Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_12_20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 20,2000,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Jillian A.Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A.Winick Also Present: Ian A.Shavitz,Counsel Peter R.Paden,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building � Nancy Seligson,Liaison 0 �.4 Barbara Terranova,Public Stenographer RECEIVED Terranova,Kazazes&Associates,Ltd. 49 Eighth Street 1 2001 New Rochelle,New York 10801 PATRICIA A ddoas wCLEAR 5.1 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary fir. CALL TO ORDER C r- The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr.Gunther informed those present that the applicant for the first application,as listed below,requested that this matter be adjourned one more time: APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2403(adjourned 6/28/00;8/10/00;8/23/00;9/26/00;10/25/00;11/21/00) Application of Jane Lin,206 Hommocks Road,Block 416,Lot 112. Mr.Gunther asked the Director of Building if he has had any word on this matter,as this has been adjourned for six months. He would like the matter discarded,if they are not going to proceed. Mr.Carpaneto said the applicants are in the process of working on this property to satisfy neighboring property owners. They have not concluded it yet,but should be done soon. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2403 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the January 24,2001 Zoning Board meeting,with the understanding if there is no action or withdrawal from the applicant by the next meeting,the Board will make a motion to have the case withdrawn. The Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2430(adjourned 11/21/00) Application of Katherine and Walter McTeigue,6 Harrison Drive,Block 503,Lot 579. Mr. Gunther said the Board has a letter from the architect,James Fleming, to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting an adjournment to the next scheduled meeting in January,2001,which is a part of the record. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 2 On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case 1t2430 be,and hereby is,adjoumegl to the January 24,2001 Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2431 Application of Richard Puleo requesting a variance to legalize an existing rear deck on.the premises located at 109 Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124,Lot 428. The rear wood deck as built has a rear yard of 13.5 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant,to Section 240-39B(3)for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked what the difference in space is between the new deck and the old deck Richard Puleo said there is no difference. It is exactly the same. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Puleo knew when the original deck was built. Mr.Puleo said he has the original survey of the house be got from the Tax Assessor's Office which was dated 1971. Mr.Winick asked if it was or was not on that survey. Mr.Puleo said it was on the 1971 survey,which he showed the Board. He said he submitted that survey with the Building Permit application and had to get a new survey. Mr.Carpaneto said there are no dimensions on that survey,but something was approved. Mr.Wexler.said proposed parking for two cars was approved. After some discussion,Mr.Wexler asked if the new survey shows the stairs. Mr.Puleo said he doesn't know. He said it is on the plan,but never noticed it wasn't on the survey. Mr.Wexler said that the survey shows a few steps,leading to a series of steps...inaudible. He said Mr.Puleo should get Richard Spinelli to update the survey. Mr.Puleo asked if he should have the steps added to the survey. Mr.Carpaneto said he didn't think the stairs were on it in August. That is why it doesn't show. Mr.Wexler said the three steps it shows are the three steps leading from the deck down. Mr.Puleo said you come down three steps to a landing and then down six steps. He said he will have the survey updated. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr.Winick asked how did it come to be reconstructed before a permit was issued. Mr.Puleo said he wasn't aware a permit was needed. 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. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 3 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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Richard Puleo has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize an existing rear deck on the premises located at 109 Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124,Lot 428. The rear wood deck as built has a rear yard of 13.5 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3)for a residence in an R-6 Zone District;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(3);and WHEREAS,Richard Puleo 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 no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created,based upon observation of the property. There are only two houses that would potentially be affected by the deck,which is located at the rear of the property. Neither of them are oriented so that the person using the property adjoining the rear line would have the deck in their direct line of site. B. There will be no affect at all on the character of the neighborhood. The house is on a sloping property,so that the active floor of the house is well above the grade in the rear. C. There is no reasonable alternative to this type of deck,based upon the configuration of the house. D. The variance is insubstantial. It encroaches about 12 ft.,but in a way in which there is little impact or no impact on the adjoining property. E. The difficulty here is self-created only in a sense that the construction was done by the applicant. However,it entails the virtually identical replacement of an existing deck. Consequently,the self-created difficulty has no bearing on this matter. 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. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 4 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.Wexler asked Mr.Carpaneto about the drawing of detail which is different than what is in place. Mr.Carpaneto said he hasn't yet done an inspection. Mr.Puled said he knows exactly what has to be done. He didn't go any further,because he wanted to be sure he was granted a variance. He is well aware of the changes that need to be made. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2432 Application of Anthony Coschigano III requesting a variance to construct a one-story brick and stone addition with garage under on the premises located at 2 Carroll Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 390. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 17 ft.where 30 ft.i-required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. No one was present at this time for this application. Mr.Gunther said the case will be recalled at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2434 Application of Jeff and Karen Berman requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition and chimney on the premises located at 5 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 1. The chimney as proposed has a'rear yard of 7 ft. 10 in.+-. The addition,as proposed,has a rear yard of 19 ft.1 in.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36(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-15 Zone District. • Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 5 Robert Bell,of 3230"P Street,NW,Washington,DC,the architect for the project,appeared to address the Board. Mr.Bell said he is an architect in New York and was hired by Jeff and Karen Berman to represent them. They have two children. Presently they are in England and are planning to return this spring to the residence. They have a house that hadn't been remodeled. Mr.Bell was asked by the Bermans to build a new eat-in kitchen with a family room adjacent to it,add a dining room and rebuild the main stairs. Mr.Gunther said if Mr.Bell is going to refer to the drawing to angle it,so interested individuals can see what he is talking about. Mr.Bell pointed out the existing house,the existing kitchen and the existing stairs. He said they are rebuilding the stairs,redoing the kitchen,breakfast room,family room and added a fireplace off of the family room. There is a mud room and dining room off the living room in the back. On the second floor of the residence,he pointed out the master bathroom and walk-in closet where the old master bathroom used to be. Mr.Bell said he began the project in 1998 for the clients. The first thing he did in July of 1998 was call the Building Department to go over the building setbacks and restriction lines. He said he had conversations with Mr. Moore of the Building Department in July and went over the question of the rear yard,side yard and setback for the street area. He said there is a 35 ft.setback required on all of the street properties. Mr.Wexler asked if that is a 35 ft.or 40 ft.setback. Mr.Bell said it is 40 ft.setback on both sides of that. He said the actual address is#5 Avon Road. He said when they went to look at this,the first thing they were considering was the possibility of pushing out over the family room this way(?)for the fireplace where there is a shed,but that fell within the street setback. They were forced to follow the rules,rather than go for a variance. The way they understood it was that the side yard could be across here,the rear yard could be toward the back,this is the front yard and then you have the street setback requirement. One of the things they didn't do therefore,because of the setback,was to push the house this way(?)because they didn't want to get into a variance situation. He said the 10 ft.setback already runs across the edge of the property here(?),catches a little edge of this chimney,which they pushed out because the role is you can actually have your chimney encroach into the side yard by 2 ft. Otherwise there were no variances required whatsoever by the way it was originally designed. Mr.Bell said in October of