HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_06_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
JUNE 28,2000,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Arthur Wexler,Acting Chairman
Jillian A.Martin
Paul A.Winick
Absent: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman
J.Rena Simon ti
Also Present: Judith M.Gallent,Esq.,Counsel O C 2 J L
wie
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building
Nancy Seligson,Liaison 6� air C4
Stephanie Poli,Public Stenographer
Terranova,Kazazes&Associates,Ltd. 1
49 Eighth Street
New Rochelle,New York 10801
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Wexler at 7:47 p.m.
Mr.Wexler informed those present that there are only three Board members present this evening,as the
Chairman,Mr.Gunther,has been delayed in Toronto. Also,Mr.Simon is ill. The Board needs all three
members to vote in favor for an action to occur.
Ms.Gallent informed those present that they can present their application this evening and the Board can
vote or it can be held over to the next meeting,at which time a discussion ensued.
Ms.Gallent read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2400(adjourned 5/24/00)
Application of Stephen Land requesting a variance to construct a wall and fence. The wall and fence as
proposed has a total height of 8 ft.where a maximum of 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A
for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 29 Mohegan Road and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 546.
Stephen Land, of 29 Mohegan Road, appeared to address the Board. Mr. Land said the plan he is
referring to is almost the same as the one approved by the Board a few months ago, He explained where
the house is located on the half acre property which was divided into two quarter acre pieces. He pointed
out the piece that is empty,stating it now has a large pit full of rock caused by construction. He pointed
out Mohegan Road to the south of the property,to the north of the property is the Leatherstocking Trail,
to the west of the property is another house and then his house. He said the variance was requested to put
the pool where it was to resist existing rock,it allowed a side and space behind the house to preserve a
decent distance from the street. The only difference now and what the Board approved is the fence,which
originally ran along the periphery of the property in front,but in front of the shrubbery in back. On the
this design the plan was behind the shrubbery in front,but also behind the shrubbery in back. The change
in front was actually an informal request made by this body upon a condition of approval for the suggestion
that they could work this behind the shrubbery and it would make it less visible from the street. They were
before the Board a month ago to request that the fence be moved behind the shrubbery for two reasons;
one of which was an aesthetic reason,sitting on the patio they are quite close to where the fence would
be,it would be in bright sunlight,it would obscure the shrubbery and they want to be able to enjoy the
shrubbery along with everything else. For that reason they want to put the fence behind the shrubbery
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 2
where it will not be in view. The second is a practical reason,because the fence would cut right in front
of the shrubbery and there would be no practical way to maintain the shrubbery to weed it and trim it.
If they wanted to plant flower bulbs at the base or annuals below the shrubbery as they now do in the front
of the house,they would not be able to access it.
Mr.Land said two questions were raised by the Board at the last meeting,one of which was if the fence
was put behind the shrubbery so they can't see it that means the people using the Trail are going to be
looking at it rather than they would. The second question was access to the shrubbery. If the fence was
moved out a couple more feet closer to the pool,they could mow the strip behind there because they could
walk between the fence and maintain the shrubbery. He said he has two pieces of information he can now
provide that he did not have available then;one of which is that,looking at the diagram,it is easy to
imagine the land being perfectly flat and described how it is in fact graded. He described how he was
building the pool,chopping down and building up in different areas. He said they mostly built up,so that
the terrace is about 5 ft.above the grade of where it was before they built. The retaining wall rises up
to 4 ft.from the proceeding grade,it is not 4 ft.everywhere. The land to the right is actually several more
feet from that wall up to where the pool is. That is relevant because where the fence goes along this
radius,determines how high the fence is. The closer the fence is put to the pool,the higher in elevation
the fence will be. It is relevant to the view from the Trail, because if the fence looms up above the
shrubbery, then the shrubbery wouldn't conceal it. It would just be up in bright sunlight,above the
shrubbery. If it is where he has it,it will actually be below the shrubbery casting a shadow on it and
would make it invisible. However,the whole question in the sense of the view from the Trail is moot,and
submitted photographs submitted as exhibits marked "A" through"G". He said everything would be
visible,except for the fact that there is impenetrable vegetation between the Trail and the land. The Trail
at this point on the Trail is quite distant from this line. It is quite a ways back in there. The intervening
land between them is very quickly covered with ground vegetation,which is a function of the sunlight
coming from the land into the woods and promoting a very luxuriant growth there.
