Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_06_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 26,2002,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Linda S.Harrington Arthur Wexler Paul A.Winick Absent: Jillian A.Martin Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Catherine Vaccaro,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD. 111 N.Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary QCALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:48 p.m. The Gunther called the following application: APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2511 Application of Joy and Robert Greenberg requesting a variance to install air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 19 West Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 40. The air conditioning condenser units as proposed have a side yard of 7 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);and further,the condensing units increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked,do we have a request for an adjournment for case#2511? I don't have anything in writing. Mr.Carpaneto said there is nothing in writing,but I spoke with Mr.Greenberg. I explained to him that on the public notice there was a typo and an omission. He said he will be happy to come back in July. Also,he wants to move them from where he had them last. Mr.Gunther said,so the applicant has requested to adjourn to next month and will he will reapply with a different request. After some discussion,Mr.Davis said the applicant has not requested to withdraw the application. If he amends it and there is adequate notice it won't....inaudible. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 2 Mr.Gunther said it has to be renoticed anyway. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2511 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the July 23, 2002 Zoning Board meeting. Mr.Gunther called the next application,as follows: APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2471(adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01;12/19/01;2/26/02;4/4/02;4/24/02;5/22/02)• Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 13.5 ft. where a maximum of 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District. Mr.Gunther said we have a letter addressed to the Director of Building from the applicant requesting an adjournment to the next meeting,which is a part of the record. On a motion made by Mr.GuNther,seconded by Ms.Harrington,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2471 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. QMr.Winick said I ask in connection with that application before I knew that it was to be adjourned,I did a little research on decibel levels and what have you. He gave copies of that research to members of the Board and requested Mr.Friedman receive a copy,which was provided to Mr.Friedman. Mr.Gunther said also give a copy of the research to Ms.Martin,our absent Board member. Mr.Gunther directed the following to the Director of Building. He said I understand that the acoustical survey that was performed by the applicant was performed before a section of sound barrier was erected ont the Thruway. Mr.Carpaneto said I have to check that. During that time,there was construction on the sound barrier. Exactly where I'm not sure. Mr.Gunther said I think we have since received,and I thank you,an acoustical evaluation of effect of proposed sound barrier by CCR Associates for the Town. He reiterated,I thank you very much for that. We may want to do a comparison between this evaluation and the original acoustical engineer's report from the applicant. I really want to get into this briefly the concerns that the conclusions and recommendations in the March 24th report by Martin Alexander are entirely consistent with my own observations. Measured noise levels on June 12 were somewhat lower than those obtained by Mr.Alexander. Different traffic conditions or atmospheric effects,however,can explain this difference. Mr.Gunther said the current report is...inaudible. You may find the checklisted...inaudible,if in fact the barriers..inaudible changed over time that time,that may account for some of the differences. If you could ask the person who did this report,CCR,if that were the case. Mr.Wexler asked if he could step back to the Greenberg application. Mr.Gunther said why don't we finish this first. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 3 Mr.Wexler said on the Notice of Disapproval it says Mr.Carpaneto said we are aware there is a typo in there and also he's going to also request a rear yard variance. Mr.Gunther asked if the applicant is present for case 2284. No one answered. APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2484(adjourned 1/23/02;2/26/02;4/24/02;5/22/02) Application of Robert Stavis requesting a variance to legalize three stone buttresses at Carriage House wall and to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall on the premises located at 211 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417,Lot 77. The buttresses as constructed have a side yard of 29 ft.where 35 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-33B(2);the pier as constructed as part of the front wall has a height of 6 ft. 3 in.where 5 ft is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;and further,the buttresses increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto if he have any notice. Mr.Carpaneto said I wasn't aware that they weren't coming. After some discussion,Mr.Davis said the letter suggests a misunderstanding. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Davis which letter he is referring to,the one from Teresa Spada? OMr.Davis said yes. Mr.Gunther said Teresa Spada is not the applicant. Mr.Davis said I understand that,but it suggests to me an explanation of why the applicant is not present. Mr.Gunther asked how long is the application for variance to legalize the stone buttresses,the crest on wall. He asked,how long is that outstanding? Mr.Carpaneto said it's outstanding from January,2002. Robert Stavis arrived at this time. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Stavis if he is ready to present his application,or the Board will go past you. Mr.Stavis said I am ready,I'm a little confused,but I certainly ready to talk about it. Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Roma to read the application at this time. Mr.Gunther asked if anybody has the original application,which Mr.Wexler supplied. Mr.Gunther said it's dated November 30,2001. It's really to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Stavis at our last meeting,I'm sure you have received word of it,the Board dismissed half of the application because there was no information verifying that you owned the property. This Board cannot hear an application until they know who owns the property,so we moved on to the other Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 4 part of it which is to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall. That's the portion that we will hear tonight,if you wish to proceed with that. Mr. Stavis said I don't feel like I'd like to talk about dismissal,because it's not consistent with my understanding of what was happening in the process. Mr.Gunther said that's what we did. Mr.Stavis asked,can I at least tell why I'm confused by that? Mr.Gunther said yes. Mr.Stavis said when I received notice of the last meeting,I was under the impression that I had asked for a 60-day adjournment and it had been granted. When I went back and examined the letter I had written I did ask for a 60-day adjournment,but in the final sentence of my letter I said something about the month of May instead of the month of June. It was like the letter was confusing. I guess it got misinterpreted. When I was told that adjournment was granted,I took it to mean the 60 days were granted. Therefore I wasn't prepared to come last time. I didn't even realize the matter was going to be discussed. When I got the agenda,I then wrote another letter to the Building Department explaining the confusion and it was confirmed by the secretary in the office that O.K.we understand. You will be on the June agenda. I wasn't here to represent myself and was surprised that any action at all had been taken. In fact,today I am prepared to represent a number of facts about that property,including it's ownership. Mr.Gunther said it doesn't make any difference at this point,because we already rendered a decision last month based on the fact that you don't have ownership of the property. We can't render a decision on a piece of property that you don't own. Feel free to come back to us,if you own the property,or the owners of the property...inaudible. Otherwise,there are several legal items,I understand court actions with that property that have been pending. I can't allow an application to just sit on and go on an on indefinitely with adjournments. Mr.Stavis said I respect that....everybody is speaking at once! Mr.Davis said the chairman is still talking. Mr.Gunther said there really isn't anything else to discuss on that portion of the application. If you wish to proceed on the other portion,which is actually the front stone wall,we would be happy to hear that one. Mr.Stavis said O.K.,let's proceed on the second portion. Mr.Gunther said the application has been read. Do you wish to make a statement? Mr.Stavis said we talked about it extensively a number of months ago. If people are comfortable that they understand the facts I won't repeat them. I am happy to repeat them if the chairman of the committee thinks that will be appropriate. Mr.Gunther said why don't you at least provide a summary for everyone,so everyone is familiar with what you are requesting. Mr.Stavis said my property has a stone wall around it. In one particular corner,five years ago I believe, during a stone storm a tree fell down and the root ball of the tree,the tree was outside the stone wall but very close to it, the root ball took out about 16 ft.of the stone wall. At the time in question,I was renovating my house and had masons on site and had an open building permit. The contractor told the masons to repair the stone wall as it had existed previously. I had no plans of the previous stone wall,but did my best to recreate it based on what we observed on the ground and other stone features on the property. A number of years later, five or six months ago, I received a notice from the Building Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 5 Department that the work that had been done years earlier was somehow not in compliance because I was told one of my neighbors felt and had presented a picture which he thought demonstrated that the old stone wall was lower than the new stone wall. I don't agree with that,but that was what I was told the picture appeared to show. In asking whether or not....I thought that claim didn't really have merit,but it was recommended to me that it might be much easier to get a variance for that work than to try to somehow convince people the claim didn't have merit so I've added the request for that variance to this other one which was actually going on longer. Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Roma if she had photos. Ms.Roma provided photos that were in the file for the Board to peruse. Mr.Stavis said if you like I will help you identify the pictures. Mr.Gunther asked,the height of 6 ft.3 in.is what currently exists? Mr.Wexler said that's what the application says. Mr.Stavis said I believe so. Mr.Gunther said it is merely to legalize what is currently built. Mr.Wexler said that's only a portion of the wall. Mr.Gunther said it's the southern corner. Mr.Stavis said it's like a pillar. The wall is much lower. It comes up about-2 by 2 pillars,consistent with numerous other pillars,including one at the opposite corner. Mr.Wexler said the pillars are a question about the variance,not the wall. Mr.Stavis said I think it's just a single pillar,as far as I understand it. Mr.Gunther said it's referred to as a pier,the pier as constructed as part of the front wall at a height of 6 ft.3 in. Mr.Stavis said I think in my application I repeated the language of the summons. Mr.Wexler said you're right...inaudible. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other questions from Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto,how did we come to the conclusion that it's 6 ft.3 in.? Mr.Carpaneto said I believe one of my staff measured it. Mr.Gunther said the wall that goes around it,do we know if that's 5 ft.? Mr.Carpaneto said that's about 4 ft.,I believe. I don't think that was a question. Mr.Winick said not in the application. Mr.Gunther said,was anything else Mr.Stavis? Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 6 Mr.Stavis said no. I just wanted to point out there is one other picture here,a very similar pilar in terms of relevance scale to the fence on the opposite corner of the property. Mr.Winick asked,how old is that pillar? Was that there when you purchased the property? Mr.Stavis said yes. Mr.Wexler said if you go down that street...inaudible are so much higher than 6 ft.3 in....inaudible. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other questions from the public on this application? Please identify yourself. Lauren Miralia of 210 Hommocks Road addressed the Board. Mr.Miralia said I do not wish in any way to personally characterize the applicants at all. I'm making some statements here that are germane to the issue only. Mr.Miralia said the applicant never sought a building permit to build and rebuild this post. We'd like to have higher walls in our yard too,and I respectfully observe the Town's laws. We believe the proper way to go about it was to apply for a building permit,do it correctly. The old pier was laying right there next to it,it had not been removed. The masons constructed this 2 ft.higher than the existing pier. The old pier was right there next to it to be observed. As far as being commensurate with other piers on his property,we have looked and Mr.Stavis is right. There is one pier at the other end of the property that's approximately 6 ft.high,but there are piers in between that are as low as 3 ft. They tend to follow a straight line where the ground has terrained and undulates. Mr.Miralia said Mr.Stavis will be having some masons come down and remove his buttresses in the near future. It would be easy for them to remove the nonconforming part of this post which was built without a permit. It seems to be the pattern that we've had to deal with unfortunately in front of this Board so many times. This has gone on now for over a year. We've been here many times. I'm simply saying if you have ordinances in the Town that you wish to be followed,do not make an example of this one by allowing someone to get away with what they want just because it's already done. It didn't need to be done that way in the first place. Make her do it right. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other questions or comments from the public on this application. Mr.Winick said I have a question for Mr.Stavis. This,the reconstructed pillar,is it on one side of the driveway entrance? Mr.Stavis said.correct. It's a flat aluminum fence. Mr.Winick asked,is there a pier on the other side of the driveway as well? Mr.Stavis said the way to think about it is this is a 6 ft.pier. As you get to the driveway,there's two piers with lanterns on them. They're kind of a different treatment. They're a combination of pier and lantern well over 6 ft.high. I don't know what the height is. Then there's an(?)...inaudible,then there's a den,a driveway entrance with the two lanterns and then there's this final pier for some symmetry. That's not a real problem. Mr. Gunther said if there are no other questions from Board members, 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. J Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 7 OOn motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Robert Stavis has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize three stone buttresses at Carriage House wall and to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall on the premises located at 211 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417,Lot 77. The buttresses as constructed have a side yard of 29 ft.where 35 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-33B(2);the pier as constructed as part of the front wall has a height of 6 ft.3 in.where 5 ft is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;and further,the buttresses increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 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 240-33B(2),Section 240-52A,and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Robert Stavis 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: O1. 