this year,the owner signed a contract with a contractor. The contractor said he had some concerns about this question and viewed it to have a 2 ft.setback for the chimney stepping into the side yard. At that point they thought they were ready to start construction and spoke to Mr.Carpaneto. Mr.Bell said Mr. Carpaneto is really a great person to work with. They disagreed on some things,but he is helpful and a pleasure to work.with. Mr.Bell said they disagreed about the question of the setback. The point is the building itself was designed to fit within what they thought the limits were. It wasn't until they applied for the permit and were ready to break ground,that they got the interpretation that the 25 ft.setback is considered a 10 ft.setback,taking out almost a quarter of the existing house. Mr.Gunther asked if he is talking about the rear and side yard. Mr.Bell said yes,the rear and side yard. He said he spoke to Mr.Carpaneto about this. He said he thinks it is very important for them to see if there is a limitation. It is should be clarified,if there is a rule that means you can't use this as a side yard. It should be much clearer in the code. What the code actually says is when you have a corner lot that has an edge here(?)and an edge across here(?),zoning says the rear yard shall be provided for a corner lot and the owners shall have the privilege of electing which yard will be the rear yard. There is kind of a logic that applies. This should be allowed and should be called a rear yard. First the address is 5 Avon Road and not 5 Dundee Road,for example. So,the front is here(?). If you look at the way the house was originally constructed,you will see that the corner of the house was extremely close,actually within 10.6 in.of the side. It looks like this was a historical case. This was a side yard,when the house was placed in the first place. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 6 Mr.Wexler asked when the house was built. Mr.Bell said he doesn't know the exact date,possibly in the'40's. First of all,there is a reason historically it was a side yard. Second of all,if you look at the code itself it says that a rear yard shall be provided,but that the owners,not the Building Department,shall be the persons to determine which one will be called the rear yard. It seems to be very clear. He explained that he has been in many zoning hearings related to this issue. He said there is no qualifying thing that says that the owner doesn't have the choice. The role is the owner has the choice. As far as he knows,there are no rules in the Zoning Code that will give an interpretation. Therefore,they should have the right,unless it can be shown that the zoning has some other rule,to call this the rear yard. If they have the right to call it the rear yard,then they have a completely conforming structure and there is no reason for a variance whatsoever. Mr.Bell said the Board should first look at that issue. He thinks there is only one conclusion. He thinks it is a very strong situation. Mr.Wexler said he does have a four-sided lot. That one says a corner lot. If you take out the front yard of the corner lot,the applicant is left with two other yards. Here,if you take out the requirements for the front yard,you are going to have to go there to the other side inaudible. Mr.Wexler proceeded to explain his statement. Mr.Wexler said when you take the requirements out for a front yard,that negates the opportunity to put a rear yard over there because it is 40 ft.back from the front yard. He said if it was a longer piece of property,the applicant might be able to make it. Because the property is such that the front yard requirement is 40 ft.from the front side, there is only one yard left and that has to be his rear yard. Mr.Bell said he understands what Mr.Wexler is saying,but pointed out that this is logically inconsistent with the concept of zoning regulations. He thinks this is logically impossible. If they took this piece of property,took the corner of the existing house and determined a line across there(?),then cut away and provided a rear yard as Mr. Wexler is saying,15,000 sq.ft.or if the property ended here(?),then you are in a completely contradictory concept that you have a set of zoning rules which are to protect openness. The whole point of zoning is setbacks and openness. How can it be that the property rights of an owner,by having more property and more openness,can be punished. He said they cannot do that as a Zoning Board,because it contradicts the concept of zoning. You can't have a situation where an owner can have more land,more openness,adding to his property and now suddenly have this whole section of buildable area taken off. Mr.Wexler said to look at the zoning and look at what a side yard does traditionally,as houses are placed on lots. It is a small dimension of the structure that faces that small dimension for enjoyment(?). Mr.Wexler said this is a very unique piece of property. Mr.Bell said if this is looked at in a more contextual manner of the whole block or the whole area and look at it this way,you can say if you looked at every address on Avon Road they all have their rear yards to the back. The developers bad this choice. The side lot goes basically right to the center. He chose that one. He could have chosen Dundee or he could have chosen Avon. The fact is that the way all this was laid out,the rear;trd means the back. As you can see, if you look at of context,this house which is on Dundee has its rear yard back here(?)....inaudible,and the Berman's house has it on Dundee,then I think you would be right. The rear yard would be here(?). But,it's not on Dundee. It's on Avon Road. You must look at what the address is. He said he was speaking to somebody this evening about where they have a situation,and said this house was built in 1940. He asked what zoning code was in effect in 1940. Mr.Carpaneto said he believes the side yard is the same. Mr.Wexler said that house wouldn't be able to be built where it now would be. The side yard requirements are required as a front yard. Something must have been in place to allow it to get built that's in violation of the yard, but it got built. After further discussion,Mr.Bell said he agrees that something was there. He thinks it was built in a place that enhances the community. It works for the community to have it fill in the property that way. In this situation you have to look at the given. Given what the rules say,that the owner chooses,even if you think it ought to be one Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 7 way or another way,that is not the Board's choice. It's the owner's choice. That is the way the rules are. You must abide by the rules of the Zoning Code. Mr.Wexler said except the code says that you must have a front yard 40 ft.from the front property line. That's the definition of a front yard. Mr.Bell questi oned that statement. Mr.Wexler said there is nothing else on that side to the left that is other than a front yard. Mr.Winick asked if there is a building in view which nonconforming. Mr.Wexler said there is zoning in place now. The zoning says that first you must have a front yard. In this zone, the front yard is 40 ft.from the property line and explained how that is done. He said you must have a rear yard. He said there is only one property line left for a yard. That's the adjoining yard. Mr.Winick said he doesn't understand what Mr.Wexler means by adjoining yard. Mr.Wexler explained,stating this is your front yard because it's on the a street frontage. Mr.Winick said there are two front yards. Mr.Wexler said there are two front yards on each corner. This is not a classic rectangular piece of property which is normally on a subdivision. Mr.Winick said he is trying to understand. The Board sees properties in these hearings all the time that are nonconforming,because they were built before the current zoning. He doesn't understand what the relevance is in the fact that there is an unconforming front yard,which is a historical fact,and they are not trying to get a variance. They don't have a 40 ft.front yard and never will. Mr.Wexler said because of today's standards,you are applying the yard to new construction. If he had a 5 ft.rear yard requirement in the previous plan and now it is 25 ft.,he has to meet the 25 ft.requirement. Mr.Bell said he thinks it is a contradiction. If you have a piece of property that encroaches on all four or three sides,that would be an unbuildable property. Mr.Wexler said that might be an unbuildable property,that's right. That is one of the questions for getting a variance. Mr.Bell said then you could own a whole block,have front yards all around it,you would not be able to have a rear yard and it would be unbuildable. Mr.Wexler said no. He said they had a whole block here,had the front yard requirements been around and built eight to ten houses. Mr.Winick asked a question directed to counsel,since the applicant's architect hasn't offered this. He said the Board has been presented with the Code section which says that as a matter of right,the applicant gets to choose on a corner lot which yard is the rear yard. He said he has a couple of questions. Is there any question that this is a corner lot. The second is,is that thing in the back where they want to put the addition,a yard. If the answer to those two questions is affirmative,his third question is,is there any code section which should prevent the Board from simply applying Section 240-36(3)as written. Mr.Paden said there are a number of code sections that address this question. First of all,the code defines a corner lot as a lot where at least two adjacent sides abut on streets or public places. Any other lot is an interior lot. He said it seems this looks like a corner lot. • Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 8 Mr.Paden said the Board might be interested to hear what the definition of yard is under Section 240-4,under"L', Lot,Corner. The yard is,"an open space of uniform width or depth on the same lot with a building or group of buildings,which open space lines between the building or group of buildings and the