Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_03_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 22,2000,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Jillian A.Martin J.Rend Simon Arthur Wexler Paul A.Winick Also Present: Judith M.Gallent,Esq.,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building 2 Nancy Seligson,Liaison Stephanie Poll,Public Stenographer Terranova,Kazazes&Associates,Ltd. RF EI`f E 49 Eighth Street � APR 127 2000 New Rochelle,New York 10801 a PATRICIA A.DICI0CCIP TOWN C,E'7 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 6:35 p.m. Mr.Gunther announced that case#3,#4 and Hoffmann have been adjourned to the April Zoning Board meeting. Mr.Gunther informed those present that the review of the Minutes will take place at the end of the meeting. Mr.Gunther acknowledged and welcomed the Town Board members to the meeting. Chairman Gunther read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2365(adjourned 9/23/99;10/27/99;11/23/99;1/5/00;1/26/00;2/29/00) Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize an existing air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard of 7.64 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503,Lot 652. Mr.Gunther said that this matter has been adjourned from several other meetings,as the Zoning Board asked the Town to secure some expert advice for the Board in terms of impact of sound. A representative,Ron Elegator, is present this evening to speak to the Board. Ron Elegator stated he works at Acoustic Dimensions in Larchmont,a company that addresses noise problems frequently. He volunteered to answer questions about noise control issues that relate specifically to this type of air conditioning equipment that affects neighbors. • , Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 2 Mr.Gunther said that the Zoning Board has an interest,because there are two cases before it regarding this issue. He stated that the Town Board is considering this issue as well. The Board will start with questions,the Town Board will ask questions,and at the end of Board questions the matter will be opened to the public for their questions. Mr.Gunther said one of the things the Zoning Board looks at in considering a variance application,is the impact of a structure on the surrounding community and neighbors. At this point in time,air conditioning units are viewed as a structure. He asked Mr.Elegator to spend a few minutes talking about the impact of air conditioning units, and whether those impacts can be mitigated. Mr. Elegator said outdoor air conditioning equipment tends to have several components that generate noise, specifically a compressor and a fan. He explained the components used in residential units,how they work and the noises they make. The issues that relate to how disturbing it is,relates to how much sound is emitted,how close it is to the property line and are there any other structures or elements near it that sound might be reflected off of. Also,are there barriers in between that reduce sound and other acoustical elements to go around the compressor unit to reduce sound. Typically,there are some jurisdictions that have regulations that govern allowable sound levels at property lines or at residences as well. Those regulations,take a variety of different forms. Mr.Gunther said there are two different sets of interest. The Town Board is interested in the regulatory perspective and the Zoning Board is interested in the impact on the neighbor and community. While he knows Mr.Elegator has done work for the Town in evaluating the sound generated from the New York Thruway,he asked if Mr. Elegator can educate the Board in terms of mitigating factors relevant to air conditioning units that currently exist in a neighborhood,from a comparative point of view,if someone were to measure it. Mr.Elegator said the background noise level in a community like Mamaroneck varies enormously in terms of where one is,what time of day it is and gave examples of what the dBA would be in various locations. Mr.Gunther asked if there have been any studies on the various decibel levels,as a comparison. Mr.Elegator said he brought equipment with him that can measure sound. He said that many,many codes establish 45 dBA as a benchmark. Any equipment that elevates the sound level above 45 dBA,is not permitted. Mr.Carpaneto asked if that is added to the ambient sound. A discussion ensued regarding free environment,rated decibel levels,information received from manufacturers on decibel levels,where equipment is mounted and required yard setbacks. Mr.Winick asked what the relationship is between the rated sound level of the unit and the ambient. Mr.Elegator explained the relationship. Mr.Winick asked if Mr.Elegator can characterize,as many of the applications the Board receives are on side yard applications,the change that is occasioned by moving a unit out of a side yard into a back yard to remove the reflective surface behind it,as Mr.Elegator said there is a 3 dBA difference. He asked if Mr.Elegator can characterize,by reference,an example of what 3 dBA sounds like. Mr.Elegator said when two sounds are within a 3 db difference of each other,one will be able to notice the difference. If there is less than a 3 db difference,you probably won't notice the difference. Mr.Winick asked when there is wall behind the source or some form of screening,will the noise level drop 1 dBA or more at 15 ft.or 10 ft.? Mr.Elegator said the barrier will relate to the geometry and the footage involved. It depends on the physical conditions of the slope of the land and the distance of the barrier from the condensing unit. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 3 Ms.O'Keeffe said when the condensor is next to someone's house and the individual next door is 10 ft./12 ft.away, is there a bounce back due to the fact that there are two structures in a narrow piece of area and the machine is put in that narrow space. Mr.Elegator said yes it does and explained why. A discussion ensued regarding the distance of a house from a condensing unit,the factory measured dBA and the actual sound level heard inside an open window. - A Town Board member asked if it would be quieter if the unit is moved away from the house. Mr.Elegator said it depends on how far away the neighbor is. Phyllis Wittner asked whether it would affect the sound level if the border between the two properties were completely shrubbe in to a height of 6 ft. Mr.Elegator said it would. Mr.Winick said Mr.Elegator did quantify. Mr.Elegator said one can quantify on a case by case basis,but a generalization cannot be made about it. Mr.Winick asked if it was possible to come up with a set of guidelines that would be generally applicable,given the necessary information. Mr.Elegator said he would have to give it some thought. - Mr.Wexler asked if there is a difference between a hard surface area and shrubbery. Mr.Elegator said there is a difference. A hard barrier is effective as a barrier as sound doesn't go through it,but • over it. Shrubbery is ineffective as a barrier for sound,unless it is a very densely packed shrubbery. Nancy Seligson asked if it is a hard structure,would it act the same as the barriers on the Thruway where it bounces it up to a higher level and would be conceivably louder in a bedroom,with which Mr.Elegator agreed. Mr.Carpaneto asked if a certain type of substance or material can be put on a wall behind the unit. Mr.Elegator said yes. It will absorb some of the sound. A discussion ensued regarding the primary source of the noise individuals complain about which is often from a reflection off a surface,that sound being a combination of both direct sound and reflective sound. Mr.Winick said he thought Mr.Elegator said people don't distinguish between differences less than 3 dBA. Mr.Elegator said that is correct,they will perceive it,but it will be very marginal. Ms.Martin asked if it were normal or possible for an air conditioner rated 55 dBA in the factory,under ideal conditions,to deteriorate over time and exceed the noise at which it was rated. Mr.Elegator said absolutely. It might need to be serviced. Mr.Winick asked Mr.Elegator if he had any idea if a unit is properly maintained if it will keep its sound rating over a long period of time. Mr.Elegator said he doesn't know. Zoning Buard March 22,2000 Page 4 Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Elegator how the Board should anticipate the impact of the air conditioning units over time. Mr.Elegator said he has been trying to answer in a very precise engineering way. What Mr.Wexler is asking now is his personal opinion. We do live in a noisy world. There are a lot of sounds Iwheert `at ro riftc gey affect us ive homeowners and residents. We should have a right to quiet enjoyment of our property.rights ts of othersp to have toa quite the right to neighbors to put in air conditioning equipment without respect8 environment. As a professional working in the field,I would prefer a regulation that respects the background noise level in a community as a base line and establish some regulation based on increase over that noise level by other activities including neighbors'air conditioning equipment. If that means people would have to spend more money to install air conditioning equipment that is respectful of that, that is one of the drawbacks of living in an environment where people live so close to each other. Mr.Wexler said given the upgrading of the equipment,what is available in the marketplace? Mr.Elegator said the manufacturers of equipment are becoming more responsive to these conditions because people are living closer to each other. This equipment does generate a lot of noise. It runs at odd hours. It turns on in the middle of the night,when the neighbor is trying to sleep with the window open. There are, in addition to manufacturers options for noise reduction built into the equipment,options in terms of installation,the location in terms of barriers,elements that can be added. Mr.Wexler said in looking at what one can purchase from the manufacturer,how low a rating can one get? Mr.Elegator said he did not!mow. Mr.Gunther said he would like to go back to what he talked about,ambient sound. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Elegator had done some work for the Town with regard to the Thruway. He asked what the ambient sound was before and after the erection of those walls. Mr.Elegator said he did not have that information,but by memory it was between the 70 db to 80 db range. The discussion continued regarding the sound of the dBA's. Mr.Elegator was asked to put it in real terms. Mr.Elegator said 55 dBA's is the normal speaking voice. Phyllis Witmer asked if Mr.Elegator happened to know the sound rating of a leaf blower(the back blower). Mr.Elegator said it is in the 90 db range,but it depends on where one is standing. Ant 55 dBA measurements and isn det pend on where one is standing. He said the Board is talking about air conditioning equipment, out how far away it is from the receptor site. Mr.Gunther said Mr.Elegator spoke about the logarithmic value of adding sounds together et r to the 55.2 give t tho take, the difference between a 45 dBA ambient sound and 55 dBA air conditioning unit,the with which Mr.Elegator agreed. Mr.Gunther asked to take the other extreme,where the normal ambient sound might be 45 plus at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Elegator said it's between 25 and 30 in a quiet area. What is the impact of 55 dBA? Mr.Elegator explained if you average 55 plus 30,you will get 55. The 30 won't have any affect. It is basically hidden. He continued explaining giving different examples. Mr.Gunther said in the middle of the night if sleeping with the window open it can be heard significantly more at night,with which Mr.Elegator agreed. • Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 5 A Town Board member said they are going to be discussing a proposed law and are talking about starting to put penalties on folks if the noise level exr eds by 5 db the ambient noise. He read item D from the proposed law. Charlene lndelicato,the Town Attorney,said if it is more than 55,they are subject to a violation. If in fact it is 70 around,and the air conditioning unit is 60,then one doesn't get a violation. She continued to give examples of what the law will provide. After further discussion,Ms.Seligson said that was basically the same question. Does that make sense to have something that says if your subject noise exceeds ambient noise by 5 decibels or more that it is declared excessive. Ms.Seligson said you want your air conditioner noise to exceed your ambient noise by 5 decibels. Mr.Elegator said they might want to ask if they want it to be a 24 hour requirement. A discussion ensued. Mr. Winick said when he read the proposed Section 141-16,what that means to him is he can't use an air conditioner unit that produces a sound that is rated more than 55 dBA. Ms.Indelicato said it has not been discussed by the Town Board,but that is the intention. Mr.Wexler asked what happens if one is on a large piece of property,the property line is 450 ft.away and the unit is way out. • Ms.Indelicato said the presumption is nobody complains. Mr.Wexler asked if it is only,if a complaint occurs. ' Ms.Indelicato said the noise level is measured from the property line of the complainant. Mr.Winick said it would appear to make operating an air conditioning rated more than 55 dBA's illegal. Ms.O'Keeffe said if anyone has questions on the law,they can be sent to the Town Board. A public hearing will be held if and when they plan to vote on the sound laws,and the public will have an opportunity to speak to them. The Town Board has to leave for a session this evening and cannot answer any questions. Mr.Williams asked what the average sound level is for the majority of air conditioners. Mr.Elegator said he doesn't know. Mr.Williams said he had an existing unit,they replaced the unit,bought a state-of-the-art unit and explained the unit purchased,which is sound rated at 68 decibels. Ms.O'Keeffe explained the Town Board members must leave the Zoning Board meeting at this time to attend the Town Board meeting. Mr.Williams read a letter from AMPAC,which stated his unit is the quietest available. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr.Hamblet,of 72 North Chatsworth Avenue,addressed the Board. He stated since he is the only resident in Larchmont that has had a sound measurement taken,the ambient sound is.66 dBA at 72,000 with no echos. The other question is one has to look at the impact of a structure on the neighborhood. He asked Mr.Elegator,if you take out nine window units and replace it with one air conditioning unit,is it louder or quieter. It's probably is going to be quieter. Zoning Board March 22,2000 f� Page 6 tsis and explainedthe trhe total behind war Mr.Elegator said he doesn't know offhand. Each of the window units is a noise source. If the total soundpower t generated by each source is added together,the one unit will be quieter statement. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the statistics used. Mr.Hamblet said he had other questions and said it was stated they have to look at the total impact of the structure. He asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals was looking at the impact other than sound. Mr.Gunther said yes. if a variance Ms.Gallant said that the Board has factors it has to apply to each variance application. The impact is granted on the community and the detriment to nearby properties is one of the statutory factors that the Board must consider. The statute doesn't mention sound specifically,but the statute requires the Board to consider impact on the neighborhood. Mr.Hamblet asked what other issues are being looked at. Ms.Gallent said there are five factors that the Board considers. It depends on a case by case basis and it depends what is before the Board. and the facts considered. The discussion continued regarding variance cases where interpretations are made, Mr.Hamblet said all the air conditioners in the Town of Mamaroneck will still be in violation of the law. Ms.Gallent said not all air conditions,only ones that are located within required yards. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding needing a building permit for a structure,a central air conditioning unit. Mr.Winick said there is a difference between a defect,like not having a permit which is curable because one is not otherwise in violation of the law,and someone who has an air conditioning unit in a side yard where the whether inspectorea lot of the could not grant a permit for the air conditioner because it requires a variance. The issue of whether one has a permit or not is ministerial,if there is no problem. He said Mr.Hamblet is making, fact that nobody has a permit. Mr.Hamblet said the Town prosecuted him for erecting a structure without Town permit. o Matt is why k he keeps o going going back to the point that everyone who has a central air conditioning unitof the law. Mr.Gunther would like to end the discussion and make one more comment. The reason why the Town Board is present is because they doing research aimed at creating a set of regulations for the Town w be adjourned to deal withairt units. As a result,Mr.Gunther said he is going to move that the current application conditioningeagenda are similar,in that they are requesting We next meeting. It appears that this case and another case on the a variance for air conditioning units. It is possible that the Town Board may or may not have a law by then. When they are ready to have a public hearing,they will announce it and anyone interested can voice their opinion to the Town Board. Mr.Williams said he feels very comfortable with that. Howevwhat er,would have had a to Boardnu to take r of months into to er life in Larchmont and read a few sentences summarizing 1. The most recent public notice for the March 22,2000 Zoning Board meeting states,"Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize the erection of an existing air conditioning condensing unit". Mr.Williams feels it should read: Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 7 ...requesting a variance to legalize the replacement of an existing condensing unit. They had a unit,it was a defective unit,the unit was replaced. 2. There was no public announcement in the change of ordinance concerning the setback criteria, until after Mr.Williams had replaced their existing unit. That was information they got from the Building Department. This is so,despite the fact that other government agencies,such as sanitation,publicize when actual changes may occur. 3. In order to insure good-will,they went along with everything. They purchased the most expensive state-of-the-art condensing unit with a decibel measure of 68 to 72. 4. In terms of intrusive sound,they are well below the normal level. Mr.Wexler asked if he built a structure around the air conditioner condenser,such as a ventilated box,what impact would that have assuming the free space to the box is 20 ft.with enough ventilation between all the sides to meet the requirements. Mr.Elegator said the box can be designed to permit the unit to run correctly and reduce the sound significantly, depending on what one plans to achieve. An example was given,at which time Mr.Gunther said not to quote a particular number,because the number was merely intended as a draft as a starting point for discussion. Mr.Elegator said that 68 or 72 is right near the unit,55 is at the property line which is some distance away,20 to 30 ft.,so a comparison cannot be made. Mr.Williams asked the cost. Mr.Elegator said it depends on the circumstances and the factors involved. Mr.Winick pointed out the Board is not the body that writes legislation. This is valuable information the Town Board should know. Mr.Williams asked to whom does he appeal. Mr.Gunther said there was no public notice of the change in the law. There was no change in the law. After some discussion,Mr.Winick said the Board was asked to make an interpretation of the existing law. It was simply a question that the Board had never been asked before. They were asked to interpret the existing statute. There is a legal difference. If the zoning law had been amended,it needed to be done on public notice. This happened at a public hearing that was covered. Mr.Williams said this is wrong. He needs to know to whom they can go to deal with this in a fair and equitable way. Mr.Gunther suggested he go to the Town Board. They are dealing with it,which is why they were present today. As the supervisor indicated,they will be holding a public hearing,there will be public notice,and everyone will be invited to voice their opinion. Mr.Williams said it also involves$3,500. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 8 Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,on a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2365 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the April 25,.2000 Zoning Board meeting. Mr.Gunther thanked Mr.Elegator. Mr.Gunther asked if anyone is present for the following application: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2388(adjourned 2/29/00) Application of Dr.Bruce Robinson requesting a variance to install two(2)central air conditioning condensing units. The central air conditioning condensing units as proposed have a side yard of 8.0 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 83 Lookout Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117,Lot 84. No one was present for this application. The Director of Building announced that the applicant is withdrawing his application because he plans to move his unit to another place on his property that doesn't require a variance. The secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2375(adjourned 11/23/99;1/5/00;1/26/00;2/29/00) Application of Stand Development Corporation/Steven Silverstein requesting a variance to construct a one-family dwelling. The lot on which the proposed one family dwelling is to be built upon,has a lot width of 79.12 ft.and a frontage of 97.0 ft.where 100.0 ft.is the required lot width and where 100.0 ft.is the required frontage pursuant to Section 240-36A(2)for a building lot in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 208 Mulberry Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 448. Jeff Meighan,of 100 Mamaroneck Avenue, Mamaroneck,New York, the attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr.Meighan said a drawing was submitted to the Board by Mr.Morganroth showing changes to the location of the driveway,which doesn't require either of the two variances discussed at the previous meeting. Mr.Morganroth said he tried to move the driveway as far off the rock as requested,but could only get it about 5 ft.away from the ledge,that is 5 additional feet of rock that could be saved and explained the distance needed. He tried to keep a fairly regular turn. Mr.Wexler asked the elevation at the top of the ledge. Mr.Morganroth said he didn't know. Mr.Wexler asked the height of the ledge. Mr.Silverstein said the height of the ledge is 11/2 ft. • Mr.Morganroth said that the wall will abut the edge. Mr.Silverstein said the piece of rock shown coming out of the driveway is the piece of rock closest to the street as you face the property,the farthest right arm of the lower piece of rock. It has an elevation off the grass of 82 ft. • Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 9 Mr.Wexler asked if he made the driveway 3 ft.narrower. Mr.Morganroth said he narrowed it down at the entrance,in order to preserve more of the rock. To comply with the height elevation they stepped the wall,so there will be two 4 ft.walls to provide a planting bed for aesthetics as well as complying with the code. Mr.Gunther said the height of the wall is,in the driveway up to the stairs,with which Mr.Morganroth agreed. Mr.Morganroth said it is in the required front yard setback,which is a maximum height of 4 ft. Mr.Wexler asked what happens to the rock on the other side. Mr.Morganroth said the other side is lower. He explained that one side got higher,because additional fill had to be provided to level it off. Mr.Wexler said it appears that the wall on the right-hand side is higher than an allowable wall. Mr.Morganroth said it is the required height at the setback. After further discussion,Mr.Wexler suggested that the building inspector look at it. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions about the driveway and the drainage plans. There were none. Mr.Meighan said he has another plan that they got the other day and submitted a copy,marked exhibit#1. Mr.Gunther advised those in the audience that were interested in this matter to come forward to look at the plan. Mr.Meighan said the landscaping plan was done primarily to provide buffers on the left-hand side of the property, Mr.Tiebout's property in the front and Mr.Roniger's property immediately behind. He explained that shrubbery is shown on the right-hand side to lessen the impact on the two houses that are close,but is not sure it is a necessary item. This came about because they went to see Mr.Tiebout,he had a landscape architect and they used him. Steven Silverstein,of Stand Development Corporation, 129 Halstead Avenue,Mamaroneck, then addressed the Board. He said just to reiterate what Mr.Meighan said about the right-hand property line,the people who live in the Kalmanash's old residence seem to have been out of the country for the last month or so. Mr.Silverstein asked the landscape architect to provide some kind of a buffer on the right-hand side. Mr.Silverstein said he did not consult his clients,the Neuman,before doing so. After having seen the plans,they were not in favor of all of it. They feel it encloses the property more than they would like to see. Since he hasn't spoken with the residents of that house,he would like to try and keep that part of it out of the landscape plan. He is willing to work with these people. If they would like to have it,it will all be incorporated if they have to. He stated that the six evergreen trees on the left-hand side are primarily to screen Mr.Roniger's property. The Neuman's would to use some different varieties than those expressed in the plans. It would still be evergreen screening like Hemlocks,as they are showing. Mr.Silverstein said Mr.Neuman currently has Hemlocks on his property,he is having a disease problem with them and would prefer not to have more Hemlocks. Mr.Meighan said because they are concerned about the individual living across the street,they have also added shrubbery in the wall in front to lessen the impact on the Barish property. • Mr.Gunther asked if all of the plantings are generally indigenous to the area. Mr.Silverstein said he doesn't know,but does know they are readily available. Mr.Gunther said what is most important is not only that it look nice,but it should have the greatest likelihood of long term survival. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 10 Richard Neuman,of 207 Mulberry Lane which is across the street,addressed the Board. He informed the Board that he is having a problem with the eight Hemlocks on his property and will probably replace them. For that reason he wouldn't want to use them,but would rather another variety be used that is equally acceptable. The architect proposes an American Dogwood on one side of the house and a Chinese Dogwood on the other. He said that Dogwood in this area is susceptible to fungus,as is the Chinese Dogwood. They would like to keep open the possibility of using almost any flowering tree of about that height,preferably one that is not susceptible to any disease. Mr.Wexler said there are three reasonable size trees in the front the property on the lower plateau and the canopy will be over the plantings. He asked if they will be shade plantings. Mr.Neuman said he is trusting that the landscape architect has chosen plantings that will grow in shade. Since this is Mr.Tiebout's architect and he is very familiar with Mr.Tiebout's back yard which abuts the property,he isn't concerned. Ms.Martin said that azalea and rhododendron are shade tolerant plantings. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. Barbara Spellman,of 197 Mulberry Lane,addressed the Board. She is concerned about how they are going to build on the rock,is concerned about blasting,jackhammering,etc.,as she lives across the street. Mr.Silverstein said when they originally made their application,they said they were not going to blast. Their intent is to chip the rock with a pneumatic hammer that sits on the front of a backhoe. If that doesn't work,they drill the rock then split it,or a combination of the two. As far as shoring the house to the rock,they usually use dowels to drill holes in the rock and pin the footing to the rock. Ms.Martin asked what are the normal hours for construction and how long does he anticipate this to go on. Mr.Silverstein said hours of construction are from 8:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.. Originally he said ten days for the rock removal,depending on the condition of the rock and the amount to be removed. Ms.Martin asked if the backhoe will be on the property or on the street. Mr.Silverstein said it will be on the property,but there will be some trucks that have to come in to remove the rock. Mr.Gunther asked the Director of Building about the Town requirements for construction. Mr.Carpaneto said that blasting is permitted. Usually they will have all the neighbors review a preblast survey, there will be a before and after video tape of the house,which is required by the Town Code,rock chipping is acceptable,rock cracking is acceptable,rock removal in the Town of Mamaroneck is everywhere,it's a routine thing. Mr.Gunther asked what is in the Town requirements for builders to inform people about protecting neighbors who live adjacent to a construction site. Mr.Carpaneto said builders have the responsibility not to step on other people's property. The Town will ask for fencing,if it is necessary. Sometimes people will ask the Town to request a safety fence. It can be a condition, although he stated it's probably not necessary here. Mr.Gunther made reference to a previous application for a house on Colonial Avenue where the Board required orange construction fencing and asked if that was a normal requirement. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 11 Mr.Carpaneto said it depends on the site and situation. There is not going to be much more of a change to what now exists. Mr.Silverstein said it is something he normally does in any event. Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Silverstein is going to get on top and push the rock out. Mr.Silverstein said Mr.Carducci,a local contractor,is going to handle the excavation. Mr.Silverstein did a similar job in Larcbmont on Nassau Road where it was tighter. Mr.Carducci will probably have a backhoe on top, have the chipper in the foundation,alternate the machines,push the rock and load the trucks to remove the rock. They will try to use the rock they take out to build some of the walls they are going to build. Mr.Gunther asked for an estimate of total construction time. Mr.Silverstein said from the day they break ground,approximately seven months. Ms.Spellman asked if the trucks he is bringing in will fit on Mulberry Lane. Mr.Silverstein said there will be 10-wheel dump trucks. He thinks they will fit. They will come from Rockland, will drive past the foundation and then back into the foundation. Mr.Wexler asked how many yards of rock. Mr.Silverstein said approximately 50 yards. Mr.Wexler said it is about six truck loads. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public on this application. There being none,he asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. There being none,Mr.Gunther said that counsel was asked to prepare a draft resolution,after considerable discussion at the prior meeting,which he read. After some discussion and changes made, on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED,that this 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.