Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000_01_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 26, 2000 IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Absent: J. Rene Simon 11 /./Q Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel #44 �� �►� Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building PF F VED Ca Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer MAR 1 2000 Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. t PATRICIA A.OICIOCC±0 49 Eighth Street TOWN CLERK, Ca? f' New Rochelle, New York 10801 n '44 ARONr Y N y / .`/ Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Nor The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. Chairman Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2357 (adjourned 6/23/99;8/19/99 to 9/99;9/23/99; 10/27/99; 11/23/99 to 1/26/00) Appeal of Byron Place Associates/Hoffmann of a determination of the Building Inspector that the current use of the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132, Lot 410 is not a legal non-conforming use, or in the alternative,an application for a use variance to permit light industrial use in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr. Gunther read a letter into the record, dated January 19, 2000, received from Neil J. Alexander, the attorney for the applicant, requesting an adjournment to the March 2000 Zoning Board meeting. Chairman Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2365 (adjourned 9/23/99;10/27/99;11/23/99;1/5/00) Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize the erection of an existing air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard of 7.64 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 652. Mr. Gunther informed those present that this matter also was adjourned to a subsequent meeting. `` Chairman Gunther then called and read application No. 4 as follows: Zoning Board January 26,2000 • Page 2 APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2380(adjourned 11/23/99;1/5/00) Application of Jeffrey Benjamin requesting a variance to legalize a second kitchen on the premises located at 6 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126,Lot 38. Pursuant to Section 240-21A(1),the R-7.5 Zone District permits one-family dwelling units only. One- family dwellings may contain only one-dwelling unit,pursuant to Section 240-4. Mr.Gunther informed those present that this matter has been withdrawn and read the letter received,dated January 24, 2000,which is a part of the record. He stated as a result,application No.4 has been withdrawn by the applicant and there is no further hearings on that matter. A gentleman from the audience said he was present regarding this matter and asked if a resolution of the Board was prepared,as discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Gunther said there is no need,because the application is being withdrawn as stated in the letter previously read. Ms.Gallent said the applicant has indicated that he will be removing the second kitchen and then applying for an amendment to his prior variance or a new variance,because what has been built is not what the 1998 variance authorized. He will be removing that second kitchen and then coming back at the next meeting for another variance requesting legalization of what is built. Michael Lurie,of 5 Leafy Lane,said the question that the residents have is the matter of dual occupancy, not only for the variance for the kosher kitchen but the issue with respect to a two-family dwelling on the Qresidence. The Board had said there would be a resolution resolving that. Ms.Gallent said that has to do with an application that has been withdrawn. The Board can't act on cases that are not before it. Mr.Lurie said when the matter originally came before the Board in December, there was a question as to whether or not a dual family residency was before the Board. Ms.Gallent said those concerns can be raised in connection the application that will be filed at the next meeting. She advised Mr.Lurie that it would be appropriate to raise those concerns at that time. Mr.Lurie said if the matter keeps getting adjourned,it never gets resolved. Ms.Gallent said it will be kept to a time frame to be determined by the Building Inspector. She informed Mr.Lurie that he can make whatever comments he would like to make at that time. She said that this Board doesn't make enforcement decisions. Mr.Lurie said it was his understanding that the Board doesn't do resolutions with respect to matters not before it. Although there was an application for a kosher kitchen,the issue raised at the December meeting was whether or not there was also an application,because of complaints to the Building Inspector,with respect to the dual illegal occupancy. There was a determination made in the record that the matter was before the Board. Ms.Gallent said what went on at that meeting,related to the application that was before the Board. A new application will be submitted and the Board will consider it. Any concerns Mr.Lurie wants to raise about dual occupancy can be raised at that time in connection with that application. Mr.Lurie raised his objection and noted the objection of himself and the residents of Leafy Lane. This determination of the Board today,consenting to the withdrawal of this proceeding after it has gone on for Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 3 21/2 months,there had been a formal indication by the Board that they were going to rule not only with respect to the application but with respect to the proposed illegal occupancy. Ms.Gallent said she did not take that from the Minutes. Mr.Lurie said it is there today,it is an illegal occupancy,for the past three months it has been before the Board,complaints have been made to the Building Inspector since September on this issue and the matter is still at the same point where it was four months ago. Ms.Gallent said that the Building Inspector has to give them a short time frame to present a plan and go before the Board. If they don't,action will be taken to enforce against them. Mr.Gunther said the Board has heard enough. Counsel will be happy to talk to him after the meeting, if he wishes to speak further with counsel. The meeting is now adjourned on this matter, since the application has been withdrawn. Mr.Gunther said if there are questions,Mr.Lurie should feel free to call the Building Inspector during regular hours,as the Board has an agenda to go on to other matters. Mr.Lurie said with respect to the objection,he believes