nearest lot line and is unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward." Mr.Paden said another code section the Board should bear in mind is Section 240-14,which talks about irregularly shaped lots. There has been a lot of discussion and it is pretty clear the first thing that comes to mind is a four- sided lot. One might conclude that this was an irregularly shaped lot. He doesn't believe it is defined. But,what the code says about irregularly shaped lots is, "when a question exists as to the proper application of any of the regulations of this chapter to a particular lot or parcel,because of the peculiar or irregular shape of the lot or parcel, the Board of Appeals shall determine how such regulations shall be applied.' Mr.Paden said the Board is qualified to interpret the code when it comes inaudible irregularly shaped lot. The Board has the discretion and the authority to interpret the code as they see appropriate. Mr.Wexler said the real question is,can a yard requirement be satisfied overlapping Mr.Paden said it can be in two yards at the same time. Mr. Wexler referred to the One-family Residence code for an R-15 Zone District stating these are the actual requirements if you were going to develop a residence in an R-15 Zone District,Section 240-36;(1)it has to have a minimum lot area;(2)a minimum lot width and length of street-line frontage,100 ft.;obviously it has more than that;(3)a minimum depth of 100 ft.;you can actually get a lot out of that. Mr.Wexler continued stating: Yard courts,open spaces: Minimum front yard: forty(40)feet. On a corner lot, a front yard shall be provided on each street. Mr.Wexler said if you take the 40 ft. requirement and you set it back to the continuous front yard,which is three(3)sides of this property,it leaves only one side of the property left. Mr.Wexler said the next requirement is Mr.Gunther said the next is minimum side yards,then it goes to rear yard. He said there are no limitations to the two. He said to refer back to Section 240-14;Irregularly shaped lots;the Zoning Board of Appeals has the right to interpret as follows:Minimum side yard;(a)Least one: ten(10)feet(b)Total of two(2):thirty(30)feet;(3) Minimum rear yard: twenty-five(25)feet. Mr.Paden said it might be useful to look at the definition of rear and side yard. He said a rear yard is a yard extending across the full width of the lot lying between the rear line of the lot and the rear side of the building. A side yard is a yard between the side line of the lot and the nearest line of the building and extending from the front yard to the rear yard or,in the absence of either of such yards,to the front and rear lot line,as the case may be. He said he is not sure if that is helpful,but said he thinks Mr.Wexler's suggestion that they need to have a rear line....(inaudible). After some discussion,Mr.Paden said if you have a triangular shaped lot and two front yards,it may not have a side lot line and a rear lot line....(inaudible). Mr.Wexler then demonstrated on the drawings before the Board when you have a corner lot regarding parking on the 10 ft.side yard,stating you must go past the 25 ft.front yard requirement. He said the front yard governs over everything else when it is first laid out. Mr.Paden said the applicant's interpretation suggests....(inaudible) Mr. Wexler said the real question is that the applicant's application before the Board doesn't request an interpretation. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 9 Mr.Bell said when he found this out,he asked Mr.Carpaneto....(inaudible). He said they designed it on their choice,they had two side yards,they invested two years of design to completely follow the rules and then to have it interpreted at this point it somehow this doesn't count anymore. He doesn't understand. Mr.Winick asked counsel a question. He said he doesn't understand the reason behind the last statement. He asked if he understood it to be that the applicant's interpretation is the same property line is both the side yard and rear yard. Mr.Paden said if the Board applies the 40 ft.setback to Dundee Road that covers the entire area that the applicant would argue in the rear yard as well. Mr.Wexler explained if it is measured perpendicular to the front property line it crosses(?)right across the whole thing. Mr.Winick said that would mean there are three(3)property lines,two(2)of them are front yards because they are on the street. He said the question of definition is where is the third line. Mr.Bell said he still thinks you can have a whole block that would be unbuildable because there would be no possibilities of having a rear yard by that statement. He said it would be impossible,because all rear yards and side yards would have to fall within the setback of the street. He said that can't be. You can't have a situation like that. If the Board follows their logic,you don't end up with that problem. You end up with a problem that you could have a whole block,unbuildable by following that logic. By following their logic,you never will have that situation. After further discussion,Mr.Wexler said it is not an unbuildable lot in an R-15 Zone District. He has a minimum depth of 100 ft. The minimum front yard is 40 ft. It leaves a 20 ft.swath down the center for building. Mr.Gunther said enough time has been spent discussing this. The applicant has made a request for a variance,not necessarily for an interpretation. The application is with regards to the merits of a variance based upon (inaudible). Mr.Winick said he has this problem with the variance application. If based on the last thing that counsel said,Mr. Winick looked at the definition of rear yard and side yard,and neither of them are making sense in the context of this property. The rear yard is a yard extending across the full width of the lot,which that thing back there does, in line between the rear line of the lot and the nearest line of the building. That's great if the Board knew what the rear line of the lot was. This is a definition which effectively has no meaning,because the term rear line is not defined. Mr.Gunther said that is the reason Section 240-14 is applied;Irregularly shaped lot. Mr.Winick said he understands that,and similarly for side yards. Mr.Bell said that is why they have this rule. You don't have blocks that are unbuildable. Mr.Winick asked counsel,if looking at the language of Section 240-36(3),it says a rear yard shall be provided on corner lots. He said it is mandatory language in the statute. There has to be a rear yard. Mr.Wexler said there is only one side left. In this case,you don't have a choice. Mr.Gunther said it also says you have to have a side yard. Ms.Martin asked where does it say that because it overlaps....inaudible. Mr.Paden said in referring to Section 240-36,he thinks it is clear to say he doesn't believe it says you have to have a side yard. It says define side yard. It says a rear yard shall be provided on a corner lot. He thinks that is Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 10 incorrect in the code to require a rear yard. It definitely requires a side yard. He said that Mr.Wexler made a point that in a corner lot,you cannot build a garage as though it were a side yard. That's different. Mr.Wexler said the first 40 ft.of that side yard from the street is a front yard,not a side yard. You only have a side yard when it leaves that front yard requirement. In this case,once you describe what is that front yard,there is only one yard left on this parcel. He believes it has to have a rear yard. It is the configuration of the lot. Mr.Bell said he understands what Mr.Wexler is saying,but nobody has read to him where the zoning says that. Mr.Bell said he has an argument he is making,but where does the zoning address arguments. It is not articulated. Mr.Wexler says that zoning says you have to have a front yard. Mr.Bell said it doesn't say it can't be (inaudible). Mr.Wexler said it says you have to have a front yard. You can't have a rear yard on the street. By definition, it is a front yard. Mr.Gunther said what Mr.Wexler is saying is that it could be interpreted and forms a function of both yards. It doesn't say it must be separate. It is just one interpretation. The code doesn't specifically say that it has to be. Mr.Wexler asked if yards overlap and some of the requirements are less than required,what yard takes precedence. Mr.Gunther said that is why there is the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr.Paden said if one wanted to build,would they be bound by a 25 ft.setback or a 40 ft.setback. Mr.Wexler said there can be an accessory structure in the rear one-third of the property in a rear yard. He said if that is a rear yard,that is right on the street. He said it is not a rear yard,but a side yard. Mr.Martin said the Zoning Code says Section 240-14. Mr.Paden said it isn't very clear that this Board has the authority to interpret. He said that Mr.Wexler's logic is....inaudible telling,then logically you have no choice but at least have a choice to interpret inaudible. You also have the option of considering a variance. Mr.Bell said obviously this is the correct interpretation. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Bell didn't request an interpretation. Mr.Bell said he asked the administrator can this be argued on interpretation. He said if had been told to fill out the application,he would have done it instantly. He apologized. Mr.Gunther said the application is alright the way it is. Mr.Bell said he thinks this is worthwhile to get clear,because he thinks the zoning is clear. If the administrator knew clearly what to follow or if they wish to amend it so that architects will know what to follow in the future, it should be done. Mr.Gunther said because it is an irregularly shaped lot,....inaudible. Mr.Bell said it is an issue for a variance. For clarification,he wants to tell the Board what happened with that interpretation. He then proceeded to explain that the setback was running through the middle of the house and chopping off about 67 sq. ft.,extending out approximately 5 ft.from there(?)and 36 sq.ft.here(?)which now encroached into this(?)and therefore were required to go for a variance. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 11 Mr. Bell then reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance, the first item being the character of the neighborhood. He pointed out where the structure is that they are building. The 36 sq.ft.section that rims through the octagon is part of that structure. If that was swiped off you would basically have the same profile legally,but would be back about 4 ft. Mr.Gunther asked if it is that middle channel to the right. Mr.Bell said that is correct. He said they made the roof lines line up. It is a very low structure. In the master bedroom you are only about 6 ft.,when it comes to the windows on the inside of the bedroom.There is one-story, plus this(?),on which the roof line sits very low. They tried to be very conscious of working within that and not having to go up beyond that including into the context of having a stair(?) gabled roof as its lowest roof,not the one right next to it. The other aspect is basically the chimney that comes up here(?). Looking at the rear here(?), basically if you were cutting to the edge of this(?),you would be cutting the corner of the window here(?)and cutting back. To emphasize how this extends to the smallness of the scale on the context of where they are building, this(?)is that group of the existing master bedroom where the window comes down(?)and you can see the higher structure here(?). What they are proposing is out here(?)....inaudible completely as low as possible. He said it is outlined here(?),to show what the roof height is there(?)to there(?). He said on these elevations they have a chimney and facade there. You have a comer which ends here. Basically there is a little window here and the chimney goes up.The chimney is 2.6 ft.wide. They minimized the size of that. They have a 13 in.by 13 in.flue, with 4 in.of brick around it. They tried to make that as minimal as possible. Mr.Bell said as far as the context of the existing property,that's the first part of it. Mr. Bell said the second part,and wanted emphasize that the neighbors, if they look at it this already exists. Everything they are building is as low,nothing is higher than already exists,and nothing is closer then what already comes next to the property,so to speak. If you take a line from the corner of where the existing house is and runs back,nothing is encroaching beyond what already sticks up within 10.6 ft. of the existing property. One other illustration he brought along,which helps to understand the impact on the neighbors,is a shadow diagram of October 21,2000. He then proceeded to explain the legal shadow,which is in black. He said the grey is all the additional shadows he is talking about. Mr.Bell said the second criteria was the questions,can they achieve this without doing it this(?)way. He said because the stair was increased and adding a dining room into the kitchen,and related to the living room what happens is if you were to deny the variance they would be forced to push the dining room clear to the furthest point possible from the kitchen. It is a hardship to the owners. He said they looked at other possibilities,but because of the front yard all the public space they are giving and open space,there are not places to build the dining room off of here(?). He thinks this is a hardship to build it in another place. Mr.Bell said the third is,is it substantial. The amount they are talking about;30 some sq.ft.here,57 sq.ft.here, 5 ft.out here at the maximum point it is sticking out,is not a substantial change. These are minimal changes;will the proposed variance alter the essential character of the district. Here again they are using a gabled roof,using windows and mullions that match the scale and texture of the building the way it's built. They have tried to make this extremely compatible for the building that is going next to it. They even have the fireplace environmental thing. They are going to do the gas fireplace,so they will not have an environmental problem there. Mr.Bell said finally,they used due diligence on this project. From the first day,over two years ago,he called the Building Department,went over the rules and thought they understood the rules. Maybe they did not understand the rules. He thinks they did,but whether they did or didn't,they proceeded with due diligence,tried not to break any rules and didn't come to this position,except because of this interpretation. Mr.Bell said the builder is here from England,and has a letter from one of the neighbors endorsing the project, marked exhibit/t2,which is a part of the record. Mr.Gunther read the letter,exhibit#2,from Neil B.Davidowitz,into the record. • Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 12 Mr.Wexler said he has a question on the rear facade, the chimney height shown generated from end elevation. He said if he took dimensions from the top of the chimney to the...inaudible of the house...inaudible. Mr.Bell pointed out that this is a chimney with a 13 in.flue,as minimal as you can make it. Mr.Carpaneto said it is the State code height for a chimney. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. Mr.Wexler said since they are asking for a variance at this point,couldn't he have put that fireplace on the other side. He said he still needs a variance in the front yard,and asked what that would do. Mr.Bell said the reason they didn't was because it would block all the south light. If they put the chimney on the north side and the windows on the south side that would be the least of all available spaces. Mr.Wexler said except it would take the mass out of the closest point of the property line,and put it in another area. Mr.Bell said if that were the case,he would much prefer the Board allow his original approach and put the chimney out here(?)on the end. They didn't go that direction,because it would have required a variance. Ms.Martin said that would have been in the front yard. Mr.Bell said that would have been in the front yard. Mr.Bell said he advised his clients to never go to appeal. He said they would be more than happy to move it over there(?)if they could,if that would resolve it. Mr.Wexler asked how the fireplace was put there,if the garage doors are there. Mr.Bell said they put it on top of the cement inaudible. 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. Rich Weston of 7 Avon Road,the owner of the property next to the applicant's property, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Gunther asked if he was on the north side of the Berman house. Mr.Weston said yes. He said it is difficult to be before the Board. He doesn't want to discourage the neighbor's plans to improve their home. Investing in and improving property is a good thing,because they are homeowners making up the neighborhood. He said they have enjoyed a good relationship with the Bermans. They have lived next to them for a number of years,and they have a friendly relationship with them. Mr.Weston said after looking at the plans and seeing the scope of the work and its location,they are concerned it will have a severe negative effect on both properties as well as on the neighborhood. Mr.Weston said their initial concern was further reduction of a narrow back yard between their homes with the construction shown on the site plan. There are limited elevations provided with the site plan,and they confirm and increase their concern. They have two main issues with the proposed plans-the change,and especially the location of the change in the footprint of the house and the size and scope of the addition. Change in Footprint: (1) there is only a very small,narrow yard between their houses. It's not ideal,not consistent with the rest of the Larchmont Ridge neighborhood,which has a unique,open feel to it. They both signed up for that narrow yard adjoining the houses,overlooked this and both made their purchases. The site plan shows all of the work to be done along the smallest side of their house,the one that faces his house. The plan appears to call for a chimney and alcove very close to the point where their houses are closest together,and calls for expansion into the yard by about five or six feet to provide a dining room and a second story addition. That six feet seems to run about a third in the back of Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 13 the house. From a footprint prospective,this seems to be a significant reduction of what is already a small yard. Also,while he understands that the proposed addition will come no nearer than the current nearest point of their houses,it will create another point at a similar distance,and will fill in a big piece of the small yard in doing so. He said their first concern is the footprint issue. It seems to be created solely by picking this yard as the principal addition area. There is already very little space between their houses,and the plans would sharply reduce this space. Mr.Weston said their second concern is that it appears to be a very substantial addition. Based on the site plan and the elevations,a lot of space is being added beyond just a bigger footprint. Roughly,where there is now a 3- step,3 ft.high landing to a side door,there would be a chimney with an alcove in front of it,with windows on either side,extending into the yard and rising up at least 10 ft.to the roof line,effectively at the closest point to their property. There would also appear to be a dormer added to this roof line,again at the closest point. Where there is a one-story,screened in porch,with a flat roof,there will be a 2'h story addition extending another 6 ft. or so into a small yard and extending approximately a third length of house with a new gable peak and circular window above it. Mr.Weston said beyond these significant additions,it appears that the back door will be moved further from the driveway and garage from where it is now. Access from the door to the driveway will have to be closer to the property line than it is now,since the path must lead around the chimney addition. Mr.Weston said for them there are four rooms that look onto the