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED: • WHEREAS,Stand Development Corporation(the"Applicant")has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-family dwelling on the premises located at 208 Mulberry Lane, Block 213,Lot 448(the"Property"), with a lot width of 79.12 feet and a frontage of 97 feet where 100 feet is required for both pursuant to Section 240-36(A)(2)of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance for a single- family dwelling 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 Section 240-36(A)(2);and WHEREAS,Stand Development Corp.submitted an application for variances to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site on numerous occasions,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and • • Zoning Board March 22,2000 • Page 12 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck heard testimony from the Applicant and neighbors residing in the vicinity of the Property regarding their views of the potential impact of the proposed house as reflected in the minutes of the Board's November 23,1999,January 5,2000,January 26,2000,February 29, 2000 and March 22,2000 meetings;and, •WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required pursuant to New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The benefit to the Applicant if the variance is granted will outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: The proposed house will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. As the Applicant pointed out, the Property is located in the southernmost part of an R-15 district. The vast majority of the district is located north of Rockland Avenue,in an area bordered by Rockland Avenue, the Leatherstocking Trail, and the Village of Mamaroneck. The Property is removed from the balance of the R-15 district. The neighborhood of which the Property is physically,emotionally and geographically a part of an R-10 district located across Mulberry Street commonly known as Larchmont Gardens. Indeed,the front portion of the Property is located on a 1911 subdivision map of Larchmont Gardens • (No.1949).The Property is actually larger than those across the street on Mulberry Lane and continuing into the Larchmont Gardens neighborhood. The Board finds that the variances requested will not have a detrimental impact on this neighborhood. The minimum lot width in the R-10 district is 85 feet. See Zoning Code • §240-37(A). The requested lot width—79.12 feet—will not produce a discernible change in the existing character or feel of the neighborhood because it is not out of character with the surrounding properties. The record reveals that many lots in the vicinity of the Property are substandard in terms of lot width.' The minimum frontage in the R-10 district is 85 feet. The proposed frontage of 97 feet well exceeds the 85 foot minimum required frontage for the R-10 district. Accordingly,the proposed house will be close in feel to the built environment of the R-10 district of which it is practically,if not officially,a part. Next the Board must consider whether the requested variances will have a detrimental • impact on nearby properties. The properties with the greatest potential to be affected by the variances requested are 48 and 50 Stoneyside Drive and 206 Mulberry Lane,all of which abut the Property. Upon careful inspection of all of these lots, the Board • determines that none of these properties will be adversely affected for the following reasons. The house at 206 Mulberry Lane will be separated from the proposed house by a 15 foot side yard setback(which exceeds the minimum required for the both the R-10 and R-15 districts)on both the Property and 206 Mulberry itself. • The house at 48 Stoneyside is located toward the rear of its property. There will be approximately 50 feet between that house and the proposed house. Similarly,the house at 50 Stoneyside will be adequately buffered from the proposed house by the complying side yards of both properties. While the requested variances will alter the park-like views of the vacant Property that both 48 and 50 Stoneyside have enjoyed for many years at no • 'For example,the abutting property,located at 50 Stoneyside Drive,does not have a 100 foot width;nor do the nearby properties located at 14,19 and 20 Stoneyside meet the minimum 100 foot lot width. ' Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 13 expense,the Board does not believe that it has an obligation to protect this fortuitous condition in the face of a request to construct a house on the Property that will have no other negative impact on the neighborhood. Finally,any impact that the proposed house might have on any of these properties will be mitigated by the ample screening proposed by the Applicant,which will consist of a Board fmds that the variety of plants,some requested variances will not have a negative impact on the granting ofcharacter of the neighborhood or a detrimental imp the act on nearby properties,on the condition that this landscaping plan be implemented. B. Whether the benefit sou ht b the a licantican be achieved b some feasout ible ee rmethod other than an area variance. As the Applicant dam tof ra this community could beequested variances, the only way a house of the size typical constructed on the Property would be with access via Secor Circle,a non-dedicated paper street shown on the 1951 Highview Ridge Subdivision Map. The Board fords that this is First,it not a is feasible permitted e for thefollowing g C de an°would, uld,therefore,require a var result in a ig lot, ance. econ not g ted bck Second,exiting onto Rockland Avenue from Secor Circle would be less preferable than the proposed access onto Mulberry Lane because Rockland Avenue iisa far busier addition,eet than Mulberry Lane and sight lines would be inferior to those proposed. eats the house unique topography of the Property,particularly its rock outcroppings,suggests location proposed and necessitates the variances requested. C. Whether the r •uested variances are substantial. In considering the substantiality of an area variance, the Board must look not only at the variance quantitatively, but qualitatively as well. While the width variance is 20%,as described above its impact will be minimal. The 3 foot frontage variance is insubstantial and,at any rate,will not have any impact on the area as describedabove, e,pad partics ularly inallight of ly consistent athat the the proposal meets all other area requirements requirements of the R-10 district that we believe set an appropriate standard on this block. • variance l have an adverse he h cal tal D. cond tions in the nei�ehborhoodwileffect Several neighbors testified tto their rconcerns that the proposed house would have a negative impact on drainage and traffic conditions in the area. However,the record.demonstrates that these concerns are unfounded. At.the Board's request,the Applicant commissioned a drainage plan for the Property that was y letter tro reviewed by the Town's consulting engineer,Malcolm Pirnie,Inc. "MPI). Bmemrr dated January 27,2000, M'PI indicated that the proposed drainageto traffic membere st appears adequate to handle runoff from the Property. respect of the Board visited the site to assess traffic conditions and are confident that the addition • of one single-family home to the area will not adversely affect traffic in forarea. The portion of Mulberry Lane on which the Property is located is of the driveway oe and through s traffic. The Board also carefully reviewed the p • • relationship to the street and has determined that it will not have any adverse impact on traffic conditions in the area. B. Whether the alleged difficult was self-created. The Board finds that th e difficcuulttyPwII not self-created,but rather resulted from a change in zoning' Property has separate tax lot for many years. The non-compliances that necessitate the variances requested resulted from the upzoning of the Property after 1951 when the Property was originally approved as a buildable lot. In any event,even if the difficulty were self- created,which it is not,the law instructs that that would not be determinative of the Board's inquiry. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 14 • For the reasons set forth above,the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals determines in accordance with Town Law§267-b that the record demonstrates that the benefit to the Applicant from the grant of the variances outweighs any detriment to the . health,safety or welfare of the community. Accordingly,the Board hereby grants the variances requested on the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall implement the landscape plan, dated March•21, 2000, • submitted to the Board,but may substitute equivalent plants on the northwest • side as discussed at the March 22,2000 meeting of the Board. In addition,the landscaping shown on the southeast side shall not be required. • 2., This variance authorizes construction shown on the plans submitted, dated • September 13,1999,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. At the start of this meeting,the following cases,#3-and#4,Veronique and Marshall Parke were noted adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2386(adjourned 2/29/00) - • Application of Veronique and Marshall Parke requesting a variance to legalize an existing one-story addition. The addition as built has a rear yard of 16 ft.where,25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);and further,the .addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Briar Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 421. APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2387(adjourned 2/29/00) Application of Veronique and Marshall Parke requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 6 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Briar Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 421. The Secretary read the next application as follows: • • APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2391 Application of Jonathan Richter and Raquelle Dupuis requesting a variance to replace a 1' story rear extension with a 21/2 story extension above an existing terrace,and the addition of new front porch and rear terrace. The rear 21/2 story addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a), the additions as proposed have a lot coverage of 36%where a maximum of 35%is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38F;and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 2 Acorn Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 408. Tony Savino,of 3 West End Avenue,Old Greenwich,the construction manager,along with the owners,addressed the Board. He said that they have a London architect. Mr.Savino submitted letters from adjacent property owners in favor of the application,marked exhibit#1. Mr.Savino is proposing to take the existing part of the building off Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 15 • in the rear,an existing one-story state,and turn it into a two-story state. What exists is already within the side setback. Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Savino to explain the increase in coverage. Mr.Savino said there are two:components. One is the rear component,the other component is in the front where they are adding a small porch. Mr.Wexler said in the impervious slate portion,the addition of a one-story structure added onto what is existing is 1%over what is required,with.which Mr.Savino agreed. • Mr.Carpaneto said there is already impervious surface there,with which Mr.Savino agreed. Ms.Martin is unclear how the front is going to look. Mr.Savino said that is existing. After some discussion,Mr.Savino said it is graphically unusual and the impact will be minimal. In the back there will be no visual impact.It is a unique existing building. Mr.Wexler said that the addition will have a very strong impact on this house. This house was granted a variance to do the one-story addition,with which Mr.Savino agreed. Mr.Wexler stated the applicant is asking to add on another 11/2 story on the same footprint that has been granted where it effects the variance. The front addition does not effect the variance. Mr.Gunther asked when it was built. Mr.Richter said it was built in 1929. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. Mr.Wexler asked what the are the drawings 001-0012? Mr.Savino said they are sketches. Mr.Wexler asked if it is a preliminary design,do they anticipate any changes. Mr.Savino there will be no additional changes. Mr.Wexler explained that if a variance is granted,it is for a specific set a drawings. • Ms.Dupuis said the date on the drawings is 12/13/99. • A discussion ensued about drawing dates and revision dates. Mr.Wexler said the plans submitted are preliminaries. They are going to develop these further to work from drawings which should not effect the request for a variance. There will be a different set of drawings. Mr.Savino said the building will not get any larger,the footprint will be the same. Mr.Wexler suggested this is preliminary,what the applicant is looking for two variances. He suggested Mr.Sevin get a sense from the Board and table this matter until he.gets a set of working drawings to make sure there are no problems. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 16 Mr.Savino said if he changes window locations or pitches without changing height,it doesn't matter. Mr.Gallent said variances are granted pursuant to plans submitted. Mr.Richter asked what items are necessary. Mr.Wexler said any changes must be noted,due to a lawsuit filed a few years ago. Ms.Gallent said Mr.Carpaneto is the interpreter for the Building Department. It also depends what language is put in the variance. Mr.Wexler said it is potentially close to the neighbor on one side. If windows are changed,the neighbor might object. Mr.Richter said if changes occur,they will be minor. If anything,it will be lesser. Mr.Savino asked if there is a change to a proposed flat roof,if that would warrant them to come back. Mr.Gunther said when the Board approves a variance,it is for a specific set of plans. Mr.Winick said Mr.Savino does not have a buildable set of plans. He suggested he get them done and come back before the Board. Ms.Martin asked if this application has to be renoticed. Ms.Gallent said it would be if the variance requested change. Mr. Savino said if there is no increase in the footprint nor a change in height,the moving of a window didn't become an issue,but changing a roof pitch down would. Mr.Wexler said he is doing a copper roof and a shingle roof. That is not a substantial change. When one goes from a gable roof to a flat roof it is a substantial change. Ms.Gallent said that is up to the Building Inspector. Mr.Carpaneto said there is no opposition to the original plan. Mr.Savino said he has two options. Mr.Wexler said he can get a sense of the Board on how they are going to vote on it. Option two,he can request a vote. After further discussion regarding new plans to be submitted and the time element involved,Ms.Richter said that she is happy with the drawings as submitted and will continue. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 17 • WHEREAS,Jonathan Richter and Raquelle Dupuis have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to replace a 11 story rear extension with a 21 story extension. The 2'h story addition is above an existing terrace. Addition of new front porch and rear terrace. The rear 2'story addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a),the additions as proposed have a Lot Coverage of 36%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-38F;and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 2 Acorn Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 408;and • WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-38F,Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Jonathan Richter and Raquelle Dupuis 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 theTown of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created,because what is being built is essentially a one-story addition on exactly the same footprint as the current addition on the back of the house. From inspection of the property there is adequate screening on one side. Any increase in the bulk of the addition will be minimized by the screening; B. Given the size of the lot and the existence of the current addition,the applicants cannot achieve their goals as proposed for additional living space without an area variance. The existing addition required a variance and this is the same footprint; C. The variance is not substantial from the property as it now exists with the current variance on it. It doesn't change the footprint at all except in the front with the exception of a 1%increase in coverage,because of the addition of a front entryway. The 1%is not substantial in any respect; • D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district created,because it is confined to the back yard of the property and will be invisible to the street and to the surrounding houses except for the ones immediately adjacent; E. There is no self-created difficulty. It is characteristic of lots of this size, given the current expectations in the community for living space; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. • Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 18 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 detailed on the plans submitted to the Board 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. • The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2392 Application of Cesar Aponte requesting a variance to legalize an existing deck,bedroom extension and existing powder room. The deck as built has a side yard of 3.9 ft.where 8.