Mr. Land said a question was raised last time about people using the land between the Trail and his
property. He said he spoke to his son,who informs him that he has intimate knowledge of the Trail and
that no one could go into this portion of the Trail unless(a)they had a machete and(b)wanted to get
seriously dirty. He doesn't think that the hypothetical person who would be walking close to the wall
would be a serious consideration. In the wintertime the leaves disappear and the trees provide a certain
kind of cover but not complete.
Mr.Land said it also goes to the question of the character of the Trail,because in the summertime the
Trail has one character and in the wintertime it has another character. At anytime of year the character
of the Trail is whatever is behind peoples back yards,and you can see whatever structures they have in
their back yards are visible. In the wintertime,it becomes more visible as you can see right through across
the Trail. He can see the houses on the other side of the Trail from his own house. He said there is a
different character to the house in the summertime.
Mr.Wexler asked about the type of fence.
Mr.Land said they preserved the type of fence throughout--a decorative iron railing fence. He said he
can give as an example a nearby house that uses the same kind of fence as an architectural omament as
shown in the exhibits submitted,17 Mohegan Road. He said there are,within a very short distance from
his house,other structures that abut the Trail with fences on top that might,legitimately considered,be
encroachments. He said his is almost completely invisible.Exhibit"C"is the rear of 31 Mohegan Road,
the house immediately to the east of Mr.Land's house,that shows two levels of railroad tie retaining walls
and a various high cinder block wall now covered by a black chain link fence,taken from the Trail,at
which time a discussion ensued.
Mr.Land continued with exhibit"D"which shows 24 Winged Foot Drive,a fairly recent addition which
came before the Board. It is directly opposite the Trail.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 3
Mr.Wexler said in the foreground there are three railroad ties,horizontal to a block retaining wall. He
asked if the first row of railroad ties is the rear property line and asked if the garage is on the side of the
house?
Mr.Land said yes.
Mr.Wexler asked if the deck projects out to the rear.
Mr.Land said yes,the deck comes within 19 ft.of the property line.
Mr.Wexler said then what is on their property line is something that is no greater than two railroad ties
high.
Mr.Land said that is correct. He is simply talking about the view from the Trail,the character of the
Trail.
Mr.Land said in Exhibit"D",which is 24 Winged Foot Drive,he can't say where the property line is.
It shows a railroad tie fence,with a black chin link fence on top which is also in very plain view of the
Trail in contrast to this. Both of these structures are quite invisible. He said the neighbors to the west
already have a swimming pool in their yard and have achieved what Mr. Land is trying to achieve,
invisibility on all sides. He does have a photograph taken from the Trail of their pool,and that pool and
fence is already in existence. The only piece of evidence is there is a patio umbrella that appears on an
elevated terrace that is high above the level of the pool.
Ms.Gallent asked if they have a fence.
Mr.Land said they have a fence which he thinks is illegal now,but it's grandfathered. It's a combination
of split fence,chicken wire,etc.
Mr.Wexler asked why it is illegal.
Mr.Land said you can step over it. He doesn't think one can have a fence you can climb over.
A discussion ensued regarding this issue.
Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Land is opposed to putting in this type of fence.
Mr.Land said he doesn't think it's a reflection of character. He thinks it will be completely invisible from
the Trail. He doesn't think it will be completely invisible from his property and explained why. Mr.Land
said he has more pictures if anyone has questions. They are proposing to put up a fence that is similar in
appearance to the railings the Board saw at 17 Mohegan Road.
Ms.Gallent said Mr.Land should present to the Board what he wants the Board to see.
Mr.Land said he thinks the record is sufficient and he will be happy to answer questions.
Mr.Wexler asked the Board if they had any further questions on this application.
Mr.Winick said he didn't have any questions,but pointed out that he spent quite a bit of time on the Trail
in front of this property. He can clearly see too much of the structure.
Mr.Land said he doesn't have the view Mr.Winick is talking about,but if one is coming from an angle
and looking at this there are places where the vegetation opens up. At that point,you are at an even
greater distance,so it depends on what you have is that must further off. You can get a glimpse of what's
there. He continued to discuss the pictures before the Board. He said the pool framework is roughly at
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 4
the height that the fence would be,and is visible in the sunlight. It still is not clearly visible. He doesn't
think,even with the deck,one would be able to a see a fence and shadow covering.