property line;a bedroom,a den,the living room and the master bedroom. Now looking out of the den window,.the entire view consists of the Berman's house. If the chimney and dormer addition were to be built,it would be directly opposite the window of the den in his house,reducing the light into that room,and further blocking the view from that room. Mr.Weston said that is the same for the living room and bedroom,which would be directly opposite the 2'h story addition encompassing the current screened in porch. It would create a much greater feeling of closeness between their two houses,since it extends up into space currently not used and would,given its height,significantly reduce light coming into their bedroom windows. Mr.Weston said as to moving,the rear access door further away from the garage,and moving the path closer to the property line, this would be directly opposite his bedroom windows. Even now, they can hear normal conversations that occur outside the door on Saturday mornings or returning home late from dinner. This would likely become more intrusive by the proposed addition. Lastly,Mr.Weston said while there is a row of Arborvitae and Holly that tries to separate their yards along this line,the planned addition would be much more visible and prominent from his back yard and could not be screened. Standing in his back yard, it would not be possible to screen or otherwise reduce the sharp visual impact this addition would have. Mr.Weston said those are their main concerns with the proposed construction,that it reduces a very small yard, and the limited space between their houses even more. The substantial nature of the addition would have additional detrimental effect on the light,the views and the enjoyment they get from their home. Mr.Weston said the Bermans have a corner lot. The Weston's house is the closest to theirs and the only house directly adjacent to the site. There are streets on the other two sides of the triangular lot,and there are much longer lines to those streets(the property line)on every other perpendicular line from their house to the street. It is hard to understand why the only portion of the property that is close to another house and is the smallest of the four yards surrounding it,should be the focus of all this work. It would seem that using the property in front of the house, where there is much more room,would provide much greater options for construction flexibility and expansion of space. To a lesser extent,this is true on the side yards of the house as well. Mr.Weston said he believes that the Bermans have expended a lot of time and money to get to this point. But,in looking at the site plan and the elevations,it seems that this is a huge encroachment on his property on a number of levels. It seems like this is the very sort of thing that zoning rules are intended to preclude,and in doing so, protect all of the residents in a neighborhood from inadvertent changes in the neighborhood character,as well as Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 14 protecting the ability of each homeowner to enjoy their home and its yard. It would help the board to understand their concern. Mr.Weston would invite the Board to visit his house and view the site from their prospective. Mr. Weston reiterated what he said at the outset that it is difficult to feel like discouraging a neighbor from improving their home and improving the neighborhood,especially when they have had a friendly relationship with the Bermans. In this case,however,Mr.Weston cannot see a way to be enthusiastic about any addition that takes up so much space both on the ground and in the space between their homes.At this time,Mr.Weston thanked the Board. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public on this application. John Williams who lives at 4 Dundee Road appeared to address the Board. He said the latter part of Mr.Weston's explanation of the general encroachment in the whole area is one that disturbs him. He said when he looked at the plan,it is the only plan before this addition that is so close to another house in this whole area. It looks like they are adding to ...inaudible proximity of two houses in an area that has a level of inaudible in Larchmont itself in terms of the size of plots,the size of houses on the lot and the space between. He would get it changed in that regard. It is a triangular lot. He said if the Board has not been out there,now with the leaves down is the time to do so to see it. • Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Russell Pelton of 3 Oxford Road appeared and addressed the Board. He said his concern is the neighborhood. He said he used to live on Griffin Avenue and moved to a smaller house when the children left. He found one on Oxford Road. One of the biggest features they liked was the neighborhood,Avon Road,Oxford Road,Dundee Road. An area that you are proud to live in. The houses are nice houses,not too large,not too small and plenty of land. He said he can look out from his back windows and see nothing but lawn,trees,flowers and bushes and the backs of the houses on Avon Road. They liked that atmosphere and purchased the house. When he sells the house,the purchase price is going to be because of the neighborhood. He said he thinks the neighborhood is very important. Mr.Pelton said he used to sit on the Zoning Board,and knows the process the Board goes through. They grant major and minor variances. He said this is a major variance. This is a concern,because when you play with major variances you are playing with the Zoning Laws. The Zoning Laws are there to protect property. If the Board is going to grant many changes with variances,you might as well abolish the Zoning Laws. Mr.Pelton said he doesn't know any of the parties involved,but because of the neighborhood he objects to this. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public. Lois Scheffler of 8 Oxford Road appeared and addressed the Board. She said she echoes what her neighbors have said,that they live in a big house....inaudible land,comparable to other areas...inaudible. She thinks t'.e zoning law was updated years ago to maintain that. If it is picked apart each time someone applies for a variance,then we have obliterated legally what the zoning was created for in the first place. She said she thinks they have to think very,very carefully before granting variances and realizes this happening is odd and perhaps constricting,but it was ....inaudible when he it was bought. Perhaps there is some other way they can go about getting what they want that may be better within the zoning or....inaudible. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public on this application. There being none,he asked if there were any other comments and/or questions from Board members. Mr.Winick asked counsel a question. He said the standard for granting an area variance or a question the Board has to answer is whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. He has a couple of questions that come from that standard. Because there is not a properly noticed application for an interpretation,the Board does not have a determination deeming what property line is which. What if the Board determines that there is a better alternative less intrusive to a neighbor,but that also requires a variance. Can the Board deny this variance application,simply because the Board prefers a different Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 15 one. For example,moving the chimney around to the side of the building would not require a variance. Can the Board do that? Can they say their preference is to have a chimney on the side of that structure,rather than the back. Whether that is a legal matter or not,consequently he is going to deny this variance. After some discussion,Mr.Paden said his intuition is the answer to that questions is yes. A variance is drafted based on the criteria....inaudible. In balancing judgment,there would be another way to figure out that it would be less intrusive. Mr.Winick said then they could do it,because they feel a detriment to nearby properties would be created. Mr.Paden commented on interpretation,which may be a little controversial. He said he had a brief discussion with his partner,Bob Davis this morning. It seems to him that whenever anyone comes to the Board in an application for a variance,the Board is entitled to interpret the Code. As he looks at the statute,as a part of the Board powers, this Board has the powers and duties that the Town Zoning Laws provide,including to interpret. What the code says about that in Section 240-89,B(1)is,"On an appeal from an order,requirement,decision or determination made by an administrative official, to decide any question involving the interpretation of any provision of this chapter." Mr.Paden said if the Board was to decide an interpretation,they have to apply the code. It seems whether it is called a variance or an interpretation,the Board has to decide how the code applies. After further discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr.Wexler said he would like to make a clarification of what was said about an option;moving the fireplace from the back of the house to somewhere above the rear point of the garage. That is a lesser variance,because only a portion of it will be in the front yard. Karen Berman,the owner of the house,addressed the Board. She said she flew in from.London to be present. About Ph years ago she bought the house knowing that little to nothing was ever done to the house. They bought it with thoughts of improving the house. She said that Mr.William's daughter sold her the house. She had tenants in the house that have recently moved out. The house is in need of major work. They came up with a plan,and were told they were building a tremendous eyesore. It is a small area of the dining room. It is replacing the back yard that they have been using as a playground. The area will now become more of an area with a dining room ....inaudible. They are changing the front yard area,to be used for a table,a BBQ area and an area where the children can play. They have been using the rear area as a play area and BBQ area. That is being moved to what she is calling the front of the house. It will actually be quieter,as far as noise. The dining room area itself does need to be somewhere near the kitchen. It is not an area where there will be a lot of noise. It will no longer be a play area for the children. Ms.Berman said the hardest part of this is before they left for London it was all worked out that they would move back and have their beautiful home to move into in Larchmont. They were scheduled to move back this summer and her children were supposed to be attending Murray Avenue and the Hommocks School. She is getting very concerned that they will not have a place to live. She said she loves her neighborhood,the area and wishes to stay there. The house is not liveable the way it is right now. Ms.Berman said that the contractor is waiting for a call to start work on this project. Ms.Berman reiterated that she is moving back in July or August,and she is very worried she will not have a place to live. They like the house and the area. ....inaudible She said she would never do anything that will infringe upon her neighbor's privacy. She said it adds to the value and the plans for the house are beautiful. inaudible She hopes to be able to stay in her house. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Bell had anything else he wanted to add. Mr.Bell said his original interpretation would serve both the Board and the community as the right interpretation and will work for the community. If they go to a variance,he thinks they have met the criteria and hopes the Board will approve it. He said some of the questions raised,as far as light and the infringement on the shadow diagram presented,shows that there is relatively a small,if any,effect on light as far as the variance is concerned. • Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 16 Ms.Berman said the one area where it is thinning out is the fireplace. That would become closer to the Weston's home. The dining room is actually not any closer to the actual house just closer to the yard. It is quite a large yard. If it's the issue of getting close to house,they had mentioned to the neighbors about moving the fireplace to a different part. They talked about it. If that's a concern,that's an area where they can make a change. The dining room is coming closer to their swing set(?). It's not coming close to their piece of the property. She reiterated that if it would make the neighborhood happier for that fireplace to be moved,she can move it. Ms.Martin asked for clarification. She said Ms.Berman said it was her intention to have an outdoor play area and the BBQ in the front area. Ms.Berman said in what they consider their back yard,they have their picnic table and chairs. When company comes over,they hang out back where there is a little grill. She said the front has a terrace on it. She said her plan is to put the table on the terrace,and that would be where they would sit. Mr.Wexler asked if that is off the dining room. Ms.Berman said it is off the living room. Mr.Wexler asked if it is the back end of the house,not the front face of the house. Mr.Gunther said it is the front face of the house. After some discussion,Ms.Berman said there is a terrace already there. It's facing the point. Mr.Winick said it's not the terrace that's shown in the back of the house. Ms.Berman said no. Ms.Berman said she calls it the front of the house,as shown on the photos. Mr.Wexler asked if the house is presently brick. Mr.Bell said the front is brick. He said the house was built in the mid 1930's. If the Board looks at the site and the lot,they can see why the house is oriented as it is. It is a huge climb up to get to the house. It's a long narrow house. inaudible Mr.Bell said his thought was of doing what you want to do within the footprint of the house. Mr.Winick said he has a question for the architect. He said when he was at the house on Monday,in the back yard there is already a sketched out outline showing the proposed addition,and asked if that is correct. Mr.Bell said he doesn't know. There was snow on the ground when he was there. Mr.Winick said there were some lines in the shape of part of an octagon. Ms.Berman said the swings that were out there,they took them down and explained where that was. Mr.Winick said he was just trying to understand if that was supposed to be the outline of what's proposed to be constructed in that area. Mr.Bell said it may well be. He said they ran into this,he asked the contractor to put straw down to protect it, assuming this could be resolved before the winter. Mr.Winick said there are some very light trenches in the shape of the outline of the addition. Mr.Bell said he is not aware of it. He said he was there today,but did not see that. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 17 Mr.Winick asked,from the southern most point of the dining room,that bay window,straight to the property line, if Mr.Bell could tell him what that distance is. Mr.Wexler asked if he was referring to the closest point to the property line,with which Mr.Winick agreed. Mr.Bell said it is on the drawing,23.3 ft. Mr.Winick said from the corner of the octagon,the closest point of the octagon,to the property line and from the (....just hangs.) Mr.Bell said it is 19.3 ft.,the closest point. • Mr.Wexler said it is about 23 ft.from the corner where you are. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. There being none,on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law,therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Mr.Wexler said the problem he is having with this application is the encroachment of the whole chimney area,which is very close to the neighbor's property. He said Mr.Berman wants to be able to start construction on the....inaudible. If that was eliminated from this application,that means that the variance will be governed by some dimensions from the closest point keeping in context what's drawn here. Mr.Wexler said if he so desires to put in a fireplace and he wants to put it over another area that requires a variance, will that be acceptable ....inaudible. Mr.Bell said if it is impossible to have the whole thing,they would work with the Board. He would like to get conceptual approval here,so they wouldn't be coming back. Mr.Wexler said the Board is going to vote tonight. Ms.Berman asked if the Board can talk about that. Mr.Wexler said if he makes a proposal that the variance be granted based upon the condition that the addition in the rear yard come no closer than 19.3 in.to the property line. That means anything that they are proposing any closer is not approved. They will have to come back with another set of drawings that the Building Inspector could review. If that fireplace chimney stays within 19.3 inches,it doesn't really effect the space between the building. It might have a technicality. Mr.Wexler said he is trying to formulate a motion that will solve the applicant's needs,address the needs of the neighbors and give the reasons why that will do that. Mr.Bell asked if may suggest that the Board approve the sections dealing with the mud room and dining room and give a conceptual approval;reject the fireplace from the rear and a conceptual approval of the fireplace being placed on the side. Mr.Wexler said that won't get a building permit on that chimney,unless he came back with another application. Mr.Bell said if the Board gave a conceptual approval for a variance,then he'd come back for a final approval. Mr.Wexler asked the chairman how to proceed. Mr.Gunther said why doesn't the Board start with the portions that the Board will approve. Ms.Weston asked to make a comment. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 18 Mr.Gunther said he will be happy to tell her where the Board is. They basically closed the public comment portion. He said that he asked for comments before and now the Board is considering whether or not to grant the variance and what the basis of the variance would be. That's what the Board is discussing. inaudible had the opportunity to ask for questions..inaudible. Robin Weston spoke (what she is saying is inaudible.) Mr.Gunther said he thinks the Board is well aware of the size of the variance that is requested and the variance that was presented. The Board is also aware of the space between the existing house and the addition that is proposed on the house and the space where there's the rear property line. That is what's before the Board,and those dimensions and details that are represented have not been (inaudible). He said the plans that have been presented are available for all to view. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Wexler to make a proposal and he will poll the Board members. Mr.Wexler said he would like to make a proposal that the application be approved based upon the following conditions: 1. That the encroachment into the rear yard be no closer than 19.3 in. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther said the dining room addition and mud room as presented....inaudible to the rear property line 19.1 ft.as shown on the drawing Mr.Gunther asked what currently exists on the house. Mr.Wexler asked at that point? Mr.Gunther said yes,what is the closest at that point. Mr.Wexler said 22.3 ft.He said there is a projection out there of a bay. Mr.Gunther said that's the closest now,with which Mr.Wexler agreed. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Bell knows what that is. Mr.Bell inaudible. Mr.Gunther said from the existing property,there is a bay window here(?)that currently goes to the rear property line. He said Mr.Wexler said it is approximately 22.3 ft. Mr.Gunther said it is going from 22.3 ft.today to a proposal of 19.1 ft. Mr.Bell said that is correct. Mr.Gunther said what currently exists on the house from here(?)to here(?)is 22.3 ft. What Mr.Wexler is saying is this addition (inaudible;turned tape to third side). He said what's proposed is the closest point from this(?) space excluding the similar area over here(?). The rest of this is preexisting. Assuming that there is no change to the preexisting,what is presented is 22.3 ft. and what's proposed as new construction would be 19.1 ft., approximately 3 ft.closer. Mr.Winick said he is trying to understand the dining room space from the current wall in house and asked Mr. Wexler what the depth is of that inaudible. He said he is asking that,because he is trying to understand what he saw on the ground. Mr.Wexler said 7 ft. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 19 ._.` Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Wexler to continue with the proposal. Mr.Wexler said in essence it is to(1)eliminate the new fireplace,the projection for that family room in the rear yard as presented on the drawing;(2)approve the addition to the rear of the house where the dining room and mud room is proposed. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Bell had a picture of what exists today or drawing versus(?)the rear of the house. Mr.Bell presented and discussed a drawing submitted,marked exhibit 2. After further discussion,Mr.Wexler asked if he is proposing french doors on the dining room. Mr.Wexler also asked if there were going to be pavers on the ground and if that's allowed. He said there are limitations to that too. Mr.Bell said that is correct. It's going to be a terrace. Mr.Wexler said the activity then that he is planning to put on the front inaudible. Ms.Berman said architect had convinced her to use the front of the house as a sitting room,because the front is beautiful and they decided he was right. Before they moved inaudible that that's a beautiful area to sit. Mr.Bell said they are trying to stay within the code. Mr.Wexler said that is his proposal and explained the voting process;you have to get three votes for an action to occur. Mr.Winick said he would like to hear from the other Board members first. Ms.Martin said she will go along with Mr.Wexler's proposal. Mr.Gunther said personally he thinks there are other options the applicant can take. He is halfheartedly for it and halfheartedly against it. Mr.Winick said he has this question. What are the alternatives. Mr.Gunther said that is difficult,because of the layout of the house to accomplish what the applicant is looking for without change. He would very much like to see the construction go in the front of the house,but the house sits as its laid out (inaudible)doesn't allow..inaudible to accommodate the same amount of change in that area. Any place it's done,there will be an encroachment. Mr.Gunther asked that the map be put up,which Mr.Bell proceeded to do. Mr.Wexler said the whole house can be rotated. Mr.Winick asked why they couldn't reconfigure the octagon into something else that encroaches partially onto the terrace. Mr.Gunther said he thinks having an octagon,a dining room....inaudible. Mr.Wexler asked said the impact is the same. • Mr.Gunther asked about the space in the back of the house. Mr.Wexler said the impact of this seems to be light inaudible inside of the windows. Whether its 2 ft.back, it will be the same impact. The bottom line is what's going to make the rear elevation of this house look the most • Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 20 attractive,given the context of what you're dealing with. What has been presented here is a very sensible,sensitive solution to a back of a house inaudible which is only leftover space on the building. You can treat this in a much more architectural way that is more attractive to look at. Mr.Gunther said it is the impact to the people behind it. Mr.Wexler said if this house was a side yard,from the prospective of the house next to it,its a side yard. It's adjacent to their side yard. It's a greater distance than two adjacent side yards. The side yards in this code require a 10 ft.minimum and a total of 30 ft. Even if it was the bigger of the two,20 ft.,it would still be within that side yard requirement by 2 in. So the space that's generated between the space between the houses is the same. What's there presently,you can't control. That reduces that space. But,the space that the Board is dealing with is going to be the same space that would there for the new house. That was a side yard and that would be the greater of the two side yards. It's not so much different than a rear yard,25 ft. Mr.Wexler said the impact would be negligible. The activities removed from the side yard,it might be a greater impact. Mr.Gunther said after somebody has a yard they have a right to use it,but they can't use their back yard. Mr.Winick said if the concern is that you are going to establish an area in the back yard which is now even closer to the adjoining property,because you have allowed the house to push out,despite the current residents saying they intend to live in the front and you expressed some concern that maybe practically it's not going to work. If what they said,that they'd walk out onto the veranda from the proposed new dining room,it would allow the ability to move another 7/8 ft.closer to the property line. Mr.Winick said the Board can't stop that. That is a permissible use,to walk out into the back yard and do whatever you want. Mr.Gunther said it is 7 ft.in that relatively narrow space. Mr.Wexler,said the suggestion they are asking for is not the 7 ft. It's 2 ft.more. After some discussion,Mr. Wexler said for what has been done in the past,this is minimal. Mr.Gunther said it goes from 0 to 12. Mr.Winick said the increment is the shaded portion. Mr.Gunther asked where the existing house is. Mr.Wexler said it is at 5 ft. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther said 5 ft.is the maximum. Mr.Wexler asked if that is the 5 ft.north section into the rear yard at its closest point. Mr.Gunther asked how many square feet is it across. Mr.Winick it is 74 sq.ft. It actually encroaches beyond the 25 ft.line. Mr.Gunther asked the size of the whole rear yard. Mr.Wexler said it is 25 ft. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Bell what the space is between the rear of the house and the rear property line. At this point in time,the Board figured the space. After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said they are talking about 1100 sq.ft. After figuring the space and some discussion,Mr.Wexler said it equals 6.73%. It is a 6' %incursion Zoning Board December 20,2000 • Page 21 in that area where the rear wall of the house was,not the whole house. He said he didn't do any of this rear yard here(?). Mr.Gunther said then it will be even less. Mr.Wexler said it will probably be about 3%. Mr.Gunther said from where the proposed construction portion from that space to the rear property line,the Board is talking about a 61/2%incursion running from 0 ft.to about 7 ft.at the largest portion. Mr.Gunther asked over how many feet. Mr.Wexler said for about 28 ft.,and it's not buildable. Mr.Gunther said he is O.K.with that portion,but not the chimney portion. Mr.Winick said he is reluctantly going agree. Given the legal standard that the Board has,the Board is encouraged by the law to allow change. Maybe that shouldn't be what the zoning law is,but certainly the case law tells the Board it's more that the Board has to have a reason not to grant it than they do to grant it. He said he doesn't personally agree with that,but he is confident that is what the Court of Appeals had said on at least two orrssions. Mr.Winick said basically he has seen the outline of what the mud room/dining portion is sketched out on the ground. He said the reason he asked for that 7 ft.dimension,was that confirmed to him that whoever put it there for whatever reason was outlining the proposed addition. He said he is convinced that while it is an intrusion and it requires something of an intrusion into the rear yard,that its impact on the adjoining property is not going to be so bad that that part of the variance shouldn't be granted. He said he would not grant the chimney portion,under any circumstances. He said he is agreeing with Mr.Wexler. Mr.Gunther said the State mandates that when a variance is granted that the benefit to the applicant exceeds the detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the community....inaudible. Mr.Winick said he speaks more directly to the concerns of the neighbor. They may not agree and this is the part of the job he doesn't particularly like frankly. He doesn't think it has any effect on the community at all. He said the impact is potentially on the neighbor and he thinks that that limited portion that the Board is talking about creates a balance. He doesn't think that that is going to have a significant impact,given how it's going to blend into the house with the existing roof line. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Wexler to proceed with the proposed variance wording. Mr.Wexler said what he had suggested in the first part was that the variance be granted with a rear yard no closer than 19.1 ft. On motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,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.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Jeff and Karen Berman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a two-story addition and chimney on the premises located at 5 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 1. The chimney as proposed has a rear yard of 7 ft.10 in.+-. The addition,as proposed,has a rear yard of 19'ft.1 in.