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. Legalize an existing pier at the height of 6 ft.3 in.where 5 ft.is required on the northeast corner of his property located at 211 Hummocks Road connected to the front wall and the side wall of that stone wall. After numerous visits to the site,not just on this case but on the Pressman case and on the Jane Lin's case,and many opportunities to go down there,I've noticed that there are many piers on this street dating back to the turn of the century that are constructed of heights that are greater than 6 ft.,7 ft., some as high as 10 ft. This pier specifically,in relationship to this property being that it's on the two corners of the property,in symmetry with the property,but not at all having any detriment to the nearby property. B. Given the configuration of the front stone walls on this property,the fact that the pier on the far right-hand corner is at 6 ft.plus or minus a few inches,to get the construction to keep the symmetry on the wall on the left-hand side of the property should be similar in size and manner. There is no other way to achieve that without building the height that it is already built to. C. Given the fact that the requirement is 5 ft.when this is 6 ft.3 in.of an area approximately 2 sq.ft.in horizontal area,it is quite minimal in fact in the size of the property,given the type of structure that it is. D. The size of this pier given that it's 2 ft.square in the footprint,even though it's 1 ft. 3 in. above the height limit, it will have no adverse impact on the community given that the piers in that community vary in height and so much greater height than this most present use. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 8 E. Given the statement on the application that there was a pier in that portion of the site that was taken down when a tree came down,he rebuilt and rebuilt it with the style that was there prior and it was not self-created. 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 said to see the Building Department for a permit for that piece of work on the front lot. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2503 Application of Dr.&Mrs.Albert Kramer requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence in the front yard on the premises located at 267 Griffin Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 341,Lot 530. The fence as built has a height of 5 ft.where 4 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in a front yard in an R-20 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked if someone is present representing the Kramers. Joseph Messina said yes. OMr.Gunther asked if there were any pictures in the file,which the secretary passed to the Board. Mr.Messina proceeded. He stated his name and said he is an attorney present to represent the application of Dr.&Mrs.Kramer with regard to legalizing a fence on the front yard at 267 Griffin Avenue at the corner of Old White Plains Road. Mr.Messina said the applicants had this fence installed both on the rear Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 9 of their property and what they thought to be their side yard or a portion of their side yard. Unbeknown to them and to the fence contractor,as a result of it being a corner property,the Town of Mamaroneck ordinances require that there be two front yards. As a result,that portion of the fence along what they thought to be their side yard,Old White Plains Road,is 5 ft.instead of the required 4 ft. When it was determined that there was a violation and a disapproval/violation letter was sent,one of the indications on the letter was that there was a possibility that along this side yard,which we'll call the front yard,that the fence might have been on Town of Mamaroneck property. As a result,we engaged a surveyor to come out and survey the property,in order to determine exactly where the property line was. Mr.Gunther asked if the Board had that survey. Mr.Messina said yes,the Board should have that survey from Aristotle Bournazos. Mr.Gunther said it's not part of our application. Mr.Messina said I actually bought it up to the Building Department myself. I have a copy of it here,the updated survey. Mr.Gunther asked the date of that survey. Mr.Messina said the date that I received it was June 3,2002. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto if he had a copy. OMr.Carpaneto said he did not have a copy. Mr.Messina handed a copy of the survey to the secretary,marked exhibit#1 Mr.Gunther asked,does this go...inaudible. Mr.Messina said yes it does. What was determined is that that side yard where the fence was not on the Town of Mamaroneck property,but in fact we then determined that the property along the rear,which by the way that portion of the fence is not the subject of our discussion here tonight,but it becomes the subject because of what I'm about to tell you. The rear property line which they thought was where the fence was, in fact,they own 2'h ft.further back on the rear left than where the fence is. The existing fence then runs across the back of the yard to the point where it encroaches on their rear neighbor's property by 5 inches. hi fact,that rear fence,5 ft.and legitimately 5 ft.,does need to be moved. Mr.Messina said I communicated with the rear neighbor by letter speaking about the possibility of what to do about this rear fence and received a very friendly,neighborly letter back advising that they would like that rear fence moved to the property line so that in fact it comes 2'h ft.further back on the rear left of my client's property and comes off that 5 inches on the rear right. As a result,what that would do would be to open up about 21/2 ft.from where the side yard fence currently ends at the rear corner. Once you move that rear fence back 21/2 ft.,that side yard fence yard fence has to be filled in about 21/2 ft. Rather than go ahead and try to do any of that,knowing that we had to come before this Board via a variance or a rejection,we determined that we would leave everything as is for the time being in order to now make our presentation for the variance on that side yard portion. Instead of the 4 ft.,to request that it be 5 ft. Mr.Messina said the reason for our request is twofold. It is a busy corner property. It's highly trafficked on Old White Plains Road. My clients have young children. This is a rear portion of their home. This is their back yard. They want it there for safety and for security. They would have come before this Board before they erected that fence,bad they realized that it wasn't a side yard via ordinances,but they are here today to make that request. • Zoning Board June 26,2002 ' Page 10 Cr) Mr.Messina said one of the things that the rear neighbor had requested was that...by the way I have letters from other neighbors here supporting the fence as is,and I believe that the neighbor at the rear is the only one who had some objections. They said that if there were proper screening of that portion on the side,they would have no objections. My only problem with proper screening on the side is that once we go beyond the fence we are now on the Town of Mamaroneck property. I don't know how to properly screen that portion of the 5 ft.fence on the side that the neighbors are requesting. I would,however,like to show you letters from neighbors supporting the fence as is,as well as pictures of a fence only four or five properties away which is not on a corner property,it is a front yard. It's at least a 5 ft.,if not a higher foot fence,so that the fence that my clients have is certainly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I did make extra copies,so I can show them. Mr.Wexler asked,when you say the side do you mean the front yard that faces Old White Plains Road. Mr.Messina said no. The front yard,as you look at the house,faces Griffin. Mr.Wexler said,then you have two front yards. Mr.Messina said that's right. We're talking about what faces Old White Plains Road. Mr.Messina said I refer to it as side,only because that's how we've considered it. After further discussion,Mr. Messina said in any event it does exist there and simply in terms of in keeping with the character of the neighborhood having the fence that we have right now certainly is not out of character. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Messina had an address on the exhibit. Mr.Messina said he doesn't have an address. Mr.Messina said these letters of support I just received tonight from neighbors at 157 Griffin Avenue,165 Griffin Avenue and 237 Griffin Avenue. I don't have copies made, but they are offering support for maintaining the Kramer fence at 5 ft. It offers both security to their family and property as well as aesthetically enhancing their property. Mr.Messina left this letter also as an exhibit,marked exhibit#3 and an unsolicited letter that arrived at the Kramers; "I recently drove by your home and noticed your new fence. My wife and I liked the appearance and are considering a similar type of fence. We live in Mamaroneck only two blocks away. Would you be so kind as to forward the name of your contractor to us." Obviously,when people see the fence,it's not displeasing to them. Mr.Messina said that's our position. I'd be happy to take any questions the Board may have. Mr.Gunther said I have a couple of questions for you. What are the ages of the children? Ms.Kramer said the children's ages are three and four. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Messina,can you give me the address of the this fence,so I can come to some determination whether it is...inaudible. Mr.Messina said I will be happy to supply you with that address. I may be able to have it to you this evening. Mr.Gunther said if you know where it is with the tax book,we can look on the map. Mrs.Kramer said I actually went through a lot of fences with Mr.Carpaneto that were 5 ft.or higher on Old Mamaroneck Road that we went through the book and nobody had permits for it. Mr.Messina had eight pictures he submitted,marked exhibit#6 and discussed. II Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 11 Mrs.Kramer said they all required fences that are 5 ft.or in front yards and there is this one,1175 Old White Plains Road. They just replaced that a couple of weeks ago. This was a fence that they've had. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto for the tax snap for 1175 Old White Plains Road,which they reviewed. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Messina,do you know how many of these fences are legal? Mrs.Kramer said none of them are. I went with Mr.Carpaneto...inaudible,because I was taken back when I did get this letter. We didn't realize that we did something wrong. I went to Mr.Carpaneto's office,because I saw all these other homes that had similar kinds of fences and I wanted to know if they were able to get a variance. None of them applied for a variance. Mr.Kramer said we're not here to create any trouble for anybody. Mrs.Kramer said it's not about anybody else. It should only be about what the Kramers have put up,but we were never trying to do anything wrong when we put up this fence. Mr.Kramer said the reason for putting the fence up is because we have young kids and it is really for the security if of our kids. They're very active,they run around and it really is,what we put up,a back yard. We didn't really take in...inaudible,who misunderstood what exactly the code was. Our fence man did also. He was also very surprised when we called him up. That is a very heavily trafficked corner. There have been times when the house was bought the previous owners had had a sports car that had been jacked up on cinder block,the four tires taken right off the car in the back yard because visibility into the yard is simply unobstructed. That's really our reasoning. Mr.Gunther asked what would the next block be,because Griffin is further down if that right? Mr.Carpaneto said yes,Griffin is further down (sorry can't hear what he's saying.) Mr.Wexler asked,these are all of the same house, 1175;there are five,right? Mr.Messina said that's correct. The ones that you have,the colored photos in your hands,are the old set and the one that is now on the large 8 by 10 Mr.Messina and Mr.Wexler are both speaking at once! Mr.Messina said I actually did not intend to hand these in as an exhibit,otherwise I would have made copies for you. I only have one of each. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other questions from Board members. Mr.Wexler asked,what's the policy of the right-of-way,because the property is from your property line to curb? You have to maintain it,correct? Mr.Messina said correct. Mr.Wexler said,you planted it? Mr.Carpaneto said no,you can't plant anything substantial...inaudible,things like that. They have his property and you come to the intersection that's been cut back to 30 ft. ® I'M SORRY BOARD MEMBERS ARE SPEAKING AND CAN'T BE CLEARLY HEARD! After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said technically the Town does not want you to do anything. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 12 Mr.Wexler said in going down the street there's a lot of shrubbery...inaudible to the curb line. In that 10 ft.right-of-way it's going to be....inaudible. Mr.Carpaneto said you can plant...inaudible,eventually it's going to possibly harm somebody. Mr.Gunther asked if there was a survey. Mr.Wexler said the application has very dense plantings right behind the fence,that you can see through when the fence wasn't'there all year? Mr. Messina said yes, all year, that's correct. It's somewhat dense, but there are enough spaces in between that makes it very easy to walk in and out of that back yard. Mr.Wexler asked,then why would you need them to put the fence on this side of that shrubbery and not on the other side? Mr.Messina said I assume the fence people went by the survey,by what they believe is the property line to allow the...interrupted. (91 said they're only going to put it where you ask them to put it. Mr.Messina said yes and no. We would have told them to put it in the appropriate place in the rear if they hadn't misread the survey. I would assume that the reason for it was because the plantings wanted to become part of the back yard,so that it would enhance the atmosphere of the back yard,the living area Qwhere the children play and where the family would entertain. Mr. Wexler said the problem there is that if you put the fence on the other side, you do want the enhancement to the private side of that fence,it really becomes a detriment to the other side of the home. Mr.Messina said unfortunately I would certainly have no objection to trying to put some sort of screening in,but I have a problem only because of these and my client's had no concept that there was even a Town right-of-way that lead up to that let alone that they might have even been on Town property. None of that was done in a preconceived way. We are now stuck with what we have,trying to find a way to make it ...inaudible. Mr.Wexler said that's not on Town property. Mr.Messina said no,that was an original issue. That's what caused us to go out and get the survey. There was an issue,is it then on Town property,as part of one of the violation notices that they received. In order to determine whether the fence company had actually put it in the wrong place,we engaged a surveyor to come out and to give us an accurate survey. That's when we found out that the rear property line was different than we had thought. Mr.Wexler said you're 16 in.off the property line at the point closer to the house. The survey says 1.4 ft.on the land side of the property over the side of the property line. That diminishes it.8 ft.further down on White Plains Road. You have a bit of land,not of any great substance but it's subject in time. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions or comments from the public on this application? There were none. Mr.Gunther said before we vote on it,I have a real problem with such stark walls so large in that area. It's just brings the property layout onto the street. I don't know how other Board members feel about that. Mr.Wexler said I agree. Zoning Board June 26,2002 • Page 13 Mr.Gunther said in my mind there are two issues,one of which is the height figure,4 ft.in order to ...inaudible. The fact that it's higher in other parts is the material factor. If this was a dark green,chain link kind of fence where you could see through,it wouldn't stand out nearly as starkly as it does now. You can't miss it. You can see it blocks away,especially in a front yard. I have a real problem with it. Mr.Winick said I think if I can take off from Mr.Wexler's comments,I wouldn't vote for this unless it's screened. I guess the question for me then becomes a matter of whether there is enough space to create a greater variance of percentage screening requirement that has to be accomplished probably even in part of the Town right-of-way because I don't you can get the kind of shrubbery that's going to screen the fence without probably the equivalent of 16 inches off the property line. I think it's a matter of....I don't know what the actual legal restriction is planting on the Town right-of-way,but I think it's a question of we could grant it. I would vote for it granted on the condition that either the circumstance that it be screened in place or we deny it or it be moved behind the existing shrubbery. I appreciate that the applicant is entitled to his analysis because it's pretty normal because they wanted their landscaping inside. I disagree with their counsel's presentation about whether it's typical neighborhood. I think frankly it's quite atypical for Old White Plains Road and practically anywhere in the Town in this material. It's probably the most noticeable thing on the street as you drive. If there's a way to break it up visually,I would vote for allowing it to stay in place more than not. Mr.Carpaneto said I could try to get an answer from....inaudible this afternoon. Mr.Gunther said I think that would be important...inaudible trying to get an answer. Mr.Messina said may I make a suggestion to the Board,that we approve it under one or two conditions; Q either(a)that it can be screened appropriately as is where it is,or that if after investigation it cannot be that we move it behind those existing shrubs that are on the property and therefore create the screening by virtue of the hedges or the trees that are already on our property which is what I believe Mr.Winick had suggested. Mr.Wexler said and the shrubbery to be maintained. Mr.Messina said of course. Certainly if we can plant in front of what exists right now,we will take the responsibility for maintaining it,because we already have the responsibility for maintaining that piece of land anyway and they certainly would want it to look attractive. If we can't plant there and we must move the fence, we'd be willing to back it up behind the existing shrubs and now those shrubs are on our property and certainly we would continue to maintain those. Ms.Kramer said what I'm talking about is on Old White Plains Road. Mr.Wexler said in your front yard you have Old White Plains Road and you have that 30 or 40 ft.that goes back equivalent to your front yard. Ms.Kramer said that I would not be willing to I'm willing to put something in front of there or change the color of the fence,but my neighbors object and from what I understand is the fact that those trees are our trees. That's why I put the fence there, because those were our trees. I have no problem with moving interrupted. I'm only doing Old White Plains Road. Mr.Wexler said you are set 3 ft.2 in.back from the 2.5 ft.back from this rear corner. Mr.Messina said that's correct. We need to move it back to 2'h ft.to our property line. Mr.Wexler said this side you have to move back. Mr.Messina said this side we have to move back. II Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 14 Mr.Wexler said this side is already in your property by 2' ft. Mr.Messina said but what we wanted to do is bring that to our property line so that in fact the fence goes to the property line. Mr.Winick asked,do you need a height variance for that side? Mr.Messina said no,we don't need a height variance. Mr.Wexler said yes you do,in your front yard. You take a front yard,that's the front level,that's the full width of your property. The height of the fence in the front yard extends to that portion of your front yard? Mr.Carpaneto said as you're coming across Old White Plains Road,taking the full depth of the yard. Mr.Wexler said you're saying this is the front yard,with which Mr.Carpaneto agreed. Mr.Wexler said this portion of the fence that sits in the front yard in the back,is that what you have to stay with to the limits of a front yard? Mr.Carpaneto said that would be the front yard in that section. Mr.Messina said where is 5 ft.right of the rear yard? Ms.Kramer said it's over the garage. Mr.Gunther said check what the limitation is. Mr.Messina said 40 ft. Mr.Wexler said 40 ft.back. Mr.Gunther said are you going to mark the survey,approximately what is considered front? Mr.Gunther said,Mr.Messina we put some notations on your survey indicating what's considered front yard so we know. Mr.Wexler said the portion of this,where you call it the side yard or rear yard,is really part of the front yard. That portion of back yard from the front yard where your 2'h ft.property side of your property line can easily be screened within that 21/2 ft.because of the section in the back. That's the area that the 5 ft. is really what you're looking at right now. Mr.Messina said that's correct. Mr.Wexler said that would be the area we need screened. Mr.Messina said approximately 40 ft. Mr.Wexler said 40 ft.along the rear,Old White Plains Road and along the Old White Plains Road that's parallel along the fence,which with Mr.Messina agreed. © Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Kramer had something else he wanted to say. Mr.Kramer asked,the screening you want along Old White Plains Road and along the rear? I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 15 Mr.Wexler said just 40 ft.of it. Mr.Kramer said the problem is the property that's perpendicular to Old White Plains Road behind the fence,when we move the fence out will no longer be our property. Mr.Wexler said on your survey,your fence is 21/2 ft.into your property along the back...inaudible fence. Mr.Winick said if you put the screening up,you won't be able to move the fence if we don't grant a variance. If we grant a variance conditioned on screening,you either put the screening up and keep the fence or you have to remove the fence. After some discussion,Mr.Kramer said I understand and I will be happy to make sure that we comply with the conditions set by the Board. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. Please identify yourself. Nancy Seligson,Town Councilwoman,not public at this moment. I just wanted to let the Board know that we have had two applications to actually purchase Town property in the Town right-of-way recently. There was great discussion about that possibility for a fence or for screening. The Town rejected both those requests. Mr.Messina said I'll assure the Board that we do not want to purchase. Laura Nassau addressed the Board. My side,front yard abuts the Kramer's rear yard,so I have a couple of questions. In the sense that the fence is 5 ft.as built,but if the property slopes and the fence is in fact 6 ft.,is it a 5 ft.fence or a 6 ft.fence? Mr.Wexler said that's a building question,6 ft.at that point. Mr.Carpaneto said it's a 5 ft.fence,if the grade changes a little bit. Mr.Wexler said does it go to 6 ft.? Mr.Carpaneto said I don't know if it goes to 6 ft.,but if Mr.Wexler said theoretically,if it went to 6 ft.and 8 ft. After some discussion,Ms. Nassau said the screening that they're proposing will only face Old White Plains Road and not my property? Mr.Winick said no,go 40 ft.back on the section of the fence that is perpendicular to Old White Plains Road. Ms.Nassau said which is my side yard,because it is very stark and very harsh. Contrary to what the Kramers said,I had no objection to this fence and knew nothing about this until a neighbor of theirs called and told me about it. If their fence was screened on my side I would say that that's fine,but it is almost 6 ft.in certain parts and it's really very overwhelming and I hope you take that into consideration. Mr.Winick said I have a question for Board and asked that we move on to a motion. Mr.Gunther said I'm going to adjourn it. I'm not going to vote on this tonight. Mr.Winick asked,do you want to wait for the highway...inaudible? Mr.Wexler said I want them to come back with a proposal. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 16 Mr.Winick said in that case all the better to give the Kramers something to think about,which is how to characterize the screening in a way that's meaningful in a resolution and is also something you can take to a landscape architect or gardener....inaudible,(Mr.Winick speaks so fast it's difficult to hear what he's saying)....do you express it as a percentage of the coverage of that fence? In other words,what are we going to put in this resolution. If we have a sense of the Board of how much coverage is required,we should articulate it,so that they come back with a proposal Mr.Wexler said I have a feeling on this that it should be dense for at least 4 ft.of height of that fence. Mr.Winick asked,across the entire.... Mr.Wexler said it could undulate a little bit,and a little white fence you can stick it up past this. Ms.Kramer asked,if we do come back down to 4 ft.then we can just leave it white? Mr.Wexler said then you're out of this Board. MS.KRAMER IS SPEAKING BUT CANNOT BE HEARD CLEARLY! Ms.Kramer said we just moved into a house and there is just so much we can spend also on landscaping. Mr.Wexler said the argument you made to us was that you needed that 5 ft.high fence for security. You said that up front,when we told you if we deny the application you have to cut it down to 4 ft. We're trying accommodate your needs as best we can. If you feel that the 4 ft.fence is adequate for your needs, then just withdraw your application. (MS.ROMA SAID,I CAN'T HEAR YOU.) Ms.Kramer said I would like to keep my application in. Mr.Messina said I think you're just hearing a little frustration from my applicant. I don't believe that the 4 ft.fence is appropriate nor is it proper for their needs. I think the 5 ft.fence is appropriate for their safety and security of their children. With that in mind,we would ask you to consider what conditions you would impose to allow them to keep that fence at 5 ft. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Messina,is a three or four year old child going to scale a solid,slippery 4 ft.fence? That's all that's there. Mr.Messina said I would imagine that maybe in six months or a year when they are four and five years old. Ms.Kramer said actually my children have scaled a 4 ft.fence already. Mr.Messina said I guess it depends on the child. Mr.Gunther said the question really has to do with the materials that you're using. There are fences with steps in them that you can climb like a ladder or stair. If five is what you need for...inaudible,you present what you need and we will vote accordingly. Mr.Messina said I think we have made that presentation. At this point,consider the conditions that I have requested that you consider;either that we move the fence behind the existing screening on the Old White Plains side road if we can't plant there,or that we leave the fence where it is and plant along the Old White Plains Road that 40 ft.section to the rear. I t � Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 17 Ms.Harrington said when they do put screening in,do we make sure that it's something that isn't seasonal or...inaudible. Mr.Winick said that's in the wording of the resolution. I think the reason Mr.Gunther is thinking of adjourning it is that we developed a practice lately of requiring a landscape plan rather than using general language in resolutions so the applicant knows what they're supposed to do and we understand what we're getting....inaudible zoning requirement. Mr.Gunther said and at the same time,the Building Department knows what to enforce. Mr.Winick said while Mr.Messina was trying to get us to vote on something tonight,which gives him two alternatives. He said he wants the Highway Department—the only thing he can't get is a picture of what they're planning to do. Mr.Wexler said the fence is already in place. The security is in place. I don't know whether you want to give them advice and be uncomfortable....inaudible. Mr.Messina said I don't think there is anything to gain and I have no objection. Certainly I would ask the Board to feel comfortable about the position that you're going to take,because we would like to feel comfortable that way too. We don't want it to be any further adversarial. You're right,the security is in place. While we are waiting for the appropriate decisions,we're not loosing anything. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other questions or comments on this. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked Mr.Winick,if you would just elucidate what kind of documentation the applicant 1`J should come back with. Mr.Winick said what we have been asking people to do,in other cases where screening was involved,is to come back with a diagram from a landscape architect that shows the plantings that you intend to do and where you intend to put them. Mr.Wexler said you don't have to depend on a landscape architect. Maybe you can have it from a nursery that will give you a plan. Anything that can be easily read by us, that we can then communicate to somebody else who can....inaudible. Mr.Messina said if we're going to do that,are we doing it just for that 40 ft.in the back,because if there is no reason to do that for the front if you're going to decide we can't plant there anyway and therefore we'd have to move the fence back? I don't want to have to go...interrupted. Mr.Winick said a reason for the adjournment is if we can get an answer from the Highway Department in time. Mr.Messina said but I think we need that answer in order to determine what it is we have to bring back to you. Mr.Wexler said if you can't get the Highway Department respond in an orderly,we can adjourn it for another month. After further discussion about a receiving a response, Mr. Carpaneto said I will get the Highway Department to get an answer...inaudible. Mr.Messina said I figured he can do it better than I can do it. Mr.Gunther asked the Board to set the date for the next meeting. After some discussion,the next meeting date was set for Tuesday,July 23,2002,7:00 p.m. The next meeting will be August 7,2002. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 18 Mr.Messina said at that meeting we will come to you with a plan for either the entire area or a portion, depending what we discuss. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Messina that there is no guarantee that this Board will approve the application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2503 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. • Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto to ask your...inaudible the...inaudible garage to notify the Highway Department and then to call the applicant. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2504 Application of Elizabeth Rosenstadt requesting a variance to erect a 5 ft.high fence in the front yard on the premises located at 16 Doris Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333,Lot 1187. The fence as proposed has a height of 5 ft.where 4 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in a front yard in an R-20 Zone District. William Rosenstadt appeared to address the Board. Rosenstadt said our plan is to put the fence behind the cover in the picture that we've included with our application,the cover which is maintained by the Town. It's on the Town property which is an 8 ft.swath along the eastern edge of our property. Mr.Wexler asked,why do you want such a tall fence. Mr.Rosenstadt said for a number of reasons. One,we also have young children,five and two and one- half. They're not quite as athletic as the ones before us,but they can climb. We have a significant amount of traffic,both foot traffic and car traffic,on Prince Willow which is the border to the property. Mr.Wexler asked,significant traffic? Mr.Rosenstadt said surprisingly so. It's the access point to the whole development behind us and there are teenagers zooming up and down the street. Mr.Wexler said Old White Plains Road? Mr.Rosenstadt said the top of Old White Plains Road. Mr.Wexler said like Old White Plains Road? Mr.Rosenstadt said no,not similar to. You don't have traffic on Old White Plains Road,but we felt that it would ourselves a little more comfort if people couldn't look into the back of our property as they walked by. Mr.Wexler how can you look into your property,if...inaudible. © Mr.Rosenstadt said the bushes are thick in most of the yards. The basis was twofold. Number 1,I don't want by kids getting through the bushes out onto Prince Willow,where you can't really see them until they're out on the street because of those bushes. Number 2,it's time to protect them while they're in the property. That is really,in our estimation although probably not pursuant to the Town Code,our back Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 19 yard. Initially,we were planning on putting a 5 ft.fence as well,without doing any kind of application, until we learned that on a corner we have two front yards. We filed the application accordingly. Mr.Gunther said the application does say erect. Mr.Gunther said the bushes that are there today,are not on your property? Mr.Rosenstadt said correct. Mr.Gunther asked,are they on the right-of-way? Mr.Rosenstadt said I would assume whatever you would consider that strip between Prince Willow and our property. If the term of...inaudible is right-of-way,that's what they are. Mr.Gunther asked,are they maintained by you? Mr.Rosenstadt asked,in what sense? We do whatever we can to maintain them and keep them in the order that you see them there. They're pretty healthy bushes. We have a sprinkler system that waters them,in compliance with the drought restrictions that we now have in place. Mr.Wexler asked,is the right-of-way seem wider to you? Mr.Carpaneto said it depends. Sometimes they're up to 80 ft. Typically it's 50 ft. Mr.Wexler said...inaudible...noise on tape there's a least amount of lawn in front of these bushes to