The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001_01_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 410 ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 24, 2001, IN THE COURT ROOM, 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, Connstl Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison ir,� Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer Terranova, Ka7azPs &Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street Ottlit"Ei New Rochelle, New York 10801 �,n , �i'ki\\ �1'••• Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary t,N CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:48 p.m. 4110 Mr. Gunther advised those present that the Approval of Minutes for the previous meeting and the next meeting date will be handled at the end of the meeting. Mr. Gunther advised those present that the following application, Application No. 1, Jane Lin, has been adjourned for the last 6 months and asked if the applicant was present. The applicant, Ms. Lin, was present. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2403 (adjourned 6/28/00;8/10/00;8/23/00;9/26/00; 10/25/00;11/21/00;12/20/00) Application of Jane Lin, 206 Hommocks Road, Block 416, Lot 112. Jane Lin,of 206 Hommocks Road,Larchmont, addressed the Board. Ms. Lin said she has some materials for the Board and submitted an 8 page document, marked exhibit#1. Ms. Lin wished the Board a Happy New Year. She thanked the chairman and members of the Board for being so patient with this case. She gave the Board a brief summary of what happened between the last meeting in August, 2000 until now. She apologized for only having one copy of some of the pictures, so she will show them to the Board. If anyone wants to see them she will show them. Ms. Lin said after the last meeting, which was held on August 12, 2000, that on Thursday, August 17, 2000, she had her roosters killed because at that meeting it was said the chickens were bothering her neighbors. Ms. Lin said in the meantime through Mr. Carpaneto, she was waiting to hear from Mr. &Mrs. Miralia's, her next door neighbor's, lawyer to tell her where they want her to move the chicken house. In September, she received a phone call from Mr. Carpaneto telling her not to bother with moving the chicken Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 2 Qhouse,because there was a pending law proposed that would ban the chickens altogether and she had a copy of the article from the newspaper about that. For that reason,she put moving the chicken house on hold. The law was supposed to be discussed at the October 8,2000 Town Board meeting. Before that happened she consulted an attorney,as one of the suggestions was that maybe she should move the chicken house to have the housing legalized first and then deal with the chicken issue. She said they were told by the attorney representing the Town that because such a law is pending they shouldn't touch the chicken house at all,unless they want to use it for other purposes. During that time her son came home one day and found this brown paper bag stuck in the door which read,"My name is Jill Doorneck and I live in Rye (near Playland). I also have Hens-I am so sorry that you have a situation regarding your neighbors. Your place is magnificent and I would love to meet you and maybe help support you. I rehabilitate wildlife and have many animals in my back yard running free. Please call me. Sincerely,Jill." Ms.Lin said before the September 26,2000 meeting,she received a fax from Mr.Carpaneto from another newspaper saying the fowl law hearing was postponed. That was supposed to be the day of that meeting in September. She said they really didn't have anything solid to come to the meeting with, so she requested a postponement. During that time they got a few complaints from her neighbors about the property,on the second page,and showed the Board some photos taken. She then explained the photos, stating these are areas between the two properties,there is some plant growth and for a while she just looked at it as a buffer zone. It appears to be something that bothers her neighbor. She showed a bill for people she hired to clean the area and to plant more hedges in the front. Later on more complaints were filed. Ms.Lin showed the Board pictures taken of the area. The area is cleaned up,they took down the old fence which had collapsed as well and put in a new fence between the properties. She made a copy of the bill for that work. She said she is sorry it is in chinese,but it is for building the fence in the amount of$1,430.00 and cleaning up the old fence. She said the previous owner had built a big cage for making compost. She said that everything is cleaned up. Ms.Lin said she did not have pictures of the before, but showed a picture after the compost was all cleaned,which was sometime in November. Ms.Lin said she finally got to talk to her neighbor,Mr.Miralia,personally. She said she was ready to move the chicken house and they were talking about where to move it to. At that time they realized that they'd prefer the location where the chicken house was versus the new location in the rear one-third of the property to comply with the law. She said they felt that the area that could accommodate this is actually closer to their property. At that time,Mr.Miralia said he would try to get all the support from the neighbors to reverse their objection and that they would support helping Ms.Lin keep the chicken house where it is. Ms.Lin said that was right before the November,2000 meeting. Ms.Lin said the day of the meeting they spoke. She believed he was at the Building Department. Mr. Miralia said he was able to get a lot of supporting letters,but there are still a couple he didn't have. He said some neighbors were a little concerned about the fence. Ms.Lin said they have a temporary fence in the front. She said they would like to see that removed. She said earlier she tried to prune the hedge in the front,because throughout the years the gardeners have cut the tops and they grow taller and taller so there is not much underneath. She bad them pruned,so hopefully they will grow this way and she added a few more. She said they are getting old and they are not working very well. In trying to make her neighbors proposal feasible,they decided to remove all the old hedge. They love bamboo,they had some on the side that grew very well and it's evergreen,so they thought that would be a good idea. At the end of November,they did a little research with the help of their landscaper. She said he was able to give them bamboo. They removed all the old hedge and planted bamboo. Because of the time constraint, they could only get the last of what they had of bamboo at a very,very high price. They are all very,very tall. She said they had to build barricades,because they off-shoot and will invade everything. Ms.Lin had a letter she wanted to read to the Board. She showed the Board the bill she got for the © bamboo hedge. It is somewhat more than she estimated,due to the arduous digging and the rock they encountered. She said she is very concerned about the bamboo plants,as she knows the Board realizes. She said she wonders if there has been any warmer days where the bamboo leaves have opened,since that day in early December where she declared a miracle. She said the bamboo cane is extremely cold,they were digging and realized for the first time that Hommocks Road is just rock. So they had to fight through Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 3 Q a lot of rock and will show pictures later that show gaps in the planting,because of these huge rocks. She said unless they blast with dynamite,it would just be impossible. It was extremely cold,so the bamboo, according to experts,will die. She said there were warmer days. After talking to numerous nurseryman, the conclusion she's come to is that the plants were not allowed to"harden off"(meaning acclimate to the cold slowly,which is a timed process done at the farm after the plants are dug and before they are sold). She supposes they rushed the process,as it was the end of the season. She has no doubts that the roots of these plants are healthy and will yield new shoots in the Spring. It may even be desirable to keep these plants,as they will develop into a lower,busier hedge. She guesses they should look at them carefully in May and determine which to keep. Again,they are all guaranteed,as is her work. If he does decide to replace them, of course he won't bill her for his time. She said also included in the bill was work performed in other areas of the property. They did manage to remove all the fencing and mulch around the gardens,including the deciduous hedge and the gravel garden. She said the rest of the letter is not relevant. Ms.Lin said basically,they planted the bamboo. Because it was late in the season,they are all very,very tall. In talking to Mr.Miralia on Monday,that seemed to be a problem with them. Now with all this effort she has spent over$10,000.00 so far,trying to make her,neighbors happy. She said they did not like it at all. She said that they can see the chicken house more from the road,but unfortunately the winters have been dramatic,there is a lot of snow and everything is frozen. Ms.Lin showed a picture of the very tall bamboo along the road,which is all snow covered. She said there is not much more she can do at this point. She said you do see the chicken house more than before. She said she doesn't have a matching picture. She said she just wanted to show the Board what was planned. They can see from the bamboo that her landscaper spent over thirteen(13)hours altogether with the Building Department going over the exact location where the planting should be. There will be a fence Q outside the bamboo to support them. She said they have chosen the fence,but because of bad timing she has to wait until later to put that in. She said the Board has a Xerox copy of the fence chosen. She said for the areas that have a lot of big rocks,they couldn't do the barricade and the bamboo. She has brought some of the plants that they will fill in the gap. Also,there will be a gate the same shape as the fence at the end,for emergency vehicles or any service at the end of the property. Ms.Lin thanked the Board for their attention. Mr.Winick asked if the original application will be merged. • Mr.Gunther said he was going to ask Ms.Lin if they are coming to the Board for approval of the original application that was made. Ms.Lin said at the last meeting,Mr.Miralia,her neighbor,bought quite a few disapproval letters from neighbors. It is her understanding that they would like to see the new fencing and plantings to fill in the gap where the big rocks were. She said before they actually see it,they still do not want this application to be approved. Ms.Lin said she would really like if the Board can allow a little more time before rejecting and wait until spring comes,as she has everything ready to go. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto if he had a copy of the original application. Mr.Wexler said right now they have a temporary fence. He said today he saw a fence that looked like it was between the chicken coop and the road. A fence with wire mesh. Ms.Lin said that is a temporary fence,because they have a problem with the chickens running away. • Mr.Wexler said that fence sits between the outside of the bamboo and the chicken coop. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 4 Ms.Lin said that is correct. Mr.Wexler said it is a very transparent fence. You can see right through it,with which Ms.Lin agreed. Mr.Wexler said because of that being transparent,you can see the chicken coop. He said if Ms.Lin was able to put a green mesh onto that fence,a protective green fabric that one uses to protect plants,it will block out the visuals of the chicken coop during this period of time when the bamboo doesn't grow. Ms.Lin said she has no problem with that. Mr.Wexler said that is seen on spectacular estates that protects the low growth from the winter onslaught of wind,etc. Ms.Lin said that is a wonderful suggestion and she is certainly willing to do it. It is no problem. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr.Winick said he guesses the Board is being asked to grant a further extension of time. Mr.Gunther said that is correct. Mr.Winick said if that's all that's in front of the Board,then he doesn't have any other questions except to make the observation that he doesn't think the applicant has yet made a case of factors required for issuance of a variance. He said he doesn't know that the Board has heard a lot about a lot voluntary action being taken,landscaping and things like that,but nothing that really addresses the fact that the Board has to consider the object of a variance. Mr.Wexler said he thought the applicant did,when the application was first before the Board. Mr.Winick said if she has nothing to add,then that's fine. Mr.Winick said he thinks what they are trying to do now,is to request a further adjournment. Mr.Gunther said he would now like to open the matter up to the public for comments. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. Laurin Miralia,of 210 Hommocks Road next door to the Lins,appeared to address the Board. He said he will stipulate right at the first that Mrs.Lin is a very nice person and he is sure she is not trying to annoy anybody with her accessory structure. He is happy to agree with that. However,he would like to give the Board and the new faces on the Board a quick three minute recap of how we got to where we are tonight. Mr.Miralia said last February,late in the month,when driving by the Building Inspector noticed the structure that was built. He said Ron Carpaneto,in March of 2000,served a Notice of Violation on Ms. Lin and gave her sixty(60)days to correct the violation. Nothing happened all during the Spring of 2000, nothing happened in April or May,until June,when it appeared on the Zoning calendar for the first time. Mr.Miralia said that he was out of the country at the time and Mr.Lifschultz,the gentleman sitting behind him who has strong feelings about the accessory structure,wrote a letter to the Board in late June. Mr. Miralia said when he returned from his trip,he secured letters from almost all of the residents on the street about the accessory structure. He said they are not talking about chickens,not about bamboo. They are simply saying that there are ten houses on Hommocks Road in the Town of Mamaroneck, one is the Q applicant's and that leaves nine. Of that,he said they have seven stated oppositions to this variance request from seven different neighbors;two did not respond;one is an expatriate who is not going to be staying in the States;the other was not available to comment. Mr.Miralia said of the seven,last summer the Board received letters which are in the files. He said there are six letters from seven people in opposition. It is not in opposition anymore to the chickens. Mr.Miralia said unfortunately what happened was this Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 5 Board on August 10,2000,told Ms.Lin to get together with the Building Inspector and her neighbors to see what they could do to reduce the opposition from everyone that was contacted. He said that this did not happen. Mr.Miralia said the Board told Ms.Lin at the second meeting.on August 28;2000,because there was none in July,it was too short a time for her to do anything with an act of nature,but to be prepared to show good faith by September. He said September came,a fax came in and the hearing was postponed. The same happened in October. In November,Thanksgiving week,Mr.Carpaneto and Mr.Miralia called Ms.Lin on a cell phone from the desk in the Building Department,talked to her and asked what was going on. Mr.Miralia said the simple Town Ordinance states that an accessory structure should be in the back third of her property. This is 4 ft.from the road. Mr.Miralia said they do not feel that the neighborhood deserves such a structure. There is nothing like it in the neighborhood,the Village of Mamaroneck or the other parts of Hommocks Road and Oak Lane. He said they insisted that the structure stay where it is. At least last summer Ms.Lin had a privet hedge running along the front of their property,as she told the Board,and she had some ground cover around the front of the accessory structure. Mr.Miralia said in her attempt to be a good neighbor,they removed all that ground cover and hedge. They did a lot of planting around the perimeter of their house,but nothing along,the front. Mr.Mimlia said some of the Board may remember the red snow fence that was up for months at a time. At least that red snow fence protected the eyes of someone driving by or walking by from the chickens and the accessory structure. Mr.Miralia said now that's gone and it's been replaced with bamboo. Mr. Miralia said bamboo provides a comment,and he said he is not the expert that Ms.Lin is on bamboo,but it is not a very good sight barrier. He said,if anything,in herlattempt to help her case with this Board, she made it much worse. She made the accessory structure much more visible,much more in contrast to the road and her own home then it ever was when it was hidden by the privet hedges and the growing plantings underneath. Mr.Miralia gave the secretary nine(9)pictures that were taken Monday,the day he talked to Ms.Lin. It simply shows what it looks like now. He said the bamboo,as wonderful as bamboo may be,does not provide any type of barrier from this accessory structure. He said he is not talking about bamboo making it look better,we know it can't. Mr.Miralia said to simply ask for another continuance,as there have been six or seven now,they are opposed to it. He-said he spoke to his neighbors this past week. Everyone that wrote the Board a letter in June,July and August,the seven people/homes,have continued their opposition to the variance. He said he was not able to change one. Mr.Miralia said he did tell Ms.Lin and he would see if he could change some,and he was unable to do so. He said the comments lately have been,it's much worse now than it ever was when there was ground cover and a hedge in front of it. Mr.Miralia said the objection is not to the chickens. It could very well be full of bags of cement or grass seed. That is not the issue. The issue is should a variance be granted in an R-50 zone that allows an accessory structure of the size as seen in the pictures(on the back he has identified each one)in this particular area or should it be moved to the back third of,the yard as required by the Town Ordinance. He said pictures six through nine,show the adequate property in the back of Ms.Lin's property,her own homesite, where this could be moved. The neighbors, he and his wife, ask the Board to stop the continuances and adjournments of this issue and rule on the request for the variance. He reiterated,they are opposed to it. He thanked the Board. He said he believes Mr.Lifschultz also has some comments. Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Miralia if Ms.Lin said that she met with him and asked if that was correct,and said at that point in time Mr.Miralia would prefer to see that in the front yard than in the rear third of her yard,because it is closest to his property and more visible. He asked if that was a true statement. © Mr.Miralia asked Mr.Wexler to reiterate what Ms.Lin said. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 6 Mr.Wexler said he thought Ms.Lin said that she met with Mr.Meralia and he said to her that you would prefer to see it not in the rear one-third of yard,because it was closest to his house and more visible and that he would be more amenable to having it stay in the front yard. Mr.Miralia said out of context,that is correct. He said he is saying out of context,because Ms.Lin gave the Board that summer a drawing that she had made or done herself. At one time last Spring,February to be exact,a very large aluminum atrium appeared on the side yard of the Lin home. That was to be connected by a long walkway and at that time,the choice of having that abut right up next to his property, which it was shown to be 5 ft.away,she is correct in that statement. Mr.Miralia said that he said he would rather have something up here than back down here 5 ft.from his property line. He said that is a moot point now,because that is gone. Mr.Wexler said he thought Mr.Miralia said Ms.Lin said she spoke to him after the last meeting and asked if that was correct. Mr.Gunther requested that Mr.Wexler ask Mr.Miralia his questions and when all of the public has had an opportunity to make their statements, he will come back to Ms. Lin and she can make whatever statements she wants. Mr.Miralia thanked the chairman and continued by saying he has never spoken with Ms.Lin face to face about this entire project. He said their conversations have been limited to telephone conversations and he would guess there have been three of them. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public on this application. © Mr.Lifschultz of 220 Hommocks Road,Larchmont,New York addressed the Board. He said he spoke with Ms.Lin after the last meeting,approximately five months ago,and she said that she would move the chicken coop to the back of her house,that a temporary fence and the growths,that were not very good for appearance,would be removed and made more aesthetic to the neighborhood. He said since that time, no one has discussed anything with him about the front lawn or the back lawn.He said their position is that they now heard contradictory testimony from Ms.Lin in that she said she was deterred from putting the chicken coop in the back yard,because she was concerned about the issue of whether the fowl would be outlawed altogether. If the right to have chickens would be outlawed altogether,she didn't want to go through the expense of putting the chicken coop in the back lawn and moving it from the front lawn. He said if it is his understanding correctly, she was putting the bamboo up in front of the chicken coop temporarily,until that issue was resolved. Subsequent thereto,there must have been a conversation with Mr.Miralia on a compromise plan to allow the chicken coop to be in the front lawn and it's not going in the back lawn which he was unaware of. Up to this point,the one neighbor,and he is sure all the others, thinks the chicken coop belongs as the zoning requires in the back lawn. He said he doesn't know about the issue of the fowl and how that will relate to this,but it would seem that the variance here is an independent issue for the Board to address,distinct from what some other Board would decide whether she is allowed to have chickens or not. What's happening now is if he is to wait for the Fowl Ordinance to be determined,it could be months and months and months. He already has this eight or nine months,this an unsightly chicken coop in the front lawn and it could be delayed indefinitely for another group or that supervisor authority to rule whether there should be fowl permission or chickens are allowed to be in a house or not allowed to be in a house. If this were to be held up for that,the aesthetic issue will never be able to be resolved,that we have chicken coops in the front lawn. He said their position is it would be nice if the front lawn had a very nice aesthetic appearance now and hereafter,and that the chicken coop should go into the back lawn because that's where the zoning requires, that's where it belongs and he doesn't think creating a kind of shield of vegetation on the front lawn will necessarily remove the odors when they come outside,which they have smelled,or the noise that may come as the chickens are cackling Q on the front lawn. He said it seems to him that the chicken coops belong in the back lawn. He stated that is their position,and he hopes he has made himself clear. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public on this application. Zoning Board • January 24,2001 Page 7 Laurin Meralia spoke again,saying he forgot to mention one thing in his comments that the continuance of the accessory structure where it is today is a detriment to the character of the neighborhood. Ms.Lin said it seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding. She said when she was talking to Mr. Miralia on Monday,reminding him about their phone conversation back in November,he said to her that it will be fine with all the neighbors if she removes the snow fence. She said she did tell him about their intention of planting bamboo. She really would like to have this application granted/approved before she starts doing the planting,etc. She said Mr.Miralia said to her don't worry,that I guarantee you will be done. There is no problem. Just go ahead and remove the fence,because that's what's holding the neighbors up. Ms.Lin said after the last meeting she remembers having a conversation with David(?)that she remembers what he said to her was really just clean up the overgrowth,remove the snow fence because it doesn't look too good. That's his main concern. She said tonight she is hearing different stories. Ms. Lin said she is very frustrated. She said it's true she only spoke to Mr.Miralia and she was under the impression that his main opposition here,and the way she understands from listening to him and all these things that he wants to be done,cleaning up the fence that was done in the'60's,she removed everything. She built a brand new fence in between the property. At that time,Mr.Miralia said his main concern was that he didn't want her chickens in his property. Ms.Lin said everything is taken care of for that. Ms.Lin said every month as the record shows,she really tried to do what she was told. Whatever complaints were filed,Mr.Carpaneto would call her at work and she would say what did she do wrong now. Mr.Carpaneto would say clean up the two rusted metal shelves behind the shed,which she did. Mr.Carpaneto would say clean up this and she did that. Ms.Lin said basically she bas been doing what she was told to do. The reason she brought up the fowl jaw is because that is relevant. At one point she was not allowed to touch the chicken house,because of the pending law. She did not in any way purposely drag this on and on. She said she has absolutely no intention of doing this. She wants to go on with her © life. She said that the reason that the chicken house was not moved at first was because of the fowl law that was under discussion. Later on it's Mr.Miralia and it has nothing to do with the atrium structure. She said they were talking about where it will go to. It will be behind the pool in the back one-third. Ms.Lin said that Mr.Carpaneto came by one morning and the location and everything was discussed. In that conversation Mr.Miralia said he thinks where it is is the best. Ms.Lin said she told him she agrees with him 100%. That is why it was there to begin with. She said now she is hearing all different stories. She is really very frustrated. She was told by Mr.Miralia that whatever he told her about no problem,just go ahead and do everything and it will be O.K.,it will be approved. She said all he bad to say Monday was that files around and you're screwed. Ms.Lin thanked the Board. Mr.Gunther asked counsel if there was any news of the fowl law. Mr.Carpaneto said he spoke to the Town Attorney,Charlene Indelicato,and there has been no action to date on this matter. Mr.Winick pointed out an option the Board has. In cases he has done in other jurisdictions,he has seen Zoning Boards defer cases when there is an impending legislative action. He has also seen situations at the next stage when there is an enforcement action. The Town court does the same thing. Mr.Winick said it has been ten months and the Board has had an opportunity to consider an action. It isn't as though the question that the Town Board proceeded(...inaudible)given the Board has a pending matter that the Board should defer any further. There is yet another problem,according to which(... inaudible)will be applied for. It seems to him it may not be appropriate to(...inaudible.) Mr.Gunther said this is really two different matters. One is the request for a variance to build a structure. The second is not affecting the Board in particular, but one that the Town Board needs to deal with (...inaudible). Mr.Gunther said that this could make Board action moot anyway. Mr.Winick said it doesn't make Board action moot,because the accessory structure is still an accessory structure and it's still in the front third of the property and the fact is that the structure is there. What Zoning Board • • January 24,2001 Page 8 Qthe Board hasn't verbalized is it has to be on the Board's collective minds at the time that it is the only possible use for this for the applicant's chicken coop and the ability to keep chickens in the Town is going to disappear. Then it would be an unnecessary expense for the applicant to relocate it and ultimately she is going to get frustrated. Mr.Winick's observation is that it has only been ten months that the Board has a process to go through. He doesn't know whether to suggest deferring Board action any further,because the Board has no indication when that legislative action may take place and it may never happen. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public. Mr.Lifschultz said he thinks there is little bit of a misunderstanding. He said when they walked out they talked about removing and making the front lawn more aesthetic always in the context of moving the chicken coop into the back lawn. She wanted it to be resolved too,before she made the move with the cost and exactly where in the back lawn she could move it. He said that was his impression of it. Mr. Lifschultz said he understands from Mr.Miralia that there isn't going to be a change in the fowl law, because they don't have a law. To leave this pending because of that,a resolution can be passed saying that the variance is denied and it won't be moved until after the fowl law issue is resolved. It is his understanding that the fowl law is not going to be changed,so that is not an issue anymore. Mr.Miralia apologized to Ms.Lin if she feels they hada misunderstanding on Monday. He thought he was trying to be very clear with her on Monday and say she has problems. The neighbors have not budged. In fact they feel more strongly than ever,and it has nothing to do with chickens. He said he believes he said that to her on Monday. Mr.Miralia said he wanted to give her an honest response. He said he is not God. He does not sit as the Zoning Board and he would never presume to tell her that if she took away a snow fence everything would be O.K. Mr.Miralia said he doesn't have that kind of position and power. He also does not have the insight,to whether there will ever ultimately be some kind © of an addendum to the Town Code of a fowl law. Maybe Mr.Winick,as Deputy Supervisor,knows. Mr. Miralia said that the Supervisor has been down to his property at least three times. Several councilmen have been down there with her and they have seen chickens running around the streets and in his yard and have called up Ms.Lin at work. The supervisor was quite irate. At that time she was in the same car as the Building Inspector and he also saw that. Mr.Miralia said they are not talking about chickens. He said as Mr.Winick pointed out,this structure was constructed illegally in 1998 with no permits whatsoever. It was added to later that year. That's their only concern. He said they value their area,value their homes and to have an accessory structure 4 ft.from the road that never got approved,he has no way of knowing whether there is electricity inside that ever got approved by the Board of Fire Underwriters. He said he doesn't know those things. He does believe that the supervisor and council have no agenda at the moment to pursue any kind of a fowl law as Mr.Lifschultz pointed out. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public. Nancy Seligson,Councilwoman for the Town of Mamaroneck,addressed the Board. Mr.Seligson said they did consider a fowl law. When they started to really examine it,it became clear that it was a very difficult piece of legislation to really get hands around it and tackle because it brings into question other animals and whether they should be allowed to be kept in the community and all kinds of questions of enforcement;whether you eradicate the ability to have any of those animals or a certain number of those animals. It became very,very complicated. As of right now,it is not on their current agenda. It could be at any other time in the future,but they spent many hours and much resources looking into the issue. It seems that they might create more problems and issues tackling it than solving any. Ms. Lin said this is just to answer Mr. Miralia's last statement to them. She said she understood everything he said on Monday. Clearly what she is talking about is in last November when Mr.Miralia Co) called,with Mr.Carpaneto present,that at that time Mr.Miralia said clearly that this can be removed and the application will be approved otherwise,why would she spend$10,000.00 on something that she is not sure of. She said she remembers very clearly checking with Mr.Carpaneto afterwards. She said she does not remember the exact words he said,but basically he said if it's O.K. with Mr.Miralia and Mrs. Zoning Board • • January 24,2001 Page 9 Miralia,it would be no problem. That's why she went ahead and it was really a hard time doing the digging and everything. She is really confused about these conflicting things. Ms.Lin thanked the Board. Mr.Wexler asked if the application in front of the Board is just to keep the coop or other associated structures. Ms.Lin said that will be taken down. The issue is the coop. Mr.Gunther said the application is a request for a permit to maintain an existing chicken coop and pen. Ms.Lin said that has all been taken down. Mr.Wexler said the drawing presented was for a 30 ft.by 40 ft.pen. Mr.Winick said that means now that the submitted plans don't conform to the request for a variance. He said the Board doesn't have plans on file to refer to,if they were to grant it. He doesn't think it can be granted on this drawing anyway. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto if the application before the Board is specific enough to depict what is currently there. Mr.Carpaneto said as far as the structure,it shows the coop-(...inaudible). (MR.GUNTHER AND MR.CARPANETO ARE TALKING,BUT IT CANNOT BE HEARD ON TAPE,SORRY) Mr.Wexler said there are a lot of accessory structures that are not on the rear one-third of the property, as can be seen here. It is not totally out of context. Right across the street there is a huge structure in the front of the property. Mr.Miralia said it was grandfathered. Mr.Wexler said it might very well be grandfathered,but the affect of it is in the front yard. It doesn't matter whether it was grandfathered or not(...inaudible). It is an accessory structure. You are only allowed one house per lot. Any other building is an accessory structure. Mr.Wexler said it is a small structure. The real problem is screening it from the street. Mr.Wexler said bamboo happens to make, when it grows,an incredible barrier(...inaudible)an incredible wall of greens. He said he thinks if there are no more chickens,there will be no more coop,and asked if that is correct. Ms.Lin said of course not. Mr.Wexler said it might be a temporary thing. He has no problem with it. This is a bad time right now. If it can be screened temporarily,it can be screened with green fabric mesh on top of the fence. Mr.Gunther said the bamboo that's there will take a couple of years to grow to have a row of green. Mr.Wexler said(...inaudible). (IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID) Mr.Gunther said(...inaudible)however,when you look at it in the context of a request for variance and �f the statutory requirements you have to go through where there is an alternative on the property very clearly. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 10 Mr.Wexler said her presentation from the beginning was that the reason for locating the structure in the front was that the chickens cannot survive in the back. (IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID BY MR. WINICK. Mr.Winick said the Board was told that the testimony was that the chickens were getting eaten where they are now,so this does not....inaudible alleviate the problem. What he is saying is if the goal was to avoid having the chickens be killed...inaudible they are being killed now. If they're asking for the sense of the Board,he doesn't think the Board can grant this on a legal basis. Mr.Gunther said while he has a great deal of empathy for the applicant in this situation,but at the same time when you look at the statutory requirements and the basis used in granting a variance,he doesn't believe enough evidence has been presented. Mr.Wexler asked if the applicant can put an addition on their house,a small addition attached to the house to keep the chickens in it. It is no more an accessory structure. Mr.Carpaneto said if the setbacks are met. Mr.Winick said that would be another way if this variance is not granted and the applicant wants to continue to maintain a chicken coop...inaudible. One possibility is to build it into the house or move it to the back. There are two alternatives now that don't require a variance. Mr.Gunther asked what the front yard setback is. Mr.Carpaneto said it is 50 ft. (WHAT IS BEING SAID IS INAUDIBLE:IT'S A CONVERSATION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS) Ms.Martin said it is her understanding the last time they were before the Board,they were going to be looking into some options to move the structure,and subsequently,she spoke to Mr.Miralia. While she appreciates and respects her desire to work with the neighbors,but as Mr.Miralia said he is not the Zoning Board. Ms.Martin said Ms.Lin has gone through a great deal of expense,but unfortunately she did that in response to her neighbor and not in response to the Zoning Board. Ms.Martin said she has problems with leaving this where it is. She said at this point she would not be able to vote in favor of granting this variance. Ms.Lin said the first time she was before the Board was in June and it was O.K. The only thing she had to come back with at that time in August was to use a different material for the atrium to replace the ugly aluminum with the cedar posts. She did come back with the material,but at that time Mr.&Mrs.Miralia came and voiced their opposition initially in June. She basically came back in August,just to show the Board the material of netting and poles for the atrium. Mr.Winick asked if what she is suggesting is that there was an action taken in June by the Board that approved the location of the coop because that never happened and asked if that was correct. Ms.Lin said it was correct. It was left pending that she would bring back pictures to show the material she was going to use for the atrium. Mr.Gunther said what was requested were specific drawings as to what she was proposing,as the plans that were submitted were incomplete for the Board to adequately access what was there and what was requested. At that time,the meeting was adjourned at the request of the applicant to return at the October meeting. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 11 © Ms.Lin said at that time she remembers Mr. Gunther wasn't present. She remembers talking to Mr. Carpaneto the following morning asking about the atrium. She said Mr. Carpaneto said he was very surprised,he was happy for her that it was approved. It was just pending that she bring back the details of the material to be used for the atrium. Mr.Winick said approval by this Board is a formal step that is taken by vote on a formal motion. That never happened in all of the months since June. He said he is afraid,at best,she misunderstood something that was said. Ms. Lin said the reason she brought it up was to answer his comments about why she's been communicating with Mr.Carpaneto and Mr.Miralia instead of coming forward to the Board. At that time, it was before the Miralia's showed up in August,when it was all nice and smooth. She was under the impression from talking to Mr.Carpaneto that basically it was fine with Mr.Miralia. She said it was her misunderstanding. All she is trying to say is that's why all these months she has been doing all these stupid things,spending all this stupid money and she feels really stupid. She said she has never done this before and she guesses she has paid a high price to learn. • Mr.Winick said this is not apropos of a motion. He would hate to have Ms.Lin feel while trying to accommodate her neighbors,it is something that's not a good thing to do. Mr.Winck said the Board has instances where the Board certainly appreciates a sometimes.useful perspective between Board members insisting for many people who appear here on an unusual hearing. He said Mr.Miralia is a frequent attendee at these meetings,more so than many of the people in Town,and has a fairly good grasp of the procedures...inaudible. It is not true for everybody. ...inaudible This is a formal process.She should not feel like she did the wrong thing in trying to work out something in the neighborhood with her © neighbors. ' Ms.Lin said she basically has one neighbor living close to her. Everybody else is far away. That's why with all the complaints she received from Mr.Carpaneto from her next door neighbor,she agrees with the Board. She has been spending all this time,effort and money trying to make her neighbor happy with no affect. Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Gunther was O.K.with taking a vote. Mr.Gunther said he just wants to ask the other Board members if there is any overriding reasons why the application shouldn't move forward or be held over. inaudible. After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said given the consensus of the Board that this will not be approved and her desire to keep chickens,does the Board give them a building permit to relocate to some other part of the property. Ms.Lin said she would do that. Mr.Wexler said her property has a very steep slope down to the marsh,and she has a huge back yard. If she can put it in the back yard,but not in the rear one-third of the yard,it would require a variance. To deny this variance with the understanding that she will put it in the rear,she might come back to the Board with an alternate application to give them the opportunity to do that. (I REITERATE,IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID. I DID MY BEST.) Mr.Gunther said as he recalls from the last meeting that was held on this application,the applicant had the opportunity to present an alternative plan where the chicken house could be moved to some other place on the property. ...inaudible not in the rear one-third,but in the rear portion of the yard that wasn't in the flood plain...inaudible. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 12 Mr.Gunther informed the Board that the application was first before the Board in May adjourned to June 28, 2000, adjourned August 10, 2000, August 23, 2000, September 26, 2000, October 25, 2000, November 21,2000 and December 20,2000,seven meetings. There has been adequate time for the applicant to provide an alternate location....inaudible. Mr.Winick said denying this variance does not prevent the applicant from applying for another variance. Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Carpaneto that if this variance was denied,how much time would they have to remove that. Mr.Carpaneto said probably ten clays. Mr.Winick asked if after that time a summons is issued. Mr.Carpaneto said....inaudible. Mr.Wexler said to take her on her word that she will come back with an application to place it in the rear yard inaudible within ten days. Mr.Gunther said there is another possibility in denial. The Board can request the Enforcement Officer to give a little more leeway. He asked counsel to address that. Mr.Paden said the Enforcement Officer has discretion,but the Board doesn't have the formal ability to require this. MR.WEXLER SPOKE BUT IT IS INAUDIBLE. Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Lin if the application was held over one more month,what action would she take. Mr.Wexler was asked to give Ms.Lin the options available to her,so she will understand. He suggested she prepare where she would like to see the coop not in the front of her house. Also,to come back with a drawing. After some discussion,Ms.Lin said she would like it in the rear one-third. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments or questions from Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther said at a prior meeting the Type II action was noted and seconded. Mr.Gunther said that at a prior meeting it was: 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.Washington,the following resolution was DENIED;3 in favor;1 opposed: WHEREAS,Jane Lin has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to maintain an existing chicken coop and pen. The existing chicken coop and pen are located 4 ft.from the front property line on the premises located at 206 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Q Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416,Lot 112. 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.;and Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 13 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 240-33(B)(3)(b);and WHEREAS,Jane Lin 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 based on the application,the facts in the record,factors of the law, personal observation of the property and information that the Board has received at special hearings,the placement of this accessory structure in the front of the property near Hommocks Road will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The placement of the accessory structure at the front of the lot near the road is unusual. It has some visual impact given the use of this particular property as well, and will have a sound impact on the property and the people using Hommocks Road. B. There are reasonable alternatives that do not involve the necessity of an area variance. The applicant's goal is to maintain an accessory structure to be used as a chicken coup. This can be accomplished without the necessity of an area variance by placing the structure on the back one-third of the property if it is possible. C. The variance is quite substantial. It creates an aesthetic condition not typical of the community. D. The impact of that structure is best evidenced by the amount of opposition that has been expressed by the people most directly affected by the structure. E. This difficulty is entirely self-created. With homeowners,there's a tendency to rely on trades people and anybody that builds an alternate structure without seeking professional guidance is taking an assumed risk. In this case,that risk was assumed by the applicant to build without seeking any advice,except from the contractor. The difficulty is entirely self-created. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is DENIED. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Ms.Lin said she was not 100%true to the Board about not seeking professional advise. All this time she was speaking with Mr.Carpaneto. She said he has been wonderful,very supportive and everything she asked he comes over and advises. They did look it over,and he agreed it is very difficult to move it. Zoning Board • January 24,2001 Page 14 Mr.Winick said what he was referring to was the decision to initially....inaudible. Ms.Lin said what Mr.Wexler suggested about screening the chicken coop....inaudible. Mr.Gunther informed Ms.Lin that the application to maintain it in that location is DENIED for all of the reasons stated. He said if Ms.Lin wishes to move it to another location on the property,she can make application for that and the Building Inspector will either approve or disapprove the location.Mr.Gunther said don't wait. If her intention is to move it next to the pool or beyond the pool she should do it soon. Mr.Winick said there is a possibility,that as long as she requests a variance and knows prior construction is in the back one-third of the property,if she looks at the situation now knowing it can't stay where it is and she decides she wants to put it somewhere else on the property,she needs to determine whether that spot is within the back one-third. If it is and she concludes that she does not need a variance and if it's not she needs to come back to the Board to apply for another variance. Mr.Winick said she can do that. (PM SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR WHAT'S BEING SAID. SPEAKING UP SO THE RECORDER CAN RECORD WHAT INDIVIDUALS JUST ARE NOT BEING SAID Ms.Lin said so what Mr.Wexler is suggesting inaudible. Mr.Wexler said a vote was taken denying this application. It is unfortunate,because if you look at the site plan right behind the pool it's not within one-third of the rear property line and she will be back before the Board. QMs.Lin said behind the pool. Mr.Wexler said not from the survey. Ms.Lin said most of the one-third of the property is under water. That's how they started. Of course if you look at the survey they have a green water line and they all know that is not the case. The water is way above that. Mr.Wexler said in looking at the survey where the pool is sited on her survey,it looks to be more or less at the midway point of the property. Ms.Lin said there is an area there that always has a pond inaudible. After further discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said it is very irregular. Ms.Lin said it is a very irregular property,she doesn't know how it's going to be inaudible. Mr.Winick said this is an irregular house and Ms.Lin should get guidance from the Town,if she can, on how to measure so she knows where she is in terms of the rear third of the property. The Board certainly doesn't have a problem with that. Mr.Carpaneto said he has taken every point on the survey of the property to determine the area to be somewhere behind that pool. After some discussion,Ms.Lin said the only question is that they did go through that before there was the Q issue about the fowl law,which she understands is probably not going to happen. She said it was open at that time. Later on in talking to Mr.Miralia in November,she found out that they did not want her chicken house moved to that area. She said she understands that she learned her lesson the very hard way tonight that she shouldn't assume. She does want to be a good neighbor,wants to go on with her life and if she does something that they are not very happy about,then she will have to deal with it. Zoning Board • January 24,2001 Page 15 QMr.Winick suggested before making the next choice about where she wants to move it,she certainly can consult with her neighbors. He said the problem with this process is when it gets contentious or it gets complicated is that the only reasonable set of rules inaudible is having concerns. The Board can't be her lawyer. She really needs to seek advice from someone who is familiar with this kind of law to determine if what she is doing is the right thing. He said the Board can't give her that advice. Mr.Winick informed her to work with Mr.Carpaneto. Ms.Lin said that she understands all this. She said she is talking about an example that in September she got a phone call from Mr.Carpaneto asking if she was digging something or doing some construction. Mr.Lin said not that she knew of. There is nothing going on in her driveway or anything else. It turned out to be the Herbst property across the street from Mr.Miralia. She doesn't know why it was reported as something she is doing on her property and is wondering if there is a permit for the