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36(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-15 Zone District;and Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 22 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 240-36(3),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Jeff and Karen Berman 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 applicants 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. In this instance,there will be no undesirable change produced in the community or the character of the community or neighborhood. The detriment to nearby properties will be minimal,based upon the relationship of this addition to the adjoining house. The addition is approximately 74 sq.ft.of buildable area and represents only about 6.5%of the available rear yard area that faces the adjoining property. B. This lot is an irregularly shaped lot which is burdened by two front yards,no side yards and one rear yard. The available building area within this lot is minimal. The house that presently occupies the lot violates two front yards and one rear yard. Given the configuration of the room layout and the position of the house on the property,it would be almost impossible for the applicants to achieve their goals without asking for an area variance. • C. In this instance,the variance is not substantial. They are requesting an area variance of 74 sq.ft. equating to a lot coverage addition of about.7%,which is small and almost insignificant given the size of the 16,000+sq. ft.piece of property. This addition is tastefully done,in character with the house and the community,does not intrude upon the majority of the open spaces in this house,and will not present any adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the community. D. Given the placement of the house and its overlapping footprint of the required yard,it 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 Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 23 RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The addition as presented on the plans submitted is limited to only that addition that includes the dining room,mud room and extension to master bath and dressing closet room area,and the addition may not extend beyond 19 ft.1 in.,measured from the rear property line. The variance excludes the chimney portion of the proposed addition as detailed on the plans that were submitted. 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. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Winick said that the record should say that the intention of that definition is to exclude the chimney portion of the proposed addition on the plans that were presented. Mr.Gunther asked if the applicant cared to comment. Ms.Berman did not wish to comment. Mr.Wexler informed the applicant they will have to submit a set of drawings without that fireplace at all,to get a building permit. They will have to apply for another variance for a chimney,unless they can solve that chimney without requiring a variance. Mr.Winick said what they have now doesn't include that. Mr.Wexler said that the variance is granted upon these plans. Any potential change that the Building Inspector feels is a substantial change,they have to come back with. Ms.Martin said it is not more than. If it were less then (left hanging). Mr.Wexler said if they change the shape of the addition within that 19.1 ft.,Mr.Carpaneto would have to review it and possibly throw it back to the Board. Mr.Bell asked if the Board looks at the possibility of the fireplace being moved as a conceptual approach. He asked if the Board can give him a conceptual sense of the willingness to accept the fireplace at the end of the garage. Mr.Wexler said not at the end. It's at the third point of the garage,the room above the garage. Ms.Martin said she has no problem with that. Mr.Winick said he is assuming if that is presented he wouldn't have a problem with that. Mr.Paden said it is important to say that the Board isn't empowered to give the applicant a ruling on how to make an application. It will be noticed. If people have an objection to it,they are going to consider it. Anything the Board says this evening has got to be considered based upon....inaudible. The applicant cannot,in any way, Zoning Board December 20,2000 • Page 24 assume that that will be the decision of the Board. The applicant has to be unscathed in making an application for a variance,come before the Board on notice and it may or may not be granted. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Bell is going to alter his plans,and submit them to the Building Inspector to issue a building permit. Mr.Bell asked if it is acceptable to circle and initial the changes on the submitted drawings. Mr.Carpaneto said that is alright,but he would want a set of modified plans that (sorry,the tape recorder blanked out at this point)he would just modify (sorry,tape blanked out at this point.) Mr.Bell thanked the Board. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2432 Application of Anthony Coschigano III. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Coschigano that his application was called earlier,as noticed. Justin Minieri,of 59 Lincoln Street,New Rochelle,New York,the architect for Anthony Coschigano,appeared to address the Board. Mr.Minieri displayed photographs of the Coschigano residence as it now appears,submitted as an exhibit 1. He pointed out the existing garage,which is too small for the proper use of the garage. The garage as it now exists is barely wider than this garage door. It renders the garage,as a garage,almost useless. He can't really pull a car in the garage and get out of the car without doing some limbo type movements. Because of the thick masonry walls,which is the foundation of the house,it really constricts the use of the garage. They are proposing to enlarge the garage. The problem is,as can be seen on the site plan,the regular front yard juts in which has been established as a front yard,but it does not front the street. It creates a problem,because any expansion of the garage would require a variance. He said beyond increasing the one-car garage in order to move the foundation wall,they would like to expand it to a modest two-car garage. Given the lot line configuration,it is virtually impossible to expand any amount without a variance. Right now Mr.Coschigano has to leave his car in the driveway,because the garage is impossible. It's just storage. He said when the house was built,the cars were smaller. Mr.Minieri pointed out to the Board that the impact on the neighbor would be minimal. He said there is no neighbor on this side(?). There is only one neighbor across the adjoining property. They are not coming any closer to his property,but essentially moving off to the side. He said they want to keep it within the character of the house. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Minieri had something that shows the difference on one plan from what exists to where they are going. Mr.Minieri pointed out the existing garage on the plan. He said they are extending the garage,and pointed out bow small it is. He said it is tiny. Ms.Martin asked if it will be open in between,or will it be two separate areas. Mr.Minieri said since it is so useless,they need to remove the wall between the two-car garage. Ms.Martin asked if the wall will be no longer be there. Mr.Minieri said exactly,but it will be internal. He said they are extending 141/2 ft.,so the combination will be 23 ft. Technically,replacing the masonry wall on the side will be even smaller,to keep the character of the house. It's still not going to be a rather large two-car garage, but enough to suffice. Mr.Minieri said they using an • Zoning Board December 20,2000 • Page 25 oversized door. The expansion doesn't allow two separate garage doors,they used one single door,but divided up to make it look like two separate doors. Ms.Martin asked if it is one garage. Mr.Minieri said it is just one garage,because the garage is still going to be small after the expansion. He said at least the applicant can park two cars in there. Currently,he can't park any cars,possibly one-half a car or a motorcycle. That's about it. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther then asked if there were any questions about the front yard setback as opposed to the side yard. There were none. After further discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said the application requires a wetlands application. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. There were none. Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Coschigano put the greenhouse on. Mr.Coschigano said yes. Mr. Gunther asked if this was a Type II action and was informed it was. He asked if it requires a wetlands application,and was informed it did. Mr.Carpaneto said this Board does not grant that. He said they're just getting an area variance. It is a Type II - action. 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.Winick,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Anthony Coschigano III has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-story brick and stone addition with garage under on the premises located at 2 Carroll Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 390. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 17 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(1);and WHEREAS,Anthony Coschigano III 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: Zoning Board December 20,2000 . Page 26 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,review of the file and information from the applicant and architect,the garage addition as proposed is in the rear portion of the property and falls within the existing outline of the house,and that would therefore be consistent with the rest of the house. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative. The existing garage is very small and the applicant needs a larger garage. A larger garage cannot be located in any other part of the house. C. It is not substantial. The applicant is not seeking an overly large garage,but instead just the minimum space required to park two cars inside. D. Granting this variance will not result in any adverse,physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. There is no self-created difficulty. The house as constructed has a very small garage that cannot accommodate two cars. 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 otbFr. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the Minutes of the October 25,2000 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved,4-0. Zoning Board December 20,2000 Page 27 On a motion made by Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Winick,the Minutes of the November 21,2000 Zoning Board meeting were approved,3-0. Mr.Gunther abstained. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 24,2001. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Marg(terite Roma,Recording.Secretary