Mr.Wexler asked what the two black lines are that fall at right angles,the lower left-hand corner.
Mr.Land said that is an existing retaining wall that he hopes will survive the traffic and blend into the
landscape. There is a swamp,which gives a view. As you can see across that swamp is a view of the
house itself. He said he has a picture of 25 Mohegan Road which shows a garage,concrete retaining wall
and utility shed. Again,it's just gives an example of the Trail to the house next door.
Mr.Wexler said Mr. Land is making a presentation that he does not want to see this fence from his
property. He wants it to fit into his space,he wants the shrubbery on his side of the house,and yet he put
the most mechanically made fence one can buy on that piece of property.
Mr.Wexler said he is having a difficult time with that. One,Mr.Land wants to be able to enjoy his
shrubbery. Mr.Land said it will blend into the shrubbery. Mr.Wexler doesn't see why Mr.Land is not
willing to put a fence there that is more natural in character,less intrusive.
Mr.Land said that they can discuss the fence options. There is split-rail fence and chicken wire, for
example. The chicken wire is a cleaner material than the iron bars,but the split-rails themselves are
thicker and they have a rustic character which you can admire but doesn't seem to be fitting with the
architectural setting of the house. He referred to the pictures shown,and said the split-rail fence will look
out of place. He explained the split-rail fence was looked at,but that is not what they wanted. He said
( the chicken wire fence is definitely not what they wanted.
After further discussion,Mr. Winick said in looking at 24 Winged Foot while he was looking at Mr.
Land's property,what he is concerned about and he doesn't know if there is a cure for this or not,is the
impact on the public and the users of the Trail against the impact on Mr.Land,the applicant. While the
chain link on 24 Mohegan is nice,where there is light behind it and nothing breaking up the field,Mr.
Winick finds that chain link fence is as visible as any other find of fence and he finds them to be visually
very intrusive. What the public interest is here,is to have as little intrusion on the Trail as you can. He
said there are a couple of possibilities. One problem Mr.Winick has is that the landscaping chosen will
drop away and will increase the visibility of all things put up behind the shrubbery. Mr.Winick would
not have a problem with the fence on the property line, if it were backed by something which was
evergreen. Otherwise he has a great deal of problems with weighing this and coming out in favor of the
applicant as opposed to the Trail. Mr.Winick said knowing what he now sees of the Leatherstocking
Trail,he wouldn't vote for the fence permitted at 24 Winged Foot.
Mr.Land said he agrees about the appearance of fences from the Trial. He is very concerned that if they
put the fence away from the property line and have it higher up from the shrubbery,in the wintertime what
you are going to see on the top of whatever fence it is,is bright sunlight viewing from the Trail which no
one wants. If it is behind this stuff,whether it is deciduous or evergreens,it is going to be stacked and
green by a bunch of twigs or leaves depending on what the condition of the shrubbery is.
Mr.Land said his landscape architect was supposed to be present this evening,but unfortunately due to
events he could not control,he had two other public hearings this evening. Mr.Land did speak with him
this date and he is aware of the concerns of the Board. He is perfectly prepared to modify this plan to call
for evergreens along this background. It is not an essential feature of the overall design,as the placement
of the fence.
Mr.Wexler asked the scale of the drawing Mr.Land is using.
Mr.Land said the scale is one quarter inch to a foot.
Mr.Wexler asked how far the pool is from the property line.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 5
Mr.Land said the pool itself is probably about 20 ft.,but underneath there is a retractable cover.
Mr.Wexler said it would be very helpful if there was a profile,as the profile submitted is not accurate.
Mr.Land agreed that the profile drawing is totally inaccurate. He said he went to the site with the builders
who showed the different levels and where they were.
Mr.Wexler said Mr.Land can build up a retaining wall. The object of the fence is to prevent someone
from the outside from coming in,not the opposite coming in from the outside.
After some discussion,Mr.Land asked if he can put the fence in the ground behind the wall.
Mr.Land asked if Mr.Wexler can advise what type of fence he would rather see,a chain link fence or
split rail fence.