digging. She said she is not complaining. She is just saying that she is really very busy at work and has a very busy life. She said she tries to avoid getting her neighbor upset and coming up once in a while with these little things that she has to now clear up this,cut the branch,etc. She said that is why she wants to get this so that he will be happy,his wife will be happy and they will leave her alone. Ms.Lin said she probably doesn't have the best of words to say it,but doesn't mean it in a bad way. At this point in time,Mr.Wexler congratulated Ms.Lin on her husband's recent success. Ms.Lin thanked Mr.Wexler,saying if that will help her with her keep her chickens. Mr.Miralia said he was going to do exactly what Mr.Wexler just did and recognize her husband,Ang Lee,who won two Golden Globes on Sunday night. He said they have enjoyed a very good relationship with the Lins before this happened. He said he knows they are all aware of the phrase that good fences make good neighbors and all the problems that they have seen in the Town between people who were friends and because of some disagreement were no longer friends. He said he hopes they can start again being good friends,because this is putting a real strain on both of them. He said they were not the ones, the next door neighbors were not the ones that were opposed to this as much as other neighbors who are not present tonight. So,it wasn't just them. It was people across the street,diagonally across the street. He said they hope and wish good luck to the Lins and will be happy to work with them. Mr.Wexler said maybe he should help them resolve their problems. Mr.Gunther informed those present that the following applicants requested an adjournment: APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2430(adjourned 11/21/00;12/20/00) Application of Katherine and Walter McTeigue,6 Harrison Drive,Block 503,Lot 579. Mr.Gunther read the letter received from James Fleming,the architect for this project,dated 12//14/00, requesting an adjournment to January/February. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2433 Application of Mr.&Mrs.Howard McMichael requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for permit#15376, issued April 17,2000,that allowed the construction of a one-story addition with wood deck attached to the © rear of the house on the premises located at 14 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108,Lot 323. The as-built survey by Aristotle Bournazos,dated October 12,2000,cites the wood deck having a rear yard setback of 24.6 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. • Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 16 Howard McMichael,of 14 South Drive,appeared to address the Board. Mr.Gunther said it is a contractor's error as built and asked Mr.McMichael to address that issue. Mr.McMichael said in hindsight,he should have gone for a variance for 5 inches so that he wasn't up against the property line. As they built it,they ended up right there. As can be seen by the main parts of the structure,he hit right odds. The contractor missed by 6 inches on the corner of the deck. He said he elected not to cut the corner of the deck off with the saw. Mr.Gunther said it appears there is a porch with a support beam. After some discussion,Mr.McMichael said he can just about make it. Mr.Winick said it can be shaved off. Mr.McMichael said the comer could be shaved. He understands the process from sitting on the Coastal Zone for thirteen years. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There being none,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mi.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.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Howard McMichael have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for permit#15376,issued April 17, 2000,that allowed the construction of a one-story addition with wood deck attached to the rear of the house on the premises located at 14 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108,Lot 323. The as-built survey by Aristotle Boumazos,dated October 12,2000, cites the wood deck having a rear yard setback of 24.6 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(3)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(3);and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs. Howard McMichael 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: Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 17 A. This is a variance of 6 inches from what was submitted. There will be no perceptible change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. B. It is a contractor's error,so there really is not,short of reconstructing the deck, a way that the applicant can achieve his goals which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. C. The variance is-insubstantial in that it only involves 6 inches. D. There is nothing incremental that will have an impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district E. The difficulty is not self-created. It is a contractor's error. 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. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2435 Application of Mr.&Mrs.Stephen Straus requesting a variance to construct an eating area addition to the ® kitchen on the premises located at 2 Knollwood Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 320. The eating area addition to the kitchen as proposed has a rear yard of 11.91 ft.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further,the addition increases Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 18 the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. While waiting for the architect to arrive,Mr.Gunther he noted that letters were received in support of the application from David Katz and Cecilia Absher of 1 Knollwood Drive,and Mr.&Mrs.Jeffrey Wertheim of 6 Knollwood Drive. Steven Asaro,the architect for the applicant,addressed the Board. Mr. Asaro said they are seeking a variance for a kitchen addition to an existing kitchen located in the rear yard. The house is nonconforming. It has a 6 ft.10'4 inch setback from the existing property line. The addition is just under 60 sq.ft. The entire project consists of basically three new parts;the conversion of a one-car garage to a family room; a two-car garage;and organizing is one of the considerations where the adjacent houses in the rear yard setback without having been surveyed inaudible,visually the rear yard is in line with the existing house on the property. (SORRY,IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID!) Mr.Winick asked if he is saying that the only thing that requires a variance is the 56 sq. ft.for the kitchen. Mr.Asaro said that is correct. Mr.Wexler asked if the property at 6 Knollwood has two lots behind this house. Steven Straus,the applicant,said yes. He said there is no 4 Knollwood. Mr.Wexler said it looks like the lot next to the Knoll lot Mr.Straus said that's his neighbor's lot. Mr.Wexler asked if Locust Ridge Road no longer exists. Mr.Carpaneto said no. (....SORRY,I CAN'T HEAR WHAT MR.GUNTHER IS SAYING) in back of you. Mr.Straus said 6 Knollwood is his next door neighbor and their back yard does wind its way around the back of his back yard. ( SORRY,I CAN'T HEAR WHAT MR.GUNTHER IS SAYING) Mr.Wexler asked if it was really only 12.67%coverage,including the driveway and.... inaudible(?). Mr.Carpaneto said that was gravel. Mr.Wexler said it says proposed asphalt driveway on the drawing. Mr.Carpaneto said the original driveway was much larger. He said that he has to question him on that. © Mr.Wexler asked how this area was calculated. Mr.Asaro said it was a combination of a few things,computer and by hand. He was looking for and was unable to fmd the calculations. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 19 Mr.Wexler said it is only a technicality. Mr.Wexler said this is a seeded area,no problem. 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 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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Stephen Straus have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an eating area addition to the kitchen on the premises located at 2 Enollwood Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 320. The eating area addition to the kitchen as proposed has a rear yard of 11.91 ft.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-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(3)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Stephen Straus submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The impact of this addition is minimal,if it were to ever have any impact at all on the immediate adjoining property. The addition, as pointed out in the presentation tonight and based upon observation of the property the location is also minimal since where the kitchen addition is to go,is almost precisely in line with the back edge of the existing house. Effectively,there is not even a door or window that looks out on that habitable outdoor space of the neighboring property past where the addition is going. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals by any other reasonable alternative which doesn't involve an area variance. The property is nonconforming and the addition must be put somewhere near the existing kitchen. QC. Given the size of the addition,the variance is not substantial D. This is not a self-created difficulty. The property is burdened by the current zoning and it is nonconforming. • Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 20 E. In effect there will be no impact on the neighboring properties nor,given the relatively small size of the proposed area,will there be an impact on anything else in the neighborhood. 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 during regular hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2436 Application of David Katz and Cecelia Absher requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 1 Knollwood Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109,Lot 69. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 15 ft.