the Board is acting improperly at this point in time by withdrawing not only the application by Mr.Benjamin,but the application made by the residents of Leafy Lane. He said they will proceed on that basis. George W.Gold,of 8 Leafy Lane,appeared to address the Board. He said 133 days is time enough. Deny this nonsense. - Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Gold,that once an application is withdrawn the Board cannot act. In regard to Mr.Gold's comments about the Board acting improperly,he is acting against the Laws of the State of New York with regard to applications that are brought before the Board. Gary Mercado,of 11 Leafy Lane,reiterated the fact that he really feels the Board has postponed this matter so long,to give them the option of withdrawing it and reapply,if the decision was made at last month's meeting it would have been resolved. It is a fact that the Board has postponed making a decision on this matter. Chairman Gunther read application No.6 as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2382 (adjoumed 1/5/00) Application of Carlo Colaianni requesting a variance to legalize a carport and a first floor powder room addition. The existing carport to be legalized has rear yard of 4.4 ft.where 5.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)(b),the existing powder room to be legalized has a front yard of 24.8 ft.where 40.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(1);and further,the powder room increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 1294 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404,Lot 365. Rich Hatem appeared representing the applicant. He stated his company prepared the plans for this application. He said the paperwork indicates the Colaianni's are senior citizens,both of whom were rather ill last year. One was confined to a hospital bed in the living room. There is no sanitary facility on the ground level,the first floor. The powder room is already existing at this point. It was put up basically as an emergency situation. They also feel that the proximity of the house to the property line,which is nonconforming as noticed in the photographs,is not visible from the street. It has an elevation much higher than Palmer Avenue and is very well surrounded by trees. They feel it has no impact whatsoever on the general vicinity. The issue of the carport came up in a refinance situation where there is a small encroachment into the setback of.6 ft. The carport in question had been constructed decades ago and has Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 4 no bearing on the immediate surroundings as well. It is a minor encroachment for something that existed well before the Colaianni's purchased the residence almost thirty years ago. Mr.Gunther asked when the carport was put up. Mr.Hatem said prior to the Colaianni's ownership of the premises approximately thirty years ago. Mr.Wexler asked if has been rebuilt. Mr.Hatem said it has not been rebuilt. A discussion ensued regarding Mr.Hatem's representation and the as-built drawings used. Mr.Wexler asked when it was built onto the house. Mr.Hatem said it was built onto the house in 1999,from previous drawings done by his company. The original drawings were never filed. He said Mrs.Colaianni turned quite ill and Mr.Colaianni has heart trouble. Apparently the timing was such that the plans were in their possession,they got sick,Mrs. Colaianni was in a hospital bed in the living room and Mr.Colaianni took the liberty to use those plans to go ahead and constructed the powder room so Mrs.Colaianni would have a facility to use. Mrs. Colaianni was not able to get to the second floor. Mr.Hatem said these are not the original plans,but new plans in an as-built format incorporating the carport situation as well in the interest of making the entire property accessible. O Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Carlo Colaianni has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize a carport and a first floor powder room addition. The existing carport to be legalized has rear yard of 4.4 ft.where 5.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)(b),the existing powder room to be legalized has a front yard of 24.8 ft.where 40.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(1);and further,the powder roorn increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 1294 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404,Lot 365;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)(b),Section 240-36B(1),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Carlo Colaianni 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 O thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: • Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 5 1. The Board fords that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on personal observation of the property,review of plans on file and the presentation to the Board,the Board finds that the property on Palmer Avenue is located high above Palmer Avenue out of sight of all of the other properties. The two issues,a carport which is 30 years old or older,which is attached to the side of the garage in that direction has impact on an adjoining property,but the part of the property on the other side of it is apparently not in use and I believe it backs on a garage. The powder room is on the corner of the property diagonally opposed to where the carport is. It faces the side yard of this property. Apparently there is nothing within that distance of where that powder room exists. Based on these facts,no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created; B. Given the applicant's medical problems and the absence of any personal sanitary facilities on the first floor, the applicant cannot achieve his goals by any reasonable alternative that doesn't involve the necessity of this area variance; C. Given the footprint of the powder room,and the footprint of the carport,the variance is not substantial; D. There will be no adverse impact,for the reasons stated above,on the physical Qor environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. It is not a self-created difficulty,as the carport is an inherited problem and the powder room is an inevitable consequence of living in the house for many years; 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 h Resolution. (v\ 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. Zoning Board January 26,2000 • Page 6 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit,during usual business hours. Chairman Gunther read application No.3 as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2375(adjourned 11n3/99;1/5/00) Application of Stand Development Corporation/Steven Silverstein requesting a variance to construct a one- family dwelling. The lot on which the proposed one family dwelling is to be built upon,has a lot width of 79.12 ft.and a frontage of 97.0 ft.where 100.0 ft.is the required lot width and where 100.0 ft.is the required frontage pursuant to Section 240-36A(2)for a building lot in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 208 Mulberry Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 448. Jeff Meighan,the attorney representing the applicant,appeared along with Mr.Silverstein as well as the owners of the property,Mr.Kalmanash and his mother,Mrs.Kalmanash,and their attorney. At the last meeting they indicated they would have a drainage report and plans submitted,which has been done prior to this evening's meeting. It was prepared by William Morgenroth,who is present and will give a brief explanation of the report and answer any questions the Board may have. CV') Mr.Morgenroth said he is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York,was head of the Engineering Department in Harrison for 21 years and the Building Department in Harrison also for 10 years. He said he was contacted in order to prepare a drainage plan for this site. Prior to preparing the plan he had the applicant dig some test pits to determine the elevations of the rock in the front of the property,because there is a lot of exposed rock. In the front of the property there were depths to the bedrock of 44 in.in some spots and 24 in.in some spots. As a result of the location of the rock,a shallow system was designed that would sit above the earth as opposed to sitting on the rock so there would still be some percolation from the system into the ground. The design consisted of picking up all the roof leaders from the house. He did not pick up the driveway leaders,because the driveway will be blasted or cut in solid rock from the house to the roadway. There is no place between the house and the roadway to put any infiltration systems,unless it would be in the right-of-way. To make up for the additional water that is generated from the driveway,some of the water from the back yard is picked up in a swale with that water going into the system as well. To make up for the water that is running from the driveway onto the roadway the water will be reduced that is coming through the lot now,across the lot and onto the roadway to make up the difference in the increase in water generated by paving the driveway by picking up additional water from the rear as well as all the roof leaders and putting it into this retention system. The retention system was designed on a conservative basis. He provided a total volume for all the impervious surfaces,the difference between what the ground will take now and what it won't take because it is being curved and providing no benefit for infiltration into the ground which very often would account for at least twice the volume of what the retention system is. It is a relatively conservative design in terms of handling the volume of water that is generated by the building and impervious surfaces on the site. Because of the rock,they did some grading in the front where they were going to fill slightly,create some retaining walls to carry the fill so that the system can be held up above the lot surface. QMr.Gunther asked if a copy of the report was sent to the Town Engineer. Ms.Gallent said no report has yet been received from Malcolm Pimie. Mr.Gunther asked that the application and drainage plan be sent to the Town Engineer for comment and approval,with which Mr.Morgenroth agreed. • • Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 7 Q Ms.Gallent said that the Board asked for a drainage plan as part of this variance application to make its determination regarding environmental conditions in the neighborhood,drainage being one of those issues that would bear on that finding. The Board had asked the Town's Consulting Engineer to look at the plan as presented and provide an expert opinion as to whether this plan will satisfactorily handle.the runoff caused by the proposed construction. There is a separate process,the Sediment,Soil and Erosion Law. That has nothing to do with the Zoning Board. After further discussion,Ms.Gallent said after review and comments by the Consulting Engineer,if this variance is approved on the basis of the plan submitted,that plan would become a condition of the approval. Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Morganroth is proposing to take the roof leaders all around the back of the house. Mr.Morganroth said yes and explained why. Mr.Wexler asked if he had the proper pitch. Mr.Morganroth said a lot of pitch is not needed and explained why. Mr.Wexler asked how far below the surface the leaders will be. Mr.Morganroth said the roof leaders are very shallow. The leader drains don't freeze,because there is not a constant amount of water in them. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Mr.Morgenroth. There being none,he asked Mr.Meighan to proceed. Mr.Meighan said he was asking Mr.Morganroth if he prepared this report in the plan taking into account the guidelines mentioned in the actual ordinance that will have to be fulfilled at the time of the building permit,and Mr.Morganroth said yes. Mr.Morganroth said it is the 25 year storm,which is 5.2 in.over a 24 hour period. Mr.Wexler asked where the water then goes from these units. Mr.Morganroth said basically it will seep into the ground,run over the rock and onto the shoulder area very slowly. What normally happens in drainage systems, you don't increase the rate of runoff and explained the process. Mr.Meighan asked if there were any questions from the audience. Mr.Winick asked if there was an issue about traffic. Mr.Meighan said he did not believe so. Mr.Winick asked the building inspector about the side yard restriction,which is the subject of part of the variance. He asked if either or both of those is in place at the time. He said the Board was told the property was purchased by the contract vendor in 1956,and asked what the state of the zoning was at that time. Q Mr.Wexler said the elevation drawn on the building is a very very steep road,and asked if that is the intent of what is going to be built. Mr.Morgenroth said he is not the architect. Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 8 Mr.Silverstein said it is a preliminary drawing and they haven't settled on the exact style and pitch of the roof. They wanted to bring the roof line down over the first floor,so there would not be the three-story elevation,because there is the garage under and explained the reasons why. • After some discussion regarding the roof leader system,Ms.Gallent said it appears that provision of the zoning code sought to be varied appears to have been adopted on June 29,1959. Ms.Gallent said that was in Chapter 89 of the old code. Ms.Meighan said his recollection of that discussion at the last meeting was that the larger lot was approved by and signed off by the Planning Department in the 1951 subdivision map in the Town. He said that his discussions with the Building Inspector was that thereafter the Town required 85 ft.,in 1959 100 ft. In 1951 the lot at 79 ft.was an approved lot by the Town in the subdivision approval. Mr.Winick asked the square footage of the house. Mr.Silverstein said the square footage will be approximately 3,000 sq.ft. Mr.Silverstein reiterated it is a preliminary plan,but will be within 100 ft.on either side. He then addressed Mr.Wexler's question regarding a horizontal leader across the front of the house,and explained how it would be done. Mr.Wexler said on the survey by Mr.Spinelli,dated July 19,1999,it has the street frontage at 97 ft.and asked if that was correct. Mr.Silverstein said that is correct. pMr.Meighan said that is not the lot that was approved on the subdivision map he was talking about. Lot 10 was part of the 1951 subdivision. Lots 1 and 2,the front lots,were from an old subdivision map. Mr.Morganroth said he just reversed the numbers. Mr.Winick asked the Building Inspector why the house is sited where it is on the lot. Mr.Silverstein said it is the most level point on the lot. Mr.Winick said he is aware that the house next door will be severely impacted by placement of the house as proposed. He asked if Mr.Silverstein had any thought about minimising the impact. Mr.Silverstein said they have a screened in porch on the left-hand side of the house,and a patio behind. He said as one is facing the house to the left,their deck would be the front yard of this house. His house is set behind that deck. Mr. Meighan pointed out,on a copy of the assessment map which shows the property,the deck. He explained where the house would be situated. Mr.Silverstein said the front line of the proposed house is about 8 ft.from the break of the triangle. Mr.Winick asked what that leaves in terms of a back yard. Mr.Silverstein said it is in excess of the setback. QA discussion ensued regarding the back yard for the house on the right. Mr.Wexler said the driveway has a 15%slope. Mr.Silverstein said yes,but there seems to be some issue with that with the Building Inspector. He is still unclear what the code is. He believes it is 12%. Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 9 Mr.Wexler said currently it is 15%. Mr.Silverstein said he needs more clarification on that issue. Mr.Morganroth said typically it is 15%in most municipalities. Mr.Carpaneto said the Town does not have standards for driveways. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr.Winick asked if he was held to the 20 and 10 requirement in existing zoning,what happens to the house. Mr.Winick said what is required for zoning is 30 ft.of width,20 ft.and 10 ft.for side yards. Mr.Silverstein said they are not asking for a side yard variance,they are meeting the zoning codes for the side. Mr.Meighan said it is 15 ft.and 15 ft. The requirement is the least side 10/20. Ms.Gallent said before the public comments,a letter was received from George Roniger,date received January 24,2000,which raised an issue concerning the standing of the applicant and asked if Mr.Meighan cared to comment on that. Mr. Meighan said they are the contract vendee,and it is not abnormal for a contract vendee to be an applicant. The variance is granted to the property. Both owners are present. They were also present at the last meeting and he is sure they consent to this application,at which time he said they are nodding their heads. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Meighan that the Board cannot act this evening because there has not been a response from the Town Engineer with regard to the drainage plan. The application will be adjourned because there has not been an appropriate response. Mr.Gunther said unless there is anything else Mr. Meighan wants to say,he will hear comments from the public. Mr.Meighan said it is his understanding it has been sent to them,but there has not been a reply. Mr.Silverstein asked if there were any other issues that have not been addressed that the Board would like addressed. Ms.Martin asked if anything was found in the Minutes about traffic. Mr.Winick stated it doesn't appear to have been a request. Ms.Martin said there was a lengthy discussion,there were references to the concerns and she was under the impression there was going to be some kind of response regarding traffic control. Ms.Gallent asked if Ms.Martin wanted to request it. Ms. Martin said that was not necessary. She has seen the area, looked at it and does not feel it is necessary. Q Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or requests of the applicant. There being none,he asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application as this matter is going to be adjourned to the next meeting. • Zoning Board January 26,2000 © Page 10 George Roniger,of 50 Stoneyside Drive,addressed the Board. He said he doesn't know if it is an issue as to who was the owner prior to the change in the zoning law,he does not know who the owner was but would like an opportunity to try to find that out. He asked Mr.Winick if that would be an issue. Mr.Winick said not directly. He informed Mr.Roniger he has time to do whatever he wants to do. He said at the last meeting they were told it was purchased by Mr.Kalmanash through an entity,in Mr. Kalmanash's interest,because Mr.Kalmanash owned that lot,the triangular lot in front of it,lot 22. Mr.Roniger said he does not know that the entity owns the property,but Ms.Kalmanash is on record as owning the property at this point. Mr.Winick said the contract vendee is present and said maybe they can clarify this issue. Mr.Meighan said that the contract vendor is Ms.Kalmanash and her son,Andrew. They have an attorney present this evening. Attorney Ed Davidson said he does not have a copy of the title report. He said