Mr.Wexler said he would rather see a fence that blends into the background,a split rail fence with a mesh
on it. It would phase into the environment. The fence chosen by Mr.Land is the hardest type of fence
one can put on the property line. It is so unnatural. It's an aluminum fence. It will never weather like
a true wrought iron fence. Mr.Wexler said he can see putting evergreens in along the property line,a
fence on Mr.Land's side and putting the indigenous materials in front of that to give the softness against
a green background. Mr.Wexler said he did not approve other similar requests and will not approve this
one.
Mr.Land asked if Mr.Wexler said a split rail fence with wire mesh would be acceptable,with which Mr.
Wexler agreed. Mr.Land asked if there was any other fence the Board can think of.
Mr.Wexler said Mr.Land's landscape architect should present alternatives to the Board.
Mr.Land said the landscape architect had wanted to be present at this meeting. He said everyone sees
fences around Town and he doesn't know what to do.
Mr.Wexler said a chain link fence is acceptable,from his point of view. A picket fence,if it was on a
structure. The Board wants the greenery to come through and intermingle with what is on the other side
of the fence.
Mr.Winick said hopefully it will be invisible.
Mr.Land said their main interest is the location of the fence,shrubbery is secondary.
Mr.Winick asked if Mr.Land can speak with a landscape architect,so this matter can be resolved in one
more meeting.
Mr.Wexler asked when Mr.Land proposes to have this done.
Mr.Land said he first has to remove the rock. They will not be swimming by the end of this month. He
said that at the next scheduled meeting he will be out of town,but the architect may be able to present the
fence. Mr.Land said if the Board can specify the type of fence, a split rail fence with suitably strong
mesh.
Mr.Wexler asked how they will put the veritcals to support them in the ground,on Mr.Land's type of
fence.
Mr. Land said that they will be imbedded in the ground immediately inside of the wall in a suitable
concrete.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 6
After further discussion,Mr.Wexler said Mr.Land's landscape architect knows exactly how to do it and
it will be not seen.
Mr.Land said that he would like to request this Board approve this plan with that type of fence.
Mr.Winick said that the Board would like some assurance that a particular type of shrubbery will be used
in support of Board approval.
A discussion ensued regarding this factor.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously,3-0.
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,and seconded,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
'WHEREAS,Stephen Land has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with
plans to construct a wall and fence. The wall and fence as proposed has a total height of 8 ft.where a
maximum of 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on
the premises located at 29 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 546;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,Stephen Land 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. With the screening and using the type of fence stipulated in the conditions,there
will not be any undesirable change produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, particularly the
Leatherstocking Trail. Both the type of fence and the background material
should make it invisible essentially from the Trail;
B. Given the necessary siting of the pool on the property and the relatively short
distance to the end of the property line, the applicant's goals could not be
achieved via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of the
area variance;
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 7
C. Based on viewing the property,the Board accepts the contention that requiring
the fence to be located inboard of the proposed shrubbery(which would not
require a variance)would impact the applicant's use of the property more than
it would benefit users of the Trail.
D. The variance is not substantial as conditioned,nor will the variance have an
adverse impact on any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district given the conditions imposed on it;
E. There is no 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.
l NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT
1 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,
subject to the conditions as listed:
a. The fence shall be located as indicated on the plans submitted,dated
4/18/00,and on the back side of the fence(that is inboard toward the
applicant's property)a continuous evergreen hedge shall be installed at
least the height of the fence along the entire back property line
wherever the fence is situated.
b. The fence installed shall consist of the least intrusive type of fence.
Specifically,the fence shall be constructed of slender,vertical members
and a suitable green wire mesh shall be applied to those vertical
members.
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.
Ms.Gallent read the next application as follows:
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 8
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2402
Application of Peter and Mona Robustelli requesting a variance to construct a rear deck. The deck as
proposed has a rear yard of 12.2 ft.where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(3)for a
residence in a R-2F Zone District on the premises located at 2 Garit Lane and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402,Lot 61.
Peter Robustelli,of 2 Garit Lane,addressed the Board. Mr.Robustelli said he is present this evening to
request a variance for a rear deck on his property,because he is proposing to expand his dining room.
