Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_08_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 411PV MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 2 ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK St AUGUST 23, 2000, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD ,4es I MAMARONECK, NEW YORK eie A9�/C� !�� e l� 0 'of) t o �fy�q y t • Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman � 11P4e44-°go Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Absent: Paul A. Winick Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary 411/ CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 8:55 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2401 (adjourned 6/28/00;8/10/00) Application of Pamela Washington requesting a variance to convert a garage into recreation space. The conversion of the existing garage into recreation space would cause a vehicle to park within 6 ft. of the front property line where a setback of 25.0 ft. is required for parking a vehicle pursuant to Section 240-79B for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220, Lot 225. Mr. Gunther informed those present that a letter was received, which was read into the record, from the applicant requesting an adjournment because the architect is not ready. He advised those present that the matter will be heard at the next meeting, the end of September. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2403 (adjourned 6/28/00;8/10/00) Application of Jane Lin requesting a variance to maintain an existing chicken coop and pen. The existing chicken coop and pen are located 4 ft. from the front property line. Pursuant to Section 240-33(B)(3)(b), such accessory structures are permitted to be located only within the rear 1/3 of the property and must be located a minimum of 5 ft. from the property line in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 206 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416, Lot 112. Mr. Gunther advised those present that this matter was incorrectly noticed and adjourned from the August 411119 10, 2000 meeting to the end of September, 2000. Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 2 APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2410 Application of Anilesh and Maria Ahuja requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition and in- ground pool. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard setback of 8.0 ft.where 35.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-33B(2),the in-ground pool as proposed has a 6 ft.setback from the principal structure where 15 ft.is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(a);and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at Premium Point and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 509,Lot 86. Robert Keller,of 72 Wendt Avenue,Larchmont Avenue,Larchmont,New York, the architect for the project,addressed the Board. Mr.Keller explained the applicants have an existing one-story residence, and submitted photos,marked exhibit#1. He said it is a one-story residence with a one and one-half,two- story piece on the side. They are proposing to add a second story to the main part of the building and straighten out the walls of the present garage wing,which is the one story building with the sloping roof. In the zoning application it is stated that the side yard required is 35 ft.where presently it is 8 ft.,an existing condition. Mr.Gunther stated there will be no change in the footprint,and asked if that was correct. Mr.Keller said they are actually reducing the footprint of the building and explained how that will be done. He said they are going to put in a pool and add a second floor on top of that upside down"U"shape. The one-story garage,which has two rooms above,will remain as is. A discussion ensued regarding the roof line. Mr.Keller said in looking at the elevations there are some changes in minor details and explained what they would be. Mr.Wexler said when a motion is made,it is based upon the plans as submitted before the Board. If there is a substantial change,the applicant must come back before the Board. Mr.Keller said he is assuming if there is a problem with the mass in terms of that side,he knows it is less of a mass and it will be O.K. Mr.Keller said the building is pretty much as it is now. He said it is a tower element to try to balance the masters,with a tree on the side. It is within the heights and is a 9 ft.by 9 ft.square. Mr.Wexler asked if it were rooms. Mr.Keller said it is a loft for the children's bedroom. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther said Mr.Keller is pointing out on Mr.Wexler's floor plan the location of the loft floor plan and where it sits within the residence. Mr.Wexler asked if this is legal. Mr.Keller said he checked within the Village of Mamaroneck. ® Mr.Carpaneto said it would be a mezzanine,restricted to a third of the floor area,etc., Ms.Martin asked about plans for fencing. Mr.Keller said there is an existing fence on the property now,and explained where it is presently situated. He said there are no doors leading out to the pool. They will follow the State codes regarding the height Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 3 of the lock. Mr.Wexler said he can use a self-closing,self-latching door,as a screen doesn't work. Ms.Martin asked how many feet it is from the door to the pool. Mr.Keller said roughly 19 ft. Ms.Martin said it goes up to nothing on the left-hand side of the house. If someone were on the beach, they could walk right into the yard. She asked the requirement for fencing. Mr.Keller said there is no requirement. Mr.Carpaneto said if the property can be accessed,a fence is needed. After further discussion regarding