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(a);the addition as built,plus existing improvements,have a total lot coverage of 44%where a maximum of 35%is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39F;and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 18 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505,Lot 395. Cesar Aponte,of 18 Dean Place,Larchmont,appeared. Mr.Gunther asked how this situation came to be. Mr.Aponte said in 1994/1995 the home was somewhat staggered in back. The adjoining bedroom was recessed 8 ft.from the'rear. lie had a need to extend that area to increase the bedroom space. The bedroom was extended . 8 ft.to even the back of the house. At the same time,he had a number of burglaries at the home,one actually confirmed burglary. He chose to eliminate the staircase in the rear. Mr.Wexler asked if all of this was built without a permit. Mr.Aponte said 8 ft.was added to the back. - Mr.Wexler said a lot of work was done,the foundation,the story above it,the deck. Mr.Wexler asked if the contractor didn't realize he needed a permit at that time in 1994 or 1995. Mr.Aponte said it was six or seven years ago. Mr.Winick asked who was the contractor. ' Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 19 Mr.Aponte said he is no longer here. At the time,he thought the 8 ft.was legitimate. Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Aponte if he didn't think he needed a permit. Mr.Aponte said he thought he needed one,but because of his job involvement and other personal situations,he was somewhat misled. Once it was done,he had to bear with it. He witnessed the foundation being poured. He said it is in compliance. Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Carpaneto if this was checked. Mr.Carpaneto said it will have to be checked,as well as the pieces of the deck. Mr.Gunther asked who the builder was. Mr.Aponte said he will have to look back in his paperwork on the house. He doesn't know. He said he was in law enforcement for many years and was on the road,having difficulty and didn't really pay attention to what was going on. He was away for a period of time for undercover law enforcement business. He did not see the beginning of it,but saw the final part. Mr.Gunther asked what brought Mr.Aponte before the Board. Mr.Aponte said he had the home since 1976. He is coming down to the end of his mortgage,has plans to pass the home onto his daughter and neMs a Certificate of Occupancy. He had a survey done by Lawrence Gordon, an architect. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions.' Mr.Wexler said that Dean Place is a very dense street. This is not out of character. It's unique in the community. Mr.Winick asked counsel if the Board can condition the grant of a variance on the payment to the receiver of the taxes of the tax law,due to the fact that this wasn't appraised for six years. Ms.Gallent said no. Any conditions imposed on the grant of the variance must relate to the land. After some discussion regarding this issue,Mr.Winick said it is the first time since he has been on the Board that someone has come before the Board and said I knew I needed a permit,I didn't get a permit,but now I'm going to pass title to the house and need a Certificate of Occupancy. What he has done is beat the Town out of taxes for six years. Mr.Aponte said his comment was that he came to realize and he was under the belief that this person was in line to take care of it. He didn't say that he totally disregarded a building permit. When you contract something to a person,you are under the belief that everything will be handled. He admitted that. Mr.Winick said the question Mr.Wexler asked is if Mr.Aponte knew he needed a permit and Mr.Aponte said yes. Ms.Gallent thinks Mr.Aponte is saying he knew he needed a permit,but thought the builder would get it. A discussion ensued regarding this statement. Mr.Carpaneto said it may be on the property card and may be assessed properly. Mr.Winick said the most common reason for doing this,is to avoid the taxes on it. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 20 After further discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. There being none,he suggested the Building Inspector submit a copy of any resolution adopted.on this matter and a copy of the Minutes of the meeting to the assessor as opposed to putting in a condition. He said the Board does not have jurisdiction over the assessor. Mr.Winick said he is not suggesting that the Board does,and counsel does not know. Mr. Gunther is suggesting,if the matter is resolved today, that the Building Inspector submit a copy of any resolution created on this matter and a copy of the Minutes of the meeting to the assessor for consideration. Mr.Winick said he has no assurance that the assessor has either the power or the resolve to collect back taxes.He said the issue here is that there has been a revenue lost to the Town and let's correct it,if it can be corrected. Mr.Wexler suggested we adjourn this matter and let counsel research it. Ma.Gallent said she will do so. Mr.Winick said on a building permit issued,he would like to know if they have the authority to correct it. Mr.Wexler said if an engineer is involved,he might be able to justify what is presented. It is up to the applicant to convince the building inspector that it is safe and meets the codes. The assumption is that it's been there for four years and it is a safe. He doesn't think the inspector will be concerned about an inch or two. If there is a drastic difference it is to the applicant's benefit,given he is the owner of the house. Mr.Winick asked Mr.Carpaneto if this type of a change in the property will work and how substantial a difference will that be in assessed value in terms of the change in square footage. Mr.Gunther said he has no problem and suggested the Board deal with the application as presented and move forward,with which the Board agreed. Mr.Gunther proceeded to give the Board his sense of the application. He will vote in favor of it,only because it is preexisting. The detriment to the applicant for removal will be more substantial than to continue. On the other hand,if this extension and deck had not been built and had been presented to the Board as a request to build,Mr. Gunther would feel it would be appropriate to decline it on the basis of the excessive lot coverage being proposed and the closeness in proximity to other properties,the side property,since that particular block as noted is fairly tight. Mr.Gunther doesn't think the Board should be exacerbating the really tight Situation on that street. The fact is that it does exist and the impact on the applicant to remove it would be more substantial. There also hasn't been any objection from the neighborhood. Mr.Wexler said given the site specifically,the house next to it which is most affected to it is closer to the side yard. There is a certain uniqueness about the street,a very strong character to it and the closeness in areas adds to that. In this specific case,it adds to the enhancement of the street,as opposed to being an ordinary small street. If the application was submitted and not already built,Mr.Aponte might have built it a little differently. It is a smidgen closer to the property than permitted. Mr.Winick commented. He thinks what Mr.Wexler said is actually bad zoning law. Mr.Winick sides with Mr. Wexler. If this matter came up on a clean slate and a request to build new property and he would not grant it,than he cannot grant it now. To take something that is an entirely self-created difficulty and give it greater rights than if it came to you on a clean slate,it is no different now. Ms.Gallent said Mr.Gunther thinks,in essence,that there is a negative impact on the street,but not that great an impact,so on balance,he's in favor of granting A heated discussion ensued regarding what was stated by Mr.Wexler and Mr.Winick. Mr.Carpaneto said that the survey,dated 12/3/99 states the side yard is 3.9 ft. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 21 • Mr.Winick said he can't vote for it,should have abstained,and would like an opinion from counsel. Mr.Winick asked what Mr.Gunther was saying about how he would treat this if the zoning resolution came'up and it was a clean slate. . Mr.Gunther said he would view it as two different applications,if it was not built or it is built. There are.two'very different situations. One is a situation that it is there four years with no objections from the neighborhood,and the other is hypothetical if the applicant were coming to the Board for something he would like to build. If it was a like to build,Mr.Gunther would like to see a lower lot coverage. That is not where the Board is: Mr.Gallent asked why. ,. Mr.Gunther said it is already a congested block,where houses are close together. Mr.Wexler said he built 64 sq.ft.and the deck has no lot coverage. The water penetrates. This house has more lot coverage than what was required,whether he built the addition or not. The lot area coverage prior to that was 42%,which is minimal in extension. Mr.Wexler than asked why the applicant is before the Board for a variance. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. • Greg Satowski said in terms of the deck,it is too close to the property. A discussion ensued regarding the surveys reviewed by the Board and the dates thereon. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED,2 in favor and 2 opposed,with one abstention,Mr.Gunther. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Winick,the'following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Cesar Aponte has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize an existing deck,bedroom extension and existing powder room. The deck as built has a side yard of 3.9 ft.where 8.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 18 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505,Lot 395;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 240-3911(2)(a),Section 240-39F;and WHEREAS,Cesar Aponte submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: • Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 22 • A. An undesirable change will not occur to the neighborhood. The Board is very familiar with the street and the property. The uniqueness of the street is that the homes are on narrow lots and they are close together in many instances. The fact that this property is • approximately 4 ft.from the side property line is not out of character with a good portion of the other properties on Dean Place,particularly in the Village of Mamaroneck,which is across the street from this house; B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative,given the limitations to the site,the location of the existing stucco garage and the proximity of the use of the space required within the building layout as it presently exists; C. Even though the side yard setback requested is a 3.9 ft.setback where 8.0 ft.is-required, it is not substantial in relation to other homes on the street; D. In this instance,this will not have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental • conditions in the neighborhood or district,given the type of multi-use of the community within the general area of this site given the existence of commercial uses on the Boston • Post Road,Lorene Street and the relationship of open space in the rear. It is a very unique area in the community and it will not adversely impact that; E. In this instance,it can appear to be a self-created difficulty because the applicant was under the assumption that there was a building permit in place and realized there was not one; 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. • This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. • The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2393 • Application of Robert Egan requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition. The second floor addition as proposed has a front yard of 23.0 ft.where 30.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 23 an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Lundy Lane and known on.the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502,Lot 99. Robert Egan,the applicant,and Larry Bronfman,of 239 Mill Street,Greenwich,the architect representing Mr. Bronfman,appeared. Mr.Bronfman said they have a situation where there is an existing Pk story residence on a corner lot with two front yards,one of which is nonconforming,23 ft.as opposed to the required 30 ft.,the other is 61 ft. They are proposing a second floor addition. They are also re-siding the existing house,which is directly over the existing footprint of the house and not increasing the footprint at all. The addition is for additional bedrooms. Currently there are two bedrooms on the first floor. They will be adding three bedrooms upstairs. Mr.Gunther asked if there'is currently anything upstairs. Mr.Bronfman said nothing is currently upstairs,other than attic space. • Mr.Wexler said it is a substantial house. He asked how high the ridge line is. • • Mr.Bronfman said it is 26/27. Ms.Martin said she is concerned about the impact of raising the house substantially on the home that is directly behind it and is much lower. She wonders how much of a looming structure the proposed addition will be to the people in that home and how will it impact their light. Mr.Martin wondered what conversations they have had with them. • Ms.Egan said they did write them personally. Mr.Egan said they sent them a letter explaining what was going to be done,along with a picture of it. Ms.Egan reiterated that they sent them a letter saying they will be doing construction and will be happy to discuss it with them,along with a copy of the drawings,and they have not heard from them. Mr.Gunther said prior to the meeting,notices were sent to all the property owners within 400 ft.of the Egans. Ms.Egan said it was that day,when they received the notice,that they gave a personal note to them. Mr.Wexler asked about the plane on the entry,which Mr.Bronfman explained. • • Mr.Winick asked if it was applied trim,which Mr.Bronfman addressed. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. There being none,on motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. • On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Robert Egan has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to • construct a second floor addition. The second floor addition'as proposed has a front yard of 23.0 ft.where 30.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502,Lot 99;and Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 24 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),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Robert Egan 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. Based on review of the application and personal inspection of the property,the Board finds while there will be a change produced in the character of the neighborhood,the change will not be an undesirable change. It will be an attractive house;compared to the house that is currently located on the property. In addition,the property sits low relative to the houses across Lundy: Consequently, the increased height resulting from the addition from the Lundy'Lane side will have a minimal impact. There will be some impact on the property behind it,which is substantially lower than the subject property. However,the impact now is severe enough that the increment,caused by the granting of this variance, is not going to be substantial. Because of the difference in property heights,this property is already high up over the property. The additional height will not • ' change the way the properties relate to each other. Architecturally,the construction as proposed is entirely appropriate for the surrounding area; • B. The applicant does not have a reasonable alternative to achieve his goal of providing improved bedroom space for his children and bringing them out of a basement location; C. With respect to the substantial nature of the variance,the house is burdened with two front yards and therefore has a more difficult time complying with the zoning requirements than a normal house would; D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. There is no self-created difficulty involved; 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. Zoning Board March 22,2000 Page 25 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 detailed on the plans submitted 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. 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 permit. Mr.Gunther informed the Board that the Minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on Tuesday,April 25,2000. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. /a oma Marguerite ,Recording Sec-etary