he was not the initial contract attorney for the purchase of this property. Roger Sirlin was. He said that the title report indicates the tracing of this property. It has been in the Kalmanash family since the'50's and held by a corporation of which Mr.Kalmanash was the sole shareholder. Mr.Meighan thanked Mr.Davidson for reminding him that he does have a copy of the title report and two certifications. In reference to the two triangular lots,one is in the name of Paula Kalmanash and the other Qin the name of Andrew Kalmanash. They are both contract vendors. Mr.Winick asked when they took title. Mr.Meighan said they didn't take title. His research shows that in lot 10,the subdivision lot,Andrew got title to that from Markande,Inc.,which was his father's corporation. Andrew Kalmanash said it was not his father's corporation. The name Markande derives from his deceased brother,Mark Kalmanash and himself,the family corporation. Mr.Meighan said it acquired title from Samuel Kalmanash, Andrew's father,by deed dated April 12, 1962. On the front two parcels,the owner is Mrs.Kalmanash. She acquired title by deed dated June 14, 1956,from William Spine. Mr.Winick said then lot 10 goes from the Kalmanash father to Markande in 1962 then from Markande to Andrew. Mr.Meighan said Andrew acquired title December 6,1971 from Markande. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr.Roniger said he wants the Board to know that this property was never utilized and was empty as a vacant lot. It was always a part of the property on which the house sits. There is even a structure on the so-called empty lot which was used by the Kalmanash family. The history of the property is not that it was used or considered in fact as an empty vacant lot,but was considered as part of the larger lot on which the house sits. At the last meeting,it was said that all bidders on the house were given the option to bid Q on the property at issue. It is not clear that this has happened. The statements for the two properties are; one states that said builder on the so-called empty property has the right of first refusal;the other one states that the bidder on the house may have the right of first refusal,as his letter indicated. He is not sure what the significance of this is,but it does happen that the purchaser of the house states that he was never offered the property at issue. None of the neighbors were even told that the property was available. • Zoning Board January 26,2000 111118.) Page 11 Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public on this application. John Tiebout, of 48 Stoneyside Drive, appeared. He submitted a letter from a real estate appraisal company,marked exhibit#1,based on his understanding that part of the responsibility of the Board is to protect and preserve the value of the property surrounding any property in question,such as this. The letter summarizes that his property will be negatively impacted by the construction of this house on the adjoining property. As stated at the last meeting, the builder thought that the value of surrounding properties will be enhanced by the building of this house. He reflexively disagreed with that. He now has expert advice that supports his contention. He also noted that the neighbors were not informed that this house or property was for sale. He did not know it. Had he known,he would have been happy to enter into a discussion with the owner about purchasing the property or part of the property. Last time it was presented,it was the only way it could go. He would like to let the Board know that it wasn't then the only way it could have gone,and it isn't now the only way it could go. Ms.Gallent asked if he was still interested in purchasing the property. Mr.Tiebout said he would like to present that option. If it stays the way it is now,he wouldn't have to spend a dime. He would like to discuss this and explore that possibility with the owner. Mr.Gunther suggested Mr.Tiebout speak to his neighbors about it. Mr.Tiebout said Mr.Gabrielle,from the appraisal company,is present if there are any questions regarding the statement he prepared. Mr.Gunther said he has no further questions. He asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. Walter Levy,of Ellsworth Road,appeared. He said there is a very large tree in front of their property that abuts onto the rock. He asked if that tree will be retained or taken down,because it will change the nature of the area and will affect the drainage. Mr.Wexler said from the survey presented it appears that the tree he is talking about,looking at the property on the left side of the property in the front,is a 54 in.caliper tree and it appears it is not being touched in the survey. The only tree is a 12 in.tree,about 70 ft.from the curb line. Mr.Levy said the second point is an observation. He sent a letter which raised the point that there are issues besides the variances;environmental issues and the other things that the Board considers. With the positive economic conditions,they are now seeing spaces that normally would not have been developed get developed. Where they may be able to shoehorn a house in,the concerns about the slope in the roof, concerns about the drainage,it is not the best of all possible worlds in terms of the site. It does have an impact on the value of the surrounding properties and the character of the neighborhood. Mr.Winick asked Mr.Levy to articulate for him how the addition of one single family house changes the character of the neighborhood. Mr.Levy said it is not one single house. If judgements are made one by one,the cumulative affect is that the neighborhood changes and expanded on that issue. Mr.Winick reiterated he is asking Mr.Levy to articulate for the Board,since a record has to be made to support whatever the Board decides,how the addition of that house will affect the immediate environment of that lot. Mr.Levy said it tightens up that plateau,because there are two houses that are fairly close to it,therefore, making it more congested and changing the character of the neighborhood. • Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 12 Mr.Wexler asked if Mr. Levy realized this lot is supported by Rockland Avenue, Stoneyside Drive, Mulberry Lane and Highridge Road. The street side property line around those houses enjoy probably more open space than most of the environments of the community. The front property line forms the perimeter along Stoneyside Drive,Mulberry Lane,Highridge Road,Rockland Avenue coming back to Stoneyside Drive. The amount of open space that is between the rear developed homes is much more than most of those perimeter blocks in the community. Mr.Levy said he does not live on that street,but is an observer of what is happening in this community. Further discussion ensued regarding this space,the culmination of the lot,open space and reviewing the tax map of that area. Mr.Levy said it is the front and side where the impact is,not the rear. Mr.Wexler said there is space between the buildings is the same,if they honor the side yard lines. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. Deborah Ezbitski Neumann,of 207 Mulberry Lane,addressed the Board. She said that she spoke in favor of the application at the last meeting. In the summer of last year,Ms.Kalmanash had this house on the market. She and her husband made an offer for the house. They proceeded to put their house on the market,but were unable to purchase in a timely enough manner to move forward with their application to purchase Ms.Kalmanash's house. After that was completed,she got a phone call from Mr.Roniger asking if she knew anything about what was happening to the Kalmanash property,as he had heard they were Ca) going to buy it. Ms.Neumann explained to Mr.Roniger they were not able to do that,but it was her understanding there were others who were interested. They spoke about the lot and it was her understanding that the lot could not be sold to the person buying the house,but it would go to the developer who was interested in buying the lot. In speaking to real estate persons,she was informed there were a number of developers interested in the lot at that time. This was in mid-July,early August of last summer. In October,she and her husband spoke to Mr.Silverstein about the house,got to see the plans, considered what they wanted to do at their home and gave Mr.Roniger a call to tell him they had the plans for the house that the developer was interested in building. She asked him if he was interested in seeing them,because they were interested in buying the house,knew he had some concerns and wanted to talk to him before they moved forward to alleviate his concerns. They shared the plans with him,and a number of weeks later gave him the plans for a community meeting that he was holding with other neighbors to talk about this particular piece of property and what was going to happen to it. She was out of Town on a business trip and was unable to make that meeting. She is saying all this so the record is clear that there was knowledge that this house was on the market from the summer of last year. It is her understanding and the Kalmanash's understanding not to build a house on this lot. They are not looking to build a house. They are looking to transfer the property in a meaningful way for them. The only way of transferring it is to transfer it to a developer who will be able to build on the lot. She said the record needs to be clear what the plans is. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. Bill Spellman,of 197 Mulberry Lane,addressed the Board. He said the question is,what makes this one house different from or what would change the nature of the neighborhood. He said what makes this particular piece of property different from the normal building lot is that there are a number of houses which are contiguous to this property as if this property almost sits as a circle surrounded by more houses © than you might find on a rectangular building lot that sits on the street. There are more people directly impacted by the development of it and makes this a unique situation. As you look at the property,walk around and count the number of neighbors who will be impacted by this. They will now will look at a new house,where they currently look at a very nice piece of open property. That may be what sets this apart from the normal situation. Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 13 O Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. Gerry Shanley,of 195 Mulberry Lane,addressed the Board. He has a question on the subdivision as referred to before. He said that lot was not connected to the pieces on Mulberry Lane. They were acquired as part of the singular contract to join all three lots together to create this building and asked if that is correct. Mr.Meighan said yes. Lot 10 was part of the Highview Ridge Subdivision Map,the old Palmer farm. The front two pieces were on a much older subdivision map,the a 1911 map of Larchmont Gardens. The 1951 subdivision was the breakup of one of the last farms in the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr.Shanley said those two pieces were not building lots. They are not large enough to be anything. Mr.Meighan said lot 10,on the 1951 subdivision,was a building lot approved by the Town at the time the subdivision map was filed. What they are doing is taking the two triangular pieces of lot and adding them to it. Mr.Shanley asked what those two pieces were. Mr.Meighan said they were two lots on the subdivision map. Because of the nature of the way the road curves,they were probably leftover pieces. Those are being added to lot 10 of the 1951 subdivision map to make it even larger. Mr.Shanley said there was a creation or an attempt to create a building lot with three pieces of property.© Mr.Meighan said no. They are taking a building lot and adding two other pieces to it. Mr.Shanley said a survey in the subdivision shows the egress is the entrance to building lot 10,which is the large piece to Rockland Avenue through Secor Lane. He asked if there is still a right-of-way from that lot to Rockland Avenue. Mr.Meighan said yes. It is a paper street called Secor Circle on the 1951 subdivision map. Mr.Shanley asked if there is still a right-of-way on that lot to Rockland. Mr.Meighan said yes. Mr.Shanley asked if that's the way this lot should empty out,if it's approved. Mr.Meighan said that is different kind of a question. In 1951,the Town saw it as an appropriate way and if looked at today,it might not be an appropriate way with concerns regarding traffic,safety,etc. Mr.Shanley said that he raised the question of traffic in his letter and he is sure Ms.Kalmanash would agree that every time she backed out of that driveway she was petrified as to the blind curve. He thinks it is not appropriate. It is a severe traffic area that should be addressed by the Board. To do a drainage plan without knowing the square footage,the slope of the roof or to see exactly what is going to be constructed there,seems to be inappropriate for the Board to consider. Mr.Winick said the engineer will look at the drainage. Mr.Shanley said that the drainage plan,as submitted,doesn't address the particulars needed to make a determination. Mr.Wexler said he was just pointing out the slope of the roof and the height of the building,when making reference to the horizontal plain. Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 14 Andrew Kalmanash said he is one of the owners of the parcel. He has two comments on this matter for public understanding. The first is that the last speaker did not have the authority to speak on behalf of his family,and his family takes offense at it. They also take further offense that certain people have made derogatory comments with regard to their family,to their conduct during the course of this proceeding and he wants the record to reflect that. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any additional comments on this application. Mr.Meighan asked that they get a copy of the Malcolm Pimie report. Mr.Gunther suggested Mr.Meighan contact the Building Department. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Meighan,prior to the next meeting, to provide the Board with a written statement in support of the requirements of 267b that was not part of the original application that addresses the five elements that the Board has to address in granting a variance. Mr.Meighan said he thought he spoke about those five elements. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Meighan spoke about those in general terms,but in light of all of the comments presented for and against this particular application, it would be helpful to the Board if he would summarize his points as they relate to 267b. He asked that Mr.Meighan submit those to the Board prior to the next meeting,to be delivered in Board packets one week prior to the meeting. Mr.Winick commented that the Board has to apply the standards in 267b. He would advise the applicant Q to address the concerns he has about the impact on the surrounding properties,one of the factors the Board has to consider for a zoning application. They are obviously free to stand on the application as it is now, or any variant of it that he wants. Mr.Winick would urge him to consider the impact on the adjoining properties and what might be possible to soften the impact on the way they construct this property. Obviously,he knows they have a narrower lot and suggested that is an issue for him. It would be helpful for Mr.Winick in considering this application if Mr.Meighan has any ideas about how he might soften the impact on the surrounding properties. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. There being none,after further discussion,on a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2375 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the February 29,2000 Zoning Board meeting. Chairman Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2378(adjourned 1/5/00) Application of Marla Delaney requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy for a one-family dwelling. The deck as it exists has a rear yard of 21.2 ft.where 25.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further,the existing lot coverage is 45.4%where 35%is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 18 Jason Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207,Lot 470. John Mahoney,of 5 Fair Meadow Drive,Brewster,New York,the attorney for Marla Delaney,appeared. Mr.Gunther asked if Ms.Delaney was present. Mr.Mahoney said no,as Ms.Delaney lives in New York City. Mr.Mahoney said the property was purchased from the Town as an unbuildable lot because of the slope of the lot. Mr.Delaney hasn't been Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 15 in construction for many years,but is able to build it. He said that problems happened over the last year with Mr.Delany,who is a diabetic. He has been in and out of the hospital,has been unable to walk and is confined to a motorized wheelchair. He explained the need for the pavement,due to the•use of the motorized wheelchair and the turning radius needed,because of his illness. He explained Mr.Delany must use the wheelchair to reach the rear deck. The rear deck opens onto the master bedroom. The staircase is actually what encroaches into the 25 ft.setback. He explained how the staircase got widened. Mr.Mahoney said it won't have any impact on the surrounding homes as far as the blacktop is concerned. The drainage has been taken care of by the engineer,and approved by the Town. The blacktop is an aesthetic. The amount of landscaping and plantings Mr. Delany has done on this property,would obliterate the large blacktop area. The front concrete wall appears to be encroaching on the Town's setback on the east side. He explained that the wall is block on block,and explained how that is done. The encroachment shown on the survey is the encroachment of the top of the wall,not the base of the wall. After further discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said they were going to come in with engineering plans with dry wells,etc.,to handle the additional impervious surface. The dry wells shown on the survey were installed with the original construction at the time. When the architect was in the office and the matter came up, Mr.Carpaneto was told there were additional dry wells to compensate for the overage on the impervious surface. Mr.Carpaneto said the original application should be renoticed. Mr.Wexler asked how the applicant gets into the house. Mr.Mahoney said that he had been able to be helped out of the wheelchair,but he is back in the hospital and they don't know the outcome. QMr.Wexler asked why they need all the blacktop. Mr.Mahoney explained the procedure followed to get the wheelchair out of the van and explained the need for the blacktop. Mr.Wexler asked if the need is no longer there,why do they need it. Mr.Mahoney explained and said there has been a change in the last six weeks. Prior to his most recent operation,the applicant was able to take the two steps needed. Mr.Winick asked for clarification,which Mr.Mahoney provided. Ms.Martin said the only access to the house is through the garage,which was verified. She said there is no need for the blacktop. She asked if the applicant has caretakers that live in the house and how many people live in the house. Mr.Mahoney said Mr.Delaney has two daughters who are in college and a caretaker that come in 12 hours a day. Mr.Winick said the front area