimous Board approval to proceed or not. Mr.Winick said if it's not a substantial change? Mr.Gunther said right. If it is substantially the same then no,unless the Board in unison votes to hear the application. Mr.Davis said in my view it's your decision to be made in the reasonable exercise of your judgment. The difference is whether or not to make it a separate application or not. I don't object to the way you're phrasing it. Mr. Winick said to speak to that, I think other than the addition of some of the shrubbery and the information we've been given about the fact that part of the property is in Scarsdale, I think it's substantially the same application. However,I would agree to rehear it,simply because I'm looking at this drawing which we didn't see in connection with the earlier application and this says that the property,the house to the west,is facing where the tennis court would encroach on the middle third of the property, there's a garage. It didn't look that way to me,but we have an issue that that house has been under construction for three years. There is no inhabitant,there were no contractors around when I was there. It may well be that that part of the structure is a garage. It wasn't apparent from my walking around it, but if that's the case I think there's certainly enough different information about the burden on the adjoining property owners I would w`ant consider. Mr.Gunther asked if there is any discussion from anyone else. Ms.Martin said I'd be willing to rehear it. I think the addition of the planting and shifting the court further away from the adjoining property is a significant change. Ms.Harrington said I didn't hear the first application. Mr..Davis said you're still in a position,given the drawing on the initial application to decide whether the differences are substantial. Mr.Gunther said what we should take a look at is,we have two sets of plans with the original application. 9 This is what is being presented now and you should judge for yourself if it's substantially different. Ms.Harrington said it has moved enough. Zoning Board April 24,2002 •r Page 6 '.J Mr.Davis said I just ask you to be clear. If you're going to rehear,decide whether you're rehearing it as a different application or in the unanimous exercise of your discretion to rehear the same application, just so the record is clear. Ms.Harrington said I would say it's different,because it has a retaining wall now,it has shrubs. It looks different to me. It seems to be a different application. Mr.Gunther said my view of the matter is that it is substantially the same application as presented before. However,I would vote to hear it making the assumption it is the same application that we heard before, because the amount of change that is being offered is less than minimal. It doesn't even meet those standards. Mr.Gunther said I'll just make a motion,if it's O.K.with the other Board members that we hear it, making the assumption that it is an identical or near similar application of what was s presented prior. Ms. Martin seconded that motion,and it was unanimously approved. Mr.Davis pointed out to the chairman what you have done was proceeded on that basis is requiring a unanimous vote to reach a conclusion that is different from your original vote. After some discussion,Mr.Fanelli said the repositioning or cause,the major difference is that the setback at the front of the court will be 32 ft.from the side yard. At the back of the court,it will be 24 ft.from the side yard,whereas before they were 25 ft.and 16 ft. This is a shift into the property. Of particular importance is the fact that this will straddle both the Town of Mamaroneck and the Town of Scarsdale. Zoning within the Town of Scarsdale,if this property were entirely within the Town of Scarsdale would Q permit this court to be built,because in the Town of Scarsdale you can have a tennis court but it cannot be in the front yard of the property which they define as the property in front of the front building line of a house. We are completely behind the front building line of the house. Your zoning requirements call for the court to be in the last one-third of the property. Therefore,we could build approximately a little more than 50%of the court within the zoning of Mamaroneck,and we can build approximately one-sixth of the court within the zoning of Scarsdale and then we have this wedge in the middle which we have hash marks here,approximately 1,600 sq.ft.which we can't build.We're seeking to be able to join these two. Mr.Fanelli said there was also the garage,and I have been to this property that is the garage area of the adjacent house. The house to the west is entirely within the Town of Scarsdale,so that I would present to you that the issue of the impact on that house should be determined under the zoning of Scarsdale which would permit us to build this court in this location. Therefore,the Mamaroneck requirement to minimize the impact on the adjacent.premises and remaining in the last one-third is of very little concern because the adjacent house is in Scarsdale where we could build. The closest part of that property is a garage structure. On the other side of the garage was a breezeway,then is the house. The garage itself protrudes up about 10 ft.in height and is a natural barrier between the house and the property. Because of the slope of the property from the street going to the surface of the tennis court where it is currently positioned, there's about a 5 ft.to 6 ft.drop-off as you come down in the property. We will be required to excavate and build a retaining wall around that. This will visually,while we would seek to put up a 10 ft.fence around the court,would mean from the street it will not appear to be a 10 ft.fence. Mr.Fanelli said my clients are willing to abide by whatever restrictions this Board may put before them, understanding that you're zoning normally would be an 8 ft. fence. From the point of view of the operation of a tennis court,a 10 ft.fence is preferable. If you prohibit that,the 8 ft.fence would be acceptable, but we would ask you to consider the 10 ft. fence. We're also willing to provide some additional shrubbery and natural barriers to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. Mr.Fanelli said the property to our immediate south is a golf course. It is not residential property immediately behind us,so there really is no impact on any residential property. In fact,the golf course is more of a hazard to us in that golf balls are constantly landing on our property and most particularly land Zoning Board April 24, 2002 Page 7 more often on the other side of the house where it was suggested the fence put might be positioned which would pose a much greater risk to anybody on the tennis courts at that time. Mr. Fanelli said I would ask if the Board had any other questions. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Fanelli did you go into all of the logic why the court cannot be placed on the east end portion of the property. There is a slope on the west end portion of the property where the court is currently located and there's a slope on the other side as well. Why couldn't it be immediately adjacent to the concrete patio and existing pool? There's an open area right there. Mr. Fanelli said that area of the property has very tall trees on it that have been there for a substantial period of time. They're natural shading the property. My clients do not want to loose that. Also,because of the location of the driving range on the golf course, golf balls tend to fall and land in that area causing hazards. It's my understanding that that area has more slope to it and there is also rock in that area, if I understand correctly, that would cause a much greater expense to be removed. Mr. Gunther said when I was on the property yesterday, I sort of paced off the width of the court. I paced off from the fence by the existing pool and there was more than sufficient room to place it before coming into any of the old Oak tree. The old Oak tree was pretty far to the left of the property. Mr. Gunther said what troubles me greatly is standing on Cornell Street and looking at a 10 ft. fence, I understand when you have a tennis court you need to have a tall fence. Having that basically in the front yard is specifically the reason why the Town has a law that says that tennis courts are supposed to be in the rear third, so that you don't intrude on everyone else in the surrounding areas. In this particular instance, similar to when the application came before us once before, there is a vast piece of property on the other side of the house where the court could be placed without a variance. What our Town Code requires as one of the findings is that there be an alternative for the homeowner to secure what he's requesting without a variance and that, in my mind, appears to exist on this piece of property. Mr. Fanelli said my clients are not here to speak on that subject,but the topography of that land as I have seen it and they have explained it to me, it is not suitable. Michael Valentine addressed the Board. Mr. Fanelli said he will be the contractor. Mr. Valentine said that piece of the property may have enough square footage for a tennis court. I don't think it sits very nicely in there. Half of the court that's existing is basically going to stay where it is. We're just going to extend out less than 50 ft. toward Cornell, which the Town of Scarsdale has no objection to. Ms. Martin said if the tennis court were repositioned to the eastern part of the property, it still,assuming if they constructed it with this new north/south orientation, it still wouldn't be within the rear one-third of his property. Mr. Fanelli said no, it would not. We would still have the same problem and it would not be in the rear one-third. We're seeking to reorient the direction of the court. Ms. Harrington asked, why do they want to reposition it? What's wrong with the tennis court? Can't they just resurface? • Mr. Fanelli said it could be resurfaced. I'm not a tennis player, but based upon the positioning of the court as it is now when you're playing either in the early morning or the late afternoon, somebody is playing into the sun at all times. By reorientating the court, then the position of the sun will not be into the eyes of one of the players. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 8 Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. Ms.Martin asked,are there any regulations regarding the time of day that people can be playing tennis, in terms of how early in the morning could people be able to be out. Mr.Carpaneto said there are noise ordinances as far as work goes,but as far as play I don't believe there are any. If it did come up it would be a civil matter. Mr.Davis said the question would be whether it was a nuisance. Mr.Fanelli said this court is not lit. We're not proposing that it be lit,and in fact the code in Scarsdale prohibits lighting of tennis courts. We would not be seeking to light this court either now or sometime in the future. Mr.Fanelli said that this court has been in existence for some very substantial period of time,over tens years I believe. I don't believe there has ever been a problem with neighbors or anybody complaining about noise from the court and this is keeping the court substantially in the same location as it has been. If the court is moved to the other side it is then going to be much closer to other residential property than it will be in the Town of Mamaroneck then it is currently. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other questions from Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any questions from the public on this application. There were none. O Mr.Gunther said I'll make a motion on the environmental. This is a Type II action,requiring no further action under SEQRA. Is there a second? Mr.Winick seconded this motion,and it was unanimously approved. Mr.Gunther asked if anyone cared to make a motion on the merits of the application. Mr.Davis said before the motion,Ron should say whether it was referred to the County. Mr.Carpaneto said this application has been referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and also to the Village of Scarsdale and there were no comments. Mr.Fanelli said I would just point out that we have not made a formal application to Scarsdale at this time, based upon where we stood before this Board,we felt that it would be prudent to get your permission and assuming that it was granted,we will then make the formal application to Scarsdale which obviously we cannot construct this without their consent. Mr.Gunther asked if anyone would care to make a motion on the merits of the application. Mr.Winick said I have a question for our counsel,which is simply what is the legal affect,if any,on the fact that we have two jurisdictions. Is the application made to both of them? Is a variance required on both places..inaudible. Mr.Davis said you regulate the portion of the property that's in the Town of Mamaroneck. You do not regulate the portion of the property that's in Scarsdale. O Mr.Fanelli said as pointed out,we would be completely within compliance in the Town of Scarsdale. Were this property solely within Scarsdale....interrupted. Mr.Winick said I read your letter and saw that point in your letter. Yes,I do have a question. Whether or not anyone on the Board thinks that....I had not thought of the impact on Cornell Street really,but Zoning Board April 24, 2002 Page 9 whether there's any sort of landscaping alternative or some other condition that might be appropriate to g soften the visual affect of this. Ms. Martin said they're putting in plantings. Mr. Gunther said 5 ft. plantings aren't going to _ Mr. Fanelli said the fence is going to be below grade. At that point, there will be a retaining wall and the fence will start at the base of that retaining wall. The 5 ft. plantings will certainly cover the 10 ft. fence. Mr. Valentine said about a 4/4' ft. retaining wall. The plantings are going to be approximately 1 ft.away from the retaining wall which brings it up to the slope toward the 5 ft. height of the trees and the plantings will cover the fence. Mr. Gunther asked, the planter's a 4 ft. high block retaining wall? Mr. Fanelli said there will be a 4 ft. high retaining wall and inside of that retaining wall will be the fence. Outside of the retaining wall will be the plantings and sound and visual bathers. Mr. Valentine said what I was trying to say is if the wall is at 4 ft. the slope, the grade of the land is going to start at that 4 ft. and immediately start going up. The plantings are not going to be immediately right on top of the wall at 4 ft. They're going to be set back for room for the roots to grow, so they're going to be about 1 ft. high. • Mr. Fanelli said, because there is a gradual decline coming from Cornell down to where the plantings are on top of it. This will not have a visual impact of a 10 ft. fence. It will only have a visual impact of maybe a 4 ft. to 5 ft. fence. Mr. Winick asked, is the construction that's proposed to be in conformance of the policy statement for tennis courts from the Scarsdale Board of Appeals, attached to the application? Mr. Fanelli said yes. Mr. Davis said that the perceived height of the fence is obviously germane to the request to the fence height restriction. I would ask, without expressing an opinion,whether the record is adequate on the basis of Mr. Fanelli's statement to reach that conclusion. Whether there's sufficient information in the record about the slope in a form that allows you to make a judgment about how the height of the fence would be perceived. Ms. Martin said I'm thinking that the survey drawing at face value has got a 4 ft. retaining wall and a 5 ft. plantings, you've got 9 ft. minimum coverage. Mr. Gunther said there is no topographical indication on the map to clearly show what the grade is. Mr. Fanelli said we do show that the height of the retaining wall would be 4 ft. and the fence is within that retaining wall, so that the visual affect of the fence from outside would only show 6 ft. of the fence. Mr. Davis said but that's not the same thing as saying that the fence would not be perceived as being 10 ft. high,which if it were perceived as less than 10 ft. high it has to be on a downward portion of the slope. tioMr. Fanelli said you have a gradual sloping down and then you're going to have a retaining wall. The fence measuring 10 ft. from the bottom of the retaining wall up,but the ground level is already 4 ft. above where the fence is starting from. When you're looking at it, you're only going to see a 6 ft. fence. Ms. Harrington said we don't have anything showing that ...inaudible. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 10 Mr.Fanelli said we do show the 4 ft.high segmented block retaining wall to show that. If the Board would like to have us give you a topographical drawing to that effect,we can do that. I would ask that we be allowed to bring that back to the next meeting if that is going to be germane. Mr.Davis said I want to make clear,I wasn't suggesting that it was required. I just wanted to make sure that the Board was thinking about whether the graphic was sufficient. Mr.Gunther said I can't vote in favor of the application until I get complete satisfaction that what will be built will be completely enclosed..inaudible. There are no topographical indications on the site drawing that's provided,so I'm going to take you on your word that you'll...inaudible. Mr.Valentine said we can lower the fence,if you say 10 ft.is_ Mr.Fanelli said 10 ft.would be optimum from the surface of the playing court and that's what we would be seeking,but we can lower it if that's what the Board requires. He said 10 ft.is being permitted in the Town of Scarsdale. Mr.Winick said the concern being expressed here is the state of the record,not the height of the fence at least by Mr. Gunther. Maybe a solution to this would cost you a month to come back here with a topographical map and asked Mr.Gunther if he wants to see something that shows the elevations on the landscape plan? Mr.Gunther said so that we know exactly what we are approving. O Mr.Winick said I'm just trying to get instruction for him to come back and that I accurately expressed that. Ms.Martin said we have to be unanimous..inaudible. • Mr.Gunther said that is correct,unanimous from all Board members voting on the application. After some discussion,Mr.Davis said...inaudible to proceed on the strength of a motion instead of on the same application. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Fanelli if you can provide sufficient site drawings to indicate the true position of the fence in relation to the topography of the land and sufficient shrubbery around it that completely encloses it with an effective screen from the road.... Ms.Martin said from the road or all the way around the court? Mr.Gunther said what he has showing is a portion on the north side,the west to east side,not going all the way..inaudible. Ms.Martin asked,so how far are you asking him to go? Mr.Gunther said what he's showing in terms of shrubs,I don't know the difference between the height of the fence and the height of the shrubs. Mr.Winick said I think if you come back with that plan,even if there is some concern or a Board member would like the shrubbery extended that's something you can...inaudible. Mr.Fanelli said we're certainly willing to cooperate and if the Board wanted more shrubbery,we would certainly be willing to consider putting in the additional shrubbery as you may request. There is,in fact, around the court that was there,shrubbery all the way around although it was very low shrubbery just as Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 11 a natural screen around it. My clients do wish to screen this to some degree,but it wasn't required. We're showing shrubbery there because it was required by the Town of Scarsdale. We were not showing shrubbery on your area,because your zoning did not require it. While it was our intention to do some screening,there is not a mandated amount of screening. If you are going to mandate screening because of the variance,we certainly would be very happy to show that and will be very happy to comply with that. Mr.Winick said when I looked at Scarsdale's guidelines,there seemed to be an ongoing that seems like a reasonable solution,a well thought out rile. Some screening of that order on the Mamaroneck portion would be appropriate. Mr.Fanelli said my clients are not here and I'm not authorized to completely speak for them in this regard, but almost be consistent that whatever the shrubbery and natural barriers that they're putting up,they would want to continue that nature around the course so it would be the same appearance throughout the whole course although they have not told me that they would be doing that,but it would seem a logical extension. I will speak with them if we could then put this over to the next meeting. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other requests from Board members. There were none. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2491,Michael and Carla Mathias be,and hereby is adjourned to our next Zoning Board meeting with the applicant,Mr.Fanelli,returning with appropriate site drawings to clearly show the impact of fencing and screening. Mr.Fanelli said you did set your next board meeting date,but I didn't take note of it. Mr.Gunther said the next Board meeting date is May 22,2002. Mr.Fanelli thanked the Board. The secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2496 Application of Bonnie and James Holiber requesting a variance to construct a two-story side addition for an extended garage,kitchen and master bath on the premises located at 48 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224,Lot 341. The two-story addition as proposed has a side yard of 5.7 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. James Holiber,the applicant,appeared to address the Board. Mr. Holiber said he has something to handout to the Board,marked exhibit#1,2 pages. Mr.Holiber said I'm new at this and he read from prepared text which is a part of the record. Mr.Holiber said his neighbors,the Meisters and the Lanklers,wrote letter voicing no objection to the modifications I have proposed,which is part of the record. The Meisters who live closest to the nonconforming area have further stated that they will benefit from the addition by gaining more privacy in their patio area and value to their home. Please be aware that through our planning process we have O made it a priority to maintain the style of our 1927 tudor,and we have kept the size of the project to a minimum so as not to overpower the surrounding houses by slapping on a huge,objectionable"box". Our proposed solution with smaller additions in the rear of the house preserves maximum yard space and a natural setting. Second,because of where the kitchen is in our home,it is not feasible for us to achieve our needs without a variance, the kitchen is above the garage requiring us to extend the addition flush with Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 12 the nonconforming side wall of our house. We must extend all the way to the side so that we can continue to use the garage located below and to get the proper amount of space for a functioning kitchen. Without a variance,we would have to move the garage to the other side of the house and give up much needed yard space creating a much more substantial renovation. Our plan enables us to achieve our goals while having the least amount of impact to the neighborhood. Thirdly,the area of nonconformity is a very small space and that's depicted in the diagram that I just handed out. The area protruding into the side setback is only 4 ft.by 5 ft. The furthest distance for noncomplying area protrudes this 4 ft. This area is less than 1% of my total yard of approximately 13,087 sq.ft. Fourth,our solution has the least amount of impact to our surroundings as is possible. The area of nonconformity does not extend any closer to the rear property line as what currently exists. In fact,the entire rear renovation is within the setback requirements. This was important to us,so that the Leatherstocking Trail is preserved and unaffected the change. Five,the difficulty of doing this project was not created by us,but rather by the architect who planned the site approximately 75 years ago. I own two lots,"IC"and"L",and for some reason the architect placed the house all the way to the right,the driveway wrapping around the left side. This does not give us too many options,since we prefer to maintain the original style of the house. Zoning laws have obviously changed since the house was built and so have our needs. Our solution updates our house while minimally affecting the immediate area. In closing,I hope you agree that the appeal I made serves a good purpose. I appreciate your time and request that you approve my application for a variance. Thank you. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. Mr.Gunther said nicely done. Thanks for the plans. When it's done it won't look like an addition. OMr.Holiber said the credit goes to my architect. Mr. Gunther said if there are no comments,from public on this application and there are no further comments from the Board members,this is a Type II action requiring no further action under SEQRA. Is there a second? Ms.Martin seconded it. Mr.Gunther said all those in favor,everyone voted in favor. He said the motion is carried. He asked if anyone cared to make a motion on the merits of the application. Mr.Davis said before the motion is made,Mr. Carpaneto should tell us whether the application was referred to the County. Mr.Carpaneto said the application was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and there was no response from the County. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. Mr.Wexler had not yet arrived. 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.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: O WHEREAS,Bonnie and James Holiber have submitted an.application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story side addition for an extended garage,kitchen and master bath on the premises located at 48 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224,Lot 341. The two-story addition as proposed has a side yard of 5.7 ft.where Zoning Board April 24,2002 • Page 13 `� 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Bonnie and James Holiber 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 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 the presentation of the applicant and also reviewing the premises themselves,there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. The applicant and his architect has attempted to maintain the Q integrity of the house and work within the existing nonconforming position of the house where it was built approximately 75 years ago. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative. The kitchen in its present location is in a nonconforming location,close to the property line. It's simply extending that kitchen to bring it up to a modem standards and this location is the best choice given the position of the house as it sits on the property. Virtually any additional construction in the kitchen would involve the necessity of an area variance. C. The variance is not substantial. We talking about a very small piece,actually 4 ft.by 5 ft.,approximately 1%of the area of the property. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.The neighboring homeowners have expressed their support of the application. It will be consistent with the architecture of the • house. E. There is no self-created difficulty. This is a nonconforming property. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and Othe health,safety and welfare of the community. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 14 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. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for your permit. Mr.Holiber thanked the Board. �J Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2498 Application of Joseph and Tanya Messina requesting a variance to construct a family room and deck addition on the premises located at 80 West Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 865. The family room addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.5 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);a total side yard of 17.6 ft.where 18 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b);a lot coverage of 36%where 35%is required pursuant to 240-39F;and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a.residence in an R-6 Zone District. Joe Messina said he is here representing the application of my son,Joe and my daughter-in-law Tanya for the right to build a family room and deck on the rear of their home at 80 West Garden Road. As indicated by the chairman there are a series of three variances required each of which is minimal. At this time I'd like to supplement the application also with letters from the neighbors on either side of the property who have voiced their support for this project;Ronald W.