He would also like to expand his kitchen,as currently it is not useable. He said his property is on a corner
lot,and it is the only useable property. It is the only way he can have recreational area in the back yard,
as he does not have any recreational area at all right now. Mr. Robustelli introduced his architect,
Salvatore Corvino,who will answer any technical questions the Board may have.
Salvatore Corvino,architect,license number 018126,addressed the Board. Mr.Corvino said his clients
received the objections from the code official who indicated it was a rear yard. Mr. Corvino said his
clients are looking to create a deck off the rear of the house. In eliminating the one bedroom,they were
able to expand the kitchen,which is the only egress out to the rear other than going out of the other
bedroom. They created a two-level deck;come out to a landing area where there would be a barbecue,
step down and get the deck lower to the yard creating a seating area. They then have access with a set of
stairs to the yard. There are a number of hardships on the property,one being a corner lot and not having
much of a yard area. That is the only yard they have. Considering the position of the existing house on
the property,the shape and the size of it detract from it. They don't have much of a rear yard to begin
with and are stuck with that setback. The existing house setback just barely cleared the rear yard. The
rear yard is 26.6 ft. to the existing house now. At the worst position,it is 12.2 ft. to the deck. The
longest part of the deck they tried to setback away from the front area of this property facing the street.
The shortest end of the deck is about 10.9 ft. from the house, approximately 16 ft./17 ft. from that
property line. The furthest point is 12.2 ft. With two front yards,there is nothing they can obviously do
on the front yards. There's a driveway along the side front yard,which prevents them from coming out
anywhere else. It is the only logical place for the deck.
Mr.Winick asked if the walking surface of that deck,where the french doors are going to go,is 6.9 ft.
above grade?
Mr.Robustelli said that is correct. The level of the first floor is 6.9 ft.above grade.
Mr.Robustelli said there are a number of the neighbors that have similar decks that are actually higher
than that.
Mr.Winick said his concern is that somebody standing on the deck is 13 ft.above ground.
After further discussion,Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Land is proposing some shrubbery to soften the look.
Mr.Robustelli said has no problem with that and is willing to use some shrubbery. He said he doesn't
really have a choice. They have to come out at that level,that is why they stepped it down.
Mr.Winick said where the french doors are going to go,there is an existing window there now.
Mr.Robustelli said that is correct.
Mr.Winick said he was somewhat struck by standing in the side yard of the neighbor on the property line
on a concrete patio they have back there. He said is not so concerned about the deck coming out from the
house,as he is the height of it.
Mr.Robustelli said that is why shortly after coming out,it does step down to the lower seating area.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 9
Mr.Wexler asked if he is proposing to put in shrubbery along the side wall to soften the look.
Mr.Robustelli asked around the edge of the deck?
Mr.Wexler said a little higher.
Mr.Land said at the base of deck?
Mr.Robustelli said originally they had proposed lattice work.
After further discussion regarding the elevation and shrubbery,Mr.Wexler asked if there were any other
questions.
Carl Fava,of 4 Garit Lane for 35 years,addressed the Board. He said he objects to the height of the
deck. It is eye level to his bedroom window and will take away his privacy. He has no objection to the
applicant building a deck,but would rather another arrangement for a much,much lower deck. There is
very little room between his house and the deck.
Mr.Wexler asked how Mr.Robustelli plans to use the deck.
Mr.Robustelli said everyone on the block gets along fine. He doesn't want to cause problems and is
willing to compromise. He plans on using it for his immediate family. He doesn't have large parties.
Mr.Wexler said there is a built-in deck on the upper level and a built-in on the lower diagonal. Will they
be dining out there?
Mr.Robustelli said he plans to use it for a barbecue and will be dining on the lower area. The lower area
will be somewhat private,even for his own privacy and will not intrude on Mr.Fava's privacy.
After some discussion regarding the height,Mr.Robustelli said it wouldn't work for him at that lower
level. Every time he lowers the deck,he would have to bring the deck further out to accommodate the
steps.
Mr.Winick said he doesn't think the impact comes from the deck that he has,but from the height. There
is some possibility that Mr.Robustelli can mitigate the height impact or extend it. He thinks it is a nice
design. His concern is that Mr.Robustelli has an 8 ft.by 10 ft.area as you walk out onto the deck and
that big barbecue is going to be there. He is concerned about the neighbors. There is going to be traffic
and people standing there. His concern is if it were pushed down somewhat that will mitigate the impact
on neighboring properties.