of the house has been used as a parking lot by a Cadillac,some other large cars and there are a couple of cars in the driveway. Mr.Mahoney said Mr.Delaney is not taking it up,it is being used as a parking space. Mr.Carpaneto said he will have to see if it is within 25 ft.of the property line. © After some discussion,Mr.Mahoney said the subject is to get a Certificate of Occupancy. He is present to reach a compliance stage to allow the man to still be able to use his home. Mr.Gunther said that the application needs to be renoticed. • Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 16 A discussion ensued regarding the parking situation. Mr.Carpaneto asked Mr.Mahoney to have the architect or engineer contact him to discuss this matter. • Max Eagelfeld,of 16 Jason Lane,appeared. He said that Mr.Delany has certain problems and asked why these problems are not addressed beforehand along with a request a variance. It should not be built first and then a variance asked for because he has a certain medical problem. Mr.Eagelfeld said the proper way to ask for a variance is to come in,request that the Board act on a proposal,give the reasons and the Board can decide. In this instance,he is asking for approval for something done improperly;in the original diagram there must be a 25 ft.minimum rear yard required. He then goes ahead,builds it and says he has a medical condition. Naomi Eagelfeld informed the Board that she has pictures of the adjoining property showing the way the cars are parked in the driveway;picture#1 shows the deck;picture#2 shows the wall that Mr.Mahoney explained where the building blocks were used to extend the property line;picture#3 shows the deck and the steps. Ms.Eagelfeld'doesn't understand how this gentleman could have walked up the steps to the deck the way it is setup. Mr.Wexler asked if the deck grew in size. Mr.Mahoney said the deck grew in size by 2 ft.of the staircase. Mr.Wexler said that is almost 4 ft.,at which time a discussion ensued. Mr.Gunther asked if there is anything else Ms. Eagelfeld wanted to add. There being nothing,on a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2378 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the February 29,2000 Zoning Board meeting and will be renoticed. Ms.Eagelfeld asked if they will be notified. Mr.Winick advised Ms.Eagelfeld to call the Building Inspector to make sure that the matter is on the agenda. Chairman Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2385 Application of Mr.&Mrs.William Haft requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition. The one-story rear addition as proposed has a side yard of 8.0 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 58 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109,Lot 249. William Haft and Lisa Haft,of 58 Vine Road,appeared. Mr.Haft reviewed the application for the Board,stating the first document is a copy of the survey which shows the setback lines that cross the existing structure of the house. The setback line is 10 ft. The house Q encroaches that existing house that was built in 1928 by 2 ft.,along the right side of the property. A copy of the plans were also included in the packet. They are proposing,as part of a renovation and expansion project,to add a small extension to the side of the house,a sliver of 2 ft.by 8 ft. The extension would be the existing site line of the house. There are also side views that show the extension coming out a total of 7 ft. He spoke to the neighbor directly affected by it on that side,who happens to be an architect,and Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 17 showed him exactly what they were proposing to do. He did not voice any objection. A copy of the plans were sent to him. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. There being 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.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.William Haft have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story rear addition. The one-story rear addition as proposed has a side yard of 8.0 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 58 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109,Lot 249;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.William Haft submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created, given that the existing side yard setback will be maintained. The addition as proposed is in harmony with the character of the house as it presently exists; B. The applicants cannot achieve their goals given the location of the rear property access to the house and its relationship to the proposed addition in the as-of-right solution; C. The variance is not substantial,given that the request for the side yard setback brings this house no closer to the side yard than presently exists. This is an approximately 14 sq.ft.area variance; 0 D. It will not have any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district as described in items A and C; Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 18 O E. In this instance,a self-created difficulty has not been achieved,because of the area that has been sought for in the variance and the use of that area,a rear access to the rear property,is proper and cannot be achieved in any other way; 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 nrcresary 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 QResolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit,during usual business hours. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the Minutes of the October 27,1999 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved,4-0. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the Minutes of the November 23, 1999 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved,4-0. Mr.Gunther said that the January 5,2000 Zoning Board Minutes will be held over to the next meeting. Mr. Gunther had one last notice of business for Board members before adjourning. The Westchester Municipal Planning Federation offers a Short Course on Planning and Zoning. He said if Board members Q had not previously attended,he strongly recommended they do. The dates are March 7,March 14,March 16 and March 21 at Pace University in White Plains. He also advised them that the Town will pay for the course. Zoning Board January 26,2000 Page 19 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on Tuesday,February 29,2000. ADJOURNMENT On a motion and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. V Marge 'te Roma,Recording er Secretary