access to the property,it was stated that matter has to be addressed. Ms.Martin said she is concerned about whether children in the neighborhood play there and she would like to know. Mr.Wexler said that matter has to be addressed, whether it is 6 ft.from the house or 50 ft.from the house. The closure is to prevent children from getting to the pool. Mr.Wexler said the only reason there is a question of the pool there,is because it is an accessory structure and it is closer than 15 ft.,with which ® Mr.Carpaneto agreed. Mr.Keller said one of the issues is that most of the back yard is also rock. What is proposed is one of the few spots where the pool can actually go. Mr.Gunther said the whole property length is 265 ft.,and asked why the pool needs to be so close to the house and not further back. Mr.Keller said the applicants do not want to blast for the pool. His clients also prefer the pool to be closer to the house,to leave the yard open. Mr.Wexler asked if the closure is opened or covered. Mr.Keller said it is covered. Mr.Wexler asked if he gave notice to his neighbors. Mr.Keller said yes he has. As far as he knows,there is no one present objecting to the project. Mr.Gunther asked if notice was sent to the public on this application,which the secretary verified. Mr.Davis arrived at this time. Mr.Wexler said they will be submitting a revised drawing. He said it should be presented to the Board, because the only drawings in front of the Board are the ones just discussed. ® After further discussion regarding the changed plans,Mr.Keller asked how he should proceed. Mr.Wexler said Mr.Keller can poll the Board and adjourn the matter for a vote to the next meeting,as it is a dramatic change not a simple change. Mr.Keller said he has the drawings. Zoning Board August 23,2000 Q Page 4 A discussion ensued with Mr.Davis,Mr.Keller and Board members regarding this situation. Mr.Wexler asked what affect this has on Mr.Keller's time. Mr.Keller said it is very serious. He is almost done with the drawings. Mr.Wexler reiterated Mr.Keller should probably poll the Board to see what their feeling is. Mr.Davis said that Mr.Carpaneto should have an opportunity to inspect a set of plans before the Board approves them. Mr.Keller said he understands and asked if he can informally tell the Board his requests. Mr.Gunther said he can do that,if that is how Mr.Keller would like to proceed,so that the plans that are approved are the plans Mr.Keller is going to use to build something. Mr.Gunther said they can adjourn the final matter to the next meeting. Mr.Gunther polled the Board.After some discussion,on a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Simon,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2410 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Wexler said the September meeting was set for September 27,2000. He has a conflict with the QVillage of Larchmont Board of Architectural Review and asked if the date can be changed or he will not be able to attend but will come after the meeting. Mr. Gunther informed Mr.Davis the date was set at a prior meeting. Application#2,Jane Lin,was adjourned to that date. Mr.Davis said the Board should probably adhere to that date. A discussion ensued regarding the meeting date,after which the next meeting date was set for Tuesday, September 26,2000. Mr.Gunther informed the secretary that once the new agenda is prepared and a date set,to mail the notice to the residents within the required radius for case#2403. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2411 Application of Patricia Jablonowski requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.4 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 55 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118,Lot 256. Joseph Jablonowski,the husband of the applicant,Patricia Jablonowski,appeared to address the Board. Q He said they want to put a bathroom on the first floor,as the house was built in the eafly 20's and does not have one there. Mr.Jablonowski said the lot is pie-shaped. It's a rectangular house shoved back in toward the apex of the triangle. It does not have a side yard clearance where the breakfast nook is,a"T"- shaped extension on the north side of the building. He said they propose to extend that "T"-shaped addition,which was part of the original floor plan,out toward to street to have a small powder room. It Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 5 will not go out to the front foremost facade. The building will not be changed and it won't encroach any further on the side of the lot. A discussion ensued regarding the two windows where the air conditioner is. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. Mr.Jablonowski said there should be a letter from their neighbors saying they have no objection. Mr.Gunther said there is a letter from Mary and Alan Stein,dated June 24,2000,voicing no objection, which was read into the record. There being no further questions or comments from the public,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Patricia Jablonowski has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-story addition. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.4 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 55 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118,Lot 256;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Patricia Jablonowski 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. Based on personal observation of the property and the testimony of the applicant this evening,there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created. B. It is a very small addition located along the side of the house where an extension already exists. The footprint of the addition actually is further away from the side lot line than the currently existing addition. Zoning Board August 23,2000 © Page 6 C. There is no way the applicant can achieve his goals of installing a first floor lavatory via a reasonable alternative,given the fact that the lot is irregularly shaped and decreases in width. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. D. It is not a substantial variance,but a very small addition. The neighbors who are most nearly affected and live next door have no objections. E. It is not a self-created difficulty. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit,during regular business hours. Mr. Davis informed those present that the entire agenda was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and there were no comments. The Secretary read the application as follows: O Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 7 411-11) APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2412 Application of Sabrina Arena requesting a variance to legalize an existing roofed patio. The roofed patio as built has a rear yard of 17.8 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 35 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 221. Mr.Arena,the father of Sabrina Arena who is living in Rome,was present to represent her and address the Board. Mr.Arena said he built the house in 1973 and the patio was exactly as it is today. He never knew it was in violation. There were never any complaints from the neighborhood. There is just one house,quite a distance from their house. He would like to retain the patio,because his daughter sold the house and the new buyer wants to have this situation corrected. Ms.Martin asked if there was any intention to enclose the patio. Mr.Arena said no. Ms.Martin said that by legalizing this the Board isn't giving the applicant the right to enclose it. Mr.Carpaneto said no. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Arena when it was built. Mr.Arena said he presumes it was built at least 30 years ago. Mr.Carpaneto referred the Board to the copy of the survey,which was updated in 1999. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any other comments from the public. There were none. A discussed ensued regarding the factors considered before granting a variance. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Sabrina Arena has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize an existing roofed patio. The roofed patio as built has a rear yard of 17.8 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)for a residence in an R-l0 Zone District on the premises located at 35 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 221;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(3);and WHEREAS,Sabrina Arena submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 8 WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The roofed patio has been preexisting for a good number of years, over 30 years. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created. B. The only other alternative the applicant has is to remove the roof or cut it back. This would not be a feasible alternative for the applicant,as it has been there for 30 years and the applicant is in the process of selling his house. C. Given the fact that it is an open structure, on grade, with a light weight aluminum roof that will give it transparency,and given its relationship to the real property line,it is not substantial. D. The roofed patio has been there for well over 30 years and will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Obviously,it is not a self-created difficulty. It was there prior to the purchase of the house in the early 1970's. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. © 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months ofthe filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. Zoning Board August 23,2000 Q Page 9 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit,during usual business hours. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2414 Application of Mr.&Mrs.Howard Mizrachi requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck. The deck as proposed has a side yard of 4.30 ft.where 8.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); a rear yard of 24.0 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and further,the deck would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409,Lot 45. Howard Mizrachi,of 15 Kenmare Road,addressed the Board. Mr.Mizrachi said they are planning to build a small deck to cover an existing stairwell behind his yard, and referred the Board to pictures submitted. They plan to put doors in the back of the house. It will make the back yard safer. There will be stairs going down the side of the deck,for a total of 88 sq.ft. Currently,the side yard is 6.3 ft. The Q deck would be flush with the side of the house,but the stairs would go down about 2 ft.beyond the house plus the back yard setback is 24 ft.instead of 25 ft. Mr.Gunther questioned the two pictures showing the back of the house. Mr.Mizrachi said the deck will basically cover the stairwell and fill it in. Mr.Gunther asked if access to the deck will come from the back door. Mr.Mizrachi said there will be another door over here. Mr.Gunther said he is looking at the blueprints provided to understand the relationship to the existing back door and the new french doors,where the existing rear back window exists and how is it placed over and steps down over the stairwell in the back of the house. Mr.Wexler asked what are the vertical conduits in the back of the house. Mr.Mizrachi said they are electrical. Ms.Martin asked if it is going to be closed off. Mr.Mizrachi said there is a window and the exit will be from another window. Ms.Martin was wondering if animals can get trapped underneath and said it should be considered. Mr.Simon said he had a problem a few years ago with a raccoon. Ms.Martin said she doesn't know if Mr.Mizrachi needs access under there for any particular reason. She asked if it would be flat,with steps going down toward the side of the property,and asked if there was danger at the edge. Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 10 © After some discussion,Mr. Gunther said the plans indicated that new outlets are being replaced on the outside,and assumes that cable will be replaced. Mr.Mizrachi said there are just two outlets. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none,he asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Howard Mizrachi have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a rear wood deck. The deck as proposed has a side yard of 4.30 ft.where 8.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);a rear yard of 24.0 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and further, the deck would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409,Lot 45;and © WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(a),Section 240-39B(3),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Howard Mizrachi 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. Based on personal observation of the property and review of the testimony of the applicant and photographs submitted by the applicant this evening in the record, no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created. It is a flat deck covering an area behind the house that is actually dangerous,an abrupt drop-off from the back yard. The applicants are intending to gain access to the deck and alleviate an unsafe condition. © B. There is no reasonable alternative. C. It is not a substantial variance,just 1 ft.in the rear yard. The deck is being brought along the side of the house at the same setback that currently exists. The house is already nonconforming on a nonconforming placement on the site. Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 11 D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environment conditions in the neighborhood or district. The conditions in the neighborhood will be improved by changing this unsafe condition E. It is not a self-created difficulty,as the rear yard setback is only plus or minus a foot difference from the required setback. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. A discussion ensued regarding the necessity of stating actions are a Type II action on every application granted. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2415 Application of Michael McSweeney requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck. The rear deck as proposed has a rear yard of 5 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 19 Copely Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409,Lot 813. • Michael McSweeney,of 19 Copely Road,appeared to address the Board. He said he has been told he can utilize the back yard better. He has a small house,and a drop about 5 ft.from the back door,stairs and a rickety platform. The plans show an existing small kitchen. There is actually no room for a table. Zoning Board • August 23,2000 Page 12 Mr.Gunther asked if there were any pictures,which the secretary provided. Mr.Martin asked about the small enclosed fenced area,and asked if that is going to come down. Mr.McSweeney said it will come down and he will be build inside that area. It currently exists,because he has a dog. Mr.McSweeney said he has discussed his plans with the three neighbors,the ones on each side and in the back,before he went to the architect. Mr.Gunther asked if the building behind is the garage for the house in back of his. Mr.McSweeney said it is a garage. Ms.Martin said there is a quite a bit of shrubbery back there. Mr.McSweeney said there is a lot of mature shrubbery in the area. There is also a tree that is not shown, a big evergreen,which will actually provide some privacy for his deck and his neighbor's deck. Mr.Wexler questioned the fence. Mr.McSweeney said the fence will come down. It was just for the purpose of the dog. Mr.Gunther said at its closest point it will be 5 ft. He asked if Mr.McSweeney knew the distance at its furthest point. Mr.McSweeney said it is a very small irregular lot. After some discussion,Mr.McSweeney said he thinks it is about 8 ft. Mr.Wexler said it is about 10 ft. Mr.Gunther said the deck is 8 ft.at one point and 14 ft.at another point. Mr.McSweeney said it is because that is the way the house was built. Mr.Wexler asked how far the fence currently is from the house. Mr.McSweeney said that will come down. It is beyond the existing fence of the deck. It is just an enclosure for the dog. Mr.Wexler said that the impact will almost be the same as a fence impact. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther said that the garage touches the property. Mr.Gunther commented on the stairs. Mr. Mizrachi said he has to get something done,because the steps are currently dangerous. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. ® RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 13 WHEREAS,Michael McSweeney has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a rear wood deck. The rear deck as proposed has a rear yard of 5 ft.where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 19 Copely Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409,Lot 813;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(3),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Michael McSweeney 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. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created by granting this particular area variance. The deck being proposed will exist close to where a portion of a current fence of similar height exists. B. The applicant is severely limited in space at the rear of the property and the only way to utilize it is as proposed. C. Any request for a rear yard structure would require a variance. In this case,as the house is nonconforming and the rear yard is small and irregular,anything built there would also require a variance. D. The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,as the proposed deck is for personal use. E. It is not a self-created difficulty,and this factor is not determinative under the circumstances. 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. Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 14 H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit,during usual business hours. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 8-CASE 2416 Application of John and Victoria Baum requesting a variance to construct a front porch and new steps to their driveway. The porch and steps as proposed have a front yard of 20 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(1);a side yard of 6 ft.where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 40B(2)(a);and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-2F Zone District on the premises located at 9 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403,Lot 319. John Baum,of 9 Blossom Terrace,appeared to address the Board. Mr.Baum said he is proposing to build a front porch on that does not extend past the house. Since the house has been there,it has always been 6 ft.from the property line. That is the way they were all built in 1957. He said they are proposing to come out 5 ft. The building is still 30 ft.from the Town line. The stairs,as they would like to have them,will take up less space than the current stairs,since they are going to be turned into the driveway. There is a curvature of a walkway which will be eliminated,probably 10 ft.from the Town line. They are going to relandscape the whole front and make the place look a lot nicer,more inviting. He said the house is being painted next week also,Navaho white with blue shutters,white trim and the floor will be left stained. Mr.Gunther said the Board does not have a plot plan and asked if there was a tax map from a survey. because the survey shows a 30 ft.front yard to the house and the plans that were submitted show a 5 ft. front deck. QMr.Carpaneto said he used the survey that was supplied. Mr.Gunther said it is a matter of the way the Board calculates,because what is shown on the survey is 30 ft.from the front line to the house not to the platform and stairs. Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 15 Mr.Wexler said it will be 5 ft.for the porch,2 ft.for the 2 steps down,3 ft.for the platform and should yield a total of 10 ft.,yielding a front yard setback of 20 ft. Mr.Gunther said what he is showing underneath is where the existing steps are. On the plans that were submitted it also shows there were 3 risers of the existing steps that extend further toward the front of the property that will not be there when the proposed addition is completed. Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Baum is going to put in plantings. Mr.Baum said definitely. He said he might even put lattice to keep out the raccoons and skunks. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public. There were none. Mr.Baum said he had no complaints from the neighbors. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: Q WHEREAS,John and Victoria Baum have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front porch and new steps to their driveway. The porch and steps as proposed have a front yard of 20 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(1);a side yard of 6 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(2)(a);and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-2F Zone District on the premises located at 9 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403,Lot 319;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 240-40B(1),Section 240-40B(2)(a),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,John and Victoria Baum 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. Based on personal review of the property, testimony of the applicant this evening and records presented,no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created. The applicant is proposing to create a front porch with an attractive railing,seating Zoning Board August 23,2000 Page 16 area and steps that will break up the mass of the steps that currently exist. It will be a much more attractive facade than currently exists. B. There is no reasonable alternative to change the entry way,the only way into the house. C. The variance is not substantial. A 5 ft. porch is a minimal size to allow the applicant to sit out on the porch. The steps are needed to provide access. It is not a substantial variance,based on the requirements of the construction. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. It is not a self-created difficulty in this instance. 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: I. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit,during usual business hours. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on Tuesday,September 26,2000. • Zoning Board August 23,2000 © Page 17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr.Gunther said the Minutes of the June 28,2000 Zoning Board meeting will be held off until the next meeting. The Board needs Mr.Winick present for the resolution on that. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded„the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. 771 C?A Margueril Roma,Recording Secretary