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 Zone District. Chris Powell,of 231 West 16th Street,New York City,the architect for the project addressed the Board. Mr.Powell said this is a house he worked on about three or four years ago. Subsequently,it has been bought by another owner. He was very familiar with the house when he started working on it. One of the things he had told the previous owner,and it was something they thought about doing but their budget didn't allow,was to reconfigure the garage to not have a driveway in the rear yard. He said the rear yard is pretty small. The driveway cuts all the way across the back of the property. It actually abuts another driveway which is on the adjacent property. It's a lot of driveway right there on that side. When the new Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 21 owners approached him and wanted to do this project,what they are proposing to do is to remove an existing 1'h story structure which has a one-car garage with a mud room add a bedroom and bathroom above it. He said they are proposing to take that structure down and rebuild it as a two-car garage with two bedrooms and two baths above and on the first floor,a study and a reconfigured mud room. They will be moving the driveway that currently cuts across the back yard up to the front of the house. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members on this application. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. Mr.Gunther said that the record should also show that the Board received"several letters from Arthur and Jeanne Grubert of 5 Locust Ridge Road,Millie and William Gladstone of 5 Knollwood Drive,Mr.&Mrs. Joseph Chiapetta of 10 Locust Ridge Road on the corner,and Mr.&Mrs:Stephen Straus of 2 Knollwood Drive directly across the street who were all in favor of the application. 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, David Katz and Cecelia Absher have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 1 Knollwood Q Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109,Lot 69. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 15 ft.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-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(3)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,David Katz and Cecelia Absher submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The construction that is proposed requires a variance that squares the house off on the side of the driveway and increases the width of the house somewhat. ® There is,on the side of the house where the construction is proposed,adequate screening and the house is a good distance from any of the neighboring properties. There will not be an undesirable change or detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood created. Zoning Board • January 24,2001 Page 22 B. This is happening on the side of the house farthest away from the road and will have little impact at all on the neighborhood and the adjoining property. C. The applicant could not achieve his goal via a reasonable alternative that does not involve the necessity of an area variance for the garage. There is simply no other place on the property to do this. D. There is a substantial decrease in the rear yard. However, while it is substantial,the impact that it has is minimal. E. It is not a self-created difficulty. The lot coverage is minimally reduced as a result of this construction. It is an irregularly shaped lot. 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 Qvariance 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. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2438 Application of Jeff and Karen Berman requesting a variance to construct a dormer and fireplace on the premises located at 5 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Q Block 208,Lot 1. The dormer as proposed has a rear yard of 12.46 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3),the fireplace as proposed has a front yard of 37.71 ft.where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1);and further,the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 23 Robert Bell,the architect for the Bermans,appeared to represent. Mr.Bell said he is returning from last month's meeting,because they had the fireplace on the north side of the building at that time and it was rejected by the Board. They moved it to the east side of that room,which is now over an already existing shed roof over the garage and then extends up until it clears the roof of the existing residence. It seems to go 3 ft.above the existing roof. It extends out about 2 ft./18 sq.ft.•for the fireplace. Mr.Bell said he believes it will not affect the character of the neighborhood,it works for the residents and provides the best location and the least affect on any of the neighbors. Mr.Wexler asked what kind of fireplace it is. Mr.Bell said basically it is going to be a masonry fireplace. It is a little trick of getting the flue around the window which he has done before. Mr.Wexler said he is not enclosing an atrium outside. Mr.Bell said he is not,because it seems to be more natural not to and there is something slightly odd about that. Mr.Wexler asked if he is going to inaudible with a inaudible flue. Mr.Bell said they could do it either way. There is another way to do it with a stainless steel flue. It could be done either way. Mr.Wexler asked if the variance is for a dormer and a fireplace chimney. © Mr. Bell said yes. He said the present building is built so that the front yard setback is 35 ft.and encroaches into the building. Mr.Wexler asked if a portion of the chimney encroaches into the 40 ft.setback in the front yard and the dormer is the same setback as what they have now. Mr.Carpaneto said the dormer is on the right side of the kitchen,but the chimney was in front of it. At that point,the chimney inaudible. Mr.Wexler said what he is saying is it's the dormer above the existing structure,with which Mr.Bell agreed. Mr.Gunther said a new dormer above the existing structure. He said that wall currently exists. 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. 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 Mr.Winick,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 dormer and fireplace 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 dormer as proposed has a rear yard of 12.46 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);the fireplace as Zoning Board • January 24,2001 Page 24 proposed has a front yard of 37.71 ft.where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1);and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 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 240-36B(3),Section 240-36B(1)and 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 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 construction of the dormer,as indicated on the plans,flush with the existing © construction that has already been approved will not have an impact on the size of the property. The placement of the chimney on the east side of the building which faces toward Avon Road is a marginal increase in the impact that now occurs in the building,on the side of the building which is farthest away from any adjoining structure. B. There will not be an undesirable change produced either in the nearby properties nor the character of the neighborhood. C. It was established in the last hearing or the last session that there is no way that that chimney can be placed in an area that does not require an area variance. In fact it was moved here,because a different area variance had been requested and denied. D. The variance is not substantial. The chimney is a small encroachment of the existing dormer. E. The difficulty is not self-created. It is an irregularly shaped lot and is currently nonconforming. No acts of the current owners are responsible for this. The house is on a corner lot burdened with two(2)front yards with a 40 ft.setback. The building envelope is restricted. 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. Q 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 January 24,2001 Page 25 H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for a building permit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES After some discussion regarding the next meeting date,Mr.Gunther said that the Minutes of the previous meeting will be held over until the next meeting on February 28,2001. At this point in time,Robin Weston,of 7 Avon Road in Larchmont,addressed the Board. She asked if she can determine from the Board's actions on this latest variance that the Board has,which she found confusing at the last meeting,determined that 5 Avon Road is,in fact,a corner lot and not an irregularly shaped property by virtue of the inaudible. Mr.Gunther said the Board made two findings on that property. One,that it is an irregularly shaped lot as opposed to a square shaped lot and secondly,it is a corner property which is burdened by two front yards. That is similar to the comments that were made when this application was presented at the last meeting. Ms.Weston said if she were to understand what lines apply to this house from a variance standpoint,where should she look in the code. What is it. Is it a corner lot with two front yards or an irregularly shaped lot with inaudible on the side if there is a rear yard. She was working under the impression,much like Ms.Lin's earlier on. In their first discussion they spoke to the Department of Building,they were told unequivocally this is a corner lot and the Bermans could not determine which was their back yard. The Town would determine that and it is a 25 ft.setback. She said they were told that in a meeting in Building Department offices. Mr.Carpaneto said that was correct. Ms.Weston said when hearings took place,there seemed to be some question as to whether or not that, in fact,applies. She said what she would like to understand is,for her own knowledge,is that the way the Board views this lot,that it is a corner lot and the variance granted at the December 20,2000 meeting Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 26 was for a 25 ft.setback on a Board determined,not owner determined,rear yard. She asked if that is a correct interpretation. Mr.Winick said he doesn't think the Board made that determination. Ms.Weston said two variances have now been granted on this property. How does she find out that information. Mr.Gunther said the applicant has the ability to make a determination which of the yards they determine is the rear yard. When the application was presented to the Board,they did not make a determination. They did,however,grant a variance based upon the conditions that