Mr.Wexler said if the kitchen were brought up to the higher level going across the whole side of the
house,it is the only access to the steps down to the lower level. If the lower level was extended more
toward the house,it would hold it back and demonstrated on the plans before the Board.
Mr.Robustelli asked if Mr.Wexler meant to take the upper area and lower it,with which Mr.Wexler
agreed.
Mr.Wexler said to get it down to 3 ft.above grade.
Mr.Robustelli said Mr.Winick's concern is that the upper area is a little too high,with which Mr.Winick
agreed.
Mr.Robustelli said he'd like to have another step at the door.
Mr.Winick said his concern is that Mr.Robustelli needs to come out and drop down.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 10
Mr.Robustelli said that would require quite a number of steps.
After some discussion,Mr.Winick said a deck can be at grade. It's not what the applicant wants. He's
trying to get some balance between the two.
Mr.Robustelli said he doesn't want a patio,but wants a deck.
Mr.Winick said he understands what Mr.Robustelli is saying,but his concern is since Mr.Robustelli is
going out into an area where the whole purpose of the zoning ordinance is to reduce the impact on the
surrounding property,Mr.Winick thinks Mr.Robustelli is creating one.
Mr.Winick advised Mr.Robustelli to minimize that space. He said he has enough space up there for
plenty of people to hang around and that is where the impact is going to come in.
Mr.Fava said a couple of years ago Mr.Robustelli talked about building a deck and that it was going to
be small and not the size as proposed.
Mr.Winick asked if the rooms Mr.Fava is describing are on top of the garage,with which Mr.Fava
verified.
Mr.Fava said the rooms are above the garage,a bedroom and kitchen.
Mr.Wexler said on this property he treats that as a back yard. It is reasonably close to the property line,
about 8 ft./10 ft.
Mr.Robustelli said his building wall is approximately 21 ft.from the steps.
Mr.Wexler said in reality this house could be built on the property line,because there is an option here
when it was built,that it could have been a side yard on the corner.
Mr.Robustelli said he discussed some options. He can probably get three steps down at the door which
he will take out of the space of this area without going further out into the space so it may be a little bit
smaller and he can lower this portion.
Mr.Wexler said he can also eliminate a lot of steps on the stairs going down.
After some discussion,Mr.Robustelli said he will be coming down about three steps. He even indicated
today he wouldn't mind pulling this back in.
Mr.Wexler said that would come down 2 ft. It will be less than 3 ft. above grade, at which time a
discussion ensued.
Mr.Wexler suggested that this matter be held over to next month,awaiting a new set of plans.
Mr.Winick asked if Mr.Fava understands what has transpired.
Mr.Fava said he understands.
On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2402 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the Thursday,
August 10,2000 Zoning Board meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Ms.Gallent read the next application as follows:
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 11
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2403
Application of Jane Lin requesting a variance to maintain an existing chicken coop and pen. The existing
chicken coop and pen are located 4 ft.from the front property line. Pursuant to Section 240-33(B)(3)(b),
such accessory structures are permitted to be located only within the rear 1/3 of the property and must be
located a minimum of 5 ft.from the property line in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 206
Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416,Lot
112.
Jane Lin,appeared and said that she did not have anything other than the application. She said that she
never intended to have chickens or break the law having it in the front of her property. Right before
Thanksgiving 1997, the lab next door where she works was studying chick embryo development and
somebody forgot to do the experiment on some eggs so the chicks hatched. She heard the chicks and
realized somebody needed to take care of them over the weekend,so she took them home. That Sunday
she broke her foot,she had to stay home for a week and when she went back to work she realized nobody
wanted the chicks and she got stuck with the chickens. She didn't know what to do and never thought to
apply for a permit. Since October of 1998,she has had the chicken coop and pen. In the back of the
property is marsh, with high tide and storms which cause flooding and it doesn't make sense to have
chickens there. She apologized for not having a permit for this. She wanted to build something to enclose
the chickens with chicken wire.
After some discussion,Mr.Wexler asked why didn't Ms.Lin erect it in the rear yard,not in the marsh
but in the elevation available.
Ms.Lin said the land slopes down.
Mr.Winick said that the chickens are now in the front of the property.
Ms.Lin said right outside the swimming pool,the water comes all the way to it in a big storm.
Ms.Lin said that she now has 11 chickens,2 of them from a neighbor because he is away. He will be
back in July and will take some.
Mr.Winick asked if the structure Ms.Lin is putting up is a chicken run,with which Ms.Lin agreed.
Ms.Lin said the contractor that built her house did that,without consulting with her. Any of that she can
modify.
Mr.Wexler said Ms.Lin has a structure which is a chicken coop and then has a fenced in area,30 ft.by
40 ft.,where the chickens go to and are confined in that area.
Ms.Lin said not now,because the construction has been on hold since they realized they needed a permit.
Ms.Lin said they don't have any neighbors on this side and pointed out where the one neighbor is located.
The chicken house is insulated,and she tries to have them enclosed in there until 9:00 a.m. On weekends
she keeps them enclosed until 10:00/11:00 a.m.,unless it is really hot when she lets them out earlier.
Mr.Wexler said upon inspection,he couldn't see it from the road.
A discussion ensued regarding noise.
Mr.Wexler asked if the neighbors have complained about the noise.
Ms.Lin said she hasn't heard anything. Some neighbors bring their kids or grandchildren to visit as it is
kind of unusual.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 12
Mr.Wexler said there is the question of the placement of the chicken coop and made reference to the
Pressman property and the huge structure right on the street. Mr.Wexler said Ms.Lin has a valid point
that she is in the marsh land.
Mr.Wexler said the Board has a letter from 220 Hommocks Road,voicing objection to this application.
Ms.Lin said that is at the end of the road.
Ms.Gallent read the letter from 220 Hommocks Road,which is a part of the record.
Ms.Lin explained how a raccoon opened a latch on the door of a cage at a neighbor's yard,a chicken pen
that houses parrots,and took two of the parrots away.
Mr.Wexler asked why the neighbor doesn't trap the raccoon.
Ms.Lin said the raccoon sits on her deck waiting to get the chicks,which were hiding under the deck.
The raccoon just sits there waiting.
Mr.Winick said the Board has some indication from the neighbor that they object to the structure. He
asked if there is a way to minimize the impact of that structure by lowering it or by changing the material
so it looks less commercial.
Ms.Lin said absolutely. The material will be changed anyway.
Mr.Winick asked what material.
Ms.Lin said the tunnel material. She said that her landscaper also hates it.
Mr.Wexler asked the height of the fence required to keep these chickens in.
Ms.Lin said it is now 8 ft.,but she can certainly lower it. She said the chickens go home when it is dark.
She doesn't need to go in and chase them. She can lower it and change the material,which she is going
to do anyway.
Mr.Wexler said Ms.Lin would need a variance for a fence 8 ft.high.
Mr.Winick said he thinks the neighbor's objection would be the materials used.
Mr.Wexler asked Ms.Lin to make a proposal for the next meeting of what Ms.Lin wants to build there,
that looks nice and solves her needs.
Ms.Lin said the Board can tell her what to use.
Mr.Wexler said the Board does not know what she should use. Mr.Wexler said there are two questions;
(1)the tunnel she wants to develop,(2)does she think she needs the tunnel.
Ms.Lin said she does need the tunnel.
Mr.Wexler asked if the tunnel is for the chickens to get from the outdoor open area enclosed to the
structure that is really enclosed,with which Ms.Lin agreed. Mr.Wexler asked how high the fence needs
to be for the outside pen.
Ms.Lin said she would like it a little bit higher in case someone has to get in it.
Mr.Wexler said 4 ft.?
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 13
Mr.Winick said it is also possible to build it in sections that can be lifted.
After further discussion,Mr.Wexler said he is not talking about the structure. On the application Ms.Lin
has an area 40 ft.by 7 ft.and asked what that is going to be.
Ms.Lin said that is area that is going to be a post covered with chicken wire to protect the chicken house.
Mr.Winick said that is a structure. He advised Ms.Lin to give the Board plans for what she is actually
planning to build.
A discussion ensued regarding structure definition.
Mr.Winick has another question of whether or not the Board needs something regarding the aesthetic
concerns that were raised by the neighbor of whether or not there is a way to reconfigure the shape of it
so it is not as large.