the curb. I thought they were on your property. Mr.Carpaneto said they're 10 or 12 ft.from his property line. Mr.Rosenstadt said I was shocked when I found out they were not on our property line,to be honest with you. Mr.Gunther said with the addition of a fence,you will notice how many feet will be lost visually. Mr.Rosenstadt said that's an issue that we grappled with as well. Mr.Wexler said it's a big property. Mr.Rosenstadt said it's a fairly decent size. Mr.Gunther said I'd like to ask you a question about the selection of materials that you chose. Mr.Rosenstadt said before you ask me,I would like to say that we have chosen a wood fence versus the shinny,fiberglass fence which we included in our photo. That is a PVC,similar to the fence that in discussion in case#2503. Mr.Gunther asked,is that what you are proposing? Mr.Rosenstadt said we've changed the material. The design would be exactly the same,but depending on what comes in wood with that design. That's what we would choose. Mr.Gunther said there's a lot written about fences through the centuries...inaudible. Natural material fences after a year generally tend to blend in very nicely with the environment and you don't see it. When you use other materials it will forever look something like it looked when it was first erected. Mr.Wexler said it might turn yellow. Zoning Board June 26,2002 • Page 20 Mr.Gunther said it will have that stark view of a fence,as opposed to something more subtle. Mr.Wexler said I find this to be a very magnificent fence,from...inaudible a solid fence. I think the one below is a far more elegant fence that will make,from your point of view from in your property,a much more pleasant fence to look at. When the leaves come off the bushes that are on the street side,you may have a dense growth of branches there just a peek-a-boo view of the space above the solid. It's so much more elegant,than just a blank wall going up. I would be more inclined to put that arrow to the one below and circle it. Mr.Winick said if we have a...inaudible of right-of-away,don't we have a transition...inaudible. Mr.Gunther said absolutely. After some discussion,Mr.Winick said the question is whether or not we can require the applicant to maintain the shrubbery on the right-of-way. Mr.Rosenstadt said the fence is going on the inside of the shrubbery,not on the outside. Mr.Carpaneto said we do require that they maintain that. If they don't interrupted. • Mr.Winick said I know. The shrubbery that's there is probably not unlike the shrubbery we were going to ask the Highway Department whether it's O.K.for them to put up in the right-of-way in the Kramer's property. Before we insist as a condition of allowing the fence that this applicant be required to maintain it,we ought to be consistent between the two applications. If the Highway Department comes back and says,we don't want this stuff on the right-of-way it seems to me that impacts this application even though it's there I don't think we should then require something that the Highway Department tells us that they don't want. I'm assuming we would grant this application with a requirement that the screening be maintained in front of the fence. Mr.Wexler asked,why would they....inaudible on this? Mr.Carpaneto said the only time that the Highway Department may make an issue is if it causes a site infraction or something like that or if someone wasn't maintaining it and they're out onto the road or something like that. The Highway Department will have to cut them back. Mr.Wexler said that's site specific. Mr.Rosenstadt said there is a significant amount of lawn between these bushes and the street. Mr.Wexler said it's site specific. You even have bushes that many times you come to an intersection you can't see a car coming at all and that's a concern. In this case,it so far back Mr.Gunther asked,what's the length from the curb to the property line? Mr.Carpaneto said wasn't out there. It's about 10 or 12 ft.from the curb to the property line. Mr.Wexler said from Mr.Spinelli's drawing,it looks like the shrubbery is in the right-of-way. It looks like it's a good 5 or 6 ft. Mr.Rosenstadt said I would say it's between 3 and 5 ft. I don't think it's 6 ft.would be pretty excessive. Mr.Wexler said I'm looking at 25 ft. If I take 1/5th of that from your fence is showing it Mr.Spinelli is showing that. That doesn't mean that he surveyed these bushes. Mr.Carpaneto said he may be showing it as bushes. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 21 c) Mr. Gunther said Bob,I have a question for you. What rights does this Board have in requesting an applicant to maintain something that's not on his property. Mr.Davis said the law only provides for maintaining the portion of the right-of-way from the house,but for that,I don't think this Board could impose that as a condition. In fact,your not imposing that as a condition is something you all are required. If the Highway Department decides to remove that shrubbery, they can't be required by a condition of yours to maintain it. Mr.Gunther said I was thinking of both cases,because in this case it's just related to a fireplace that could be there but we never...inaudible. Mr.Davis said what's there they are required to maintain. To put something there,they need permission. Mr.Winick said that's my concern that should anything to the shrubbery,should it die,the question is should we have a condition that requires them to replace. Mr.Davis said that's placing more of a condition on the previous application,requiring them to get consent of the Highway Department to maintain and replace in the event of a...inaudible. Mr.Winick said that's why I frankly thought too where it is situated. If what we do,generally we require that the screening be maintained as a condition when we require the screening. Again,it's the possibility if it could be replaced or have to be replaced. It's a question of whether the Highway Department has a say in that. Whether we're comfortable where we could make that a requirement. Mr.Wexler said or,the applicant provide the fence that's so beautiful at 5 ft.you don't need 8 ft. Mr.Davis said that's always an option. Mr.Wexler said the fence down below is a far more handsome fence from a public point of view and definitely from that piece of property. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions or comments from the public on this application? Nancy Seligson,Town Board,said I want to add about our discussions with the two requests that we purchased property in the right-of-way. I should have added before that when we definitively said no that really isn't an option,they then asked if they could erect a fence in the right-of-way or plant shrubs in the right-of-way. We said no to erect a fence and we said no to planting shrubs in the right-of-way and we did work with the Superintendent of Highways on that. Mr.Wexler said wouldn't that also be site specific? Ms.Seligson said there's no question there that there are many,many walls and...interrupted. Mr.Wexler said I'm saying in that request....interrupted. Ms.Seligson said I want to say that there are many walls and shrubs that appear to be in the Town's right- of-way. We are not in a position at this time to retrofit all of those. Mr.Wexler said the question I was going to ask you was that,that was under two specific sites that might have conditions of site line,there might be,it isn't a general rule. I hope you didn't pass on that,because CI;;) you might have a right-of-way that has no problem site lines,it's isolated in some way,and it's shrubs that, it's a very wide right-of-way and the shrubs are way off the curb line. Ms. Seligson said I would say it was site specific. We did not pass any blanket rule or make blank decisions. However, I have to tell you that the sense of the Board and the sense of the Highway Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 22 Department in those discussions was that no,we would not be in favor of usually putting something in the Town's right-of-way. Mr.Gunther said,in a general sense? Ms.Seligson said,in a general sense. MR.WINICK SPOKE BUT,CAN'T BE CLEARLY HEARD....because otherwise you've got some possibility under some circumstance that this fence can be at 5 ft.tall with no screening,and that's not something I would vote for....inaudible. William Rosenstadt said I'd like to make two points,one of which is in terms of a blockage of siting issues. This fence was well back,I don't know how far back maybe 50 or 75 ft.back from the corner. I don't think that will play much of an issue in the determination as to whether that has any affect in this particular instance. Secondly,we did not put the bushes in. The bushes have been there well longer than we've been there. There is ample sunlight and they seem to grow very healthy with our watering and trimming. I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't continue in that vane. Mr.Gunther said the proposed fence will be on the west side of the bushes. Mr.Wexler said that's right. Mr.Rosenstadt said it will be on the inside of the bushes,the west side. Mr.Gunther said the sun rises on the other side. Mr.Wexler said your property line is literally runs parallel north and south on that property line. After further discussion,Mr.Gunther said I suppose we should make the same recommendation that we made earlier to the Director of the Building Department. Pursue the Highway Department and I think what we would like to get back from the Highway Department in a memorandum to them and a separate one for each case so we can have a record to put in our file and therefore it would be a site specific request in these two instances to review,if there are any objections,the erection of a fence or the placement of shrubs within the easement. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other questions from Board members? He said my only concluding comment to Mr.Rosenstadt is that you may want think about the materials that your planning for your fence and they what I want to do is adjourn your application until next month. It is my sense that some of the Board members,myself included,are not crazy about a solid white material so large on the front yard. Mr.Wexler said he said he's not going to do it white. Mr.Rosenstadt said we're going to use wood,so it would be not white. It would be a natural,stained wood color. He said just so I understand the process, the Board is requesting from the Highway Department some kind of ruling or memorandum to that affect. Mr.Gunther said a comment about would they have a problem with the erection of a fence in your case directly behind shrubs that are on the easement. The reason for that is that my sense is that most of the Board members would not vote in favor of a 5 ft.fence on a front yard without sufficient material in front of it to draw a conclusion. Mr.Rosenstadt said will we be copied on that ruling prior to the hearing or is it presented to us Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 23 Mr.Gunther said we will get a copy of it at the next meeting. You can call Mr.Carpaneto to find out when he gets it back. I would think within the next couple of weeks,he will make the request of the Highway Department. I don't know how long it takes them to get back to him,but.... Mr.Rosenstadt said is the Highway Department coming back with an allowance of the bushes there is not necessarily a fait accompli or is that we defer the discussion in terms of the fence. Mr.Wexler said it leads to further discussion. Mr.Rosenstadt said if I put up a 4 ft.fence I would withdraw the application,because I have a feeling that this is going to go through the summer and I'm a little concerned about kids. It's going to play a role in my decision. Mr.Wexler asked,how old are your kids? Mr.Rosenstadt said two and five. Mr.Winick said we appreciate that you don't have the same protection that the Kramers do. Mr.Davis said the inquiry to the Highway Department has two parts to it. One is their response to putting the fence in behind the existing shrubbery and the other is the commitment to maintaining the replacement shrubbery. Mr.Wexler said no,it goes behind the existing fence because it's on his property. It's not the right-of- way. So that has nothing to do with it. Mr.Gunther said the fence would not be a problem. Mr.Davis said unless you want it screened in the future. What happens if something happens to that shrubbery? Mr. Winick said if the Highway Department that it's O.K. at this site for the home owner to plant shrubbery,it seems to me that it's O.K.to have shrubbery there. Then a condition to the grant of the variance that they maintain the existing condition all be it whether by maintaining the existing shrubbery or replacing it as needed that would then work against the remote possibility that the Highway Department later decides all that stuff has to come out for some reason. Then we have a bare fence. I don't know how realistic that is and that has a tremendous concern for me in that setting if you look at how that street looks. Academically you could make a further condition that the Highway Department,if for some reason doesn't allow it,then the fence has to be relocated to have screening in front of it. I don't know what the existing condition will be if you can start to imagine it without(?). It seems to me those are the two levels of inquiry on the two possibilities we can condition the variance. Ms.Rosenstadt asked,if we agree to that,would you be willing to make some kind of decision that we would move the fence for some reason if the Highway Department had to take the bushes out,we would move our fence back and plant new bushes. Then can we get something accomplished? Could we agree to that and have a wood fence that you like? We don't really care. Our kids are running into the street and teenagers zoom by that street. It's very dangerous and I don't know why we can't get something done now. It's a shame. Mr.Winick said with the ultimate condition being that if they can't maintain the shrubs in the right-of-way, they've got to relocate the fence and maintain the shrubs on their own property line. At that point,I think we have covered all possibilities no matter how unlikely. Mr.Davis said the only thing I would say is that you have to consider...you don't have to do anything with it. Maybe you want to consider the possibility of a condition like that in the future. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 24 Mr.Wexler said to a third party. Mr.Davis said no. It's one thing to have a condition which says you don't need to maintain the shrubbery there and therefore you can maintain the fence. If you're really worried about future,it may be hard to enforce moving the fence if the shrubbery ever comes out. You couldn't impose a condition. Mr.Gunther said it's self impacted. Mr.Davis said it's a question for you to think about. Mr.Winick said whether it's fifteen years and someone would do that,whether the Town would write the citation and enforce it. It's really not our department. Mr.Wexler said cut the fence down to 4 ft.and leave it in place. Mr.Winick said enforcement basically isn't our issue. It's the Building Department's consideration. Mr.Davis said consideration is the same condition as impractical. You shouldn't impose a...inaudible. Ms.Paul said the forsythia is like a weed. If you know anything about plants,it's do hard to kill it. It's so healthy. Nothing is going to happen. Mr.Winick said as you see we have three 5 ft.fence cases on tonight alone. These things sort of tend to build on one another. Mr.Wexler said they are all different. Mr.Winick said they are all different. I think the desirability that as a police matter,a police filed matter for later,maybe the Town in fifteen years the visibility changes and you don't want to enforce it yourself. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Winick, you seem to be anxiously anticipating moving down the direction ...inaudible. Mr.Winick said I'm not. I'm actually moving down the agenda. I'm guided by rule in how we deal with this application. Mr.Gunther asked,what is the difference in this case then it is with the prior,with regard to keeping comments from your Highway Department,and also in light of the Town Board's view of doing things on the right-of-way. Mr.Winick said what I understood our counsel chosen to say is that the Town Board's view is site specific so far. It seems to me there is no general position that the Town Board has taken. The distinction is why we could not have done it in the Kramer case,is because I didn't think of it. I think we can. We could have conditioned it on them moving their fence back in order to screen things on their own property if the Highway Department....inaudible. Mr.Wexler said that's what they offered to us. Mr.Winick said I just want to agree with you Arthur. The Kramer case is adjourned. They have a way Qof going forward. I think we can do this. Mr.Gunther said and the fence is up. Mr.Winick said if you asked me why procedurally we couldn't have done it,I think we could. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 25 Mr.Wexler said the last case they had a fence up with no screening. Here's a screen with no fence. They had the protection that they were seeking,so they keep giving us Old White Plains Road. This...inaudible does not have protection for their kids going on whatever the street is This gives them an opportunity to have that protection with the safeguard that if he cannot get that screening if he ever wanted to ...inaudible. They put the fence in. Between this month and next month if we find out next month that they cannot have the screening,they have to move the fence back. Is that right? Mr.Rosenstadt said move the fence back,I don't see that as the issue. The issue is the height of the fence. Mr.Wexler said to keep your height of fence at 5 ft. Mr.Rosenstadt said we're two front yards,so how can we possibly keep our height of 5 ft.,unless we have a variance? Mr. Wexler said no, if we granted a variance tonight,conditioned that if you cannot maintain that screening,and let's say the Town comes by and cuts it down tomorrow,if you put the fence up between today and tomorrow,you'll agree to move the fence back so you can put screening on your property to screen it. Mr.Rosenstadt said you're saying we can keep the 5 ft.fence,but move it back another level of screening. Ms.Rosenstadt said how far back does it have to go? Mr.Wexler said to maintain screening. Mr. Winick said far enough,so you will be able to maintain the screening. No one knows what the Highway Department will do. It just seems to be a last condition. After further discussion,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Harrington,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,Elizabeth Rosenstadt has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to erect a 5 ft.high fence in the front yard on the premises located at 16 Doris Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333,Lot 1187. The fence as proposed has a height of 5 ft.where 4 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in a front yard in an R-20 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 240-52A;and WHEREAS,Elizabeth Rosenstadt 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 I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 26 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 applicant proposes to put a 5 ft.fence on a front property line on Prince Willow. The need for that is the fact that their young children could go over the heavily trafficked street and in the absence of a fence there is nothing to prevent the children who are quite young from running out into the street. The additional height of the fence is such,because as the children get older they will be able to climb up off the fence. At present,there is in the Town owned right- of-way,in front of where the fence is located on Prince Willow,shrubbery in excess of the height of the proposed fence. The applicant has an obligation under the Town Law to maintain that shrubbery. B. The applicants could not achieve their goal without a variance. In order to put a fence at that height along the property line,a variance is required. C. The variance is not substantial. Although it is an additional foot on top of 4 ft., the impact will be mitigated by the fact that screening will be maintained as a condition of the variance. Q D. Because of the screening, the additional height of the fence will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. The applicant has told us that she intends to put up a natural wood fence, observe the 5 ft. height and will consider of the style called Detroit on the material submitted by the applicant. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants maintain the foliage they are required to do by law,but because screening C;) of the shrubbery in front of the fence where it will be located according to plans submitted to the Board and in the event that the Town Highway Department removes that shrubbery,for whatever reason,the applicant will undertake to continuing the 5 ft.fence, relocate that fence back away from the property line and if it's necessary to put an I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 27 equivalent screening on the applicant's own property. Equivalent screening will be shrubbery that on a year-round basis shields at least 80%of the surface area of the fence as it faces Prince Willow. The fence shall be of natural wood color. 2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Winick to provide a definition of what equivalent screening is,because in time what's there goes away. Mr. Winick said it appears to me from looking at the screening in the photographs submitted by the applicant,equivalent screening will be shrubbery that on a year-round basis screens 80%of the surface area of the fence as it faces Prince Willow. Mr.Gunther said in the picture that they provided,it appears that the whole fence will be screened. Mr.Winick said it has to grow up. Mr.Wexler said you can't see that way. You can't see at all. Your forsythia is bending over. Mr.Rosenstadt said there are plenty of holes. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any more comments from Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit. Mr.Gunther said be sure that the natural wood color to the material that is used is a wood fence,a natural wood color. Mr.Gunther said before we start this next case,a five minute recess is called. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2505 Application of T.J.and Lois Russo requesting a variance to construct a two-story family room and master bedroom addition on the premises located at 57 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115,Lot 530. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 ft. where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a),a total side yard of 13.2 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b),a total lot coverage of 39.9%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-38F;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. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 28 Joseph Messina said he is here to represent the application of Mr.&Mrs.Russo of 57 Valley Road for a two-story addition to the rear of their house to construct a family room and an enlarged master bedroom. I am not here for a fence variance. Mr.Messina said I'm sure you folks have visited the property. This is an unusual lot. It's a pie-shaped piece of property which is undersized to begin with and that's what really creates the need for the variances that are being requested here. Mr.Messina said with regard to the lot coverage,the existing lot is already 1.5%over and therefore it's 36.5(interference on tape),35%in coverage. Therefore,even though it appears that we're requesting a 39.9%where 35%is allowed,in fact we're moving from what exists at 36.5 to 39.9,a change of 3.4% of the existing lot coverage. We are a 6.1 where 10 ft.is required facing the house to the left. Facing the house to the right there is going to be maintained the existing 10 ft.setback,but the combined setback is 13.2 ft.where 20 ft.is required. Right now they've only got 16.8 ft. In fact,the change is only from 16.8 ft.to 13.2 ft.,a change of 3.6 ft. Mr.Messina said the family room that is being proposed is a relatively small size family room. Other homes in the neighborhood are larger to begin with. Additionally,just so the Board knows,the height of this two-story proposed addition is basically less than average,because the first floor has sunk about 2 ft. into the ground. We do take note,however,of one letter that we received a copy of from Mr.&Mrs. Russo's neighbors on the right facing the house,Mrs.Schanz,and I will say that the applicant is concerned and would like to address the concerns of their neighbors. Any legitimate concerns that the neighbors have raised,they are willing to address. In fact,I must state however that she's probably the least impacted of the neighbors on the side,because on her side the 10 ft.setback is being maintained. The other side of the house where the setback is going to be less than the 10 ft.and to my knowledge there has been no objection from that neighbor on the left. Mr.Messina said I would like to address a few of the statements made in Mrs.Schanz's letter and I made some notes so that I don't misquote her. I believe that she's made some statements which are not accurate and I would like to point them out to the Board. She says that there is no more than 10 ft.between her house and the Russo's house. In fact,there is at least 15 to 17 ft.as it exists now,and that's not going to change. She does say that the proposed addition will directly block site lines from both homes window, including glass,light and trees. For the angular site line from her windows currently allows her to look into my clients'back yard,except that it's already blocked by existing foliage. There is pretty dense foliage between the two properties right now. We do have some photos that we will show the Board of the foliage that exists between the properties. Mr.Messina said she also states that it would virtually eliminate the small amount of privacy in her back yard and her home. Right now the back yard is blocked by the foliage. That's not going to change. I don't know that I can call her back yard or ours very private to begin with,but if this is a concern and it's a legitimate concern that the applicant is willing to address additional foliage to protect the privacy of both of these yards. I don't see how the addition will impinge on her in-home privacy. As we all know, neighbors have windows on the sides of their homes already. The proposed addition only has one window on the side facing Mrs.Schanz and the architect will address if that is a concern,the possibility of a second story I'm talking about now,the second story window,that that second story window could possibly be moved to accommodate this privacy concern. Mr.Messina said I don't know that it's decreasing or improving my client's property would reduce the values of the property of the neighborhood. In fact,it's always been my opinion and my experience that when you improve the properties in the neighborhood,it actually increases the value especially in our community. I believe that Mrs.Schanz even acknowledges that the homes in this neighborhood are small to begin with and that they are on irregular sized lots. By adding this particular addition,I don't think we'd be changing the character of the neighborhoods at all. As a matter of fact,I think it's very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as it currently exists. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 29 Mr.Messina said that the letter also states that the side yard setback,the combined side yard setback, would be reduced from 16.8 ft.to 13.2 ft.,barely half of what is required. What is required is 20 ft. My calculation shows that that's not barely half,but it's more like 66%of the required combined setback and if you actually calculate the change from what exists the 16.8 to the proposed 13.2,it really is 80%of what already exists. She does mention that there would be a reduced rear yard setback but that's not an issue before this Board,because we don't require a variance for where the rear of the property to the proposed addition will be. It is in keeping with the Ordinances of the Town. Mr.Messina said right now her window views are of foliage and perhaps of our back yard. If she loses any view at all,it might be....inaudible our back and certainly I know she's concerned about the privacy of her own back yard. So I don't know why addressing her ability to look into our back yard would be any more of an issue. Certainly privacy should exist on both sides. I believe that the architect here has done a superlative job of trying to fit an addition into a very strange shaped piece of property in order to provide them with the ability to have their family grow and to remain in our community. I don't think there is any way that we could change the reconfiguration of this proposed addition,but I will say that the applicants want to be good neighbors and will work to address the concerns of all of their neighbors for anything that raised that is of concern. With that I would like to ask the architect to address any issues with regard to the proposed addition and I would also like to show the Board some photographs that were taken. These were of the existing back yard and views of the property and foliage that exists between the two yards as exists right now. There are three sets of pictures,two on each page. I believe you have larger pictures,so that you'll be able to see them on this board and also have copies to look at also. John Knoetgen asked if there were any questions. Mr.Gunther said while the photographs are being viewed,he asked if Mr.Knoetgen got a copy of the letter from Caroline and David Silverstone. Mr.Knoetgen said he did not,at which time Mr.Gunther gave him a copy. Mr.Gunther said I was at the property today. The metal posts that were stuck in the grass with string around it,does that represent where the addition will be? Mr.Messina said that's correct. Mr.Gunther said I should have paced it off myself,but..inaudible. He asked,was there something you wanted to go through? Mr.Knoetgen said if you'd like I'll walk you through it. Mr.Gunther said if there are people in the audience that are interested in this application to move forward so you can see. This goes for any application. Anytime anyone presents new material,please feel free to move up so you can see. Mr.Knoetgen said you are familiar with the assessment map and my clients are familiar with the survey. Mr. Wexler said your calculations for the coverage into the old walkways,driveways, covered areas, buildings,patios,with which Mr.Knoetgen agreed. Mr.Knoetgen said the addition you see is going directly into the rear of the house. I teased off a portion © of it,so you could see here the outline of the addition coming out just under 15 ft. Looking at the left side elevation,the addition is this portion;two windows for the master bedroom,two windows for the family room and on a 45 degree angle to another window likewise on the other side. On the right side again there are two windows which will be the family room level four steps up to a gravel patio in the back and a single window is the family room which we're willing remove or move to another place to provide privacy. In the rear we have a triple unit,a cathedral ceiling in the master bedroom and...inaudible. Through all, Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 30 we tried to keep the pitch of the house through the same...inaudible elements from the existing house and this part of the addition in the same character of the neighborhood. Mr.Wexler asked,what happened to that ridge line on the existing..inaudible,at the lower right-hand elevation? It sticks up in the front. Mr.Knoetgen said it's actually shifted off the front. You have the same thing that happened in here as well,you see portions of the side of the gables. Looking at the first floor entry into a portico,usually a portico is covered into a hallway and then their living room and we walk down the hallway to an existing kitchen and existing breakfast area which we are widening and giving a little space in the dining room. We're keeping a door out to the patio from the breakfast area and then the new entrance into the family room is off that breakfast area. We really tried to keep the addition to the right to get that direct access without passing through the dining room. Mr. Knoetgen said upstairs,as you come up the stairs,right now there is an existing sitting area and bedroom. It's mostly under the roof,a short knee wall,a short ceiling in the hall enlarges that master bedroom over the addition to give them a normal size addition and in turn it increased the bathroom almost doubled the size of the bathroom. Mr.Wexler asked,how many square feet? Thought the building area is 2,457? Mr.Knoetgen said minus the....inaudible,just under 2,000 sq.ft. Mr.Wexler said and you're proposing? Mr.Knoetgen said it's 2,457,so we're adding 502 sq.ft. He said there is really no other place to put an addition that works for the house for that particular room they want to add. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr.Wexler asked,when did you realize that you need a variance? Mr.Knoetgen said when I started to lay out the family room and I couldn't get a decent size. Mr.Wexler said and you felt to take the plans this far,to almost completion for this,without a variance in hand. Mr.Knoetgen said I would say I'm probably half way done. Mr. Wexler asked, have you looked at any alternatives on how to achieve your clients needs without seeking an area variance? Mr.Knoetgen said we did look at fitting in a rectangle within the setbacks. The rooms would be small for a family room. Mr.Winick said do you recall what the size of that room was? Mr.Knoetgen said the size of the room is 250 sq.ft. Mr.Winick said within the setback,what was the size of the room? Mr.Knoetgen said,I don't recall. Mr.Winick asked,what's the current use of the attic in this house? I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 31 Mr.Knoetgen said it's not being used. It's used for storage,if anything. It's a pull down stair and a 2 by 4 framing for the ceiling. Mr.Winick said,so it would have to be built up. Mr.Knoetgen said yes and also the remaining space where we put a knee wall. It's not much width. Mr. Winick asked, did you consider whether you could dormer the attic in order to get the addition ...inaudible. Mr.Knoetgen said we did talk about it,but we felt that it was too much work to actually reframe the whole ceiling,not enough headroom,not enough width. Mr.Winick said even if you dormered the attic? Mr.Knoetgen said dormering was discussed. There was an issue of getting a stair up there and it was decided not to go that route. It would be too remote from the kitchen and the family room up in the attic. As well as we would have to build down the ceiling to get the insulation in. It really didn't leave Mr.Gunther said third floor additions,you have to get all sorts of....inaudible. Mr.Wexler said not in the National Building Code..inaudible three stories are not supposed...inaudible. Ms.Harrington asked,and what about the basement? Mr.Knoetgen said the basement is a 7 ft.ceiling,it's doubled walled and there is really no space. It's very chopped up. Half the house,there's only crawl space. The other portion is actually a garage. Mr.Winick said so if you opened up all of the spaces you could in the basement,but not including the garage. After further discussion,Mr.Knoetgen said it's about half way of basement space. It's not possible there. A.J.Russo,the architect,addressed the Board. He said there's a washer/dryer downstairs. There's an above-ground oil tank in there,the boiler. Any space that is there is pretty well already spoken for. Mr.Wexler said there's a lot of bulk in the smallest portion of your property. You are letting the house grow into the vortex of the...inaudible,really at a detriment to the property and property around,at least as a 2'h story structure. Definitely there's a lot of bulk going on. Mr.Knoetgen said I don't know any other place to add a family room adjacent to the kitchen. Mr.Winick said if you decide the problem that way,there isn't with the bedroom on the first floor. This can end up as a four bedroom house? Mr.Knoetgen said no,it will still be a three bedroom house. After further discussion,Mr.Wexler asked,it's 8 by what,4 ft.? OMr.Knoetgen said remember there's a portion of the ceiling that slopes, It's not all... Mr.Wexler said if you didn't have that,I assume you might be able to reconfigure the bedroom to come into that sitting area,eliminate the sitting area. I don't what the structure...inaudible You could stay within your setbacks to minimize the structure in the rear of the house I Zoning Board June 26,2002 • Page 32 Cs) Mr.Knoetgen said what would it be based on the first floor? Mr.Wexler said the first floor room has a...inaudible a certain height,the second floor has a bulk of the ...inaudible then you have to put a roof on top and that has the bulk of 2'h to 3 stories in height. You're putting three stories in height in the back of this house,in this little,tiny triangle of land that it's on,it's really small. How could you minimize that? How large if the family room? Mr.Knoetgen said the family room is 17 ft.by 17 ft. Mr.Wexler said 141/2 by 17 ft. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members, before I open it up to he public? He informed Mr.Messina that he will come back to him later. Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions or comments from the public on this application? Danielle Schanz,the person who submitted the letter,addressed the Board. She said it was referred to by Mr.Messina. I live at 26 Glen Road with my two children,Luke who is 8 years old and my daughter, who is 12 years old. I appreciate all the offers that Mr.Russo has made about screening and moving windows. Unfortunately,screening doesn't screen a two story addition. I'm glad you corrected the record about Caroline Silverstone's letter. She's the neighbor to my right who submitted the letter. The neighbors to the left of Mr.Russo,....inaudible submitted an objection. I think the reason they didn't is because I saw moving vans there today. They have sold their home and are moving out today. The new neighbors,the people who are moving in,probably don't know about this addition. In terms of how the O neighbors feel about this addition,I think it's pretty unanimous that it is going to destroy the neighborhood as we know it. Ms. Schanz said it sounds like this is a beautiful addition. The Russos would like to have a family playroom and they would like a bigger bedroom. It sounds like the house doesn't fit their needs anymore. That's unfortunate,but the house that they want to build is completely inappropriate or the neighborhood and for this lot. If the house no longer suits their needs as it is and you can't reconfigure it by using the basement or even the attic,then maybe it's time to look for a new house. Extending the house in a way they propose to extend it,will just destroy the neighborhood. It will destroy my views from my back yard, it will destroy my privacy. I think it will reduce my property value,because when I bought my house I enjoyed looking into the Russo's,it wasn't the Russo's then,it was someone else,but I enjoyed looking into that back yard and the back yard of Caroline Silverstone because it is an extension of my back yard. It gave me light,it gave me air,it gave me space,it gave me greenery. I am now going to be completely in the shade. I submitted pictures,and I'm sure you can see it from the pictures that I have very little grass in my back yard because it's very dark and it's very difficult to grow anything there. This is going to substantially cut down on any light that I have in the back yard. Because of privacy,I know what it means to be in a second story and peer into my neighbor's room. I can see Caroline Silverstone sitting in her couch reading a book every night from my bedroom. She's in her living room. I'm in my bedroom. I think the possibility that on my other side I'll have my neighbors in their bedroom looking down into my kitchen or into my office or into my living room and seeing what I'm doing late at night. It's not how it was when I bought the house and I don't think that it's appropriate to extend and change the neighborhood to such a degree. Ms.Schanz said we have rules in place,the zoning rules. They say if a house if nonconforming,don't allow it to become more nonconforming. Ms.Schanz said the rules are in place to protect the public. It may become at a cost to an individual,but they should be upheld. They should be enforced. If you grant this variance,what if I want to extend this into my back yard and what if Caroline wants to extend it to hers. It could become no neighborhood as we know it. She said,I,our neighbors,the T.J.Russos,are very nice people. I really did want to object to their addition,it's a beautiful addition,but I feel that it comes at too high a price to demand and....inaudible my style of life and my home. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 33 Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public on this application. Robert Viner,of 5 East Avenue,Larchmont,New York,acting as an advisor to Ms.Schanz,addressed the Board. Just to address a couple of points,obviously the Board here has to make a tough decision,a policy decision,on whether or not a private owner ought to be able to improve their property and invest in a piece of real estate which is a good thing for everybody in the community. However,the logical extension of permitting this kind of nonconformity would be to allow all kinds of additions,whether it be we have to make clear to you that every one inch of an addition on the back of this house would increase the density and the coverage of the property. As Ms.Schanz said,this is the postage stamp sized lot. There's 6,000 sq.ft. I believe in Larchmont,without taking a scientific survey,one will find'that in many neighborhoods,properties of a quarter of an acre or half and acre or a third of an acre where fully this is less than one-sixth of an acre. The coverage,which is at currently beyond the 35%limit that is permitted,I believe the number was something like 361/2 already,I believe that Mr.Messina said that they increase is only an additional 3%of the coverage. That's one way of looking at the mathematics. Another way of looking at the mathematics is that the increase is 350%of the overage. If the overage is 11/2 points over 35 points,and this is 41/2 or 5 points,you're talking about a 350%increase in the land coverage. That's without taking into account what I understand the Town is considering which is a floor area ratio type of policy which regulates density. Here as one of the Board members,Mr.Wexler said,you've got a substantial incursion into what is a very small back yard. If you look at that picture,you'll see that the aesthetically pleasing addition,nobody is following the aesthetics of it,but the size of the increase,if you look at the extension of the house versus what is available to the remain of the back yard,is very,very substantial. If you look at the surrounding properties on your surveys on the surrounding properties,you'll see the back setbacks of the house looking into what is functionally a circle,because there's pie-shaped lots that form a circle, and that's where the Silverstone's separate garage that sits there in the back, is a Q nonconforming prior use. There's a circle of greenery,a circle of park-like setting,there's grass,there's trees,there's shrubbery and if you look at the house,the Silverstone house,the Schanz house,the Russo house,the people who have departed as of today and the people behind,you'll see a certain pattern that is fairly regular,almost like the setback at the front of the house on Valley Road or Glen Road where setbacks are somewhat regulated. You can't see that from the street,but there is a certain pattern. The equilibrium of the actual little enclave is destroyed by this expansion. I think when I'm speaking to a Town before Willy Hilly allowing variances to the zoning laws that would allow this kind of increase,think about the equilibrium,think about your own neighborhoods,think about what this does to an area that already had nonconforming uses in it. Mr.Gunther asked if there is anyone else from the public who wishes to make a statement. Ms.Harrington said when I was there today,the moving trucks were there. The house really is now vacant next door. From my point of view,it's an awful lot of addition to squeeze into that back yard. If it wasn't that shape,if the houses weren't so close together,if they were just putting a deck on,even if it's one story,but to me this is going to looming over the other people's property. I think it will block light and air. Mr.Gunther said the letter that was addressed to the Board from Caroline Silverstone of 22 Glenn Road, says,"I am writing with regard to the variance requested by the owners of 57 Valley Road,which request I understand will come before you very soon. In principle,I am very much opposed to permitting owners to enlarge the footprint of their homes at the expense of reasonable side and rear yard setbacks. Lack of opposition sometimes led past Zoning Boards to grant variances where hindsight shows that it was a mistake. I believe this trend should be halted. The application before you would,I believe,negatively affect the value of surrounding Glenn,Valley and Spruce Road properties because of lose of privacy,light, etc. My backyard at 22 Glenn is extremely close to the back yard at 57 Valley because of the pie-shaped nature of the lots. At the rear corner I can move from my property across 26 Glenn and onto 57 Valley literally with one step. When there are people socializing or children playing in the back yard of 57 Valley,I can hear everything they say. Extending the 57 Valley house as proposed,will make the sound transmission more pronounced. I will see the addition and it will make our yards feel much more cramped. The requested variances will considerably increase the degree to which the property fails to conform to the I Zoning Board June 26,2002 • Page 34 0 zoning code. For that and the reasons mentioned above,I urge you to reject the application for variances at 57 Valley Road." Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other comments from Board members? Mr.Winick said I have a question. Could you walk me through the first and second floor...inaudible. Mr.Knoetgen said the entrance is through the portico,up the steps,which would be front left of the house. Going through the portico,which is really exterior,steps into the house where the hall is,to the right is the living room where you go down a hallway to the stair which goes up or you go straight into the dining room or you make a right into the kitchen. The kitchen currently has a breakfast area which is very narrow. Next to that is the dining room. That is the first floor. Mr.Knoetgen said you come up the stairs.... Mr.Winick said as I understood your problem,the reason that you're out as far as you are to the right of your addition is because of the desire to have a hallway...inaudible rather than require the entrance into one of those existing rooms into the addition. Mr.Knoetgen said on the first floor we widened the breakfast area,so that there could be a corner space to walk directly into the family room so that we didn't have to walk into the dining room. You bypassed the dining room. That door width really sets the right wall of the addition. (;)' Mr.Winick said that what drove the wall closer to the house. Mr.Knoetgen said it drove it closer to the right. That set up that line...inaudible about 2 ft.from the side of the dining room which is already about that length(?). Ms.Harrington said did you consider opening up the dining room,the breakfast area,putting up some type of a half wall. Mr.Knoetgen said they were looking for a formal dining room,with a clean separation between the two rooms. Mr.Winick said the sitting room is on the second floor,is part of the existing condition. Mr.Knoetgen said yes. Mr.Winick said is that what currently is used as a bedroom? Mr.Knoetgen said yes,a substandard bedroom. An existing master bath room,which I wouldn't really call a master bath room,is pretty small under the roof line. Mr.Winick said where there's a hall bath that serves bedroom 2 and bedroom 3,with which Mr.Knoetgen agreed. Mr.Winick asked for the dimensions of said rooms. Mr.Knoetgen said.about 8 ft.3'h in.by approximately 11. Mr.Winick said O.K.and thanked Mr.Knoetgen. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Messina if there is anything else he wanted. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 35 Mr.Messina said I just would like to address a couple of points. As we presented to the Board,there are about six or seven properties that kind of surround this back yard area. I do understand Ms.Schanz's concern,but when she stated that she made an objection and Mrs.Silverstone made an objection,she went on to say,so it is therefore unanimous that everybody in the neighborhood objects to this particular project. I don't know about the people,who are moving out next door,but even if we assumed that they might have some objection,it still leaves four of the seven property owners surrounding this that haven't objected. The other statement that was made that there are rules in place and we should follow those rules. If that was the case,there would never be a variance. There wouldn't be a need for your board. The reason for your board is to look at those rules and to determine when they shouldn't be allowed to dictate. Therefore, following the rules is one thing,but it's also important to know that the rules are not there simply to be opposed. Other than that,I know this is a difficult project. I hope you give it the proper consideration. I don't think that Ms.Schanz's statement that if the house no longer suits them they should move rather than try to improve it,I think that there should be some way to try to make this work for the applicants. Thank you. T.J.Russo addressed the Board. He said one I think calling that upstairs bedroom a sitting room is kind of a misnomer and implies that there is a lot of excess space. There really isn't up there. The intention of that room is to really use it more as a home office. The second bedroom,the middle bedroom,is used as that now and it's our hope to convert that into a functioning bedroom. To remove the office furniture that's in there and put it into what's now our existing bedroom. The quarters in that bedroom are very tight as they are primarily because of the slant of the roof. When I get in and out of bed in the morning, I have to duck my head so that I don't pop myself on the roof there. Mr.Russo said as far as moving,other neighbors of ours directly across the street from us are realtors.O My wife goes out to see houses,like I go out and play golf. She is constantly going out there. I kid her that that's a hobby with her and I go along with her on many opportunities to see houses. I don't have to tell you what the housing market has done in the past couple of years. Houses in our neighborhood when we moved into the neighborhood were$300,000/$400,000 are now$700,000,$800,000,$900,000,even a million dollars. Mr.Russo said our hope is really two things. One,we love our house,we love our street,the convenience to Murray. My son is six years old. He just finished first grade yesterday. He walks to school every day with my wife,his mom,coming and going. Our objective was simply to make the house somewhat more comfortable for us by adding on a family room and enhancing the bedroom as well,so that we have a little bit more living space up in the bedroom,have a little of a larger bathroom up there. Just to make the house as comfortable as possible,because moving for us is really not an option. We're not considering leaving the area and stay within the six blocks or so that we've become so familiar with of our current home. We just haven't found anything that makes sense for us. Danielle Schanz addressed the Board. Ms.Schanz said I wanted to make two points. The rules should be enforced, but they also particularly should be enforced in this situation because the spirit and the intention of the rules are so applicable to this situation. The rules are designed to protect space,light,air • and privacy. That's what I feel would be protected by enforcing the rules and not granting the variance. The second point is that it is a wonderful neighborhood,but it's a neighborhood of small homes and this small home next to me,57 Valley,I know several families who have raised children there and lived there with more than one child. It works for other families. I don't think this is the same situation as the fence. The fence is for safety issue. This is a luxury issue. It's a luxury for one and not for the other. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other comments. There were none. Mr.Gunther said I'll just share my view. I think the applicant's desire to add value and add space to his home is admirable. I've certainly done it. Many people in Town do it all the time. However,the location where you're trying to do it,I certainly have a problem with it and that is because there is so little space in the rear of your property. It is a monumental challenge to try and accommodate you or anybody in such a small area. I'd love to be able to have you accomplish what you need,but without going over or going 1 Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 36 beyond your agreeable setback problem. It would be taking away so much of what precious little space you have back there now. It's unfortunate that your house isn't on a hill,isn't a front 9'h ft.up from your property line or you have more space so that you can...inaudible. But the fact of the matter is it is a pie- shaped lot. You're way below of the setback in an already small space. The zoning for your house is R- 7.5,which means you should have 7,500 sq.ft. Unfortunately,you have a...inaudible,so for that reason I really can't support your application as presented. Other Board members may comment as well. Mr.Winick said I should stay basically in agreement with Mr.Gunther...I want to say something first.... with the neighbors involved it's a difficult thing because the applicant's counsel has pointed out silence does not accept this world where people continually come to us after something has been granted and say I never knew about it,I didn't hear about it. It's a nice argument,but that's really not what life is here nor is this a popularity contest. While we listen to the objections you've stated,there are policies made at the latest Board meeting steps I think in a sort of perpetual zoning laws that the Town counsel...inaudible that we have to apply and we do apply sometimes in the face of unanimous agreement by neighbors because quick decision of the average life of someone living in a house is still about six years. It's not my experience and probably not many of ours that people who are staying five are packing the next day. I appreciate everybody's concern here. I think that a 2,500 sq.ft.house on this lot is just not possible. You can really see, when you look at the site plan at the zoning map, there really is an unbroken building line that preserves light and air in the back yard. I frankly sit back there when I saw you Mr.Russo and I just couldn't figure out how you could put this much mass back there without ruining everybody elses back yard. I do think that's the case. Mr.Winick said I think you have some alternatives. They're not perfect,but you're an undersized lot and © frankly the alternatives may have to do. I do not hear from your architect....I think that what happened here and often happens here is there's an ideal design and that's the one you want to go with of course. It is possible by putting it,you need another bedroom,if you go up an put something in an attic it might not be the right size,it may not be perfect but that preserves a second floor sitting room as a public space and you still add an extra bedroom that way. I know,it's not down where you want it. I think having a formal dining room and a breakfast room in a house on this size lot is a real stretch. It's very,very difficult. That's a big footprint house for Larchmont. They come in about an...inaudible size and then there's Pryor Manor Lane. This is sort of the littlest sized house and to get all of those bedrooms ...inaudible it is extremely difficult. I think there are compromises that can be made that would give you part of it and would stay in the zoning envelope. I don't think I can support this application....inaudible. Mr. Winick said I think the impact on your neighbors and that is really the crux of our...inaudible, weighing the impact that benefits against the impact on your neighbors. In this case,I'm afraid I come down in saying that the impact on your neighbors is too great for this whole addition. Mr.Gunther asked,any other comments? Ms.Harrington said I agree totally. I think that some compromise has to be made. You're not going to get the kind of house that you want on this lot certainly not with the drawings that are before us. I wouldn't be fair to the neighbors. I think it would impact them adversely. Mr.Wexler said...inaudible would be happy with a lot that is oversized in the front for an R-7.5 Zone, terribly undersized in the rear and you're putting all the addition in the rear. Mr.Russo said it is my understanding we couldn't expand to the front,because of the setbacks. Q Mr.Wexler said no,...inaudible it's much larger than you have in the rear. From the rear and from front, less that you have...inaudible it has to be solved gracefully with the house_you have a large buildable area within the setbacks on the side of the house in that area. The fact of the matter is the portion you have that large in the front area under the new proposed law that the Town is thinking about,the FAR Law,you meet the FAR Law in your proposal. You have 2571.3 sq.ft.that you can build at.4 on your Zoning Board June 26,2002 • Page 37 lot. You chose to put this in the rear of your house which is really the smallest area the...inaudible one of those few parcels of land that maybe you can't successfully put an addition on. Mr.Wexler said I live down the block living on 17 Valley Road. It's probably the smallest house in the neighborhood and we put an addition on the back. It was a rectangular piece of property. It wasn't a pie shape. Mr.Gunther asked if someone would care to make a resolution citing the balancing task.... Mr.Winick said with a great deal of regret,I will do it. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following application was DENIED unanimously, 4-0. WHEREAS,T.J.and Lois Russo have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a two-story family room and master bedroom addition on the premises located at 57 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115,Lot 530. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 38 B(2)(a),a total side yard of 13.2 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b),a total lot coverage of 39.9%where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-38F;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;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 240-38 B(2)(a),Section 240-38B(2)(b),Section 240-38F,Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,T.J.and Lois Russo 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. Weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted,I move that the Board DENY the application for a variance. In support of that motion,the Board makes the following findings: A. This is an undersized lot in an R-7.5 Zone District where there is a proposal to add to a 2,500 sq. ft.house. The lot is unusually shaped,pie-shaped. The addition is proposed to the rear of the lot where the property narrows sharply. It's almost surrounded by other pie-shaped lots. Essentially these houses curve around Valley and Glen creating a very,very tight back yard. Because of this, going outside of the zoning envelope by way of variance would create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood by creating a detriment to the nearby properties. That outweighs the benefit to the applicant. B. There are alternatives within the house for the applicant to get some of the uses that they seek by the application. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 • Page 38 C. There's at least a suggestion that the attic could be used for part of the use which would free up space currently used which was described as a sitting room for that kind of use as a family room. Granted it's not where the applicant wants within the house,but it is on balance satisfactory. D. It would create too many detriments to nearby properties. E. The variance is quite substantial. It's an already nonconforming property and the increment is very substantial where used on how this addition would be sited on the land,in relation to the other properties. F. This is not a self-created difficulty,obviously. This is an oddly shaped lot,a pie-shaped lot,where the applicant simply bought this house and is trying to expand it. The Board feels,however,that the addition would impose too much on the neighbors. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that for those reasons,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. Mr.Messina said,Mr.Winick,I would like to just make a comment to you when you made a comment O to me about the fact that balance is not approval. I didn't intend to state that because it is a....inaudible approval, I was really just combatting the statement you said that there was unanimous objection. I certainly understand your point. Thank you. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2506 Application of James and Jerry Mallet requesting a variance to convert a screened porch to a sun room on the premises located at 7 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 467. The sun room as proposed has a front yard of 20.2 ft.where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(1)for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. James Fleming,the architect for the Mallets. He said it's actually Janice and Jerry Mallet,it's a typo correction. Mr. Fleming said this particular job was kind of a surprise, to myself included. When I went to the Building Department to pull out the file to see what could be done to their kitchen a ten year old drawing of my own fell out of the file that I forgot about where before the Mallets had bought the house,something upstairs had to be legalized and determined. Usually a title search turns that stuff up. I'm surprised it didn't turn this up too,so it was kind of a surprise to be here tonight. Mr. Fleming said with that said, the Mallets would like to just put better windows in to this existing screened,enclosed porch which was on the very original drawings from the'20's,just a postage(?)porch with a side stone terrace. As you can see in the pictures,the roof is part of the original structure and the original drawings show the roof coming down,as shown in the xerox photos in the package. These are drafty,and loose fitting and they could replace them with screens. It was really just timed with the kitchen renovations to fix them up into what we hope is a better looking version of what is there know. As you see in the drawing it is just a straight run casement windows that fit inside the columns. Mr.Wexler said we don't have that drawing. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 39 Mr.Fleming said there are small versions of that. Mr.Gunther said the appropriate portion of the deck,with which Mr.Fleming agreed. Mr.Wexler asked,do you have a number of your house? Mr.Mallet said 7 Dundee. They are putting it in now. Mr.Winick asked,how long has this present use been going on. Mr.Fleming said I personally know it was about eleven or twelve years since I did that first thing,but it was there since the Mallets bought it. THERE'S A TERRIBLE NOISE RECORDED ON TAPE,INTERFERING WITH CLARITY! Someone(?)said,....It was there in 1991. Mr.Fleming said,I would say a great deal more than that. They would just like to fill in. Basically what's there doesn't change anything on the street or mass. It's well screened from Mohegan. It's just unfortunate that is the corner lot and needs to pull just the front yard setbacks in and this was affected by that. Mr.Wexler asked,how many square feet on your property? Mr.Fleming said about 1,500 sq.ft. It's only two stories over one part of it. Mr.Wexler said it's 21/2 stories over the one part,then a story over the garage. Mr.Fleming said and the there's a dormer that comes out where it says study. After some discussion regarding the square footage,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none. Mr.Gunther then asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were 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 Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Janice and Jerry Mallet have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to convert a screened porch to a sun room on the premises located at 7 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 467. The sun room as proposed has a front yard of 20.2 ft.where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(1)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 240-36 B(1);and I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 40 WHEREAS,Janice and Jerry Mallet 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. This will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties,because it is already existing. Actually,it's an improvement putting in new windows to be presentable and conserve heat in the space; B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative which doesn't involve an area variance. As stated,it is already existing. The only reason a variance is needed is because of the side yard being considered a front yard. C. It is not a substantial variance. The porch,without the new windows,is already there. D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It is already there. It is being spruced up. E. There is no self-created difficulty,because it's already there. 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. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 41 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 permit. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2507 Application of Mary Stein requesting a variance to install a fence in the front yard on the premises located at 104 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118,Lot 265. The fence as proposed has a height of 5 ft.where 4 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in the front yard in an R-7.5 Zone District. James Fleming is present to represent Mary Stein who lives at 104 North Chatsworth. Mr.Fleming said I have some photographs here which show the corner in question from different angles,marked exhibit#1. Mr.Fleming said the property itself is on North Chatsworth Avenue and Glen Road,the Mediterranean house right on the corner. They have patios on the back which is really the point of why they would like the fence up,and pointed out the outdoor space for this house. It's a really exposed condition when you're out there and I have had personal experience that when you're in the yard you're in kind of a fishbowl life. What the problem is,the owner would like to get relief from is that with the three roads coming into it and also Maplewood coming up this way,the lights that come into the room there and the porch make it very uncomfortable to be out and they're kind of mitigate this in some fashion when the lights are up close. It's not so much of a problem when you're way down the street,but when they're coming around and turning it does shine light on this area and into the house at night actually. Mr.Fleming said that's why they're asking for this 5 ft.fence in lieu of the 4 ft.required in the front yard. Mr.Fleming said this interior lot line here,comes back behind the houses here and you can see in this picture from Maplewood,I've drawn an approximate 5 ft.fence over the same picture. You can see that there isn't too much of an affect as you stood up,up Maplewood. It will with the lights of the cars up close. Mr.Wexler asked,this fence is going on what site of the shrubbery? Mr.Fleming said on the inside of the shrubbery which is there already. It's about a 3 ft.hedge that surrounds that area and this will be on the inside of that on their property line which is in from the interrupted. Mr.Wexler said can they trim the top of those current hedges? Mr.Fleming said I guess they do. I just assume that they do it. Mr.Wexler asked,why don't they just let their hedges grow? They grow really nice and tall. Mr.Fleming said that I couldn't answer you directly. They're trying to get a solid wall there. After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said that intersection is so wide open that any intrusion of a solid mass of wall is such a powerful...interrupted. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 42 O Mr.Fleming said that's the two-edged sword of why we're here. It is very open and it is very open to this property. That 1 ft.really is felt by the owner that it will mitigate some of the problems up close. The fact that it is a wide open corner with really no visibility on the road diminished,that's why they're asking for it. Mr.Winick said they can achieve the same affect with natural screening or if they are required that the current hedge to grow 2 ft.to cover the fence. Mr.Fleming said as you'll see it's not just Glen Road. That's really almost not the immediate problem. This open section here from Maplewood as you approach it,neMs to....inaudible in there. There's no hedge there already. Mr.Gunther said there are some shrubs towards the back that are there,where your index finger is now. Mr.Fleming said that's on the other guys property. Mr.Gunther said there's no reason why this homeowner can do exactly the same thing to enclose along that whole area there to enclose it. There are lots of properties in the Town that have hedges from 5 ft. This one across the way from you that is 12 ft.and it's green twelve months a year. Mr.Fleming said is that allowed to use shrubbery that height? Mr.Winick said yes...inaudible. Mr.Wexler said how about the inside of the intersection. Mr.Fleming said I do believe...interrupted. Mr.Wexler said you are far enough from the intersection to do that. Mr.Gunther said,Mr.Fleming,the other thing I was going to mention is that I was there...inaudible in the rain and drove all around that whole area and there are no other 5 ft.frontal fences on the corners. Mr.Wexler said it's not the best point...inaudible,because it's so wide open. I'm saying you could grow shrubbery there as high as you want which is not actually by definition on the corner. Mr.Winick said if you want to see the impact of this....interrupted. Mr.Wexler asked,is that correct Ron,30 ft.off the corner? Mr.Carpaneto said you'd have to make it 32 ft.off the corner Mr.Fleming said 30 ft.is right at the house,along the edge of the house. Mr.Gunther said....inaudible 30 ft.of a full size shrub. Mr.Wexler said you're proposing on the black line to come down 55 ft.from that corner lot. He said 30 ft.from the corner brings you only to here. Here means,your 10 ft.setback from the front..inaudible. He said 10 ft.beyond is where the 30 ft.line comes. You have much more than 55 ft.of an area that you can put in shrubbery,is that right? Mr.Fleming said this is a different survey. Mr.Wexler said what I'm saying is that from the intersection you have to maintain shrubbery,a fence at 3 ft.high. Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 43 Mr.Fleming said that corner isn't...interrupted. Mr.Wexler said what I'm saying is you can grow as much shrubbery as you want all along here as high as you want. Mr.Fleming said the landscaping is also cost factor here. The fence costs X-amount,landscaping you know goes way up from the...inaudible,especially bushes at...inaudible height. Mr.Gunther asked,any comments from the public on these applications? There were none. Mr.Gunther asked,any other comments from Board members? Mr.Wexler said the sense of the Board was that this portion of the fence should be screened,certainly in a front yard. Do you want to speak to the owner about this,before we make any decision? Mr.Fleming said I certainly would. I can withdraw it. Mr.Wexler said don't withdraw it. Mr.Fleming said I would just would like to say in terms of the 4 ft.and 5 ft.fence,the 5 ft.fence does help the property owner while from the outside the 4 ft.fence and the 5 ft.fence really do give the same impression Mr.Gunther was talking about,so they're not so much concerned about the safety or anything like that. It's just the benefit to the owner is definitely higher. Mr.Wexler said it's a benefit to the applicant,if you put shrubs there. It does say concrete road. If that goes beyond the 5 ft.,if it goes to 6 ft.or 7 ft.it will help that area. It will be much more private. Their patio really is about 3 degrees above grade. If it's a 5 ft.,you'd be on your knees already. Mr.Fleming said that's what I said at the beginning,it's not the cars far away,it's the cars right there. Mr.Wexler said it's still feasible....inaudible. Mr.Gunther said is most of the usage,most of the concern about usage on the patio. Mr.Fleming said yes. Mr.Gunther said the patio represents a much smaller area than 55 ft.of fence on Glen and 28 ft.of fence on the other side of the property,where a small number of plants or shrubs planted around the patio. Mr.Fleming said it hasn't been not thought of and that was original work. At this point I would like to adjourn it,because obviously there is something that I have to talk about. Unfortunately,she cannot be here tonight. I'd like to adjourn it until the next meeting. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case N2507 be,and hereby is,adjourned at the applicant's request to the July 23,2002 Zoning Board meeting. Mr.Wexler asked,can you see if your sister can come that night? It might be helpful. Mr.Fleming said yes. The Secretary read the application as follows: Zoning Board June 26,2002 • Page 44 0 APPLICATION NO.9-CASE 2508 Application of Lorelle Phillips requesting a variance to legalize an existing study on the premises located at 200 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115,Lot 429. The study as built has a front yard of 27.7 ft.where 30 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Frank Marcella,the architect that prepared the existing conditions drawings,addressed the Board. He said unfortunately,Lorelle wasn't able to attend. Basically she made me aware of this condition. They were selling the house and it came up. I guess there was a search done. He said basically the existing footprint roof line did not change. At some point Lorelle's parents bought the house in 1952. She recalled that always being the study. They didn't convert that space. I believe it was done sometime between 1941 when the house was built to 1952 when they bought the house. Mr.Marcella said I do have a copy of the existing drawings,if you would like to take a look at them, which basically are pretty clear and they show the existing roof line and foundation basically between that ten year period the previous owner must have put in a few double-hung windows, they ran heat and insulated the interior. I took a look at the foundation and it's absolutely original and continuous with the rest of the house. Mr.Gunther asked,is this house being sold? Mr.Marcella said yes,I believe they closed on it a few weeks ago. Mr.Gunther asked,is Lorelle Phillips the new owner? Mr.Marcella said no,she inherited it. Her mom passed away about six months ago. She and her sisters inherited the house and they just sold it. They're in contract. After some discussion,Mr.Davis said if it's contractor vendor obviously. If it's after the sale..inaudible. Mr.Davis asked,do you know whether they closed. Mr.Marcella said I don't know,they may have. I do thought they were going to put money in escrow and try to resolve this matter. Mr.Carpaneto said I think the deal is pretty much done. It's just that we didn't find out for months on the sale. Mr. Davis said you don't have the authority to grant a variance for somebody who doesn't own the property...inaudible. Mr.Winick said that's the problem. If the sale is closed,then you need authorization of the other party. I don't think the variance is a tricky one,but...inaudible. Mr.Davis said under the circumstances one could approve the variance,subject to presentation of evidence to the Department of Building either of ownership or authorization in which you can continue the application by the...inaudible,under the circumstances and limited to these facts. On motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Harrington,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. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 45 On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Lorelle Phillips has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting a variance to legalize an existing study on the premises located at 200 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115,Lot 429. The study as built has a front yard of 27.7 ft.where 30 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)for a residence in an R-7.5 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 240-38B(1);and WHEREAS,Lorelle Phillips 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. This is an application to legalize an existing enclosed porch,that was enclosed sometime more than a decade ago on the south side of the property located at 200 Rockingstone Avenue. There is no change in the footprint of the house to legalize the enclosure of that portion,because many years ago the consequence as you know,change of the character of the neighborhood,the uses of that space will continue as it has for decades nor will there be any detriment to the nearby properties as the use continues; B. There's no reasonable alternative not requiring a variance that would legalize this space; C. It is not substantial,because the porch is small; D. The work will not change the adjoining property; E. This is not a self-created difficulty; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 46 0 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. Furnishing satisfactory proof to the Director of Building that the applicant is either the owner of the property or has been authorized by the owner of the property to process this request. 2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.10-CASE 2512 Application of Michael Raso requesting a variance to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 3 Vine Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 291. The deck as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the deck and bay window as proposed have a total side yard of 13.23 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2);and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Wendy Raso addressed the Board. She said we were here in February trying to get a variance for a bay window which went through and also a deck on the side of our house. At that time,it was suggested that we adjourn the deck and do some more research being to relocate the deck as another part of the house in the back yard....inaudible. I did my research and spoke to Marco Gennarelli,Superintendent of the Highway Department, because we have an easement in the back of our yard. The easement is approximately 7 ft.from the back of the house which would,if we built the deck there,a very narrow deck and not really serving the purpose which we would like to have,which would be a table and grill and would use it to entertain. We consider it a hardship. Mr.Wexler said it really is a hardship. Ms.Raso said in today's times,it is a hardship. That's leads us back to our original idea,which is to build it off the side of the house. Our neighbors had some concerns which he just voiced on the ...inaudible and we tried to address that. So you can see what the side of the house looks like for the time period that we were used to...inaudible,I do have pictures of foliage,marked exhibit#1. It's very green. QYou really cannot see the neighbor's yard. He did submit a drawing also,because we were...inaudible. Mr.Wexler asked,are you submitting the same plans that you did last time? Mr.Carpaneto said there's additional..inaudible. He has street elevations and...inaudible. ii Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 47 Mr.Davis said,you mean is the proposal the same proposal? Mr.Wexler said yes. Mr.Carpaneto said yes,it is. What was lacking was an elevation..inaudible,and the Board requested that ..inaudible. Mr.Gunther said actually I only get an elevation in...inaudible. Mr.Wexler said that's why I was confused. Ms.Raso said the floor of the deck will be approximately 6.5. Mr.Gunther said 6 foot,6 inches. Ms.Raso said it's the side of the house. She said I can show you this picture,marked exhibit#2. The realtor just gave it to us. There's the cement where the basement is and then the siding. Where the cement was is where we will put the floor for the deck. Mr.Carpaneto asked,did your neighbor appear last time? Ms.Raso said yes,she did come last time. Mr.Wexler asked Ms.Raso,did you show her your plans. Ms.Raso said I went over prior,in February,to explain what we were trying to do. I have the same concerns as hers. I don't want people to see what I'm doing on my deck,because I'm sure she doesn't want me to see what's going on in her back yard. Currently the way our house is,the family room and our bedroom above is all windows. Especially from our bedroom,it's high and you can see in anyway. When you're outside on the deck you really cannot see. Mr.Wexler asked,is that...inaudible on your property? Ms.Raso said it's actually on theirs and it's coming over. It's there job to maintain it. Mr.Gunther asked,did you get anything in writing from the Highway Department? Ms.Raso said no,just his name and number. We spoke to him directly. Mr.Carpaneto said there is an easement on the survey,Tom. Mr.Wexler said you can't build on an easement. Mr.Gunther asked,is there anything else? Ms.Raso said just that the deck would square off the house. The house is already nonconforming. There is no other house that's not going out as far as that would. I've looked at all the options that we had and our neighbor came over the other day,came into the bathroom and looked out and said,Oh,I just wanted to make sure you couldn't see into our bedroom. She didn't really say anything. We just put the door in Qand hoped that we could put a bathroom in. She's not here today and I don't think she'd...inaudible. Mr.Winick said this is the neighbor right next door to you? Ms.Raso said yes,the big Tudor. It doesn't look directly into any windows. ii Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 48 Mr.Gunther asked,are there any questions or comments from the public. There were none. Mr.Gunther then asked if there were any comments from Board members? There were 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,Michael Raso have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 3 Vine Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 291. The deck as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);the deck and bay window as proposed have a total side yard of 13.23 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2);and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(1),Section 240-37B(2),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Michael Raso submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing 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 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. The applicant has proposed to put a deck on the side of the house because it will square the house off and has established that because of preexisting easement in the back yard that a deck that comes out to the side can't be constructed there. B. As a consequence,there is no way that the applicant can get that space outside that does not involve the necessity of an area variance. C. The deck as proposed, due to the heavy natural screening between the next property,shields it from the neighbor. The deck will not have any affect on that property. The other properties nearby are not affected at all. Instead,it points off only in that one direction since it's on the rear and side of the house. D. The difficulty here is not self-created. The easement in the back yard that prohibits the construction is a condition of the neighborhood. I Zoning Board June 26,2002 Page 49 E. The variance is not substantial. The deck is a conventional size and does not expand into the natural form of the house beyond the building line. 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 business hours for a building permit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion on outstanding Minutes. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on Tuesday,July 23,2002. ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the meeting was adjourned at I1:30 p.m. © Ataii Marguerit6Roma,Recording Secretary