-Meister and Jane M.Sovem,Douglas Lankier and Jill Lankier. Mr.Messina said with regard to the addition that's being requested,in fact by putting the addition on,it would really bring this house more into conformity with the other houses in the neighborhood. This is if not the smallest,one of the smallest houses on the block. Each of the houses on that side of the block really go more depth than depth into the property line. This would simply be extending an existing room which is nonconforming by I believe 6 inches on the side yard back to accommodate the family room and Q the deck requirement. With regard to the plans themselves,I have the architect here that might be able to answer any questions about the way the plans have been constructed. He's gone through great pains to try to maintain the integrity of this 1920's home and to make sure that the architectural integrity does not • Zoning Board • April 24,2002 Page 15 make it look like this was an addition but really rather that this was part of the original home. If there are any questions,the architect,John Knoetgen,is here to address them. After reviewing the plans,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. Nancy Seligson said I was just curious as to why this is an extensive erosion control plan for this. Not that I'm objecting to it,but I don't think we've seen such an elaborate plan for such an extension. Mr.Knoetgen said it's required by the Town. Mr.Carpaneto said a lot of times people will choose to do the erosion control application before they do anything. Ms.Seligson said at the same time I see,so you're seeing it at the same time. Mr. Carpaneto said correct. He said I believe the architect himself does the erosion...inaudible he'll accept the plans,accept the...inaudible. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Q 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. Mr.Gunther asked if Linda wanted to make a motion on this application. Mr.Carpaneto said that the application has been referred and we haven't gotten any comments back from any of the referrals. After some discussion,Mr.Davis said there are two sets of rules that require a referral to the County Planning Board. One comes from the County level and one comes from the State level. They are not completely consistent with each other and they both require thought. We refer all applications to the County with the same degree of diligence so that none of the applications are vulnerable to a challenge that it should have been but.was not referred. Ms.Martin asked,have we always referred every application to the County? Mr.Davis said for a while now. The problem is if you don't,the mere failure to refer may be grounds for setting aside an approval. Ms.Martin said I understood in terms of what the Leatherstocldng Trail is...inaudible. Fine,great. After some discussion,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOP1/:1J 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. OOn motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 16 WHEREAS,Joseph and Tanya Messina have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a family room and deck addition on the premises located at 80 West Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 865. The family room addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.5 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);a total side yard of 17.6 ft.where 18 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b);a lot coverage of 36% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(b),Section 240-39B(2)(b),Section 240-39F and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Joseph and Tanya Messina 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 Q 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 addition doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. There is no detriment to the health and welfare of the public. It brings the home into conformity with the other homes in the area. B. It's a very minimal variance. The difference is really in inches,so that it's not a substantial variance. C. There is no reasonable alternative to obtain the addition wanted without a variance,because of the existing nonconforming conditions. D. it will not have any adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. There is no self-created difficulty. It will just bring it into conformity with the other residences. 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. 0 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. Zoning Board • April 24,2002 Page 17 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. Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2499 Application of Andrew Juzeniw and Estella Nisola requesting a variance to construct a first floor family room and powder room above garage and extend second floor bedroom above the first floor family room Q on the premises located at 278 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110,Lot 121. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.6 ft.where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R 7-5 Zone District. Larry Gordon of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue,Larchmont,the architect for the project addressed the Board. He said as you mentioned the house is now nonconforming,so whatever we do to the house is going to obviously be nonconforming. We are proposing to redo the existing garage which is now in disrepair. We also like to expand the existing kitchen and create a small family room. On the second floor there's a very small bedroom,two other bedrooms and a third,a very tiny bedroom,which we wish to expand and make it into a more liveable space. The architecture blends with the existing house and is in conformity to the spirit of the existing house. Mr.Gordon said we have'spoken to the neighbors that are immediately affected by what we're proposing and we have letters of approval which we can give to the Board now,marked exhibit 1. We are not at all changing the footprint of the building. There's a letter from the neighbor most immediately affected and a summary that I wrote of all my conversations with all the adjoining neighbors.I have extra copies of that. Ms.Martin said you have a letter from a house which is directly facing the garage. The one that is separated by the driveway. Mr.Gordon said yes. Mr.Gunther asked if there were photos,which the secretary provided. Ms.Martin said just for curiosity,what is the function of that archway going to the garage? Mr.Gordon said I think originally it's the style and also to make the house look larger than it actually is, more of an imposing curb appeal. We're matching the materials and the trim of the existing house. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 18 Ms.Martin said Mr.Winick and I looked at this property together and was a little concerned about the use of the balcony with the sense of if your family were to be up there,it would be looming over the adjacent property and the neighbor...inaudible. Mr. Gordon said we didn't want to increase the size of that room,because it's already almost like a bowling alley. It's long and narrow. Ms.Martin asked,is there a balcony there now? Mr.Gordon said yes. Mr.Gordon submitted drawings marked exhibit#2 and exhibit#3. Mr.Gunther asked,what is it that you are giving us here. Mr.Gordon said exhibit#2 is the proposed addition to the house. Mr.Gunther asked how would you describe the...inaudible. Mr.Gordon said it's a prospective,isometric drawing. Exhibit#3 is the existing house. Mr.Winick said I have a question from a different perspective. If I understand the drawing correctly you are doubling the height of that entire garage structure,adding a second story. Mr.Gordon said yes,we're bringing it up to the existing height of the building now. It's going to be no higher than the existing building. OMr.Winick said but it will be twice the size that it is now. Mr.Winick said my concern is that the neighbors may not quite,while they gave their blessing to this,understand something. I was concerned because it looks to me,as that structure runs back along the property,what will house a two car garage of the neighbors faces directly. It looks to me like the space that the neighbors use as their back yard is all right in the rear of their property,parallel to the street,but all the way at the rear of their property line. A little bit past the garage. Mr.Gordon said but the rear of our addition is not any higher than it is now,because we're using that, as it is now,as a balcony. Mr.Winick said I didn't get that off your drawing. Mr.Davis asked,are the exhibits#2 and#3 drawn at the same scale? Mr.Gordon said yes. Mr.Gordon said it's not the same scale. These are the sketches. MS.ROMA SAID WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HEAR WHAT'S BEING SAID! Mr.Gordon said these are sketches to help clarify the proposal. The rear is the same height as it is now. Mr.Gunther said what Mr.Gordon is referring to is the rear roof of the existing garage will remain at the same height as it is today. However,the section at the front of the garage will have an addition on top of it which will double the height..inaudible. Ms.Martin said this looks so much higher. Mr.Gunther said this is the same as this. EVERYONE IS SPEAKING AMONG THEMSELVES. MS.ROMA SAID TO REMEMBER WE ARE RECORDING. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 19 After some discussion,Mr.Gunther said railing is just added onto here. Mr.Gunther said let the record show that we are looking at exhibits#2 and exhibit#3,trying t explain the difference in the proposal. Mr.Davis said we're now looking at drawing#2. Mr.Gordon said this is the garage,this is the family room. It is higher. Mr.Davis asked Mr.Gordon to explain what it is that is higher. • Mr.Gordon said the second floor is higher now: Mr.Davis said you're adding a story. Mr.Winick said so now I still have that concern. It looks to me that from where the neighbors will be sitting in their back yard what they'll be looking at is the edge of the rear corner of that structure and it's going to be quite tall from they're prospective of someone sitting in that yard. Mr.Gordon said it's not going to be any taller than the house itself. Mr.Winick said but the whole house is not back where their back yard is. I really don't have a problem with anything except the impact that could possibly have on the neighbors when they're outside and it's obviously the only sitting space they have in the back yard. My question is whether or not there's something you can do by way of creating landscaping to soften that edge because now you're essentially looking at sort of a knife edge that's coming right into the back yard. Andrew Juzeniw,278 Rockingstone,homeowner,addressed the Board.`Mr.Juzeniw said I was just going to comment that part of the garage,the floor of the garage is actually going to be dropped 18 inches or 19 inches. If it's the back area that you're concerned about being two stories now instead of one,it's really going to be 18 or 19 inches less than 2 ft. That's odd,but it's not doubling of it. We plan to plant a lot of things. Through that whole area right now,there's nothing there but hard dirt. Mr.Winick said it looked to me like there's was room to plant. What my concern is often neighbors don't quite understand exactly what the impact is going to be. It would be enough to raise their concern,so I would like some sort of thought given to how that could be screened. I would like to make it a condition for granting a variance. Mr.Gordon said we plan to do planting. You can put that in a condition. Mr.Gunther asked what side of the house is that,the west side? Mr.Gordon said yes,I think it's the northwest. After some discussion,Mr.Juzeniw said it's north. As far as their enjoyment of their back yard,one of the things that we were concerned about was that we were going to block sunlight or something like that and we were very careful to see that the way the sun goes now,our house,it wouldn't block anymore. I think their house blocks the sun all the time to their back yard. I don't think there's any kind of sunlight issue. I think one of the reasons they're positive about this,is they're hoping that we do something to make it look nicer. Right now what they've done is they've made a driveway right up to the exact half inch of their property line. No matter how much they wanted to spend,they couldn't plant anything thin O enough to fill up. I think they're hoping and we plan to do something nicer to kind'of separate the property. Mr.Gordon said we also did not put a window in the bedroom area,in order to provide privacy. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 20 Mr.Gunther said Larry,I think the concern that I have is being on the north side,you are 6 ft.closer to the front of the house. What's the largest space you have at the rear of the house? Mr.Gordon said about 8'h ft. Mr.Gunther said it's not very much and as a result the north side of the property to really grow stuff in there it's going to be rather limited. The size of the wall that you're proposing is going to be 36 inches. Mr.Gordon said the setback on your rear looks about 10 ft. Mr.Gunther said where the addition portion of it is,the three story addition is,two additions on top of the garage,may be 8 ft.give or take,side yard setback where the largest portion of your addition exists which is this portion here is maybe 8 ft.give or take. Mr.Gunther asked,what's the height of this wall? • Mr.Gordon said the height at the highest point of the building,the underside of the roof,approximately 22/24 ft. Mr.Gunther said I don't know if other Board members have the same concern I have about putting a 22 ft.or 24 ft.wall so close to a nearby property and effectively on the north side of the house people grow something there and it softens the impact. I know we have had cases in the past of other properties where large,straight walls so close to the property line have created visual Mr.Gordon said these walls have windows in them,they're not continuous. Mr. Gunther said a wall is a wall. Mr. Gunther asked, does any other Board member ever have a concern? Mr.Winick said my recollection from visiting the site was where the taller part of the addition was placed as against the other house didn't have much impact simply because it's taller obviously,there's more now, but it's across from a portion of the house where there are not a lot of windows. I didn't think it would block the sun. The sun will move in an east/west and come up over the back yard. They will get sun until at least noon,maybe into the afternoon and then as it drops behind that addition you're out of sight. It wouldn't really affect the light there at all. Mr.Gunther said you have the letter from the neighbor? Mr.Juzeniw and Ms.rlisola said yes. Mr.Gunther asked,what's the address? Mr.Winick said 280 Rockingstone. Mr.Gunther said 280 Rockingstone is the house most affected by the addition. Mr.Davis asked,did they say what they saw before they concluded that they were supportive. Mr.Gunther said all it says is we have no objection to the proposed construction plans and zoning variance request being made by our neighbors at 278 Rockingstone. It's dated April21,2002. Andrew and Estela consulted with us about their plans and will consider our views and requested our input during all phases of the design process and well before they called me submitted an application. We liked their ideas and O encouraged them to proceed. They've shown us and we reviewed the architectural plans that were submitted with their application. The plans were prepared by Lawrence Gordon&Associates Architects and are labeled Job No.0201,dated 3/30/02. Mr.Gunther said the plans I have are dated 3/3/02 and asked Mr.Gordon if he has another set. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 21 Mr.Gordon said there is not another set. They are the same plans. The date is probably wrong. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any plans dated 3/30/02. Mr.Gordon said these are the last set we did. Mr.Gunther continued saying,the proposed addition will not affect how we enjoy our home and property and we think that their house will retain its Tudor style and become more attractive and balanced,thus. improving the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood will not change and we urge you to grant the variance requested. Sincerely Bonnie and Marc Chapman. Mr.Gunther said this is your letter summarizing conversations with other people. Mr.Juzeniw said there were conversations,and five of the other seven stopped by,got it's work,looked at the plans. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other questions from Board members? There were none. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions or comments from the public on this application? There were none. Mr.Carpaneto said the matter was referred to the application was sent to the Westchester County Planning. Board and there were no comments. O On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 4-1. Mr.Wexler abstained. 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 Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Andrew Juzeniw and Estella Nisola have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a first floor family room and powder room above garage and extend second floor bedroom above the first floor family room on the premises located at 278 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110,Lot 121. The addition as proposed has aside yard of 6.6 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R 7-5 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(2)(a)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Andrew Juzeniw and Estella Nisola 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 O WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: Zoning Board • April 24,2002 Page 22 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This is a nonconforming property. Any addition to this house requires a variance. The question is really what the additional nonconforming impact will be. The proposed addition is on the side property line closest to 280 Rockingstone. The positioning of it has virtually no affect on any other property other than 280 Rockingstone. B. Having inspected the premises and looked at the plans,there will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or on the • neighbor as a result of this addition,assuming the variance is granted on the conditions set forth below. C. The siting of the two-story portion is where the highest portion of the addition is opposite a portion of the house at 280 Rockingstone which is of equal height and does not have a great number of windows in it. The portion of the addition will not affect the outside use of the facility of 280 Rockingstone. D. Given the size of the lot and the goal that the applicant has stated here tonight and the nonconforming nature of the property now. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative that does not involve the necessity of an area variance, nor is the variance substantial. It keeps the current footprint of the house, goes up a second story, but because of the relative position of those two houses on the block the variance is not substantial and will not have an impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district at all. E. It is not a self-created difficulty. It comes from the typical placement when we build houses on lots in our Town. 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. The applicant shall develop a landscape plan and return to the Board for approval of that O landscape plan before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. That will give the Board a chance to address that particular issue of screening the adjacent property. 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board April 24,2002 • Page 23 0 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. Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2500 Application of Denise and Finbar Regan requesting a variance to expand a second floor bedroom and add a second floor bedroom on the premises located at 19 Iancdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219,Lot 311. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Anthony Schembri, with Opacic Architects, one of the architects working on the project appeared to address the Board. He said our address is 24 North Astor,Irvington,New York. Mr.Schembri said the Regans have commission us to design some additional living space and bedroom space for their growing family. They commissioned our office to design some plans that would generally have some more living space and one additional bedroom. In that,when we met with the Regans we found that the property was an irregular piece of property in that corner lot the house was skewed on the property which made for us an interesting design session. We feel that we've come up with what we believe to be the best program requirements of meeting the best program requirements that we could and also minimized the amount of encroachments on this particular piece of property. Mr.Schembri said he will walk through the project with the Board,if you wish. Mr.Schembri said,this extension is at one end of the project that does conform. We're proposing to take down the existing sun room and put up a family room at that location at the first floor level. At the second floor level there will be anew bedroom in that. Mr.Schembri said the existing dining room shown here,currently is nonconforming. It goes over the side yard setback by approximately 3 ft. We're proposing to extend that plane at the second floor elevation. However,we're proposing to bump out a bay which is a cantilever and I'll show you shortly an elevation. The reason why we're proposing this further encroachment is that we need to have circulation across the second floor to the new bedroom over the family room,as I mentioned earlier. We're not able to move this hallway down. The living room below is essentially a story and one-half of cathedral ceiling. We treasure it very much and wish not to destroy it. Also,we are proposing a small kitchen bay which will allow us to do a much more functional kitchen and produce an island within the kitchen. That kitchen bay would,at the very corner,will encroach on the setback in a triangular way,if you will,by one foot. Just clarifying the encroachment,the kitchen bay which does not go all the way to grade,a cantilever,will encroach 1 ft. and the second floor, reconfigured bedroom, will be in the same plane that the nonconforming dining room with a 1 ft.projection bay as well. I will show you that in elevations. Mr.Schembri pointed out the family room,the new bedroom addition and the existing sun room. Actually you can see the architecture is very in keeping with what's there. You can see here that this is the existing dining room,the new bedroom above with that small cantilever that I spoke about. He again pointed out the family room,the existing dining room,that plane traveling up,and the 1 ft.cantilever in the bedroom Zoning Board April 24,2002 ' Page 24 l.+ above. This very small bump out here,is the kitchen bay which will allow us to give them a much more visual view. Mr.Schembri said I have photographs. He said the Regans have spoken with their adjoining neighbors and they will speak about that. Mr.Gunther asked how long have they lived in the house? Denise Regan said 31/2 years. Mr.Regan said it will be 3 years in September. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other questions from Board members. There were none. Finbar Regan said he said we spoke to the Matthews. We didn't get a letter here,because I didn't know actually that we should have one. They live on West Brookside and they said that they're fine with the addition,they actually welcome it and it doesn't take away from their house,as they said. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other comments or questions from the public on this application? There were none. Mr.Gunther asked,do we have comments from the County? Mr.Carpaneto said that the application was referred to the County and no comments have been received. Mr.Gunther asked if someone would care to make a motion on the merits of the application. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, 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 Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Denise and Finbar Regan have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to expand a second floor bedroom and add a second floor bedroom on the premises located at 19 Lansdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219,Lot 311. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Denise and Finbar Regan 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 O has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a bearing thereon;and Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 25 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. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties created. The architect has created an addition which will achieve the goals of the applicant with a minimum impact on the property setback and the adjoining property. This property is burdened by two front yards and therefore is very limited,specifically because of its position on the property in making an addition that does not have use that would require an area variance. B. It is unlikely that the applicant could achieve its goals via a reasonable alternative that would not require an area variance. C. The variance is not substantial. It is basically two portions that cantilever out over the existing footprint of the property and gives additional space to the applicant with minimal impact on the setback encroachment. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It is the minimal amount of work to get the Omaximum benefit to the applicant. E. There is no self-created difficulty,given the position of this house on the ' Property. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. Tke 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. Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 26 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. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for your building permit. Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.9-CASE 2501 Application of Mark and Diane Holland requesting a variance to construct a second floor walk-in bay window on the premises located at 31 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,Lot 104. The bay window as proposed has a side yard of 6.2 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a),a total side yard of 15.3 ft.where 20 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked if the applicant is present? No one was present. Mr.Wexler asked if we have to have an applicant present to hear this case. Mr.Davis said no,but somebody should explain for them so that the record will have an explanation. QMr.Gunther said let the record show that no one is present to present the application. However,Board members are viewing the application on paper that was submitted. Ms.Martin asked,can we vote on it? Mr.Gunther said of course you can. If any Board members have any questions,then I would propose we don't vote. Mr.Davis said the question is whether the record is sufficient and it is possible that the record can be sufficient because of the written and drawing material in the record. Mr. Wexler said it appears-that what he's asking for is a small by window of approximately a 3 ft. projection onto the rear of the property. The bay window aligns with the height of the wall on the side of the home which presently sits 6.2 ft.from the property line. He's extending the side property line another 3 ft.with a very small,modest addition of a bay with what he calls a walk-in bedroom. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions from Board members? Mr. Carpaneto said I spoke to the immediate neighbor. She called, I explained the application the application to her and she was quite comfortable with it,if that can be helpful to the Board. Mr.Winick said it should be said that two Board members have looked at the property and based on the review of it and observation of the property,the impact of this addition on the surrounding property in the community will be nil. OMr.Wexler said this is a rather nicely designed little addition. It's very pleasant. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions or comments from the public? • Zoning Board April 24,2002 Page 27 Ms.Seligson said I think someone should add that it is substantially a community character of a house as well. MS.HARRINGTON IS SPEARING AND CAN'T BE HEARD. Mr.Winick said I don't think that that's new construction. Mr.Carpaneto said there's a new house being built next door. Ms.Harrington asked,that's not their driveway where the dumpster is? Mr.Carpaneto said I haven't been by there in a couple of days. They may be doing interior work that I don't know about. Mr.Gunther said if Board members have no further comments,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,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.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mark and Diane Holland have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor walk-in bay window on the premises located at 31 Villa Q Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,Lot 104. The bay window as proposed has a side yard of 6.2 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a),a total side yard of 15.3 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to - Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-38B(2)(b),and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mark and Diane Holland submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and • WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This is a 36 sq.ft.bay window which is going to be added to the house on the second floor. It is a minuscule increase to the overall footprint of the house on the second floor. It has basically no impact on anything around it. Zoning Board April 24,2002 OPage 28 B. Given that the ro P perry is already nonconforming, there is no reasonable alternative to increase the size of that room which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. C. The variance is not substantial. D. As presented on the plans,it will blend with the house and will be virtually inaccessible from either the adjoining property area where the house is in the neighborhood. E. There is no self-created difficulty. This is another old Mamaroneck house which is nonconforming in a modern zone. 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. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a permit during regular hours. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 22,2002. ADJOURNMENT On a motion and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ` �"' /W buy/lf`�. Marguen Roma,Recording Secretary