Ms.Lin there is another reason why it's taller than that,because there is a tree there. She said the tree
is pretty much in the middle of the 30 ft.by 40 ft. There used to be a vegetable garden from the previous
owner and now there is nothing. There are a couple of trees there,it is shady,it will cover it so it doesn't
look like a structure.
Mr.Wexler said she can bring the netting around as the tree penetrates through the netting.
Ms.Lin said the tree has a lot of branches,as it is one of the fruit trees.
Mr.Wexler asked if they are low branches.
Ms.Lin said yes low branches and always a lot of branches.
Mr.Wexler said maybe it is not the right place for the chicken pen. Maybe it should be put in an area
that doesn't have trees.
Ms.Lin said it is very important. They do need a shady area.
Mr.Winick said that she has a structure.
Mr.Carpaneto said someone mentioned going back to the line of the house,and he is not sure if that is
not the objection.
After further discussion regarding moving the structure,Mr.Winick said the back third seems to be behind
the pool.
Mr.Wexler said the Board has to deal with this in the fact that the back is not a suitable area,because of
flooding. The Board can eliminate the back. The question now is it right on the front or somewhere closer
towards that direction.
Ms.Lin said further down toward the back,they can see it from the road.
Mr.Winick said what the Board needs to see is a formulated drawing which shows what the structure is
going to look like. It doesn't need to be an architect's rendering,but does need to be a drawing that
explains what the Board is approving.
Ms.Martin asked if it had to be renoticed?
After some discussion,Mr.Winick said a drawing should be delivered two weeks before the next meeting.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 14
Ms.Lin asked if he was referring to the drawing of the 30 ft.by 40 ft.
Mr.Wexler asked what does Ms.Lin intend to build there? What does it look like?
Mr.Winick said the run,the tunnel.
Mr.Wexler said what's the material,what it's constructed of.
Ms.Lin said she leaves it open.
Mr.Wexler said Ms.Lin might have to get a landscape architect and speak to fence people who will give
advice.
Mr.Winick said this type of application has to be specific.
Ms.Lin said the reason she is not specific now is because she does not want to choose something that will
be rejected.
Mr.Wexler informed Ms.Lin that she doesn't have to choose it. All she has to do is present it to the
Board on a piece of paper,she doesn't have to buy it. It is contingent upon approval.
Ms.Lin asked if she had to narrow it down to one thing.
Mr.Wexler said no.
Mr.Winick said she can have a couple of choices.
Mr.Wexler said at the next meeting,they will go over the choices and Ms.Lin can make a decision of
which one she wants to present.
Mr.Winick said that the Board has a very busy calendar next meeting.
Mr.Wexler asked what the Board thinks about making the meeting earlier.
After some discussion,the next meeting date was scheduled for August 10,2000,scheduled to start at 7:00
p.m.
Ms.Lin said she just wants to make sure she understands about the height of the 30 ft.by 40 ft.
Mr.Wexler said she is limited to 4 ft.in the front yard.
Ms.Gallent said there is a definition of fence,which this could fit into.
Mr.Wexler said if this is attached to a structure,which is the coop,which is higher than 4 ft.,he asked
why can't that be an extension from the coop and not a pen?
Ms.Gallent read the definition;"a fence is a structure,including a wall,enclosing a yard or portion of
a yard,used to prevent or impede entrance and/or to mark a boundary."
After some discussion,Mr.Winick said Ms.Gallent just described a corral.
Mr.Wexler said that's the vertical wall,there's a pole in the middle and asked what does that do to the
pole,at which time a discussion ensued.
Zoning Board
June 28,2000
Page 15
Ms.Gallent said the argument is a fence can only be 4 ft.high. If it is going to be higher than that,a
variance is needed.
Ms.Martin said maybe it should be noticed that way.
Ms.Gallent said Mr.Carpaneto's makes a determination.
Mr.Winick said a determination has to be made,because if the determination is made it is a fence and it's
over 4 ft.the application has to be renoticed.
Ms.Lin asked if she needs to make several copies.
Mr.Carpaneto advised Ms.Lin to meet with him in the next couple of days,when she has a chance.
After further discussion,on a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2403 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the August
10,2000 Zoning Board meeting at 7:00 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on Thursday,August 10,2000 at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
9 / Mar rite Roma,Recording Secretary