Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002_04_04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
III AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 4, 2002, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington 9\ 10 Jillian A. Martin II Arthur Wexler 00 4 Paul A. Winick RECEIVED Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel r" MAY 24 2002 ►.+ Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building PATRICIA A.WOE= Nancy Seligson, Liaison e9 TOWN Chink AtAMARONE61 NI Denise M. Carbone, Public Stenographer %_`17-1 --- c, Carbone & Associates, LTD. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER (11, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Gunther said the Board will deal with Minutes and setting of our next meeting date at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2471 (adjourned 10/24/01; 11/28/01; 12/19/01;2/26/02) Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M. Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the 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. Fred Friedman, the applicant, appeared to address the Board. Mr. Friedman said there had been a request by Mr. Winick that we provide an acoustical engineer's report. It took three months to find an acoustical engineer who would come out there, He did it, it's done, you have the report. His conclusion is summed up in the last line and it says there will be no adverse affect on anybody. If anything, it will help everybody in the area, because anything that blocks sound helps everybody. He said there is about as much as a 10 decibel decrease in sound, although in parts of the property there will only be 8 decibels, a substantial decrease in sound. Mr. Wexler said it says 2 to 8 decibels. 0 Mr. Friedman says it depends on where you're standing. The part we're interested in, which is the pool area, will be about 8 decibels. There are parts where it will be as low as 2 decibels and parts where it will be as high as 10 decibels. Mr. Friedman said, as you will recall, the fence will be 33 ft. inside the rear property line. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 2 O Mr.Gunther said it will run across the rear of your property and asked,will it also run up to the side? Mr.Friedman said no,just across the rear of our property. Where the fence will be constructed is 33 ft. inside the property line. Mr.Gunther said I don't believe the site plan indicates,from a topographical prospective,the difference that one end of your property where the fence will be placed and where the rest of your property lies. What happens on the top? The fence is someplace in the middle. The lowest point of your property is the property lying in back of the proposed fence. Mr.Friedman said at the end,toward the end of the proposed fence,which is in a direct sight line to I-95. That's the real problem. Mr.Gunther asked,do you have a sense as to how many feet up in height? Mr.Friedman said our lot is approximately 35 ft.above the roof of the house behind us. He said the pictures,which board members has,are horrible. Mr.Wexler said does this reflect the elevation of the base of the fence to the patio around the pool? Mr.Gunther said I don't believe so. Mr.Wexler said the elevation of the base of the fence in relationship to the patio around the pool. Mr.Friedman said it's approximately 2 ft.lower than the patio level of the pool. Ms.Martin asked how far away in feet is the pool from the wall? Mr.Wexler said about 12 ft. Mr.Friedman said a little more than that,probably 20 ft. Ms.Martin said it's more than 25 ft.from the barrier line,and any attenuation will be marginal,for at least half of your pool. Mr.Friedman said the entire pool runs parallel to the fence,so that only when you get to the other side of the pool will the noise drop,but you'd be able to use the pool and the area around the pool. Mr.Wexler said the pool is about 30 degrees off,parallel with the fence you're proposing. Mr.Friedman said that's probably correct. Not a lot,but it's the topography of the land. Ms.Martin said I don't have the right measurements,but according the report it's not going to provide 100%protection,so three-quarters of the pool,if I'm reading it correctly,is not going to benefit. Mr.Friedman said the length of the pool runs parallel to the fence. Mr.Wexler said about 30 degrees off. OMr.Friedman said slightly off. Mr.Wexler said 30 degrees makes a difference on the length of your pool and a difference on the length of the fence. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 3 O Mr.Friedman said whatever we get out of it,is better than what we've got. What we've got now is an inability to use that pool in the summertime. You can't hear yourself talk. The voice level I'm using now makes it inaudible in the back yard when the cars and trucks are going by,so you can't talk to anybody in the pool. We will certainly get a 5 decibel reduction in most of the pool. Some of it will get a little more,some will get a little less,but whatever we get is better than what we've got. Mr.Wexler said we have to evaluate what you're actually getting as benefit to this lot,the imposition that half the fence is in the environment. Mr.Friedman said except that in that environment,there's nobody behind us who's affected. On the sides it will not harm anybody,according the acoustical engineer. Mr.Wexler said I'm not talking about sound,I'm talking about the placement of an 844 ft.high fence, visual,solid structure in that space. Mr.Friedman said I understand that,Mr.Wexler. If we put bushes so they touch each other 25 ft.high and just let them grow,we could do that. I don't understand why there's a problem with the fence. We're the only ones affected by it. I really don't want a fence in my back yard,but I don't have a choice. I'm not thrilled with the idea of a fence. I didn't move from the city to Westchester years ago to put a fence in my back yard,but I don't have a choice. Whatever has happened on 1-95 has utterly changed our ability to use the back yard of the house. We've been there now for a dozen years,and the last three or four years it has become literally impossible. We had that house on the market last year when you couldn't find a house up here. We didn't even get a single offer and everybody commented that the noise level was such that they wouldn't move in. The house was priced right. It's a good looking house. We couldn't do anything with it. It's unfair to us as owners. We're not adversely affecting anybody. I don't want fences here any more than you do,but I don't have a choice. I can't use the back yard and I think that's unfair. I have a right to use my pool,I have a right to be able to talk to people in the pool,and you can't do that now. Mr.Wexler asked,is your house air conditioned? Mr.Friedman said yes,my house is air conditioned. Mr.Wexler asked,where are the compressors? Mr.Friedman said the compressor is up against the rear of the house. Mr.Winick arrived at this time. Mr.Wexler asked,in between your house and the pool? Mr.Friedman said far from the rear of the house. Mr.Wexler indicated on the plans it's at the far side. Mr.Friedman said to reduce the noise,as a matter fact,we're probably putting one in this summer. We're getting estimates now. Mr.Wexler said the 60 DB rate range is a moderate,loud sound level. They equate that to,in outdoors, Oan air conditioning condenser at 15 ft.or near the freeway. Mr.Friedman said let me try to explain it a little differently. We measured the sound at 6th Avenue and West 44th Street in Manhattan. The sound level during the noon hour at that location,which is a block from my office,was the same as it is in my back yard. That's almost impossible to live with,on a day in day out basis. It's an unfair burden to have to live with that,especially with the same 64 decibels at • Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 4 44th and 6th Avenue. When I measure it,it's 64/65 as the engineer says,and when a truck goes by it would run up as high as 72/73 decibels. We measured it on at least twenty or thirty occasions. I bought my own meter,so that I'd know what it was. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr.Wexler said when you're sitting on your wood deck,you're elevated above that by about 4 ft.? Mr.Friedman said that's right. Mr.Wexler said that puts you above the eye sight. You can see over this fence. Mr.Friedman said I don't believe you would. We had posts in place without a fence,and you cannot see over them from the deck. Mr.Wexler said if the face of the fence is about 2 ft.below the pool and you have nine steps up.... Mr.Friedman said there are three steps up from the pool level to the deck in the middle and on the side there's about four or five. There are three risers on the large steps. Mr.Wexler said the survey is wrong. There's five risers on the large steps. OMr.Friedman asked to take a look,something's wrong. After reviewing the survey,there was some discussion. Ms.Martin said depending upon the location in the back yard,if the variance extends far enough,you need to meet the criteria described in the report. You have a restricted length dictated by the neighboring properties. Unless it is continued around the side of the property,the actual sound alternator will be significantly less at locations more than 25 ft.of area which will be most of the back yard. Mr.Friedman said it's not the patio that we're concerned about. It's not the depth. Ms.Martin said you may not be,but you're selling your home,right? Mr.Friedman said no I'm not. If I can get this done,I want to stay there. I don't want to sell it. What we're concerned about is being able to use as much of the back yard as possible,particularly the swimming pool. The noise level is such that you can't. If I can get rid of the noise to whatever extent that we can for the pool,that solves a good part of my problem. Ms.Martin asked,2 decibels would be.... Mr.Friedman said if you were in the back yard,you'd understand. Anything I can get,part of it will be as much as 8 decibels. I stood in the back yard with him and went over it. Parts of it will be fine,but I only get 2 decibels then. I wish I could wrap it around,but that doesn't make sense. It's not fair to my neighbors and I don't want to wall myself off. I recognize if we came up 10 ft.on each side that would be a better solution,but it's not a more practical solution. O Mr.Wexler said to build a sound barrier it has to be so tight construction to the ground,that no sound gets under it or through any part of it. Mr.Friedman said the reason that that happens,Mr.Wexler,is that where the fence goes,immediately behind it there was a small stone,concrete retaining wall and now a metal,chain link fence. The fence that's going in will have behind it on the bottom about a foot of that stone,concrete wall,so it will abut right up against it. That takes care of the bottom. What we're talking about the possibility of doing,is • Zoning Board April 4, Pagege 5 5 even putting sound deadening material between the two sides. The material that's being used is tongue and groove,so that will keep it as tight as can be done. We're talking about putting in pinkish material. Mr.Wexler said,you're not making the fence water tight. Mr.Friedman said yes we are,because the top will have copper on it. They will have a copper chap on the top,the same way they have flashing at a house where you have a foundation. Mr.Wexler asked,are you going to have a vapor barrier inside behind the plywood? Mr.Friedman said I was told there will be no moisture inside. Mr.Wexler said I can't believe that. Mr.Friedman said they're charging for it. I hope they're doing it. Mr.Wexler said you're not going to see anything open on the panels and you're going to see soggy stuff in there. The moisture that's in the air will go through everyone of those subjects,lap joints,unless you put in a vapor barrier. Mr.Friedman said I can only rely on the contractor doing the job. I spent so much on this thing now getting it through here,a few dollars more is really not important. I want this to work,otherwise there's Q no sense. I've put thousands of dollars into it. I certainly want it to work. The flashing on the top,I'm told,will work reasonably well. We will use something inside to keep the material dry,which is more than the engineer even suggested. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Ms. Harrington said I have a question. In this report, how many streets back is he taking into consideration when he says that it won't have an impact on nearby properties? What does he consider nearby? Mr.Friedman said he considered High Ridge Road,across the other side of High Ridge Road. That property goes back a couple hundred feet to the street behind it. He said there will be no affect on anybody else from this. He said if anything,anything that breaks the sound would help everybody around him. Ms.Harrington said I have to be honest with him with what I've experienced regarding sound barriers that they put up. We now get a tremendous amount of highway noise on my street,which is a good distance away from the highway which we never had before they put up these barriers and he's not explaining that. Mr.Friedman said yes he does. He talks about the sound barrier phenomenon. Ms.Harrington said what he says is,the negative acoustical affects upon nearby properties,given this proposed barrier,everything here he's saying nearby receivers. He's referencing nearby,but he's not giving me any assurance that four blocks away somebody is not going to be adversely affected by this. Mr.Friedman said I'm not an acoustical engineer,but I can just point to page 4 and I'll quote,"as to the Q question of whether the barrier will increase the sound of residences beyond the Friedman home, the answer is no." This idea may have arisen out of knowledge of a phenomenon sometimes experienced with highway noise barriers. In the case where a barrier is erected on side of a highway,the result may be that the noise on the opposite side of the highway increases although marginally,due to the reflection of sound off the barrier. In addition,where residences are located above a highway right-of-way,as such is the case in Larchmont,there is a possibility that when barriers are erected on both sides of the highway,residences above the highway may experience a module increase in sound levels since the barriers act to force the • Zoning Board April 4,2002 6 6 noise upwards. Neither of these apply to the barrier under consideration. The affect of the barrier on nearby receivers is to reduce their sound exposure level when the barrier affectively interrupts the line of sight between the highway and the receptor and has no affect when it does not. Ms.Harrington said that's what troubles me,the words"nearby". What is nearby defining? Mr.Friedman said I only know what he told me. He said that he considered High Ridge Road and the property on the other side of High Ridge Road going to the back of that property and that's 200 and something feet on the other side of the street. Ms.Harrington said,but what is there 500,700 and 1,000 feet away? • Mr.Friedman said I never asked him that question. When he said to me it would have no adverse affect on anybody,I accepted that. Ms.Harrington said I'd hate to see something go up and then someone experience what apparently you're experiencing. Mr.Friedman said I'm experiencing it for another reason. There is nobody over there that would be higher than I am anywhere in that area. If you're familiar with the area,you'd know that. The property on the other side of High Ridge Road is not higher. We get everything,because it comes right up. At the end of my property,there's an opening where there's no vegetation,no trees,no houses and that noise © just comes right up,because there's no barrier on I-95. Mr.Gunther said there's also no property higher than you on the other side of you or in back of you. Mr.Friedman said that's correct,it's substantially lower. Mr.Friedman said we've thought about this a lot and spent a lot of time with this engineer to make sure that we wouldn't have a problem. They're my neighbors also. I don't want to cause anybody a problem. Ms.Harrington said I think there are properties back there that are higher. I'm not talking about a few streets back,I'm talking about five,ten streets up. Mr.Friedman said five,ten streets up is way on the other side of Weaver Street. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members on this application. Mr.Winick said I have a question for the Board. Why are we as lay people trying to analyze this report? I don't feel competent to do it and I don't know anything about the training to answer a question regarding sound. It seems to me there's one way to approach this and any kind of a technical report is to have that report submitted to an expert who's working for the Board. After twenty-five years of litigation,it leaves me a little cynical about this report. I would like an objective view of this report. I think you could do it in time for the next meeting and I think we should. Mr.Gunther said I'd like to go to public comments. Are there any questions or comments from the public on this application? Jane Liebowitz of 189 Hickory Grove Drive, which is directly below the property that we've been discussing,addressed the Board. I will most certainly be adversely affected by having an 8 ft.fence at the end of my property that will severely block the sky from the vantage point of my house. If this variance is allowed,then I have a lot of concerns. I have aesthetic concerns. I was not able to come to the first meeting,so I don't know if any kind of drawings were submitted that would show what this fence would look like. I don't know if the maintenance of the fence on my side of the property has been addressed or if the shrubbery and the trees between the fence and the end of the property will be accessed for maintenance purposes. For instance,this winter two trees fell from that property into my lawn. I'd Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 7 like to be assured that if an 8 ft.fence were erected,that there would be a way to access that piece of property so it could be maintained. I don't know if any of the photographs that were submitted showed it from my vantage point,but I have photographs that show the view from my property. Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Liebowitz to give the photographs to the secretary to mark it as an exhibit,which were marked exhibit#1. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto for the tax map io see where this house is located,which Mr.Carpaneto provided. A gentleman said may I see that photograph,at which time Mr.Gunther said,when we're finished with comments,I will certainly give you another opportunity to speak. Mr.Friedman said I just wanted to see it. Ms.Liebowitz pointed to a photograph and said this photograph was taken from my back yard looking up. There is a stone cliff essentially at the back of my property and at the top of it is the Friedman's property. These posts are the posts that were already erected above the chain link fence, so you can see the difference in height. That is what my view is going to be once this fence is built. I also want to confirm that it's going to affect the root structure of the trees that are already up there. I don't know if it will affect the rocks at all. My children play in the back yard. My neighbor at 187,who couldn't be here tonight,also feels very much the same way that I do about the aesthetics of it. Ms. Martin asked Mr. Friedman to refresh her recollection...what is the height of the posts that are installed now. Are they 8 ft.? Mr.Friedman said those should be 8 ft. You can probably see the stone wall that I was talking about. You can see the distance and the slope of the property down. Ms.Liebowitz said I'm also wondering if the erection of an 8 ft.fence is going to cause the sound from the highway to bounce back into my yard. I agree that the sound in the past few years is much worse than it has been before. I don't know that the sound higher up at the Friedman's level is worse than where mine is which is actually closer to the highway than the Friedman's,but you can certainly hear a conversation in the back yard. It's noisy,but you can hear when you're talking to somebody on the patio of my house. Mr.Gunther thanked Ms.Liebowitz. He asked,are there any other comments on this application from the public? Mr. Friedman said if you look at the photographs that Ms. Liebowitz just gave you, you'll see the tremendous slope. That's why you can hear on her patio and you can't on mine. She's down low and kind of in a valley and the sound is not traveling up to her house. She also has houses right across the street from her,she's close to the highway and getting the benefit of the barrier which I don't have. So as far as maintenance is concerned,a door and the fence is not a problem. With regard to the trees that are there,if there's any real objection I'll have them taken down. These are small,3 inch,4 inch,5 inch caliper trees. They don't add anything to the property and that fence is a minimum of 33 ft.from the rear most point of the Liebowitz property. Ms.Martin said my concern has always been,not being a sound engineer either,the aesthetics of this fence and I understand if it's a higher,but tighter,wider fence,the better affect it would have for you. I have, from the first time I looked at this property,been very concerned,because it's going to severely affect the back yard,the view. I don't know about acoustics from your neighbor's back yard,but certainly the view from your neighbor's back yard erecting a solid 8 ft.high barrier. I also believe that Ms.Liebowitz having an 8 ft.high solid fence is going to loom over her property in an extremely unattractive fashion. Beyond an acoustical affect,I personally find that to be a very difficult barrier for me to overcome. • Zoning Board • April 4,2002 Page 8 Mr.Friedman said when we discussed this last time, I said that I had no problem staining the side of the fence white or blue. However, I just want to make a point Ms. Martin, the way this property is constituted,if there were no house I would of right have the right to build a house in the back where that fence is going to be. It would be 33 ft.in from the rear property line. If you can build a house there, why can't you do the fence? If the house were to be demolished,were to burn to the ground and we rebuilt it,I could build certainly back to that point.,That would be 33 ft.from my rear property line. I'm not unmindful of the concerns,but if I could do that than why shouldn't I be allowed to do the fence? That's the part I'm having trouble getting I'm not being unreasonable in saying if there's a question of staining,I don't mind staining it white or green or whatever to detract it from my neighbor's viewpoint, but I need some relief,so that I can use the back yard. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Friedman when we met the last meeting you mentioned that you were also leaning toward adding trees and screening on the side of the fence with evergreens. Mr.Friedman said every landscape gardener trys to sell you something different. The last one wanted to put in Blue Spruces and he suggested trees 6 ft.high. I rejected that. I think we have to live with 3 ft. trees. We're certainly going to screen the fence. Mr.Gunther said on the back side of the fence. Mr.Friedman said I'm going to screen on both sides. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther asked how high is the retaining wall? Mr.Friedman said the concrete wall that has the chain link fence on it now? Mr.Gunther said yes. Mr.Friedman said that fence is 15 inches,something like that. Mr.Wexler said 3 ft.high shrubs,planted on the other side of that retaining wall starts out at an 8 ft.high variance. Mr.Friedman said whatever it is. I can use taller trees. The fact is,I have to live with the land that's there. Mr.Wexler said are they evergreens? Mr.Friedman said no. Mr.Wexler said there's no protection of screening half the year. Mr.Friedman said there would be no screening during the winter,that's correct. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Winick,do you want me to refer this to the Town engineer? Mr.Winick said I would like some information on this. I'd like sound measurements to be taken in the back yard of Hickory Grove and in the back yard behind this property. It may or may not influence the Q Board that if what we find is that the sound level is the same on all of these properties. I'd like to know that. I'd also like to know,I'm concerned about sound excursion caused by the fence and my cynicism makes me want to have our expert take a look. We're not an adversary party,but I think we could benefit from an objective look. I'm not saying that this expert's report is objective or not. I would like to say that we're mindful that the season is here and it's time to build a fence if we're going to build a fence. I don't see why we can't do it. There's plenty of time to get this fence up this year. Zoning Board April 4,2002 C-1 Page 9 v Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto,who does the Town have to address this issue. Ms.Gallent said the Town doesn't have a sound engineer. Mr.Carpaneto said we'd have to go out and request that type of data. Ms.Harrington asked,who did the air conditioning? Mr.Carpaneto said they can hire an expert,but we don't have one on the staff. Mr.Winick said I think we can do it and I think we should undertake to do it quickly,because it's the season to get it done. Mr.Gunther said as well as the potential impact of the fence on other properties. Mr.Wexler said it's an application that has proposed steps already. The posts were brought closer to the pool. This is not an application that proposes a fence to be built,not air constructed,meaning posts in place. We would have more latitude in a sense that's saying if there's screening,the screening goes on the upper part of the retaining wall. It's in an area that gets the benefit of the height not the negative of the height. After some discussion,Mr.Winick said I don't thing we're bound by this. O Mr.Wexler said as of right. If you got your report from your sound engineer,would you have brought that fence closer to your pool? Mr.Friedman said no sir. Mr.Wexler asked why. Mr.Friedman said my back yard is very small as it is,between the pool and that retaining wall. There's not that much room there to start with. It looks monstrous on a survey,but there's no room. Mr.Wexler said your saying you can't use the back yard,because the sound is so great. Suppose you bring that fence to where you're going to be using the back yard. The benefit of the fence becomes more effective. That's exactly what he says. Mr.Friedman said,but I still would not make the back yard smaller. I want you to understand,Mr. Wexler,we have explored every way to do this. We called in an engineer to find out on the slope to go back 10 ft.to extend the back yard and fill it in. Mr.Wexler said you wouldn't have gotten the sound barrier,the section that you want. The further you get away from that sound barrier,you diminish the DB reduction. Mr.Friedman said that's correct,but I still have to balance how much back yard I'm going to have. Mr.Wexler said I don't know what 2 DB's mean,when you're in a range of 60. We don't have that. OMr.Friedman said you're.taking the extreme small part. How about the part that's 8 and 10 DB's. Mr.Wexler said there won't be any 10's,if you push that fence further back. You said you've got to fill in the back of your property. Put the fence further away from your pool,gain more property. Mr.Friedman said I understand what you're saying. I'm not going to do that and I can't bring it any closer,because then I've got nothing behind my pool. There's not that much room between the side of Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 10 the pool,the length of the pool and the back window. If I start decreasing it,I've got nothing. The property slopes off very,very badly. Mr.Wexler talked about the position of the pool,in relation to the fence they're proposing. In relationship to where that pool to your side property line,puts your pool more closely to a side property line and further away,as it gets closer to your side property than your proposed fence is. Your area of affective DB reduction gets reduced and gets even further and further,lower and lower the more you stay in your pool on the west side of the pool. It gets closer to the end of the fence. That's where you get the reduction. Your 8 DB reduction will be probably on your flagstone patio,not your pool. Mr.Friedman said that's the place where you sit and talk. That's exactly right and that's exactly the place where you sit and talk,on the flagstone area near the pool. We have two sitting areas,one at each end of the pool. One is the one that says"flag". That's the primary area where you sit,to the left of the pool on the easterly end. Mr.Gunther said to the left of the pool,whereby Mr.Friedman said yes. Mr.Friedman said quite by accident the fence went like it did there. That happens to be closer,but that's the area we're trying most to salvage. As you can see from where the word"met fence" are on the southerly side of the pool to the chain link fence on the stone masonry wall,there's very little room. Take a look from the corner there and you'll see there's not a lot of room there. If I were to reduce it any more,you can't even pass by. The place we're trying to get to is to be able to sit on the patio where you can put four or five chairs and an umbrella and table and talk. You can't do that now,and it's gotten O worse year after year in the last four or five years. You can't have dinner out there in the evening and have a normal conversation. Mr.Winick said you are planning now to screen the inside of the fence. Mr.Friedman said I always planned on screening the inside,but if there's a real objection I'll screen the other side. Mr.Winick said so you are going to take up some of this room with decorative plantings? Mr.Friedman said where you see the posts now,there is already a dirt kind of flower bed,something in the order of 15 inches or 18 inches deep. That's where that would go. It's not going to take up any more than we've given up to'that dirt area now. We have Peonies and other things like that growing in there and that's where it would go. I think you were there,Mr.Winick. You know there's not a lot of room between that pool and the fence,particularly at the corner of the pool. If you look at the survey you'll see it. I don't know what the scale is here. If you take a look at the front of the property between the edge of the garage and the side line,which is 23 ft.,from the edge of the pool to the fence is far less than that. It's perhaps a dozen feet. You can't take up much more. You've got no back yard left. Mr.Winick said we understand what your feelings are on top of that. Mr.Gunther said I would like to adjourn the application and request that the Building Department secure an expert to do those few things that I mentioned earlier which are to secure a sound expert that will gather readings from the surrounding properties as well,as well as determine the impact of the proposed fence on other properties. OMr.Winick said and also,Tom,I think in this kind of case that expert should be looking at this report, giving whatever comments he thinks are appropriate. Mr.Friedman said I would like to know when the expert is going to be there,and if it helps at all,I'll ask him to come back. I want to get it resolved. That's important to me. • Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 11 Mr.Gunther said Ms.Harrington is there another element that you had concerns about,because I'm going to ask the Town to get an expert and direct them from the beginning. Ms.Harrington said I'm interested in the distance,not so much the houses that are directly around it,but some distance away. He's 700 ft.from the highway and he's gotten a tremendous amount of noise from those barriers,so I'm looking to go maybe not 700 ft.but 500/600 ft.back from his property. Ms.Martin said to what extent would the direction of that area include,a spring board affect? Ms.Harrington said what's going to bounce off of that? Mr.Friedman said I will just remind you just from where that fence is to the other side of High Ridge Road is about 260 ft.right there. Nancy Seligson,Councilwoman,Town of Mamaroneck,addressed the Board. Ms.Seligson said I just wanted to inform you that the Town Counsel has hired a sound expert in regard to the air conditioning regulation that we were trying to develop. His name is.Ron Allegator. He was very helpful,but one of the things that we learned and determined for ourselves was that it's very difficult to be sincerely objective about sound. There's so many variables involved. My electrical engineer said that 2 DB's would not be an audible change from the level of sound that we're talking about here. I think it's helpful to learn all these variety of issues that say sound,but it's very difficult to make a definite determination from it. Also, we have heard from many residents that they agree that in the past three years the sound has increased tremendously to parts of the community that didn't suffer from it as much before. OMr.Gunther said is that not an issue that the Town has been addressing with regard to the surfacing of I- 95. Ms.Seligson said yes,although there is some question as to whether it has to do with the sound barriers that have been erected as well. Mr.Gunther said you're right in that it is a very complex matter and there are many different variables involved. Ms. Martin said however,it seems that one of the things that we're asking the engineer to do,if I'm correct,is to create an objective survey of the various noise levels in the properties to see if,in fact,the noise level was the kind of thing is capable of objective measurement. Ms.Seligson said it depends on the weather,the time of day and the day of the week. A lot of things have to be taken into account,but yes,I would hope so also. I just really wanted to give you the name of the person we use. Mr.Gunther said if there are no other questions on this application,I'd like to adjourn this to our next meeting or until the Town has secured an expert and are ready to respond back to us. Mr.Friedman said we really would appreciate it if we could get this on. Adjourning it until the Town gets an expert,if that takes three or four months,is really unfair to me. We're getting into a season. It took me three months to find an engineer and a month of weaseling and begging to get them to come down and do the measurements. So,please could we appear at the next meeting and ask them to speed it up. If they have an engineer,as the councilwoman says,it shouldn't be a big deal for him to come out and measure the area. I'll cooperate in any way. I'll make engineer available. I'll pay for that. Thank you. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 12 RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2471 be, and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2489(adjourned 1/23/02) Application of Mr.&Mrs.Mark Lederman requesting a variance to construct a river wall with a fence on the premises located at 87 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210,Lot 328. The wall and fence as proposed has a total height of 12 ft.where 5 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-52B for a wall or fence in an R-10 Zone District. Mark Lederman of 87 Rockland Avenue addressed the Board. Mr.Lederman said I refer you to a letter that was written by my retained engineer,Benny Salanitro. Mr.Salanitro originally planned the meeting to be last week and I don't understand why it had to be adjourned. Mr. Salanitro had plans to be on vacation this week and I could not have him change his plans. He said that Mr.Salanitro wrote a letter explaining where we were when we originally were here and what you requested us to do. I can read the letter,if you have any questions. This application refers to our building.We're rebuilding a retaining wall and adding a fence that's existing there now on top of that retaining wall to create the ability for us to level our back yard. Mr.Lederman said as you instructed us to do,we went to the Planning Board for consideration. They declared themselves the Lead Agency. Please excuse me if I'm using the wrong terminology,as this is sort of out of my league here. We then went to the Planning Board for consideration. We were referred © to their advisory Board,the CZMC. We went there and they actually were very pleased with the plans and felt this was a betterment to the waterway along the Sheldrake. They provided their approval with some restrictions,which are in the Planning Board's final approval. We went to the Planning Board last month and we got their approval for the project as well. Mr.Lederman said I'm back in front of you relative to the height variance. I have pictures and plans,can put those up and attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability. Ms.Martin asked,are these different from the plans submitted? Mr.Lederman said no,but I do have some additional pictures if you'd like to see them. The four(4) pictures were submitted and marked exhibit#1. Mr.Lederman said I have plans as well. After some discussion among Board members,Mr.Gunther suggested Mr.Lederman briefly run through it because it's been a couple of months since we last met. Mr.Lederman said it's only been about a month,I was here in February. Mr.Lederman asked,do you want to see the plans as well? I have multiple copies. Mr.Gunther said no. Mr.Lederman said basically we're talking about this area back in here,and demonstrated same,which is behind the house. This is the side of the house along the Sheldrake. It's this back area that we're looking to level,that has a fairly steep grade at this point. To do that we need to rebuild this wall. In different places along that wall it's going to be different heights,probably 2 ft.to 3 ft.along that wall it's going to be higher. We're proposing to fill in the back yard and regrade it to get more of a flat back yard. Right now the back yard is not useful. Mr.Gunther said on the left-hand side,second picture down,can you put your finger about where the new ground level will be? Zoning Board • • April 4,2002 • Page 13 Mr.Lederman said the patio. Mr.Gunther said that's what's there now. Mr.Lederman said that's going to be the level,because it sits way down from there. After some discussion,Ms.Martin said it's going,to go straight from there as opposed dipping down. Mr.Winick said he won't be changing the level. In the back yard there are rock ledges,and none of that is going to change. After some discussion,Mr.Lederman said that's below that level,if you look at the pictures here,we need comparable walls and things like that. We're spending a lot of money on this wall,so aesthetically I want to keep it exactly the way it is. In fact,it will be a betterment to the wall that's there now which is actually below,it's crumbling....the materials we're using are fairly expensive. Mr.Winick asked,how much higher is it? Are you planning to put some sort of replacement or picket fence or white fence for safety reasons? I think you have to. Mr.Lederman said totally for safety reasons. I'd love to put bushes up,but my kids could get through the bushes. Mr.Winick said the height of the fence is going to change. Mr.Lederman said it's going to be a 4 ft.fence. Mr.Winick said there's a footing,but the fence is going to be the depth of the property about 2/2%ft. high. Mr.Lederman said yes. Mr.Winick said we have a lot of cases and I think this is one where the current neighbors are in support, but you never know who is going to move next month and say it wasn't such a great idea. Have you given some thought to how you might visually soften the impact of that fence. It's essentially (91 feet high. Mr.Lederman said where possible we'll use shrubbery and also ivy,so it's not a straight length fence. I talked to my neighborr who is totally in support of the project. She knows what we do and how we take care of our property. We always talked about doing this tree,something we'll probably have to remove. It's very old anyway,but we will plant things along here aesthetically. Mr.Gunther asked what color the new fence will be. Mr.Lederman said it will be white. This part of the fence is not being removed. It's basically starting here. It will be stepped up two or three steps up from here on the plans. Mr.Wexler asked how long have you been living there? Mr.Lederman said almost nine years. Mr.Wexler asked how high is the water? © Mr.Lederman said the water has come up over the top,but I had the topographical survey and the 100- year flood line,that's all been infiltrated in the plan. • Zoning Board April 4,2002 OPage 14 Mr.Lederman said my property slopes way down,even when it comes over here the wall will actually give a greater barrier to that. The wall is going to be along the line of the fence that's existing now. We're going to be creating more area for the water to flow into by nature by what we're doing to this wall, that's why I used a wetlands engineer. Both on this side of the picture there,on my neighbor's side,is an area where we're going to actually make some room there for any additional water. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said how can you retain the sides? Dig it out? Is there stone there? Mr.Lederman said stone,right. After further discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none,he said SEQRA determination is already made,and asked,we don't need to do that? Ms.Gallent said you do. There could be different opinions. The Planning Board felt comfortable calling it a Type II action and so do I. Mr.Lederman said in their certification they specifically stated that. 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. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Mark Lederman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,. together with plans to construct a river wall with a fence on the premises located at 87 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210,Lot 328. The wall and fence as proposed has a total height of 12 ft.where 5 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-52B for a wall or fence 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 240-52B;and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Mark Lederman 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: Q 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. This is a unique property in our Town where a wall and fence are going to be considerably higher than permitted,but have very little impact on surrounding Zoning Board O April 4,2002 Page 15 properties. The exception is one property across this body of water that is very directly affected by the proposed work. The only affect is purely an aesthetic one that can be solved to the point where, on balance, any detriment is outweighed by the value of the change to the applicant. The value to the applicant is the considerable flattening out of the back yard to make a great deal more space in a back yard,which has other challenges in it for children playing because of large rock ledges and other things that make it a very irregular surface. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goal by an alternative which does not require an area variance. This request is the only way to raise the land to make it an even,substantially flat yard. C. The variance is substantial. However,on balance, given the other factors,it does not justify denying the application. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Indeed,this will be beneficial to the stream. E. It is not a self-created difficulty. This is simply a function of the lay of the land. 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 provide screening on the far side of the picket fence over one-third of its length,(35%of the running length of the fence on the river side),in order to break up the length of the fence on the river side and to soften its impact. 2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. O 4. 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. 5. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 16 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Lederman said can I ask just one question? The clarity on your condition, which is fine, it's somewhat vague. Mr.Winick said I think it's 35%of the running length of the fence should be screened on the river side. Mr.Lederman asked,35%?. Ms.Gallent said that should be in the resolution. Mr.Winick said yes,it will be in the resolution. Mr.Gunther said something that will soften the impact. Mr.Gunther said to see the Building Department during regular hours for your permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2491(adjourned 2/26/02) 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 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(e)for a tennis court fence in an R-30 Zone District. Mr.Gunther said a letter was received from Thomas F.Fanelli,attorney,who represents Mr.&Mrs. Mathias on this matter,which is a part of the record,requesting this matter be adjourned for one month to prepare further documentation for presentation of this matter. Mr.Gunther asked is there anyone here who wishes to make a comment on the Mathias application?There were no.comments. Mr.Winick asked,have we gotten advice from counsel about whether we can hear the application? Ms.Gallent said the Town Law provides that there are two circumstances under which you can rehear an application. One is on unanimous vote. Someone has to make a motion,and on a unanimous vote of those present,you can hear the application. You shouldn't change your determination if people have filed a determination and their rights would be affected. The other circumstances on which a rehearing is allowed is if there are changed facts or circumstances. Mr. Gunther said it's my understanding that the applicant is going to request a different scenario for placing the tennis court some place else on the property. If that doesn't come in,and it comes in as the exact same application as it was before,I would not be inclined to want to rehear it. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously O RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2491 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2492(adjourned 2/26/02) Zoning Board © April 4,2002 Page 17 Application of Laura and Stephen Koch requesting a variance to construct a first floor kitchen,breakfast and mudroom and a second floor on the premises located at 42 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127,Lot 22. The addition as proposed would cause the detached garage to become part of the principal dwelling and would have a rear yard setback of 7.5 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(3);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 Laura and Stephen Koch are here. Mr.Carpaneto said I'm under the impression that the application is going to be withdrawn. • Mr.Winick said we saw them when we were looking at the property on Sunday. They bought another house,told us the application was withdrawn and couldn't figure out what we were doing in the back there. Mr.Carpaneto said I asked their architect three times to fax me something. Mr.Winick said they're moving to Beach Avenue. Mr.Carpaneto said the application was withdrawn. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2493(adjourned2/26/02) Application of George D'Angelo requesting a variance to construct a monument sign at Acura on the premises located at 2155 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 1. The sign as proposed has a total height of 15 feet where 6 ft.is required pursuant to Section 175-11C for a monument sign in a"B"Business Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked,is the applicant present,and/or representative? A gentleman said yes,both. My name is Jack Geoghegan. I'm a member of the firm of Gellert&Quartararo. We represent Mr. D'Angelo and the Acura of Westchester dealership. As you know this matter was on last month and members of the Board had an opportunity to view the site. I had arrived late to the meeting. I just would like to make a couple of brief points and then respond to any questions you may have. Mr.Geoghegan said one point that I think is significant to this particular application is the location of this particular dealership which sits peninsula like on a spit of land between New Rochelle to it's left as you view the site,and the Village of Larchmont to the right. I will pass to you a map of your zoning,which you're all familiar with,a copy of which was provided for the file. Mr. Geoghegan said the sign in question comes to this Board after it's existence on site for sixteen years,under an approval granted when the property was constructed for the use of this automobile dealership. Pryor to that, as you may remember,it was a garden center. It was kind of a deteriorated site.Mr.D'Angelo and his partners came in,built a very beautiful building and have maintained it over the years,I don't think with any problems whatsoever for the Town. Mr.Geoghegan said the corporate logo of Acura has changed and it required us to come before the Boards to get that sign changed. We became aware that this was an issue,only at that point in time. It has sat virtually unnoticed for sixteen years,because it is out of the line of sight of the Town. It sits between New Rochelle,which at the point of proximity to this property has a four-story apartment building on one side Zoning Board April 4,2002 • Page 18 Oand garden apartments on the other side. The Village of Larchmont,on the other side,has a row of strip malls and any number of pole signs up and down the street. Mr.Geoghegan said this site,because it is slightly elevated as you come up into New Rochelle,needs a sign much as we have here,a monument sign as we call it of some substance so it can be visual to the users of the Acura dealership. As you know,it backs up to the railroad,to the Thruway behind it,and this is not the usual car dealership site,those being out on the Boston Post Road. We have presented to you pictures showing the site at the last meeting. I think you've all seen them. If there's anything that you'd like to see,we can pass them to you,but I think your own view of the site is better than anything I'll show you here. Mr.Geoghegan said Mr.D'Angelo is here as is Mr.Gordon. We're happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr.Winick asked, do you have the choices of the different signs that Acura has come up with in the identity crisis which you showed us with you? Mr.D'Angelo said yes. Mr.Winick said I now have a practical question for you,Mr.D'Angelo. Just calling one corner of that property,the corner where the monument sign is now,describe to me how the traffic flows in and out of that place,because clearly the other end of the property,the New Rochelle border side,there's an entrance and an exit,right? Mr.D'Angelo said right. Mr.Winick said what happens on the other end of the monument sign? Mr.D'Angelo said on the other end of the monument sign there is Harrison Drive,which is a dead-end street that goes behind the Guitar Center which was formerly Food Emporium. That entrance is used strictly for service customers. Rather than backing up the service customers on Palmer Avenue,they come into where the existing monument sign is on Harrison,make a left and then make another left to the rear of the property where the service facility is. Mr.D'Angelo said I have pictures here,if you want to see how the traffic flow is. Mr.D'Angelo said in addition to that,Harrison Drive is used to unload new cars which are coming into the dealership for sale,so we don't have traffic backup on Palmer Avenue. Mr.Winick said your customers,your purchase customers,use the other entrance? Mr.D'Angelo said that's correct. The purchase customers use the initial main enter and exit on Palmer before the monument sign. Mr.Winick said I think we were distraught as we drove back and forth. It seems that that monument sign should say on the back of it,you just past the entrance to the Acura dealership. It seems to almost misdirect traffic. Mr.Geoghegan said the problem is that as you're coming here coming from New Rochelle on Palmer Avenue,you are blocked by the apartment buildings and you need to see this down here to even know that O ....I don't know how you could put it at that proximity of the site over here and still get the visualization. You'd literally see it and have to turn right in,but we think by seeing it ahead of you,then you're aware it comes. It's worked perfectly well for sixteen years. Ms.Harrington said I've driven by it several times from several different points coming out of Harrison Drive and it seems to me that the sign is not tilted but turned towards Larchmont not New Rochelle. When Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 19 O you're coming from New Rochelle,it's almost on an angle this way,so that this part is facing Larchmont and it stands at Acura. It's almost as though you're not even trying to draw people into New Rochelle. I don't understand why it's that way to begin with,if you are trying to show people coming from New Rochelle that this is an Acura dealership. Mr.D'Angelo said the way that sign is structured as you said I agree with you,the way it's positioned. It's in this way coming from New Rochelle. The new sign naturally would negate that,because this sign will be facing the other way. Mr.Winick asked what does the other way mean? Ms.Martin said the same on both sides? Mr.D'Angelo said yes,the new sign the same on both sides,with a different configuration as far as the blue. Mr.D'Angelo said it's more on an angle. It's going to be closer. It's not going to be as long as this Acura sign. It's going to be shorter,but it's going to be in a square mode so you would see it more if you're coming from New Rochelle into Larchmont. The issue coming from Larchmont to New Rochelle is not an issue,because as you know the road comes down so you have the sight distance there. The sight distance where you need to pick up,which is a problem,is coming from New Rochelle to Larchmont the way the sign is positioned. Ms.Harrington said which is why I guess I'm trying to figure out why they would do that to begin with. O There is this whole issue as you're presenting it is,you're trying to attract the people coming from New Rochelle so they see you. Why was it even put up that way to begin with? Mr.D'Angelo said I wish I could give you an honest answer on that,but that's the way the sign was positioned. I think what's happened over the years is that the growth of the trees,because as you know when we first put in the screening,the growth of the trees was 5 ft.and now they're 11 ft.or 12 ft. The position has become unusable the way the sign is right now,because of the way the screening is on the trees. Ms.Martin said I was actually going to ask about that. It seems to me that in the summertime when the trees are in leaves,that a 15 ft.sign that you're proposing is the same length of the one that's there now. It's going to be totally obscured by those trees. I'm just wondering why you wouldn't consider a lower sign perhaps that would allow people a sight line under the leaf canopy as if we're coming from New Rochelle and you can still see it from Larchmont. Mr.D'Angelo said when you do get to the beginning,I believe it's the third apartment house which is considered Dorchester Gardens,the third apartment house from the enter and exit sign on Palmer Avenue to the Acura dealership. When you start to hit that third apartment sign,you can see the Acura sign because of the way the road is going. Ms.Harrington asked even in summer? Mr.D'Angelo said even in summer. However,coming from Larchmont to New Rochelle,whether it is summer or winter,that sign is always there because there actually isn't any screening for that side but you can see it. We don't want it to be in a position where you see it as soon as you get onto the enter and exit, O because then by that time it's too late. Someone would have to make a turnaround and there would be traffic problems etc. However,you can see that even with the trees the way they are right now. I would say the beginning of the third apartment house when you get to Dorchester coming from New Rochelle, you can see it even though it's positioned as you said Ms.Harrington. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 20 O Ms.Harrington said,but still I found it difficult to see it. I knew what I was looking for so I could see it,but I think at the speed people come flying down Palmer Avenue by the time they look for that third building you're still going to have to probably turn around,at least slow down and hamper traffic to get in there. It's not for me. Mr.D'Angelo said I see where you're going,but I think we all know where the property is. People who don't know where the Acura dealership is will travel as fast as someone else who is familiar with the area. The policeman on Palmer Avenue are pretty good. I see them pulling over people,so I don't really see them slowing down on Palmer Avenue. Mr. Winick said it seems to me that I'm not really familiar with some of these signage issues. An alternative I'd like you to speak about is,and maybe we're not allowed to do this under the current sign law,but as I drove back and forth there I thought that it would be functional for you for business and also • perhaps more aesthetically pleasing under the position love your cars,hate your sign. I have to say I think the old sign is ugly and I think the new sign is going to be ugly too,because it's only 15 ft.tall,even though I think it looks sort of slick with the new cars and everything. Why can't there be a shorter sign which is essentially by each corner of the property.'Maybe we can't do that,I don't know if we can permit your sign. I'd like to see what you have to say about and then I think it's a question of how we assess the visual impact. Mr.D'Angelo said the major issue on a shorter sign as opposed to wider sign from a personal standpoint, from an economic standpoint,I would rather go with a smaller sign just because of cost issues. I'll be very frank with you. However,from a sight distance standpoint,going with a smaller sign does not help me whatsoever. You have really no line of vision there. I'm not a proponent of large signs,I never have been. However,I think in this particular case the line of vision coming both from New Rochelle and from Larchmont to New Rochelle,you would need the size sign that I'm looking for. In addition to that,the sign that we're looking to put in terms of height,I believe is ih ft.lower and the sign itself is much lower in total square foot,the Acura sign overall,as opposed to this particular sign,just the head of it I'm talking about. That sign is much smaller in terms of square footage overall,but the visual impact from a distance on that sign is much greater. Larry Gordon,the architect,addressed the Board. He said there are a couple of signs on the other side • as well,which say entrance and exit. I think that it starts to clutter up that area. Mr.Gunther asked,are the entrance and exit signs going to be changed to say Acura? Mr.Gordon said no. It's going to be exactly the way it is now. Mr.D'Angelo said however,in order to have conforming colors,we're going to change the red to blue. Mr.Gunther said I was there yesterday and from New Rochelle I couldn't see your existing sign at all. Coming from Larchmont there is no visual problem as you say,because there are no trees in front of it, but coming from another direction you don't see anything. With a 15 ft.sign,you're still not going to see it behind the trees. I think you may want to consider something that's lower for the New Rochelle view. Ms.Martin said there's a 12 ft.option there on the flyer with the Acura logo portion of the lower sign. It's seems to be much larger. Mr.D'Angelo said it is much larger. That's another issue. We don't want to put a larger sign there 0 overall,but what we want to try and do is to keep the existing height or ft.lower and put a smaller sign which will have a visual impact coming from both sides. Ms.Martin asked,are you going to adjust the angle of that sign so that it would be more visible. Mr.D'Angelo said more square? Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 21 Q Ms.Martin said I don't know what to say about the angle,but if the current sign is like this,if you adjusted the angle so the sight line would be more confrontational. Mr.D'Angelo said we don't want to be confrontational,but the current sign goes this way and I agree with you. If you know where it is and you're looking for it you can see it,as I said when you get to the third apartment house,if you're going a reasonable speed. Will it hit you like this,of course not,because of the way it's positioned. However,with the new signs that we're proposing,it's not going to be positioned that way,so you'll have more impact visually. I'm not worried about Larchmont to New Rochelle. I'm more concerned with New Rochelle to Larchmont,specifically coming from I-95. Mr.Gunther asked,what is the positioning angle of the sign? He asked,is that on the plan? After some discussion,Mr.Gordon said just the location is on the plan. We're not changing the location. • There was further discussion regarding the angle and location of the sign. Mr.Winick said I think you could envision,I don't agree with what the applicant is saying.I think you've got a straighten up shot coming from Larchmont,but if you require the applicant to put a larger sign,but lower down on this corner pretty much where the shrubbery is that would be visible. That doesn't take care of the traffic from New Rochelle,which means you'd put another shorter sign at the end of the driveway. I don't know if that's better overall. I think it's for the applicant to decide what's the best way to get his name out there. Mr.Wexler said you have to be very careful when you're coming out of the driveway that the sign doesn't block your vision. You have to be very careful about that. Ms.Martin said I haven't actually thought about that,so that's a good point to not create a hazard of cars exiting Harrison Drive. Mr.D'Angelo said I think the other issue is,from an aesthetic standpoint,we've been successful for two reasons. We've run a low-key operation and we've made it pretty comfortable to do business there. I don't want to put a sign here or a sign there,whether it's a 6 ft.,12 ft.or 15 ft.sign. Mr.Wexler said you also have to compete coming from Larchmont,because there are signs up for gas stations that are in line there. They have one after another. Mr.Geoghegan said there's a significant series of them that we showed you last time. Mr.Wexler said there's visual congestion. Mr.Gunther asked are there any questions from the public on this application,any comments from anyone? There were none. Mr.Gunther asked are there any other questions from Board members. Ms.Harrington said I'm not convinced that this big sign is the right sign for this. I'm not so concerned about losing the line of sight coming in and out,because if these signs are not such an issue I don't know why. Mr.Gunther said they don't identify,all it says is enter and exit. Ms.Harrington said I realize that,but what are the dimensions of these. Mr.Winick said they are less than 2 ft.high and by about 4 ft.wide,but presumably by then you see the sign and you're slowing down. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 22 Mr.Harrington said I'm sure about that,the ingress and egress. Mr.Wexler asked,does this have to go to the Board of Architectural Review? Mr.Geoghegan said yes,that's our next stop,hopefully. Mr.Gunther said what we are here to pass judgement on is the height of the sign. It's not necessarily the design or the colors,just the height. They're asking for a variance to allow a 15 ft.sign in a"B"Business Zone District. Ms.Harrington said I think the bottom line is to start to change the signage there. Mr.Gunther said we only have that piece. Everything else on that belongs to the Village of Larchmont. • Ms.Harrington asked,did you ever address that criteria? Mr.Carpaneto said yes I did. Larchmont has no plans of taking down or giving a pole sign. Mr.Geoghegan said were it not for the fact that there was a logo change,the sign would have stayed,no one would have noticed. It hasn't been an issue for this Town at all over the period of years. I suspect most people think it's either a Larchmont or New Rochelle sign and don't recognize it to be a Town sign situation at all. Mr.D'Angelo said this was a situation where there was an approval. The sign has been there for sixteen Oyears. When we came up with a logo change,we suddenly were confronted by this issue. Ms.Gallent said I want to point out this is an unlisted action under SEQRA not Type II and because there is a sign of the same height already there from a SEQRA perspective,there really is no impact. Once you make a determination that there's no impact visually,you can't be inconsistent with that determination when you make your findings under Town Law. Just think about that,because if you said there's no impact under SEQRA then your first finding is determined by that. Mr.Wexler said how can you say there was impact visually? Ms.Gallent said in terms of the height,because the height remains the same. Yes,the sign is changing, absolutely,but in terms of the height there would be no changes. Mr.Wexler said but it could be broader. Ms.Gallent said that's true. Mr.Wexler said many things that will change the same height,doesn't mean that it doesn't have any impact. Mr.Gunther said I always go back to those five elements that the State Law gives us as a basis for granting a variance or not. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other comments from Board members? OMr.Gunther said it's an unlisted action under SEQRA and no further action is required. Is there a second. Ms.Gallent said no,that's not true. It's an unlisted action under SEQRA and a determination is required. I have drafted something. Mr.Wexler asked,what is an unlisted action? Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 23 Ms.Gallent said an unlisted action is an action that is neither Type I nor Type II. Type I are actions are those that are more likely to cause significant impact. Type II actions are that by law have no impact. Unlisted actions are neither,so you do have to make a determination for all Type I and unlisted actions. On Type II actions you don't make any determination. Most of the applications before this Board are Type II. After some discussion,Ms.Gallent said it might be better to poll the Board members on which way they might be voting. Mr.Gunther said it's basically what you said before. Mr.Gunther asked if there is any discussion. Ms.Harrington said only that it doesn't matter at this point,because the Village of Larchmont is not going to do anything. My hope was to get rid of all of those signs along that strip. That's not going to happen. Mr.Wexler said there is also a difference on the scale of this property with that sign,versus all the small parcels that Larchmont has with their pole signs. The scale that sits between the signs,it's a bit of injustice. This site is a nice size site. The sign is positioned in one part of this property. This is set way back. Ms.Harrington said you still get the sense with one sign after another. Mr.Wexler said that's because of Larchmont having those signs. Ms. Harrington said and that's not going to change, so it doesn't matter whether it's just a law of opportunity to change. Mr.Gunther said one other thing to always keep in mind is that we certainly don't want to create an atmosphere where it's difficult for businesses to survive in our Town and we'd certainly want to be supportive of granting different kinds of things to accommodate their efforts. Ms.Harrington said whatever it is,small monument signs are always more tasteful. Mr.Gunther read from prepared text a negative declaration,prepared by counsel. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following Negative Declaration as proposed was unanimously adopted: George D'Angelo has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck for an area variance to permit the erection of a monument sign at 2155 Palmer Avenue(the "Property")(the"Proposed Action"). The sign has a height of 15 feet,where a maximum of 6 feet is permitted pursuant to§175-11(C)of the Mamaroneck Town Code. The Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R.§§617.4 and 617.5;Town of Mamaroneck Code§§92-7(A)and 92-7(B). The Short Form EAF submitted by the applicant reveals that the only potential impact of the Proposed Action is aesthetic. OThe sign will be located in an already commercial area with existing signage and signs of this size are common in the area.Moreover,the Proposed Action will replace an existing lighted sign of the same height. In addition,the applicant will be required to obtain the approval of the Town's Board of Architectural Review prior to erecting any sign on the Property. Accordingly,any aesthetic impacts will be examined and minimized through that review. Zoning Board April 4,2002 r♦ Page 24 CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS The Zoning Board of Appeals the Town of Mamaroneck has concluded that the Proposed Action will not result in any large and/or important impacts. Accordingly,the Zoning Board hereby finds that the Proposed Action would have no significant environmental effect. This negative declaration has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. On a motion made by Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously,5-0: On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED,that this is an unlisted action under SEQRA,and the Board adopts the Negative Declaration attached hereto. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,George D'Angelo has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a monument sign at Acura on the premises located at 2155 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 1. The sign as proposed has a total height of 15 feet where 6 ft.is required pursuant to Section 175-11C fora monument sign in a"B"Business Zone District;and O WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 175-11C;and WHEREAS, George D'Angelo 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. There will be little or no change to the character of the neighborhood or change in the relationship of the proposed sign or the existing sign to the nearby properties. The replacement sign is very similar in size and slightly lower than the existing one,and overall probably a little more attractive than the sign that's being removed. B. The record reveals that the applicant could not achieve his goals via an O alternative that does not require an area variance. The applicant has looked at several possibilities involving multiple signage on the site,which might replace the functionality of the sign,but for various reasons,these alternatives are not practicable. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 25 C. The variance is substantial,against the standard of the ordinance,but given the other factors we must consider,it is not determinative. D. This is not a self-created difficulty• E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. O 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 your permit. Mr.Geoghegan discussed an interesting comment made about passing more than one copy of a proposal. Mr.D'Angelo said thank you very much for your concerns and your support. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2495 Application of Michael Raso requesting a variance to construct a rear deck and a side bay window on the premises located at 3 Vine Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 291. The deck as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);the bay window as proposed has a side yard of 5.53 ft.where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);the deck and bay window as proposed have a total side yard of 13.23 ft. Owhere 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2);and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Zoning Board April 4,2002 (, Page 26 Eric Jacobsen,an architect working for Remodeling Consultants,appeared to represent the Rasos,who are joining me this evening. Mr.Jacobsen said essentially the scope of the project is interior remodeling and repartitioning. We are proposing on one side to build a deck/patio. On one side a deck,but the other side is a bay window projection which is about 7 ft.2 in.wide that projects 1 ft.7 in.into a nonconforming side yard. That is one side of the project. Mr.Jacobsen said the other side of the project involves a proposed wood deck,which will be an elevated cedar structure. Also,we're extending the nonconformity currently on that side. We're 7.7 ft.from the property line and we're going to be extending that about 15 ft.to the rear and that will be along that nonconformity. This is a small lot in a zone that most lots are supposed to be 85 ft.wide. This lot is 50 ft.wide and the square footage is a little bit less,too. We're required to have 10,000 sq.ft.and we only have 7,500 sq.ft. Mr.Jacobsen said what we're proposing to do is build an elevated cedar wood deck and even though we're 7.7 ft.away from the side yard,we're going to install some privacy screening,some trees like a Spruce, Holley or Arborvitae,because the Rasos want to enjoy their deck in as much privacy as possible. Ms.Martin asked,you're planting those trees in the ground? Mr.Jacobsen said yes. The floor system of the deck would be approximately 8 ft.above grade. Actually a little bit less,about 7 ft.8 in. Mr. Jacobsen said on grade. In future years, this would eventually grow up. I'd like to submit a photograph showing what exists there now in terms of screening and what we'd like to emulate. I'd also like to include a photograph of the side of the house where the bay window is going to go. Mr.Gunther asked,is that similar to the photographs that were in our packets? Mr.Jacobsen said they're exactly like them. Mr.Gunther asked,are they identical? Mr.Jacobsen said they are identical,yes. Also,I'd like to note certainly on the front of the house there exists an open air porch which is about 8 ft.deep. On the survey there is a deck that is currently 7.7 ft. off the side yard that the Rasos enjoy. It is the front of the house so it's not a private deck,but it is nonetheless a deck. Mr.Gunther asked,referred to as sun porch on the plan? Mr.Jacobsen said correct. Mr.Winick asked,why can't you put the deck in back yard? Mr.Jacobsen said to access that deck from the back yard,you'd have to go through the family room. Currently the way the floor plan is laid out,we're putting a sliding glass door which is more towards the dining room/kitchen end of the house as opposed to having to walk all the way through the family room, which is going to house the entertainment center,and that's where the private part of the family room is. C.) That would just make it a long hallway to get out to the deck. Frankly,the Rasos considered that,but Mr.Winick asked,a long hallway to get out to the deck? Zoning Board • April 4,2002 Page 27 Mr.Jacobsen said in order to get to the deck,we have to walk through the entire family room. If they wanted to have a barbecue or some type of entertainment out there,they have to walk through the family room. Mr.Winick said my concern is,I stood in their back yard and what you described is actually the higher than ordinary R-7.5 zoned property,50 ft.by about 100 and something long. We've got hundreds of them and we see applications all the time. You have,what is for Larchmont,even after you build a deck on the back of the house,a reasonable amount of back yard left. My concern is,as I stood on the neighbor's patio,where the basements to the properties are juxtaposed,there will be people on that deck basically 15 ft.in the air on the side of the house. The noise will carry. Instead of projecting into the back yard,the noise will project to the neighbor and you have visually the Rasos will be staring at the neighbor and the neighbor will be staring at the Rasos. Nobody wants to live like that. At the very least,I would like to hear in detail what screening you intend to put up. Frankly,I think perhaps you can do this without a • variance in any event. Then we'd like to hear how you would screen this,because I think the impact on your neighbor is substantial. Mr.Jacobsen said let me invite Ms.Raso up. She's been in contact with a landscaper. Linda Raso addressed the Board. Ms.Raso said I agree with you. When we first thought about putting the deck on,I called my neighbor. So we,like our neighbors,want to have my privacy and I know that they want to have their's. My initial thought was to put in Arborvitae or some kind of tall tree that I had growing up. I did go around and talk to all of our neighbors prior to the variance application. That's another variance that's coming through. Our neighbors did bring up that concern. I checked into it. I called the landscaper who apparently went through our yard and named three different types of trees,one O being a black Arborvitae. My neighbor brought up the point that Arborvitaes don't do well in shade. Arborvitae does well in the shade. He also brought up the name of Cypress and Holly trees that will grow up tall and thick,as I have the same concern as you. I called my neighbor the next day and let her know. She called back and said that's fine,but what happens if the trees don't grow? What happens if you move? What happens,happens. Ms.Raso said we're hoping not to move. We really love Larchmont. My husband's family has been under business here for a while,so we're pretty grounded in this community. We want to take care of our land. We want to make sure the trees grow. We're responsible for that. In terms of the deck in the back yard,that was also brought up. The way our family room is currently laid out,to put a deck in the back yard you have to go out the side to get to the back,as you can see on the blueprint. There is one possible spot to put a door in the back room. We'll be having shelving put in for a TV. There's really not any room to put in a door to the back deck area. Ms.Raso said,I know that our neighbors are concerned about property value and that their's will go down if we have a deck. I would think that putting in plants and trees would increase your property value for two reasons; (1)now they have more privacy because currently they are still looking into our house, looking into our family room and they can easily see into our back yard;(2)our property will look better. I think that will make their property look better. We're trying to do everything we can to make this agreeable for everyone. If privacy is an issue,we'll really try to take care of it. Ms.Raso asked,did I answer your question? Does that help you? Is there anything else? Mr.Winick said if you plant now,how tall will this be and how long will it take. You had a tree pretty much where your deck would,go if it were in the back of the house. That is exactly the tree that I would have in mind for that. Ms.Raso said and that's what we were hoping to do. Mr.Winick said in how many decades do you get a tree that big? Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 28 I Ms.Raso said I don't know who planted that tree,but in the mean time what I said we could do is we can buy tall trees at 6 ft.,put those in and it will cover part of the deck. As they grow,and I do not know the growth rate and I will be glad to find out,we are more than willing to put the trees on the deck,like railings,to create the visual affect of one with trees. Ms.Martin said you don't have elevations. Mr.Wexler asked,you didn't draw the elevations.of the deck? Mr.Jacobsen said no,there are no elevations. We did submit pictures to show you what's there currently. Mr.Wexler said,but you didn't draw the side elevations? Mr.Jacobsen said no. Mr.Wexler said you normally supply that. We're trying to evaluate what is going to happen to that. Mr.Jacobsen said we certainly could provide that. I don't have it with me right now,but if the Board requires that we will submit elevation showing real details. Is that what you're concerned about? Mr.Wexler said as long as we know what's happening below the deck,the spacing of the supports,where the supports are in relationship to the base of the deck if you keep the deck,not move it out over the supporting beams,it would be helpful. OMr.Jacobsen said I'd be happy to sketch them on the plans you have now,if that will help you. Mr.Wexler said I'd rather see it in a drawing to scale. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other questions from Board members? There were none. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions or comments from the public on this application? Cannon Campbell,who lives next door at 2 Vine Place,addressed the Board. Ms.Campbell said I have pictures,which were marked exhibit#1 and#2,which are slightly different than their's that show the prospective from my yard. Ms.Campbell said I submitted a letter. Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Campbell's address. Ms.Campbell said my address is 2 Vine Place. Basically our concern is just that this deck,because it's so elevated and so close to the property line,will really mean that people sitting on the deck are going to be looking right down onto us on our patio. If landscaping solutions work,that would be great. If there were a whole bunch of trees there right now,I wouldn't object to this at all. I've tried things with trees before and more than half the trees that I plant end up dying or don't thrive. For the trees to get tall enough to really block people actually standing on that deck from us,if the deck starts at 8 ft.,it will have to be 15 ft.or something like that. Those are awfully tall trees. Ms.Campbell said the pictures that I gave there show just how visible from our property the deck would be. You can see in the pictures the existing tree that would block a deck if they build a deck in the back of the house. It's a big tree and it would provide substantial coverage,but you can also see that it's quite wide. For a tree to get that tall,it's usually pretty darn big. If they're building this deck at 7 ft.from the property line,there's not really going to be room for trees like that. Mr.Wexler asked,how high is the floor,the full plane of the deck? Ms.Campbell said it will be 8 ft.above grade. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 29 After some discussion,Mr.Gunther said in your letter,does the last paragraph basically summarize it? Ms. Campbell said yes. I also want to point out that the reason that their house is built the way it is currently,the front section of the house is wider and the back section is narrower,is because the back section would have been considered a violation of the zoning rule to build as wide as the front of the house. So,if it would have been a violation of the zoning rules to build a house there,I would think it's an even more egregious violation to build a deck there because with a deck you have the people sitting right there. Ms.Gallent said so be it,that's why they need a variance. Ms.Campbell said if the house wasn't permitted,I don't know why the deck should be permitted. These rules are made for a reason and I don't know what the reason would be here. Mr.Gunther said these pictures you submitted,were these pictures taken from your house? Ms.Campbell said that's my patio in the foreground. Yes,that's my back yard. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other comments on this application? Mr.Wexler said I have a question. Mr.Gunther said I was looking for public comments first on the variance related. Mr.Wexler said I think it's very important to the door,the side elevation of the house and measure exactly © where the relations are to the grade. I've been hearing 8 ft.,that's about the floor line. You build the deck about 6 in.below the floor line,it's going to be about 4 ft.or 5 ft.above grade. If the plants start with 6 ft.above the ball,you coming already above the deck line. That's why it's very important to draw the elevations. Mr.Jacobsen said I was talking about the floor of the deck should be above grade,not the railing. Mr.Wexler said not from this drawing. If that's the case,you should be able to walk out of that basement on grade. Mr.Raso said he's doing it less than 8 feet. Mr.Wexler said it looks like the photograph. You have to draw this elevation. Ms.Raso said we're just concerned with privacy issue and we'll do what we have to. Mr.Gunther said the Board needs to have a little bit of open discussion on what's been presented. My sense of the Board is that,and if I'm speaking out of line Board members please feel free to correct me, there may be concern on the Board's part that the applicant hasn't fully explored other opportunities in terms of placement for a deck. When we evaluate applications for a variance,one of the factors that the State requires us to look at is whether the applicant can achieve his goal via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. If you have enough space on your property for a deck and would like to have a deck and you can put it someplace that doesn't require a variance,you should seek that first. My suggestion to you is to look for another alternative for your deck to start with and the second pointer,I can't vote at all on the application tonight for that,because I don't know what you're asking for. It's not under the plan. Mr.Winick said they're missing elevations? Mr.Gunther said yes,definitely. Zoning Board • April 4,2002 (45 Page 30 Mr.Carpaneto said usually you can't build on easements. You can build to it,but not on it. Michael Raso said it's this point here,just the last part that was made about the easement: Mr.Winick said it appears on your plan there is basically some kind of an easement in your back yard. I haven't picked this off a scaled drawing. The question would be whether or not you can build over that easement,and if you can,what kind of deck do you have if you have to stay off it. I don't know the answer to that. You need a special architect. Mr.Wexler said that's as an alternative to what you presented. Mr.Raso said I don't know what the ability to build over or to an easement here. Mr.Carpaneto said you can explore that. Mr.Raso said to find out what that easement is for. Mr.Wexler said that easement is there because a pipe is going through this property. The reason they restrict from building those areas usually is that if something has gone wrong with the pipe they have the right to come onto your property and dig it up. If you build something over that,you have to remove what you put there already. It's a matter of restricted use from...restricted this property building on that. That should be very clear what's in that easement agreement. Mr.Jacobsen said concerning the deck,the way the zoning laws are written for this particular piece of O property or this zone,it could be 10 ft.on one and 15 ft.on the other. We have 10 ft.on one side of the existing house,it's 15 ft.to comply on the other side also to make the 25 ft.? Basically all we could have there would be a 3 ft.wide walkway if we wanted to get on the deck on that side. Where the current sliding glass door is,we'd be able to come out to a 3 ft.wide walkway,which would meet all the setback requirements,we wouldn't have to go before the Board for appeal and we could have a deck in the back depending on what this easement is. Mr.Wexler said you can do that without a variance anyway. Mr.Jacobsen said and we wouldn't have to come here for this. Mr.Wexler said yes. Mr.Jacobsen said we would still require a variance for the proposed bay window,with which Mr.Wexler agreed. Mr.Jacobsen said that would be my request,if we could get that approved and then make the wood deck something separate. Mr.Winick said let me make one observation. You have a drawing with a proposed plan on it and I know people get very committed to the plan when they finally get to this point of drawing it. The fact of the matter is,if you can put a deck somewhere else,you may have to move this around. We are charged unfortunately with moderating the affect of what you want to do for yourself with the impact on the neighbors. Maybe a new 3 ft.walkway,I don't know. If this has anything to do with your bay window, you may want to not do anything specific. It should be completely separate. Mr.Jacobsen said it's a separate issue. After further discussion,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Zoning Board April 4,2002 Page 31 JU` 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,would someone care to entertain a motion for a portion of the application for the bay window only? On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Michael Raso has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a side bay window on the premises located at 3 Vine Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 291. The bay window as proposed has a side yard of 5.53 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the bay window as proposed would have a total side yard of 11.63 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2); 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 240-37B(2)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Michael Raso 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 Othereon;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. Taking into account the presentation of the applicant and personal observation of the Board members at the property,no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. This is a very small bay window. The house sits in a nonconforming position on the property and it's a fairly narrow property. The bay window is being requested in order to improve the conditions in the kitchen and will not present any detriment because there is no foundation to this window,nor is it particularly visible to neighboring properties. B. Given the fact that the house is already positioned in a nonconforming fashion on the property, there is no way the applicant can achieve his goals with a reasonable alternative that would not involve the necessity of an area variance. C. This not a substantial variance. It is a small bay window,given the property as a whole and the lack of impact,given the fact that there is no foundation. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. E. This is not a self-created difficulty. This house is already nonconforming. Zoning Board April 4,2002 (15' Pagee32 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 TT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction of the bay window only as shown on the plans presented and no other. This variance does not authorize construction of the proposed deck. 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 business hours for a permit for the bay window. Mr.Jacobsen thanked the Board. Mr.Wexler said we have to set the next meeting date. Ms.Gallent said the meeting date was set at the last meeting for April 24,2002. A discussion ensued regarding the dates of meetings for other nearby communities. Mr.Gunther said we have a number of sets of Minutes that we need to approve. Mr.Winick said I can't stay. I want to distribute to the Board an article from the Wall Street Journal which is about the emergence of chicken coops in upscaled neighborhoods. Apparently,we were simply riding the lip of a wave and we didn't even know it. Q On a made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler the January 23,2002 Minutes were unanimously approved. Mr.Gunther said the February 26,2002 Minutes will be reviewed by counsel. Zoning Board April 4, 2002 Page 33 Now Mr. Gunther said with regard to all of the other Minutes, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the April, May, June, July and December of 2001 were approved, three in favor and one abstention, Linda Harrington. The Secretary read the next matter as follows: NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATIONS INVOLVING LAND USE Ms. Seligson said she wanted to thank the Board for their comments on the proposal to the notification procedures. Due to your comments, we've asked Bill Maker to refine the proposal and to change it as your request. I don't know if it will turn out exactly as you wish, but basically we definitely took it into account and will try to adjust those issues. Mr. Gunther asked, when will that go before the Town Board approximately? Ms. Seligson said it might be the next meeting, which would be in two weeks. Mr. Wexler asked about the FAR changes. Ms. Seligson said I'm not sure about the FAR changes. A discussion continued regarding this issue, which is not a part of the record. • NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on April 24, 2002. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Marguer• Roma, Recording Secretary S