were presented to the Board. Mr.Wexler said what was presented to the Board that night is that it was a rear yard in that application, Building Department determined. The applicant brought up that he thought and tried to argue that it was a side yard. It never was noticed that that determination was going to be taking place. Counsel instructed the Board that the Board can make their determination without that being noticed. It went forth as a rear yard,not by the applicant,but by the decision of the Building Inspector. Ms.Weston said can she understand Mr.Gunther's comment,at the end of this particular variance,to take note of the irregular nature of this property. She said maybe she didn't hear it. She said there was a specific point he raised and she just couldn't hear it. Mr.Gunther said it was only a matter of fact that this property is irregularly shaped and that it is burdened with two front yards. Mr.Shavitz said a corner lot can be an irregularly shaped lot. Ms.Weston asked if they're legal terms. Is there any input to the distinction between a corner lot and an irregularly shaped lot as far as the Department of Building or the Zoning Board concerns. Mr.Winick said the standards talked about at the last hearing,it was a provision in the building code that says in the case of an irregularly shaped lot the Board can determine how the Zoning Code can be applied to that property. Ms.Weston said she is just confused as how the Board views this. Mr.Wexler said an interior lot which is not a corner lot can be an irregularly shaped lot. A corner lot can be an irregular shape too. Any lot can be an irregularly shaped lot. It doesn't conform to the standard rectangular lot as laid out. That is how the Zoning Law was set up against,as a model,a rectangular lot, a four-sided lot. It can be a square lot too. Mr.Winick said he thinks it's fair to say the applicant,at some point last month,was arguing that the applicant had the right to determine that the area where the construction was proposed was a side yard and cited a section of the Building Code. Mr.Winick thinks that was never resolved. Certainly the applicant didn't stand on that,because they then requested a variance. It might not have been required,but it was inaudible. Mr.Paden said his memory of the resolution was very detailed and the resolution decided inaudible two front yards. He said the resolution is going to be in writing and is pretty detailed. It will be cited Q fairly explicitly in the findings,including that there will be a front yard. He believes the conclusion that that meant it could not also be a rear yard,because it was already a front yard and it couldn't be both. He said that it will be in the Minutes. Ms.Weston asked if she understands that the Minutes will not be available for another month. Zoning Board • January 24,2001 Page 27 Mr.Gunther said the Minutes will not be approved until next month. Ms.Weston asked why that is. Mr.Gunther said that is because the Board hasn't had a chance to review them,as they were pretty lengthy,30 pages. Ms.Weston said she would like to state for the record that she sent Mr.Gunther a letter and she received his acknowledgment. She said this Board has made determinations,which they as property owners have four days notice. This Board has four days or five days notice to review the implications of things that have lasting implications. The Board makes those decisions in short order. In writing to this Board,she is advocation,because there is a once a month delivery of mail and now for Minutes that took place at a meeting December 20,2000,which she as a property owner is affected by what the Board granted,she would like to see those Minutes and she is asked to wait sixty days. Yet it seems entirely appropriate for the Board to make decisions about her life and her property in four days. She asks that the Board consider the paradoxical nature of this. On one hand the Board can make very critical decisions very quickly,but they as citizens are asked to be patient and wait thirty days or sixty days because the Board doesn't have time to get to this. Mr.Gunther said that the resolution on that matter that was reviewed and approved at that meeting was filed by the following Monday,which is required by the Town Law. Ms.Weston said the discussion that took place on the part of this Board, for her to understand as a ® responsible citizen in addition to her personal recollection at the meeting,was to verify that,with the notes and the Minutes of this meeting of what took place,she has to wait at least sixty(60)days. Mr.Wexler said that's unfortunate. Mr.Wexler said the Board members do go to work,they do not get paid for what they do on the Board,they spend many hours of every month on this and a few days ago they got the Minutes. He said that's what happens. Ms.Weston said but yet in four days or five days the Board'can make a decision. Mr.Gunther asked the secretary when the public notice gets mailed out. Ms.Roma said the public notice gets mailed one week before the actual meeting. Mr.Gunther asked about notice to the newspaper. Ms.Roma said the notice is published in the newspaper one week prior to the meeting. Mr.Gunther said the Board does provide what is required by law. Mailing notices to homeowners is not required,but is done as a courtesy. Mr.Gunther asked if notice is mailed to a 400 ft.radius,which the secretary verified. Mr.Gunther said,as Ms.Weston and he discussed on the telephone,every property owner has a perfect right to come to the meeting or to fax a letter to the Board saying they can't come, to hold off and not make a decision because it affects them and they have not had an opportunity to read all the information. All that was discussed. Ms.Weston said when was that. Mr.Gunther said it was all discussed when she called him. Ms.Weston said that she adhered to Board process. Mr.Gunther said at every meeting for every application the Board calls for public comments,if anyone has anything to say about an application. If an application comes and they don't comment,no one will be Zoning Board January 24,2001 a Page 28 recognized. He said he asks,is there anyone hear who wishes to make a comment,for that reason. He said all they have to say is I don't like the zoning. The Board will take their comment,listen to it and comment. Ms.Weston said she will respect that. All she is asking this Board to understand is she does not know Ms. Lin nor about her chickens. But she said she sat and listened to someone say,I talked to the Building Department,I followed your process and I feel stupid. Ms.Weston said she feel like Ms.Lin had read her letter. She said she would ask them as a Board if two people from very unrelated circumstances can come to the Board with the same thoughts,she tries to do the right thing,she tries to articulate her concerns,tries to work with the prospects and at the end of it all she feels stupid. She asked,does that suggest to this Board that they need to at least think through. Don't explain to her. She understands that they are adhering to the law. She is not questioning that. She is not questioning that they are volunteers. She said she volunteers, they do what they can to make our Town a better place, but if you are so entrenched in your process that you can't listen to different people,from two different places that have worked through this process and come out of it feeling stupid and not say,do we need to take a step back and think if there is a better way and not simply go to the law and say we are doing what is required. She said it is on their conscience. Mr.Gunther said in his letter that he thanked her for her comments and said that the Board will consider what see wrote. She can be sure all the Board members received a copy of her letter. Ms.Weston said all she asks is,she is not looking for what the legalities are. She trusts the Board is following the law and if she were concerned about their ability to follow the law she would have sued the Q Board. She did not do so. She said she wrote a four page letter trying the explain,as someone unfamiliar with this process,how it feels and works from the outside. Then she hears someone else say in different words very much the same thing. Ms.Weston said that she asked that the Board consider it. Mr.Wexler said Ms.Weston is making a statement about the Minutes ....inaudible is a totally different set of circumstances,as though he took what Ms. (?)is telling him,not what she is telling him. It is totally different to say.... (?) ,totally different. He doesn't want to get into that,but it is not fair to make that analogy. Mr.Gunther said it is a different situation. Mr.Wexler said it is totally different. Ms.Weston said she agrees. Mr. Gunther said with there were seven different meetings with that woman. It is a very different situation. He said all her neighbors were present most of the time. Ms.Weston said she apologizes. She overstepped and she offended him and she is sorry. She said she does not choose to do that. Mr.Winick said he received a copy of her letter. He said she raised a bunch of procedural concerns,and he doesn't mean to minimize it by calling it procedural,because the procedure is what forms this whole process. The Board will take those concerns in hand and in its discussion may or may not grant a variance. They are constrained by some legal concerns in what they do. Many of the things they do they do because they have to do. Some law says they have to do it. There is also potential for change and © certainly he for one,and everybody on the Board, is going to take her letter, look at the procedural concerns and the experience that she has and see if they can make this process work better because of that. Ms.Weston said that is all she asks. Zoning Board January 24,2001 Page 29 Mr.Gunther said over the years they have made a number of changes. People send letters to the Board asking for them to do something a little better, do something to make it a little easier for people to understand. The Board today is not the same Board when he started. If the is any constructive advise to make it better,the Board will. Ms.Weston thanked the Board. Mr.Gunther said your welcomed. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 28,2001. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. y� t Cfii jt,f-Lt,719. Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary