HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_03_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
MARCH 28,2001,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Zil
Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman
Richard Coico to 'q,c•ie. t0
Jillian A.Martin % _
Arthur Wexler y �� BF�
Paul A.Winick ,1400/
f�
Also Present: Judith M.Gallent,Counsel
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building
Nancy Seligson,Liaison
Stephanie Poli,Public Stenographer
Terranova,Ka7a7es&Associates,Ltd.
49 Eighth Street
New Rochelle,New York 10801
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Gunther informed those present that the Board is short one Board member currently,but will be
present momentarily. He said the Board will start administrative matters first,and that the Minutes will
be reviewed at the end of the meeting.
The Chairman read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2430(adjourned 11/21/00;12/20/00;1/24i01;2/28/01)
Application of Katherine and Walter McTeigue,6 Harrison Drive,Block 503,Lot 579.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto if this application will be adjourned one more time.
Mr.Carpaneto said yes.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2430 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the April,
2001 Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Wexler informed Mr.Gunther that he will not be able to attend the next meeting.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
Zoning Board
�L March 28,2001
Page 2
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2439(edjoumed2/28/01)
Application of Nextel of New York,Inc.,d/b/a Nextel Communications,requesting a variance to construct
a public utility facility with antennas on the roof of an existing building on the premises located at 811D
Richbell Road,Building 8,and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
408,Lot 86. The public utility facility as proposed is not a permitted use within the RTA Zone District
pursuant to Section 240-27. Also,the unmanned equipment shelter addition as proposed has a height of,
77 ft.4 in.where 70 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-43D(2);and further,the addition increases
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an RTA
Zone District. -
Robert Gaudioso,with the law firm of Snyder&Snyder,was present to represent Nextel. Mr.Guadioso
thanked the chairman and members of the Board and said as they will recall,he was present last month
and went through the application in detail at that time. He said he noticed that the application was
renoticed for another public hearing this evening. He said without rehashing everything they went over
last month,just for background the facility does consist of twelve(12)panel antennas and a 200 sq.ft.
equipment shelter on the roof of the building. Based on the comments received last month,they submitted •
additional information which included a coverage map showing the location and coverage from the- • Recreational Zone,which would be the Winged Foot.Golf Club water tank. He said although they haven't _---
been able to receive a lease on that property, they did show the Board the coverage from that. The. .
coverage map showed it was too far to the north and wouldn't cover the proposed area of coverage. Mr.• --
Guadioso said they also submitted some background information on the types of buildings that they use in
• Westchester County. He said that all of Nextel's existing and proposed sites in Westchester are about 30%
to 33%on residential buildings of this type. This is nothing,in view of the circumstances.
Mr.Gaudioso said,most importantly,they submitted a revised set of plans,revised visual renderings and
a summary letter based on the relocation of the equipment shelter and some actual changes that they made
to it. He said he would like to have his engineer,McKenna Rossi,walk the Board through some of those
changes.
•
McKenna Rossi,of Tectonic Engineering,addressed the Board. She said as they previously discussed at
the last month's meeting.
At this point in time Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Rossi to tilt the easel a little to the side,so people in the.
audience can see what she is discussing.
Mr.Gunther asked if the plans were different than what was supplied to the Board.
Ms.Rossi said no,not at all. She said she has a small version,if Mr.Gunther would like her to give it
out,which she proceeded to do. Ms.Rossi said at last month's meeting the Board asked if she could move
the equipment shelter more to the north,which she has done that by 11 ft. Previously,it was right on the
edge of the existing building. She moved the shelter,the antennas and the framing forward. By doing
that,she also separated the antennas on that face of the shelter. She separated the four(4)antennas that
are flush mounted to the shelter to the outside end to accommodate a false window,as Mr.Wexler had
suggested. On the south elevation,she added a twin line window which matches up with the center existing
windows of the building. The dark shaded gray area is their shelter,which blends in with the existing
penthouse. Obviously the brick color is the existing building,with Good Line windows here. The
windows on the west and east elevations are much wider,which also keeps it in line with the existing
penthouse.
Ms.Rossi said the other item she noticed when she went back out there,is that the landlord has also
covered one of the penthouses with a metal siding. He's doing that with all the buildings. The penthouse
nearest them is a very dull shade of brown. What she has done is change the exterior finish of the shelter
to match. It's going to be steel sided to match exactly what's there on the penthouses,so they will blend
in on that end.
r-- r
•
•
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 3
Ms.Rossi said the tables they are proposing come out of the west elevation of the shelter. She will remove
that table court and put it down,so that the tables will come through the farthest door of the shelter and
they will not be seen at all.
Ms.Rossi said as far as the height of the shelter,she has no change there. In her professional opinion,
it is not a good idea to move those. They have had a history with this group. If a roofer wanted to come
out and repair the roof or reroof around the shelter and seal,they need to be able to get underneath that
to do that. For that reason,she has kept the shelter height the same. It is the same height above the roof
as the existing penthouse. It is lower than the existing chimney. She added that there are no penetrations
with this insulation. The entire weight of the shelter,the framing and everything,is supported on the end
bearing walls of the building. She did not want to change that. She asked if the Board had any specific
questions.
Mr.Wexler asked if the reason she changed the siding from a brick to the metal birth siding was to match
what was there,even though what's there is worse than brick that she is proposing.
Ms.Rossi said.yes. _
•
•
' Mr.Gaudioso said they can do the brick if the Board prefers. _
Ms.Rossi said all they're doing is one end of.the building. Every single one of the buildings has this
metal siding. This one up here was painted a solid color,red. She thought it would make it softer and
keep it in line.
Mr.Wexler said what Ms.Rossi is suggesting is more prominent than the other two being at the edge of
the building and closer to the Post Road. He thinks it is the best possible choice.
Ms.Rossi said it is her opinion that it looks great. She said if the photos will help,see how it blends in
with the existing penthouse. She said she can put the brick back on if the Board wishes.
Mr.Wexler said these two photos are very dark at the roof line. It's hard to tell the brick from the side
she is indicating. In this photograph,where the brick is lighter,it looks like there's a mistake on this
picture. The color is off on the brick. He asked if Ms.Rossi can match the brick color.
Ms.Rossi said she didn't see those photos,but she would match it as close as possible.
Mr.Wexler said,in his opinion,that the other two are heavy.
Mr.Gaudioso said they will be happy to go whichever way the Board prefers. It's fine either way.
Mr.Wexler asked if the windows are fake windows in the facade,but there is glass in them.
Ms.Rossi said yes.
Mr.Wexler said moving it back is making it parallel with the face of the building.
Ms.Rossi said he is right,she did do that. She could have kept it parallel to the building down here and
solved it. She also suggested moving it forward.
Mr.Wexler asked back?
Ms.Rossi said north.
Mr.Gaudioso said they did meet on Friday at a site with a planner that was retained. He said he doesn't
know whether the Board has received the planner's report or not.
• Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 4
Mr.Gunther said they did receive the planner's report. He asked Mr.Gaudioso to address this point
again, that an offer Nextel made to locate the tower in another location and why it has to be at this
location.
Mr. Gaudioso said he would like to bring up Mr. Robert Katonah, their engineer. He said as was
discussed last month,the two permitted zones are the LI Zone and the R Zone. They're already located
in the LI Zone. It's the one zone down by the Maxwell Avenue incinerator. The R Zone shows you the
only real existing structure of any type height in the R Zone. He said he will have Mr.Katonah,who has
a blowup of that,address that.
Robert Katonah,an engineer with Nextel Communications of 1 North Broadway,White Plains,New York,
addressed the Board. He said as you can see,the first overlay is actually existing coverage as it is today,
which shows a gap in coverage along the Boston Post Road,Fenimore Road,Halstead Avenue and the
surrounding area. He said the water tank coverage,Winged Foot water tank,is too far northwest of the
coverage gap and doesn't fulfill the need to provide coverage along Boston Post Road,Fenimore Road and
the surrounding areas. As you see the overlay,it shows that it does not cover from the intended area it
- is supposed to serve. ,. - - _ -
Mr.Gunther said his question also dealt with not only`the Winged Foot site,but why at this site and no --
other site.
Mr.Guadioso said it's what they discussed last month about the height and location of this building,the
gap,etc.,and lack of other tall buildings in the area,which he will let Mr.Katonah go address.
r '
Ms.Rossi said first and foremost,this type fulfills the gap in coverage along Boston Post road,along I-95,
Weaver Street and Halstead Avenue. He said their gap in service starts from Fenimore Road and just off
of Weaver Street. This site fills that need. He said they looked at as many different structures in the area
as possible. They looked at the village recycling center smoke stack,the cable vision power,the Winged
Foot water tank,and none of those sites provided coverage to the gap. He said they also looked at another
building just to the south of Weaver Street,11 Addision Street,another rooftop which would have worked
for them,but the landlord was not interested. He said they looked at the Richbell Road area and the
apartments in that vicinity. He said they chose this site based on the fact that it does fulfill the gap in
coverage. He said this is the tallest building in the area that fills the gap,aside from 11 Addison Street.
Mr.Gaudioso said the only other thing of that type of height in the area is a cupola on top of the high
school. It's much easier to build this site,because it is an existing rooftop rather than a cupola,which has
a lot of limitations to it plus getting leases with high schools,which is sometimes very difficult to do as
was discussed last'month with the Ossining situation.
Mr.Wexler said even trying to blend in with the shape of it would be quite difficult.
Mr.Guadioso said it's challenging.
Mr.Katonah said it is 63 ft.4 in.to the roof line. The highest point of the roof is 80 ft.8 in. He said
they are not exceeding the height of the roof. Two of their sectors,their 2 RA's,will be up to that high
point,which is 80 ft.8 in. The other RA,which is on the shelter which is slightly low and which has•
a view of the south on the Boston Post Road,will be at 70 ft.4 in. Given no types,given the sound of
topography,giving the need for the site to be fulfilled,this small gap in coverage meets that. That's why
they chose this building.
Mr. Gunther noted for the record that the Board sent a notice to the Coastal Zone Management
Commission.
Ms.Gallent said the Board got a letter back,stating that this action will neither advance nor hinder the
policies set forth in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
/�• Page 5
Mr.Gunther said the Board also sent a letter to the Westchester County Planning Board.
Mr.Gallent said the Board received a letter back,stating that this action is a matter for local determination
in accordance with the community's planning and zoning policies. Basically it had no comment,but
because it was within the Board's jurisdiction,it sent a letter.
Mr.Gunther said the Board sent a letter to the Assistant Superintendent of Operations at Central School.
Mr.Carpaneto said he didn't know if any reply was received from Central School.
The secretary said nothing was received to her knowledge.
Mr.Gunther said another letter was sent to the Village of Mamaroneck.
Mr.Carpaneto said there was no response from the village.
Mr.Wexler asked if this has to go to the Board of Architectural Review for review. - —-
Mr.Katonah said he wouldn't think so.
Mr.Wexler asked why not. It's not residential,commercial,nor a multi-family structure. He reiterated, -
why wouldn't the applicant gothe a Board of Architectural Re
view and let them make the determination
to
of what the finish should be.
Mr.Carpaneto said he will look into it.
Mr.Rossi said that is an excellent point,rather than this Board setting down the stones to finish it maybe
leave it up to their expertise to do that.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There
being none,on a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that this is an unlisted action and adopted a Negative Declaration Notice of Determination
of Non-significance,as prepared by counsel.
This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article
8(State Environmental Quality Review Act)of the Environmental Conservation Law.
The Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals,has determined that the proposed action
described below will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement will not be prepared.
Name of Action: Nextel Roof Structure
SEQR Status: Type 1
Unlisted x
Environmental Assessment Form completed:
A short environmental assessment form(EAF),was completed on November 16,2000 to address the
L proposed construction of the Nextel roof structure.
Description of Action:
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
• Page 6
J
Nextel Communications(Nextel)seeks permission to install a wireless communication public utility facility
on the roof of the building at 811D Richbell Road,Building 8. The proposed facility would consist of the
placement of twelve(12)small panel antennas and a two hundred square foot equipment shelter on the roof
of the building. According to Nextel approximately one-third of its existing and proposed sites in
Westchester County are located on residential buildings.
This site is located within the R-TA(Tower Apartment)zoning district. Since the proposed facility is not
a specifically permitted use in the R-TA district,a use variance is required in accordance with the Notice
of Disapproval. In addition,an area variance is required because the height of the structure is proposed
to be 77'4",where 70'is permitted.
The proposed location of the equipment shelter will be parallel to the edge of the building,and finished
with a material to match the existing penthouse. Three false windows will be located on the shelter to
soften its appearance and blend in with the existing building features.
Location: •
Building 811D Richbell Road,Town of Mamaroneck;Westchester County,NY -
Tax Map Designation: Map Block 408,Lot 86(Building 8)
Larchmont,Town of Mamaroneck,New York
lReasons Supporting This Determination:
(a) Land Use and Zoning
The proposed action will not result in a change in the allowable uses of land. Therefore,impacts
related to land use and zoning are not anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
(b) Construction Impacts
The project's construction schedule is expected to be less than 2 months and therefore does not
fall into the category of construction projects that will last for more than one year and will involve
more than one phase or stage. This is a typical construction schedule for a project of this nature.
The project site is located in an urban environment,in the Village of Larchmont,on an arterial
north-south route. It is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty in getting equipment into
the site,and no significant construction impacts are anticipated. Construction will conform to the
Town of Mamaroneck and New York State noise and construction codes.
(c) Ground and Surface Water,Drainage,and Erosion
The proposed action will not result in a physical alteration of the environment,since it would
consist of an addition to the roof of an existing building. Therefore the proposed action is not
expected to result in any adverse changes to the existing air quality,ground or surface water
quality,or result in a substantial increase in the potential for erosion, flooding,leaching,or
drainage problems.
(g) Traffic and Transportation
The project when completed would not result in any significant number of additional trips to and
from the site. The proposed facility is unmanned,requiring only once per month maintenance.
The existing parking will be used for such monthly visits.
(h) Historic and Cultural Resources
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 7
No significant historical or archaeological resources are known to exist on site. Moreover,due
to the fact that the site has been previously developed,it is not anticipated that any historical
resources will be present. Furthermore,the location of the structure on the roof of the building
indicates that it would not have any potential to adversely impact any archaeological resources,
since it would not result in any disturbance to the ground.
(i) Aesthetics and Views
The project involves the construction of an equipment center of approximately 200 square feet,
to be placed on an existing six-story residential building. The equipment center is designed to
match the design of two penthouses that already exist on the building. The attached figures 1 and
2 illustrate the scale and location of the proposal in relation to the existing building.
The proposed structure will have only a minimal visual impact on the immediate site area and on
the surrounding area. This is due to the following factors:
• -The approximately 10'0" high equipment center is no larger than the two_existing
- penthouses and will not be a noticeable addition to the existing building which is over 66.
- feet in height. -
• ' The footprint of the proposed addition represents approximately 2.5%of the total roof
footprint.
• The addition has been re-designed(as shown in figures 1 and 2)so that it is set back
from the roof edge and matches the architectural treatment of other roof structures.
• Views of the proposed structure from the immediate area are extremely limited given the
scale and proximity of the remaining seven buildings at 811D Richbell Road.
• Views from further away,for example those from Boston Post Road,are largely blocked
by surrounding buildings or by the presence of trees and utility poles and overhead lines
(see figures 3 and 4).
(j) Health and Safety
The proposed facility will be in complete compliance with all FCC standards. Local laws
regulating placement,construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities based
on environmental effects are precluded by FCC regulations(The Telecommunications Act,1996).
(k) Neighborhood Character and Community Services
The proposed project will not result in any increase in the density of land use,or in any increases
in use of community facilities,such as fire and police protection. No significant adverse impacts
on neighborhood character are anticipated as a result of this project.
(I) Energy
The proposed action will consume additional electric,gas,and potentially oil resources;however,
this will not result in significant impacts on energy resources,or any major change in the quantity
and/or types of energy consumed within the project area.
(m) Hazardous Materials
The proposed facility will not store,utilize,and/or generate significant amounts of hazardous
materials or wastes.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
. Page 8
Mr.Gunther said rather than move this application to a straight vote he would like to request counsel to
draft a resolution,because of the unusual requirements of the State Law with regards to the kind of
application. He said to give Mr.Rossi an appropriate sense of the Board in terms of how they anticipate
on voting,Mr.Rossi will get a sense from that and then counsel will draft a resolution for the Board at
the next meeting,the Board will vote on it and make it official. He informed Mr.Rossi there will be no
need for him to come back at the next meeting.
Mr.Rossi asked if he could also proceed with the Board of Architectural Review process in the meantime.
Mr.Gunther said yes.
Mr.Gunther asked for comments from the Board in terms of how they might vote on this application.
Mr.Winick said based on the record that the Board has before them now,he would grant both the me and
the area variance, Given what the Board has been advised with the standards,Mr.Winick thinks that
Next&has made a showing of necessity based on the lack of coverage and of the fact that there are
compelling reasons that make it necessary for them to site their antenna in this location rather than an., - ----alternative. At At this point,Mr.Winick doesn't think the Board has in the record an alternate location that
actually covers the gap. He said as far as the area variance,he is convinced that the impact would be
minimal given the concessions that they have made in affectively lowering the proceeding type and moving
it back to the edge. -
Mr.Wexler said it is O.K.
r Mr.Coico also agreed.
Mr.Gunther said he would vote in favor. He appreciates counsel's efforts to go the full length to cover
the requirements. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Rossi has a sense of where the Board is heading
Mr.Rossi said yes.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2439 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next
Zoning Board meeting.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO:3-CASE 2440 -
Application of Timothy and Gail Doolin requesting a variance to construct a new second floor master
bedroom and bath above the existing garage on the premises located at 3 Wagon Wheel Road and known
on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333,Lot 1435. The second floor
addition as proposed has a side yard of 10.2 ft.where 15 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(2)(a),
a rear yard of 34.7 ft.where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3);and further,the addition
increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in
an R-20 Zone District.
Larry Gordon,the architect for the project,along with Tim Doolin and Dawn appeared.
Mr.Gordon said the applicants are asking for a variance on a house that is already nonconforming to
hardly increasing the footprint of the house. He said they are going up to a second story. This is a ranch
house with three bedrooms,two baths. In the area of their neighborhood,in fact the house next door,is
a two-story house that will be immediately affected by the addition.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 9
Mr.Gunther asked if there were photos in the file.
The secretary said they were already given to Mr.Winick.
A discussion ensued regarding the pictures Mr.Gordon gave to the Board.
- Mr.Gunther asked if the addition being requested is going above the garage,with which Mr.Rossi agreed.
Mr.Gordon pointed out the house next door,on the pictures before the Board.
Mr.Gunther said what is being referred to is a picture of the house. As you look at the applicant's house,
the house to the right.
Mr.Gunther asked if they are using the same foundation.
Mr.Gordon said yes,except for a small piece in the rear where they are adding a stair,this 4 ft.sliver.
Mr.Wexler asked when the house was built,what was the zoning enhanced at that time.. -
Mr._Doolin said one of his neighbors had 10 ft.on the side.
Mr.Wexler said obviously it was built without a building permit according to the zoning at that time and
asked if that was correct.
Mr.Gordon said yes.
Mr.Carpaneto said he believes so,as there were no variances in the file.
Mr.Wexler asked if the area was upzoned.
Mr.Carpaneto said he believes so.
Ms.Doolin said that was their understanding. She said the person who lived in the house before them was
a builder who told someone that the house was originally built according to variance rules at that time.
He subsequently changed them,so the house fell out of variance.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Gordon—on the application it says existing total both sides yards,31 ft.4 in.and
no change is proposed.
Mr.Gordon commented.
Mr.Gunther said on the other side he says that existing one side yard line is 10 ft.9 in.going to 10 ft.
2 in.and 20 ft.7 in.is no change.
Mr.Wexler said he doesn't think it is a requirement on both side yards.
After some discussion,Mr.Gordon said this is correct. It is 10 ft.2 in. It is slightly closer to the side
yard,as you go back.
Mr.Gunther said the total of both side yards does change.
Mr.Wexler said he is not sure it was noticed properly.
Mr.Gunther said it says 10 ft.2 in.in the notice.
Mr.Wexler said it says both of a total of two,40 ft.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 10
Mr.Carpaneto said the addition doesn't span into the other side yard.
Mr.Wexler said he thought the Board had that in the past. It's O.K.with him,as it doesn't affect the
application. It just affects the applicants,the notice.
Mr.Carpaneto said he has been doing it this way,separate side yards.
Mr.Winick asked why he is going from 10.9 ft.to 10.2 ft. _
Mr.Gunther said because the fact that the side line is not perpendicular to the house.
Mr.Wexler asked if that is correct.
Mr.Gordon said that is correct. The house is not perpendicular to the side yard. As they go back the 4
ft.they get slightly closer to the side yard.
Mr.Gunther asked by adding 4 ft.or more to the rear of the house,it is going 10.9 ft.to 10.2 ft.. -
Mr.Wexler asked if the house is parallel with the rear property line. -
- Mr.Gordon said yes. •
After some discussion regarding this issue,Mr.Gunther asked if the total lot coverage goes from 19%to
19.5%.
Mr.Gordon said that is because of the 4 ft.they're adding.
Mr.Gunther said that doesn't change.
Mr.Gordon said no.
Mr.Winick asked what the square footage is that is being added with the addition.
Mr.Gunther said 4 ft.by 22 ft.
Mr.Wexler said the second floor is 32 ft.by 22 ft.and there's 100 ft.on the first floor.
Mr.Winick said it is 700 sq.ft.upstairs.
Mr.Gordon said yes,because of the size of the garage plus the stair.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.
Mr.Winick asked the square footage of the house as it is now.
Mr.Gordon said it is 2,200 sq.ft.
Mr.Gordon said for the record,they did notify all the neighbors and they have correspondence from them
in favor of this addition,marked exhibit#1. He said if it is any help,the neighbor that is immediately
affected by this addition is in the audience and is willing to speak for it.
Mr. Gunther said let the record show that they have received letters in favor of the application from
residents at 1165 Old White Plains Road,1 Wagon Wheel,2 Wagon Wheel,4 Wagon Wheel,5 Wagon
Wheel,6 Wagon Wheel,8 Wagon Wheel,9 Wagon Wheel,10 Wagon Wheel and 2 Prince Willow.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application.
Zoning Board
• March 28,2001
r*� Page 11
Steve Abraham,of 5 Wagon Wheel,the neighbor directly affected who lives next,said he is 100%behind
this.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously,4-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Timothy and Gail Doolin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a new second floor master bedroom and bath above the existing garage on
the premises located at 3 Wagon Wheel Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 333,Lot 1435. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 10.2 ft.
where 15 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(2)(a),a rear yard of 34.7 ft.where 40 ft.is required
pursuant to Section 240-35B(3);and further, the addition increase the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-35B(2)(a),Section 240-35B(3)and Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Timothy and Gail Doolin submitted an application for a variance to this Board for
the reasons set forth in such application;and
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon;and
WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. The proposed change to the structure is an increase of about 30%of the original
living space to add a master bedroom and bath which is certainly a common
improvement. This is a ranch house which is situated next to a two-story
structure. The addition of the second story over a portion of the structure will
not have an impact on the neighbor,nor given the size of houses nearby,will
there be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood
or a detriment to nearby properties.
B. The applicants cannot achieve their goal via a reasonable alternative which
doesn't involve the necessity of an area variance. If this were to be added to the
back of the house,it would encroach on the back yard far more than would be
reasonable and also would also require a variance of the rear setback.
C. The variance is not substantial. It's on the existing building line. Where it
encroaches is because of a siting issue of the house. It is not sited exactly
parallel to the existing property.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 12
D. It is not a difficulty self-created. The house was legal at the time it was
constructed. The house is located in an area that was upzoned and it became a
problem due to the change in the law,not by any action taken by the applicant.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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 applicationbe and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Gunther said to see the Building Department during regular hours for their building permit.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2441
Application of Kevin Santee and Kathie Langan requesting a variance to construct a second story addition
on the premises located at 26 Mountain Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 116,Lot 324. The second story addition as proposed has a side yard of 4.3 ft.
where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a),a total side yard of 13.4 ft.where 20 ft.is
required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b);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.
Kevin Santee appeared. Mr.Santee said the architect is not present,but on vacation. Mr.Santee said he
hopes he can answer whatever questions the Board may have.
Mr.Gunther said the Board has the plans before them. He asked Mr.Santee to describe to the Board what
he is looking to do and the change he is making to his house.
Mr.Santee said they are looking to take a house that is a 1918 cottage,2 bedroom,Cape style,and turn
it from what they moved into with one child to what they need with a third child on the way. They are
looking to add a second floor on that existing footprint,obviously changing the elevations. They have
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 13
- made every attempt to keep that elevation down. He said they have to go up quite a bill to get to their
property. When you are looking from the front,the prospective is quite high. That elevation,even though
it is going up,will not appear to be that high. It mashes into the existing two-story on one side. He
reiterated that it is not changing the footprint. They are trying to get a second floor on an existing
structure,the footprint of it,in order to have more bedrooms.
Jill Martin,one of the Board members,arrived at this time.
Mr.Gunther asked if the lot coverage remains the same.
Mr.Santee said the lot coverage will remain the same.
Mr.Gunther said it is a 2%increase.
Mr.Wexler asked how many square feet is in the existing structure.
Mr.Santee said the architect may know that,but it is on the plan.
Mr.Winick pointed out that the architect's letter said that the present structure on the site is approximately • _ .
1,170 square feet. -
Mr.Gunther asked what's the zone and what's the minimum.
Ms.Doolin said the zone is R-7.5.
Mr.Wexler said if not the minimum,it is certainly the smallest house. Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Gunther
wanted the minimum for two-story or one-story;one-story is 1,200 sq.ft. It's below minimum on a one-
story. On a two-story,it is 800 sq.ft.on the first floor. It's a total of 1,600 sq.ft.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Santee if he looked or considered any other way of doing what is proposed,other
than going straight up.
Mr.Santee said sure,go out the back yard. Then you will eliminate for Larchmont a fairly decent little
back yard and infringe upon the neighbors,because they share that common back yard. He said even in
the specs you can go onto the front a little bit,but he doesn't think either of those would address adding
a second floor.
Mr.Gunther said getting the maximum amount of benefit by maintaining the same footprint.
Mr.Santee said by keeping the same box.
Mr.Wexler said he also keeps the maximum amount of open space on the property.
Mr.Gunther said there is no change to the side yard.
Mr.Santee said there is no change. It is going up on the existing foundation.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked
if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none.
Mr. Santee presented letters from the people from the surrounding properties, stating they have no
objection to this.
Mr. Gunther said it is a letter done by residents of 28 Mountain Avenue, 18 Mountain Avenue,29
Mountain Avenue,15 Wildwood Road,and 17 Wildwood Road,all in support of this application.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 14
Mr.Santee said these
on eachtsibback
e kf neighbors them that thatsup share
t that common back yard. Mr.Santee said there
are also two people
Mr.Gunther read the letter,which is a part of the record.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously,4-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Kevin Santee and Kathie Langan have submitted an application to the Building
Inspector,together with plans to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 26 Mountain
Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116,
Lot 324. The
second story addition as proposed has a side yard of 4.3 ft.u�pursuant i s r S�t�pursuant40 to Sec and
tion
240-38B(2)(a),a total side yard of 13.4 ft.where 20 ft is req 40_38B to2)b); nd
'further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant
240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneckk Zoning
onin 240-69; d Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-38B(2)(b)
\ WHEREAS, Kevin Santee and Kathie Langan submitted an application for a variance to this
Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon;and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. The proposed addition is fairly modest in scale. It is scaled similarly to the
houses surrounding it. It makes no change at all in lot coverage. It also holds
the existing building line to the front,which is harmonious with the surrounding
properties. Accordingly,there is no undesirable change that will be produced
in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties created.
B. Given the site, the applicants cannot achieve their goal via a reasonable
alternative which doesn't involve an area variance. That square footageof the could
not be achieved in the back yard without requiringsquare
rear
setback. Nor could the extra bulk be o�atorward d or b ahatn mount of c re
footage. In order to do that in any
f and impact on the surrounding property.
C. The variance is not a substantial one.
•
• Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 15
D. It is not a difficulty self-created. The existing house is very,very small,on a
small lot. Given the difficult site, there is not a reasonable alternative that
doesn't require a variance in another direction.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT
•
- -RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following-
conditions: -
1.` -This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
building permit.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2442
Application of Paul Turovsky and Monica Casey requesting a variance to reconstruct and enlarge an
existing one-family dwelling on the premises located at 16 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 406. The one-family dwelling to be
reconstructed and enlarged has a front yard of 27 ft.+-where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-
36B(1);a side yard of 7 ft.+-where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a);has a total side
yard of 27 ft.+-where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b);a rear yard of 15 ft.where
25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)for a residence in an R-15 Zone District.
Vincent Franz,an architect with Phillip John Franz Associates,appeared along with Monica Casey.
Mr.Franz said that the existing house is a ranch style. The project includes significant alteration of the
house and veneer replacement with a two-story house. Referring to the site plan before the Board,he said
in red is the perimeter of the existing house and yellow is the footprint of the new. The proposed house„
the new two-story building,the building proper,will be completely within the allowable building envelope.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 16
The new structure will be compliant with the current regulations in every way in terms of setbacks,
building height and coverage,etc. The variances they seek,the elements at issue tonight,are specifically
exterior stairs and landing only. No corner of this building projects outside of the envelope. There are
a number of elements that they are inheriting by virtue of the fact that the site is currently developed;the
existing driveway,the existing garage and first floor elevations. Those are not changing. They really -
can't. They can't be made much lower and they certainly don't want to make them any higher;the existing
" topography,the abundance of bedrock there. This property is essentially a rise or a knoll on Mohegan
Road. It rises rather quickly from Mohegan and drops off even more quickly in the back. It is a relatively
short distance of travel over which they need to get from the driveway to the first floor. The house sits
at the ground currently,a little more than they would like it to.
Mr.Franz said that the steps and landings in question requiring variances are intended to remedy essentially
practical difficulties in terms of negotiating the site,getting in and out of the house at different points
around the perimeter. Despite the apparent size of the variances,as they pertain only to steps and landings,
it doesn't seem that the relief being sought is exceptional.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Franz to go through his plans and point out what he is proposing,as he only
mentioned the yellow and the red,and he can't read what is oh the plans. - - -
Mr.Franz said red is the existing house,the yellow is the new footprint. The white,immediately beyond
the red and yellow are new terraces and stairs,etc.
Mr.Wexler said they are not covered.
Mr.Franz said they are not covered. The only covered porch is shaded yellow,because it's part of the
building and is treated differently than open terraces,decks,etc.
Mr.Gunther asked if the white represents new coverage.
Mr.Franz said that's right. There has been a change to the lot coverage,but it's within the allowable.
He said this white area is a terrace at grade. The details of it haven't even been designed,but they
anticipate that will be a State variance. This is open porch. This is a stair to the basement in white. All
of the white areas are open but improved parts of the site that are within the envelope.
Mr.Gunther asked about the green.
Mr.Franz that's just the building envelope.
Mr.Gunther asked about the black lines surrounding the green.
Mr.Franz said that is the required setback. The perimeter of the allowable building envelope.
Mr.Gunther asked about the blue.
Mr.Franz said the blues are the areas in question. Those are the front steps,side steps and steps to the
rear yard that are encroaching into the required setbacks.
Mr.Wexler said it looks like open columns.
Mr.Franz said this is an open porch. He said this'L'is an open porch with a roof on it. -
Mr.Wexler said so it is covered.
Mr.Franz said this part has a roof. -
Mr.Wexler asked why that isn't yellow.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 17
C
Mr.Franz said perhaps it should be. It's within the building envelope,so it could just as well be yellow.
Mr.Wexler said the same thing in the front/rear,the columns.
Mr.Franz said this is open,there is no roof there. Mr.Franz said this"L"will have a roof. This will
not have a roof. Mr.Franz said his point is taken. This is a screened porch which also has a room above
it.
Mr.Gunther advised Mr.Wexler to look at the plans on the floor.
Mr.Wexler said he could not see that.
Mr.Gunther advised Mr.Franz to put it on the easel.
Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Franz to point to the area where it is supposed to go.
Mr.Franz said what they have is an open porch beyond,underneath,contained within it is a screened .
porch. ,
Mr.Wexler asked where that is on the plan.
Mr.Franz said straight on the bottom.
Ms.Casey said Mohegan should be on the bottom.
Mr.Franz said Mohegan is on the bottom. This is the front of the house. The screened porch is here.
The open porch is around part of its perimeter.
Mr.Wexler asked if it's open on the side.
Mr.Franz said yes.
Mr.Gunther asked a hypothetical question. If Mr.Franz were to eliminate the blue items,he wouldn't
be before the Board at all.
Mr.Franz said that's correct. Were it not for the height of the existing finished floor,which is a given
in this case,they don't want to break it as it only makes things worse. Lowering it means dealing more
with this extremely rocky site. The house as it exists now is higher out of the ground than he is sure they
would have wanted it when they first built it. The house has very limited basement. Part of it is crawl
space and part of it has the actual house in the basement exposed. There are bits of bedrock peaking up
through the lawn all over the site. He said he is sure it's going to be an issue for them when they get into
construction. Therefore,lowering the house is not an option.
Mr.Wexler said lowering the first floor of the house.
•
Mr.Franz said lowering the first floor of the house is not an option. He said that is their issue,getting
from there to the grade,getting from the driveway up to the first floor and doing so in a manner that's left
and impractical as it is now. He said there is no side door to the house now. That's why this is new
construction being proposed. The stairs are new that get them out the side and toward the rear.'The house
does not have a door at those points now. The house doesn't have a side entrance. The entrance to this
house is through the front door,the garage or through the back of the house. At this point,the Turovskys
would like to be able to get from their car to a side door or family entrance or mud room. For the amount
of relief they are seeking to be able to have a side entrance,it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Mr.Wexler asked how much of the existing foundation Mr.Franz is using.
• Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 18
Mr.Franz said they are trying to use all of the existing foundation,except for the part that doesn't fit with
their perimeter.
Mr.Wexler said that the plans indicate all new foundation.
Mr.Franz said they are going to try to use as much of the foundation as they can. The perimeter is
changing and in some areas they will not be able to use it. In other areas they are expanding it. For the
purposes of bidding,they want to budget a complete replacement if necessary.
Mr.Wexler said looking at the plan redlined,it looks like it lines up as part of the garage.
Mr.Franz said that's right,through here. The rest of the foundation wall is in here,this foundation wall
is in here and if they don't need to remove it,they certainly won't. If they can,erect framing on it,they
certainly will.
Mr.Wexler said he thought it's a requirement that the walls are almost three stories in height.
Mr.Franz said it is not almost three stories in height. He is not sure where that comes from. He asked
if Mr.Wexler means the thickness of the walls from a structural prospective.
Mr.Wexler said why don't they design it so they don't need a variance. -. -
Mr.Franz said they don't want to push the house back,because their excavation problem will be all the
greater. If the house gets pushed back away from the street,they are using this line right now because they
are relying on its existing driveway and existing garage without having to excavate mass rock. As he is
-. sure everyone understands, mass rock is extremely expensive not to mention the disturbance to the
neighbors and community to take the mass off.
Mr.Wexler said that would have been better than the stalls in front. What about to the left.
Mr.Franz said it is beneficial for the buyer to have a side entrance to the house.
Mr.Wexler said he doesn't understand why Mr.Franz is going for a variance.
Ms.Casey said for a lot of reasons they wanted to use the footprint that they've inherited,based on the
rockiness of the site and the orientation of the house as it is. In terms of north,south,east and west,it
is perfectly sited for light and the things that they like and those kinds of aesthetic issues. Shifting this
house,if they did have that option and that kind of money it would take to blast rock,shifting it even a
little bit to the right would undo the virtue of the existing driveway and semi-inground garage that would
take that away. That's a very valuable thing they have inherited from Mr.Zahm's house.
Mr.Wexler said that the garage is on the lower level and they excavated. He asked what else was
excavated on that lower level. -
Mr.Franz said some of the basement space behind the garage,mechanical and utility space for the light
of the garage and part of the roof for the light of the garage,the less spaces they have.
Mr.Wexler said the plans indicate a laundry room as basement area.
Mr.Franz said that's right and the floor space behind,which is below the morning room. That may end
up to be,unfortunately,more crawl space.
Mr.Franz said that the zoning ordinance permits,for the record,open terraces and wood decks dealing
even with railings 18 in. If constructed with 18 in.or less above grade, it can be within 5 ft.of the
property line without any special variance or permission. He said it's only that the house sits out of the
ground as it does, which they can't change, and its that they would like to have some amount of
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 19
comfortable pedestrian circulation around the house. He said the house,itself,is fully compliant with the
regulations.
Mr.Gunther asked if there other questions from Board members. There were none.
Mr. Franz said the Board has seen that the design of the house, including the circulating element,is
certainly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Architecturally,this house,in terms of its
style,is in keeping with the character of the community. He could make it taller,but it's specifically
compliant in that regard. He said they are asking for what they truly believe is a relatively small amount
of relief with respect to the practical gain and a reasonable use return. If they were not permitted to build
these elements,how would the community be spared from detrimental or adverse affect. The house isn't
going to change. He made need to,if the Board found something unacceptable about this,reconfigure the
steps and landings. The house doesn't need change. What is gained on the part of the community has
some significance,inconvenience and hardship of the owners. He said that the Board really ought to
consider that.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application.
Richard Seltzer,of 17 Mohegan Road,addressed the Board. He said this is an extraordinary application'
and has excited a tremendous amount of opposition in the very immediate neighborhood. Sixteen different.
- people living in the immediate neighborhood,on Mohegan Road and Oxford Road,have joined in opposing
the bohemia which Mr.Franz has designed to go on this site and as he says,the property rises quite steeply
in front and drops off even more quickly in the back. Mr.Franz said that's his description of the site
problem that he's faced. The opposition that joins Mr.Seltzer this evening,many of these people are
going to speak for themselves,and that's why there is such a turnout here,includes 20 Mohegan Road,
6 Oxford Road,25 Mohegan Road,8 Oxford Road, 19 Mohegan Road,22 Mohegan Road,3 Oxford
Road,18 Mohegan Road,21 Mohegan Road,10 Mohegan Road,2 Oxford Road,11 Mohegan Road,12
Mohegan Road,10 Oxford Road,7 Avon Road and his own house at 17 Mohegan Road. He said that the
large number of people who are so stridently opposed to this house,spewlrs loudly about the concern they
feel from this very,very,large house being proposed to be shoehorned in in a way that runs right out to
every limit of buildable space and then asks for variances,because there is no way the could live in a more
than 5,000 sq.ft.house on this site without having entrances and accesses that require substantial lot line
- setback variances.
Mr.Seltzer said that his focus this evening is going to be that because this house needs these variances,
and when he gets to the percentages,the Board is going to see that these are substantial variances. It needs
them to support the more than 5,000 sq.ft. This house cannot and does not fit on this lot,without those
variances. He said under Town Law,Section 267b(3),the substantial nature of the variances and the
undesirable impact of variances on the character of the neighborhood,are two of the five factors that must
be weighed. He said before he concludes,he is going to touch on all five of the factors that have to be
weighed under the Town Law.
Mr.Seltzer said first,the variances that the applicants are seeking are not minor setback variances. They
are going to be encroaching on the required setbacks on all four_(4)sides. This has to be quite a
tremendous structure to require setback variances on all four(4)sides so that it can sit on this property.
On three(3)sides,the required variance would eliminate between 30%and 40%of the distance either to
the front of the house,to the rear of the house or to the north of the house. They described this house as
being a house that's going to be more than 5,000 square feet. He said Mr.Franz shared with us his
drawings of the house. As you can see as these drawings describe the house,this is not a house that is
going to hide its size. From the street looking up at it,he is going to show pictures in a moment so the
Board gets a sense of the very substantial rise that Mr.Franz says he has to deal with. He said they have
the entrance level which is the exposed garage,then the first floor,then the second floor,then in addition
to what was otherwise a section of roof,they have chosen to have dormered windows so that from the
street the aspect you are going to see are three full stories of residence surmounting a 4th story garage
level. Then,emphasizing its size,is this unusual design of chimney in the center of the house,calling
further attention to the verticality of this house as you look up at it. As much as the dormers on the third
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 20
floor or the center chimney would make this look like a very big house wherever it's built,the applicants
are asking for the lot line variances,the front and back and on the sides,to shoehorn this house in on the
top of the ridge.
Mr.Seltzer said a conventional house of two stories,with far less than 5,100 sq.ft.would look large on
this ridge top. But this behemoth will absolutely overwhelm everything else around it. He has some
' photographs that he wants to share with the Board to make his point more clearly. What he is going to
show the Board in the photographs first is how the property exists now. He said that this is a community
that has existed on Mohegan Road and Oxford for fifty(50)years. The houses that their neighbors on
Mohegan Road and Oxford Road are all houses that have been there for fifty(50)years or more. He said
he is going to show the Board what the neighbors look like to the left and to the right of 16 Mohegan Road
and across the street on Mohegan. Then he is going to show the Board how the ledge on which the
applicant proposes to build their 55 ft.house magnifies,multiplies the affect of the variances they want to
permit them to put 5,100 square feet of house in our neighborhood.
Mr.Franz asked if he will be allowed to respond after each comment,as he would prefer to do.
Mr.Gunther said the Board generally allows everyone to speak and then they will come back to Mr.Franz.
Mr.Seltzer gave the pictures to the secretary to number,1 through 17 pages. Mr.Seltzer said photographs
` ` 1 and 2 that have been marked by the courtroom clerk,show the house Mr.Franz referred to as'the
substantial rise that leads up to the house. Right now,consistent with the neighborhood,there is a ranch
house at 16 Mohegan Road. Photograph#3 shows the ranch house that is just to the south of 16 Mohegan
Road also up on the ridge. It's consistent with that sense of character that Mr.Winick was saying about
an earlier application, we're concerned about consistency with the size of other dwellings,in the
neighborhood.
Mr.Winick asked if this is the neighborhood,to which Mr.Seltzer said yes.
Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Seltzer knew what number it was.
Ms. Casey said it is number 12 Mohegan.
Mr.Seltzer said there's a two-story Colonial just to the north, 18 Mohegan Road,picture#4. It is a
conventional two-story Colonial house and it sits down below the ridge. He will show the Board later the
substantial rise anybody living at 18 Mohegan Road sees,as he or she looks up to the site of the applicants •
at 16 Mohegan Road.
Mr.Seltzer said pictures#5,19 Mohegan Road,and#6,21 Mohegan Road,show the houses across the
street from 16 Mohegan Road. Again,two ranch houses that are immediately next to one another and
across the street from 16 Mohegan Road. He said opposite 16 Mohegan Road is 17 Mohegan Road which
is a Colonial house,but because of the topography of Mohegan Road it sits down a little bit. It is not
raised up the way 16 Mohegan will be,because 16 Mohegan Road is on a ledge.
Mr.Seltzer said photograph#8 was taken from an area between 16 Mohegan and its neighbors just to the
south,#12 Mohegan. You can see how it looks down across the street and how anything built up on the
ridge is going to dominate all of its neighbors and make an impact on the neighborhood that hasn't been
felt by the ranch house that's there or the ranch that is immediately adjacent to it on the ridge. The
problems that Mr.Franz adverted to is not only a problem on Mohegan Road,but it is also a problem on
Oxford Road which they surround past the back of the property. The property drops off even more sharply
in the back. In regard to number 6 Oxford Road,as shown in photograph#9 and#10,you will see from
the street how 6 Oxford Road looks up about a 12 ft.to 15 ft.ledge to the site of 16 Mohegan Road.
Walking back,still on 6 Oxford's property,getting near the property line,you can see in photograph#10
the enormous ledge as you look up. The problem for neighbors on Oxford is it's one thing to have the
•
ledge surmounted by a ranch house,and it's going to be quite another for them to be looking up at a 5,100
square foot house rising three(3)stories to a dormered third story.
•
•
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 21
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Seltzer to demonstrate on the site plan approximately where 6 Oxford Road is,
which he did.
Mr.Seltzer said it comes right up to here,and in photograph#10,this is the 12 ft.to 15 ft.ledge that they
look at. As you can see from the yellow,the house that can be seen in photographs#9 and#10 is going
to move closer to achieve its bulk of 5,100 square feet. It's going to move closer to the ledge and then
loom up three(3)stories high. Photographs#11 and#12,are taken from 18 Mohegan Road. You can
see how the two-story Colonial sits down below 16 Mohegan and looks up at a rather stern facade of the
present ranch house. -
Mr.Wexler asked on which side.
Mr.Seltzer said that's on the north side. You can see how close they are already and now they're planning
to build a taller house. Photograph#13 is taken from the second story windows of#18 Mohegan. You
can see from the second story,when you look across,what a problem they have.
Mr. Seltzer said finally,photograph#14 was taken from 12 Mohegan Road looking across toward 16
Mohegan Road. You get a sense from looking at photograph#14how close the houses are to one another
right now. Right now her ranch house was built as a twin to the ranch that is on#16 now. Looking across
from one ranch to another is one story. Looking across to 5,100 square feet of house is going to be quite
another..He is also pointing out,as you look at photograph'#14,that where steps and expansion of the
house in yellow indicates,some very mature trees are apparently going to come down. These trees right
now are part of what screens houses along Mohegan Road from one another. An adverse impact on the
character of the community not only to get a bit of a behemoth in their neighborhood,but also to be taking
down trees that are in front of the house that's there now.
Mr.Seltzer said as the Board looks at photographs that he has shown them of all the houses that are to the
right,to the left of the applicant's house and across the street from the applicant's house you get a sense
that the applicant's house would be a behemoth anywhere in their neighborhood. It would be like an
elephant among the rest of their neighborhood. An escaped elephant,because it doesn't belong. A house
this size would be out of scale with everything in the neighborhood. They don't have another house 5,100
sijuare feet. But,perched up on the ledge at 16 Mohegan Road this house is going to be like an elephant
standing up on its hind legs. That's what putting it up on the ledge is going to do. And the ledge,
remember,rises about 15 ft.above the grade of Mohegan and 15 or more ft.above the grade of Oxford
and on top of that is going to be this house for which they know they need variances. They couldn't site
5,100 square feet as they have,without having entrances,side walkways and terraces to go with it. They
wouldn't build 5,100 square feet and be so squooshed in that they wouldn't have a walkway,wouldn't have
a front entrance and wouldn't have the terraces that accompany a 5,100 square foot house.
Mr.Seltzer said the Boards'questions to the architect before was why would you design a new house and
come before the Board for variances. He said the answer is,because they designed too big a house. They
wanted to have the biggest house they could,a bigger house than any house in the neighborhood and then
having put a bigger house than any house in the neighborhood,they need the Board's help so they can get
into the house. The reason sixteen(16)people,all of the people immediately adjacent to the house and
near the house on Oxford and Mohegan,are opposed to this is they are horrified at the loss of their open
space. They feel threatened by the loss of open sky,having a house this tall sitting on a ledge. They feel
particularly threatened by the loss of scale and proportion that has existed for half a century in their
neighborhood. No one has ever built a house that would so visually crowd and dominate every one of its
neighbors as the house that is proposed by the applicant. All the sixteen(16)people who support our
position and don't want this variance granted are proud of the character of their neighborhood. They like
the size of their homes and the space that's around each of them. They don't want to lose forever the
comfort of what scale and proportion they currently enjoy. They feel strongly that the applicants who have
never lived on their street,never moved into the house that they bought a year ago,have no sensitivity to
the disruption that their mansion would create.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 22
Mr.Seltzer summarized each of the five(5)factors that this Board weighs under the Town Law to decide
whether variances should be granted or denied.
Mr.Seltzer said first there is a rare unanimity. He said he doesn't believe that the applicants have found
anybody in the immediate neighborhood who will say that they are in favor of what they want to impose
on the neighborhood. He said they are unanimous in opposing this undesirable change to the character of
their street,Mohegan and Oxford. When you look at the pictures of their more modest sized houses and
see how they unobtrusively sit on their lots,you can see how uncharacteristic it would be for this 5,100
square foot house to be perched on the ledge with the variances that it seeks. It would be,in the first test,
out of character and would adversely affect the character of this neighborhood. As you can see from the
pictures, where they do have Colonial houses, these are Colonial houses that,often sit back, down,
recessed. They don't sit up and obtrude on all their neighbors.
Mr.Seltzer said second,the Town Law asks the Board to weigh whether the benefits which the applicants
seek could be achieved in some other feasible manner besides the area variance that they seek. He said
when it comes to feasibility,of course these applicants bought land somewhere else and built somewhere
else. Some place where elephants are more common and appreciated. No one needs to live in a 5,000„
- square foot house on Mohegan Road. Also,it obviously is feasible for the applicants to live in a.smaller _ _ _
dwelling. Every one of their prospective neighbors,even on Oxford,do. Clearly a smaller house is,
feasible. There is nothing about the applicants personal or Health needs that mandates imposing such an
uncharacteristically large house in our neighborhood. - -
Mr.Seltzer said the third factor is whether the variance sought is substantial. The notice for this meeting
calls attention to the fact that they are asking for setback variances that will affect all four(4)sides of the
house. The fact that on three(3)of the sides,it approaches the front of the house or the north side of the
house or the rear of the house in a way that would eat up between 30%and 40%of the required setback
indicates that this is a substantial variance.
Mr.Seltzer said finally,the fact that the applicants propose to use these variances to build an elephant of
a femmes that will hulk above every neighbor,makes the size of these substantial variances indisputable.
Mr. Seltzer said fourth, he knows the Board asks themselves whether the proposed variance would
adversely affect environmental conditions in the neighborhood. He said here we question whether the
applicants have conducted appropriate studies of drainage and runoff that will be occasioned by their
construction on a ridge line or by widening a driveway. He is stressed that in their application they say
they need to widen the driveway,because you can't get out of a car in the present driveway or garage.
There present driveway is over 22 ft.wide.
Mr.Seltzer said they also question the environmental impact of cutting down trees that for decades have
separated the homes on Mohegan Road.
Mr.Seltzer said that the fifth and final criterion that they have to ask and weigh is whether the difficulties
claimed by the applicants are self-created. Their own application seems to concede this point. They
bought this property over a year ago with all of its zoning limitations and with all of its rocky qualities
clearly visible. If they had any reservations about living within those limitations,they could have stayed
in their present house which is only three blocks away. If they didn't want these self-imposed hardships,
which they think are a hardship and we don't,we just have this rocky terrain under their houses and didn't
think it was a hardship,but they chose to buy a house in our neighborhood. Just to drive by and see the
photographs you can tell this is built on rock. They could have bought a house somewhere else. They
needed property that wasn't encumbered by rock and property that would more easily accommodate 5,100
square feet. They could have bought somewhere else. It's curious that someone whose never lived on our
block would choose to live there,and then claim that having made that election the difficulty of their move
was not entirely self-created.
Mr. Seltzer said presumably there were other people who were willing to pay almost as much as the
applicants recently paid for this property,with its bedrock and with its zoning restrictions. If other people
• Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 23
•
weren't willing to pay almost as much,they wouldn't have paid as much as they did. Maybe the applicants
want to put more house on this property than most people would think makes good sense. If that's the
case,than this is certainly a self-created problem.
Mr.Seltzer said zoning variances should not be granted to alleviate these kinds of self-created difficulties.
Mr.Seltzer concluded by handing each Board member a copy of a letter which has been signed by the
sixteen(16)residents immediately adjacent to the property explaining things that he has just said,marked
exhibit#15. He provided each Board member with a copy. He tlianked the members of'the Board.
Mr.Winick asked to address a comment made to Mr.Seltzer and the audience in general. He said he
hopes it's understood what's in front of the Board this evening that while all of you may be concerned
about the height of this house,as he would be if he lived on Mohegan Road,that's not something that they
need the Board's permission to do. That's true of virtually everything they're planning to do. He said one
thing about the architect's presentation,if Mr.Seltzer looks at what's blue on that chart,that's the only
thing the variance is requested for.Mr.Winick's request to Mr.Seltzer is to come up here,and the Board
will listen carefully to everything Mr.Seltzer has to say. What Mr.Winick would like to hear,to help
him make his decision,is what Mr.Seltzer thinks the impact is on those additions to the plan. While the
- Board may disagree with what they are,doing on aesthetic grounds,the other elements of the design,those , -.
are not things the Board has within their power to use. Mr.Winick said as.Mr.'Seltzer comes up to say
everything he wants to say. Mr.Winick said it would help him if Mr.Seltzer would speak to what he
thinks the impact is of those additions in the blue. If he is not clear on what they are,the Board can get
clarification for him.
Mr.Gunther asked if anyone else from the audience would care to make a comment about this application.
Jim Brady of 20 Mohegan Road,two houses away,addressed the Board. Mr.Brady said he is not in the
real estate business and he is not an attorney,but he certainly respects the law. The founding fathers just
a fifty years ago decided in this section of Mamaroneck what size house it would be and the property sizes
of each house. In our Town,different streets have smaller houses and smaller lots and other sections of
Mamaroneck have much bigger houses on much bigger lots. He said he doesn't understand if laws are
made,why would we want to break them. There is a perfectly good,aesthetically,good-looking house
sitting there. It may need work inside,he doesn't know. He hasn't been inside the house,but if there is
an aesthetically looking house in conformance with the law,why should somebody just come in,buy it,
wreck it,and build something and ask for variances on all four(4)sides. He said if the law is made,let's
follow the law. You build an extension on your den in the back and everybody asks for 5 ft.or a 10 ft.
variance or to extend your kitchen. He said they're not talking about that. They're talking about someones
existing house,who paid$822,000.for it,destroying it totally,right down to the ground level. They're
not redoing it. He's bringing it to ground level and then rebuilding it at twice the size it is and asking for
Board variances on all four(4)sides. He reiterated,if you're going to make the law,let's follow the law.
He said he doesn't understand. They're not talking about the height and all that kind of stuff,but he is .
still asking for four(4)different variances on four(4)sides and that's against the law. He reiterated,the
Board made the law,let's follow the law. If this is going to be a brand new structure,let's start with it
brand new.
Mr.Gunther said he doesn't think he can answer all Mr.Brady's questions,but he will try. The Zoning
Laws of the Town of Mamaroneck were written and amended through the years that affects the standard
for what buildings should be,what the setbacks should be for area variances,coverage and things of that
nature. When somebody asks for an exception to what's existing in the Zoning Law,they come before
this Board. That's the only purpose of this Board,to hear someone's request to do something other than
what is the law. That's why the Board is here.
Mr. Brady reiterated, he is not an attorney and he is not in the real estate business. He's just a
homeowner. He is not talking about the height. If the Board looks at the height,Mr.Brady will lose all
the sun in his house and the people on his street are not going to have any sun any more. Their grass is
•
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 24
t
going to die,because this is going to be 35/45 ft. above their ground level easily. He just doesn't
understand the law. Mr.Brady thanked the Board.
Jim Kane,of 6 Oxford Road,addressed the Board. He said they get the benefit of watching this go up
for the next six months as construction starts. Mr.Kane said that Richard did an excellent job covering
all of the points,but one of the concerns Mr.Kane has in listening to the presentation by the architect was
the degree of uncertainty about where the house is going to sit,what's yellow,what's not yellow and
whether a foundation is going to be used or not. He said the question he has is if it turns out that they find
out as they get into the project that the existing foundation is not going to support the house and they have
to get into blasting,what kind of recourse does the Board have'to stop it. He,said he goes to work
everyday,but his wife and kids don't,and this summer obviously is going to be affected by having this
Taj Mahal built in our back yard. He said his concern is,if they get into the project and they find out that
they have to blast and get additional variances and the Board has already approved the basic project,what
kind of recourse does any of them have at that point in time. -
Mr.Gunther asked if the Director of Building wanted to comment about someone who might make an
application to blast..
Mr.Carpaneto said that the Town of Mamaroneck does issue blasting permits. There is an entire code
section on that. There are no restrictions for not blasting. -
Mr.Gunther asked if there is criteria.
Mr.Carpaneto said there is criteria.
Mr.Winick said you can blast in the Town.
Mr.Carpaneto said you can blast in the Town,regardless of where it sits.
Mr.Wexler said when blasting one has to take responsibility and liability if something goes wrong,like ,
photographs. There are certain businesses that are affected by it and the applicant is responsible for any
damage that happens.
Mr.Kane said regardless of when it shows up. It may not show up.
Mr.Wexler said he can't answer that for him. But usually,you take an old house you see lots of damage.
Mr.Winick said the variances are granted in accordance with the filed plans and in no other way. If in
the course of a construction project it becomes evident that there will be an additional variance requested,
they will go back to the Board.
Mr.Kane asked if it will also go to the community.
Mr.Winick said to the community also. Exactly the same process will be followed.
Mr.Wexler asked to put this application in the proper prospective. He said from what he can understand,
variances that they are seeking have nothing to do with the house itself. It has to do with the areas outside
the exterior walls of the house;the steps,the patio. He said if you look at the drawing before the Board,
not the heavy black line which signifies the property line,but the next inner shape which is that black line
that separates the green from the gray, is what's within that green area they can build legally. They
wouldn't have to come before this Board,as long as they meet the requirements of the Zoning and Building
Code. The blue areas are not what they are seeking a variance for. It's part of the patio,the raised patio
in the front and steps.It's a good portion of the steps on the side. If they don't get a variance,they can't
put them there,at least not the ones going out to the rear and the stairs going out to the back. It has
nothing to do with the house itself. Mr.Wexler said he doesn't understand why they couldn't design this
- house without seeking a variance.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 25
As everyone was speaking at once,Mr.Gunther said he will be happy to call an individual as the next
person,because there is someone waiting to speak. The Board will be happy to come back to other
individuals that wish to speak. -
Laurie Braun,of 2 Oxford Road,addressed the Board. She said it seems that what the Board is saying
about the variance has something directly related to the type of house that is being built,because if the
house was smaller then there would be no need to request a variance to get the steps on the side of the
house and to get the entrances,these porches and the kind of things that they are asking for. If the house
was smaller,then they wouldn't need to come to the Town to ask for a variance. So,she thinks it's
directly related. Mr.Braun said she understands the Board saying what they have jurisdiction over and
what they don't have jurisdiction over and she heard Mr.Winick's point about he might be concerned about
houses this size being built in his neighborhood. She thinks where the Board does have the power,from
what she can understand,is to not allow the variance because the variance is only being requested because
the size of the house is so large that in order to gain access to that which they are requesting,they need
to ask for the variance. It seems to her that it is directly related to the size of the house. It seems to her
that the Board does have the power to rule on that issue. She believes that all of the neighbors that are
present are asking for the Board to rule against the applicant,because maybe then they will have to go back
to the drawing board and redesign a house that fits more suitably onto the space of the property. Ms. _
Braun thanked the Board..
Robert Kanprowitz,the house to the north,#18,addressed the Board. He said he very much concurs that
he thinks that we've come as a community to stipulate that the full sensitivity that the Board showed to. '
previous applicants by apprising themselves of their needs and then granting variances for their expansion
does not apply here. What they're asking to do is to put in a house that is much larger than the property
actually can accommodate. He thinks it is an attractive home and applauds them. He thinks it is in very
good taste,just not on this street. He has no ill will against somebody wanting a large home,but he thinks
they must be practical and that their home values will change next to this. He thinks there are long-term
implications that their homes will be affected by granting a variance that will permit this to be put up.
He's just asking for that same sensitivity that the Board showed the previous people in saying it is not a
hardship and it is not altering the character of the neighborhood,where in fact this is.
Russell Pelton,of 3 Oxford Road,addressed the Board. Mr.Pelton said he looks across the street from
the front of his house and he sees the present structure which fits in completely with the Zoning Laws in
his neighborhood. He said they are proud of their neighborhood;Oxford Road,Avon Road,Lundy Circle
and of course tonight's street. If he understands the Board correctly,they're talking about the structure.
He doesn't know why they bought this place or why they didn't go PA miles up Fenimore Road where
they have castles at this site and land which fits. They chose to buy this property and make changes. All
he can suggest,which has already been touched upon,is that they look at the Town Laws and start with
our Zoning Laws. They are proud of their neighborhood because they do comply with the Zoning Laws.
The more the Board departs from those laws,the change in the neighborhood comes into place. Mr.
Pelton said he would like to suggest that in Board consideration of this,if he understands correctly,if the -
Board were to deny the blue they could go ahead. O.K.deny it. Don't contribute to what they are putting
up. Deny it. Deny their variance and see what they can do with it. If we can't control the height,that's
it. That's our Zoning Laws. He said he can only suggest that the Board start not with the variances,but
start with the Zoning Laws of which we are proud and which exist for our purpose. Then decide what are
the variances going to do to our Zoning Laws. Mr.Pelton thanked the Board.
Hart Bailey,who lives at 10 Oxford Road,addressed the Board. He wants to reiterate what Laurie said
and he is sorry for speaking out of turn. Mr.Bailey said this lot is not well suited for a house this size.
That's the only reason why they are here seeking these variances. If the house was smaller,we wouldn't
be here. All we ask is that the Board deny them their request,so they actually build a home that is well
suited for this property and build it as tall as they want. They don't need to get that kind of permission.
Certainly the size of the home,they need permission of the Board. He reiterated that they ask that the
Board deny it.
Mr.Gunther asked if anyone else cares to make a comment on this application.
- Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 26
Andrew O'Connor,who lives at 10 Mohegan Road,addressed the Board. He said he has prepared a
written submission that he would like to give to the Board,marked exhibit#16. He said that the letter
discusses the five criteria that are set forth in the Section 267-b(3)of the Town Law. Mr.O'Connor said
he won't delabor the record or the times by discussing all of them,but he thinks it is appropriate to point
out that the exercise they are charged with this evening is not to decide whether this is in some way
projectively a good project or a bad project,but whether given the five point criteria set forth in the Town
Law,the applicant has satisfied their burden. It is their burden to show that those factors tip in their favor,
rather than in favor of the opponents.
Mr.O'Connor said there are a couple of the factors in particular that are important. One of which is the
substantiality of the variance that they are seeking. Here we have a project,and indeed it is a construction
project,that is seeking four(4)variances from four separate provisions of the Town Zoning Code. They
are seeking approval of a front yard that is 671/2%of that which is required by the Zoning Code. They're
seeking a single side yard that's 70%of that which is required by the code. They're seeking a rear yard
with just 60%of that which is required. He said as Mr.Seltzer said,this is a problem which was entirely
self-created. They are residents in the Town of Mamaroneck and have lived here some period of time.
They knew what the Zoning Code was. They knew what it was when they bought the property. In fact,
. the law charges them with knowledge of what the zoning code is. What they've done is set about a'
" gamble. They bought the property and they decided to gamble that this Board would allow them the
variance that would allow them to construct the mansion that they seek to construct. He said he has to
' respectfully disagree with Mr.Winick when he asks them to focus on just the area in blue on the rendering.
The very first factor set forth in Town Law,Section 267-b(3)is a consideration of whether an undesirable
change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood by the granting of the area variance. He says
to the Board that if that behemoth is going to be constructed,or if its construction is going to be aided in
any way by the granting of the variance,then the variance should not be granted because that behemoth
will have a seriously adverse affect on the character of the neighborhood. He said that the remainder of
his observations are in the letter he is submitting,which is marked exhibit#16. Mr.O'Connor thanked
the Board.
Mr.Gunther asked if anyone else cared to make comments on this application.
Carol Seltzer,of 17 Mohegan Road,addressed the Board. She said she just wanted to make a couple of
observations;(1)Ms.Casey said that the house couldn't be resituated because of the advantage siting of
the property so that their house would have a great deal of light. That obviously is very important to her.
It's very important to the rest of them in the neighborhood. This will adversely affect all of them. She
also wants to mention that they bid on two other houses in the neighborhood,which she considers a
compliment to them on Mohegan Road,but they liked their road,they liked the character of the road and
she asks that the Board consider that and help them preserve the character in their neighborhood. The
character that the Caseys found so appealing that they wanted to purchase this house. As she said,it's their
third attempt at a house on Mohegan Road. Mr.Seltzer thanked the Board.
Mr.Gunther asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak on this application.
Michael Marx,of 21 Mohegan Road,addressed the Board. Mr.Marx said he thinks his neighbors have
been very candid to tell the Board precisely what Mr.Winick summarized about their attitude about this
house. He would urge the Board to exercise the powers given to them by the law and deny this
application,because it facilitates the building of a house that would be very offensive to their neighborhood.
Mr.Marx thanked the Board.
Lois Scheffier,of 8 Oxford Road,addressed the Board. She said she agrees with what her neighbors have
said and won't repeat it,but she hopes the Board take seriously the possibility of what the Board can do
to prevent,in any way,this house being built or at least perhaps encourage them to consider changes to
the way they designed it. Ms.Scheffler thanked the Board.
Grace Stairs,of 12 Mohegan Road,who lives next door addressed the Board. She said thatshe is the other
twin of this house. She has lived there for 42 years. When they bought that house,it had this wonderful
Zonis Board
g
March 28,2001
•
Page 27
open space. Her hobby is gardening and she spent most of the 40 years developing this garden. Now it's
going to be overshadowed by this high-rise house that's sitting there like IKEA. As far as the Town is
concerned, this is her IKEA. She just can't imagine that they're spreading out on this whole back
property,her garden is going to be their open space and Ms.Stairs is going to be sitting there looking at
that monument.
Peter Rubinstein,of 11 Mohegan Road,addressed the Board. He said he is diagonally across the street
from this property. One of the considerations he thinks also is that once this is started,as is happening
down on Fenimore Road,it would seem to him that the next person who comes in and says you know I
really don't like this house and tears it down and comes for another variance, you are just going to
basically have one house sitting with no room next to the other house. One of the things that his kids,
that are 10 and 12'years of age like to do,is to be able to use what they have in property as it's on a
hillside,slide down and jump on a rope over a tree or something like that. He thinks they are starting to
- lose the nature of the neighborhood. Down the block they've lost several trees to a pool,they're backed
by the green of wetland behind them and soon they'll start encroaching on that and they're going to lose
everything. He thinks we have to sort of gauge what their neighborhoods are,before losing them.
Mr.Gunther asked if anyone else cares to make a comment on this application. - -
+—. - - Mr.Franz said that he appreciates everything that has been expressed here tonight. He's just trying to
stick to the facts of it. He surely appreciates the sentiments expressed and they've been expressed well.
He said that the house is larger because of the second floor,almost entirely because of the second floor, -
not because of any radical difference in the structure site. It is not shoehorned in. In fact,it can be 5 ft.
taller without any special permission and the lot coverage can be increased by 5%more than it is,without
any special permission. It's a technical matter according to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention
and Building'Code. This is a two-story house and that is not a matter of change. He was encouraged by
Mr.Winick's clarification that it's striking that almost all of the comments in opposition tonight is with
regard to either the height,the size or the appearance. Very little was said about the issues. Obviously,
they trust that the Board is focused on those issues. All the elements,are zoning compliant as is the whole
house from the walls in. He said a few comments were made about the percentage. We all know how
nicely statistics can be manipulated to our own advantage. The fact is,measured to,the point of the stair
a given yard may have been reduced by X%,but the truth is they're not talking about moving the front
wall of a building to within some unacceptable or noncompliant distance to the property line. They're
talking about an open stair,steps. This whole issue is about steps,not about the house,but the steps. The
steps,which may be 4 ft.or 5 ft.wide at some point,are going to be closer to the property line than
allowable. The building is not. He said they don't have this wall of a structure looming in on the street.
Mr.Franz said a few time comments were made about four sides. There's only three sides. One property
line,the side yard to the southwest,is not being encroached upon. Again,there are three sides,just a
technical matter.
Mr.Franz said in regard to the drainage,runoff,etc.,a local licensed landscape architect has been retained
to address all issues of drainage and erosion control. They will be filing all of the requisite plans,
applications,etc.,with the Town and seeking the proper approvals for-that. They have no intention of
trying to discourage any of that.
Mr.Franz said they have not removed any trees and any of that will also be done with proper approval.
Mr.Franz said there is no uncertainty whatsoever on his part or on the part of the owner or anyone in his
office,about the location of the house. If anyone has any specific questions about it,he will be happy to
answer them. Any uncertainty that may have been perceived when he began his presentation has to do with
what ought to have been yellow and what ought to have been white. As was properly pointed out by Mr.
Wexler that some of what he showed as being white,open terrace,in fact has a roof over it and by the
code definition ought to be shaded yellow to indicate that it is a covered porch. There is no uncertainty
about where the house is going whatsoever.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 28
A gentleman asked if there is a question about the foundation.
Mr.Gunther informed the gentleman that he will be happy to call for public comments later,just hold onto
his question.
Mr.Franz said that any uncertainty about using the foundation,he would characterize as matters of the
construction process. There is a certain amount of uncertainty that exists in every alteration project. Any
design professional,architects,engineers,etc.,will tell you that in the course of designing an alteration
project to a residence or a commercial building certain reasonable assumptions are made until things that
they call concealed conditions can be revealed. At that time they make certain judgments. The building
inspector will also tell you that these things are normal to construction. As things come up during
construction,they're handled in the proper fashion. If they have to design an adjustment,it's done,filed
properly and the inspections are up to speed with that. Any uncertainty that exists,is inherent and normal
in this process. It relates not to matters of zoning,but relates to matters of construction. No matter how
much smaller the house gets,these variances are not specifically because the house is larger. That is
simply not the case. No matter how much smaller the house got,let's say they took the whole top floor
off making it about the same size it is now,the driveway would be where it is at the elevation it is,the
.garage would be where it is at the elevation it is,likewise for the first floor elevations. The topography
- would be what it is. With respect to the garage and-the driveway,the front door would likely be where
it is today and where it is on our plan. If they were to seek a side door,even on that smaller building,
it would likely be where they are showing it. In other words,the driveway,the stairs,the circulation
around this site to the house from the driveway would very likely and logically be just as it is now.
Mr.Franz said the variances,as he initially said,are sought to overcome some practical difficulty with
respect to pedestrian circulation on this site. That difficulty exists today on the house that stands there.
They don't have a side door.
A gentleman spoke,whereby Mr. Gunther reiterated that he will be happy to open the floor to public
comments again. He asked that they please let Mr.Franz finish his presentation.
Mr.Franz said he has made that point. They are seeking to overcome the practical difficulty and gain
what they believe is reasonable use in terms of circulation around the site and in and out of the house.
Mr.Franz said his last response to a specific comment is that the neighbor to the right,as you look at the
plans who's been there for a good long time, will lose practically no sun whatsoever because of the
orientation of these properties. The south,southeast,due south,southwest and all of that valuable daytime
growing gardening sun will still be there. They're house is east,northeast of that property and the
sunshine will hardly be affected at all on that side.
Mr.Franz said that's it on his direct responses. He would only ask that the Board please remain focused
as he knows they are,on what the issues are here. Despite all that's been said and the magnitude of the
variances,he won't respond to what may or may not be the magnitude of the impact of this house on the
neighborhood. The magnitude of the variances is small,with respect to their impact on the neighborhood
and with respect to the gain on the part of the owner. A denial wouldn't change the house. It would only
make it more difficult to get in,out and around the house. Of course,it's not the Board's purpose to spite
an applicant for doing things that are zoning compliant but unpopular. Mr.Franz thanked the Board.
Mr.Gunther made a brief correction on Mr.Franz'assumption. He said that the Zoning Board grants and
reviews applications in their entirety. They grant a variance for the life on the property and the ability to
proceed or not to proceed on the entire application as presented.
Mr.Franz thanked the Board.
Mr.Winick informed Mr.Franz he may not need a variance for height,but has to think of the impact of
the variance he is requesting in light of the structure that is going to be there,not the ranch house that's
, Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 29
there now. Mr.Winick said in the blue area in the front of the house,what's in that big area;a flight of
steps in the triangular area.
Mr.Franz said that is a little piece of landing for a terrace.
Mr.Winick said so he understands--the elevations,is that the covered porch.
Mr.Franz said no.
Mr.Winick said is it some portion of the landing.
Mr.Franz said that is correct. No part of the portico is outside of the building envelope.
Ms.Martin said Mr.Franz said that light would not be affected on this property,because it's south of the
house. Ms.Martin asked if Mr.Franz can give the location of how the shadow on the house will fall.
Mr.Franz said the sun is moving this way,east to west. If it's summer, it's still not quite directly
overhead and will be moving this way. The houses on the street are all lovely,the same,distance from the
street,so out here will enjoy the sun something like this. _
(I'M SORRY-MS.SEARS IS SPEAKING AND I CANNOT HEAR EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING
SAID.)
A discussion ensued regarding where the sun rises.
Grace Sears said there's a tree on the corner of this property,right here,that shadows her whole back
yard.
Mr.Franz said they will take that down for her.
Ms.Sears said absolutely,that's the one thing she wishes he will do. This is all on her side.
Mr.Winick said in her letter,dated February 20,2001,which was a part of the application,you indicated
concern with the planned request of widening the garage and the driveway.
Mr.Franz said yes. The driveway will be expanded to the right,and it's a two-car garage now.
Mr.Winick said he must have present plans to build and asked what the total width of the garage is.
Mr.Franz said it is roughly 22/23 ft.
Mr.Wexler asked if right now it exists at 22/23 ft.
Mr.Franz said no. It's a one-car garage and they're doubling it.
Ms.Casey said there are two cars there now all the time. •
After some discussion,Mr.Turovsky said there's one garage door now,but they're making it wider with
two doors instead of one.
•
Mr.Wexler said the existing garage is smaller.
Ms.Martin said she wants to know that the shadow will not fall on the neighbors to the south.
(I'M SORRY,I CAN'T CLEARLY HEAR WHAT MS.MARTIN IS SAYING.)
•
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 30
She asked for them to show her where the shadows of the house will fall.
Mr.Franz said the shadows of the house will fall to the north,in the morning.
Mr.Gunther said he was going to suggest to the applicant—for the Board sit here and make a supposition
to what the shadow impact is,it is really a reality. Maybe the applicant might want to consider doing a
shadow survey for impact on the houses surrounding it. While there may not be an impact to the front of
the house with the morning sun,there may be a substantial impact to the houses in the rear because of the
height. If the sun sets in the west,the houses that are directly to the east will have tremendous impact of
the sun.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other Board questions.
Mr.Wexler asked what the elevation is on the first floor.
Mr.Gunther said 22 ft.from the street to the bottom step,according to this.
Mr.Wexler asked if they are keeping the first floor elevation 405.1 ft: a :a
Mr.Franz said that's right.
Mr.Wexler said so that the far corner of the house,in the upper left-hand corner,will be about 7 ft.above
grade.
Mr.Franz said that's correct.
1
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other Board questions. There being none,he asked if there were any
questions from the public on this application.
Mr.Kane said there is no variance for the addition in the back. The variance is here and asked if Mr.
Franz has a rear picture of it.
Mr.Franz said he did not have a picture of it,but the first floor is a few feet out of the ground,8/9 ft.
Then this sits on top of that.
Mr.Kane asked if that's about 20 ft.
Mr.Franz said it's not even 20 ft.
Mr.Kane said that's 20 ft.on top of a 15 ft.of ledge,so it's 35 ft.above the yard below.
Mr.Franz said no. The house is 30 ft.
After further discussion on this matter,Mr.Gunther said that the topographical map that was submitted
shows a 187 foot level is a rear yard,with the existing house today at 202 ft.,is the difference between
the two.
Mr.Kane said 17 plus the house. -
Clark Bailey said he has a couple of questions. Two comments were made to reduce the issue to the steps,
the preexisting steps at the time,and also the house is smaller. The size of the house doesn't matter,but
if the line is pulled back the steps would fit in. If the footprint is smaller,wouldn't the steps fit hi that
wouldn't require a variance.
Mr.Franz said that the front wall of the house is something they have inherited.
•
Zoning Board
c March 28,2001
Page 31
Mr.Bailey said but you can pull it back.
Mr.Franz said you can push the house back.
Mr.Bailey said or you can pull the front wall back.
Mr.Franz said there is an awful lot that can be done here.
Mr.Bailey said the steps do tie into the side of the house. The-house is so large. There is a direct
correlation to the variance on the steps to the side of the house.
Mr.Franz said just to be clear,if the variance is denied the house size won't change. What they are
seeking is a more comfortable way of getting in and out of this building. They are seeking to avoid severe
steps,coming out of the door onto a very small landing and having to descend severe steps. They are
seeking to avoid having to walk through the house to get out the front door or to get to the rear yard,and
are looking to enjoy reasonable conveniences in terms of getting and out of the house.
- Mr.Bailey said his point is,if the house was smaller they could still enjoy those nice,comfortable landings
" , and steps. It's just because the wall is pushed out that a variance is needed,because it slops over.
Mr.Franz said that he doesn't agree with him. -
Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Bailey that's this is really a matter of interpretation.
Jim Brady said he is not a draftsman,so he doesn't understand some of this. Some of this stuff should
have been yellow but it's not. This seems out of sequence to what they are asking for,because it says here
a rear yard of 15 ft.where 25 ft.is required. This makes it look like if they're going back only 15 ft.to
the property. Where did all the space go.
Mr.Franz said 15 ft.is right here. Because of this unusual job and the property line,this piece of
property line is considered to be a small section of the rear property line. Therefore,this is considered
to be the rear yard.
Mr.Brady asked then why wouldn't they move it all over this way,where they have all this empty space
and they wouldn't need a variance on the other side. Mr.Brady said there are a million things that can
be done. In the second part where they say alterations, this is not an alteration. This is regular
construction. They are taking this house down to ground level and starting. He said how can they now
have exact specs.
Mr.Franz said they have been completely forthcoming about it.
Mr.Brady said right,but they should have exact specs.
Everyone started speaking at once,whereby Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Brady if he has a question to
please direct it to him.
Mr.Brady said Mr.Franz is saying this is an alteration,and he's suggesting it's brand new construction.
During the construction he says he will have to arrange for this when it starts,and Mr.Brady didn't
understand that. Most contractors will build a house exactly to the specifications that he submits for the
building application.
•
Mr. Gunther said it's only a matter of terminology. The applicant has submitted specifications for
construction. The plans the Board is referring to is what the applicant is proposing to build. Whether he
keeps one brick of what's there or he keeps everything except one brick,it doesn't make a difference.
This is what he is proposing to do different than what currently exists,and that's what the Board is
considering.
y ` Zoning Board
•
March 28,2001
Page 32
Mr.Brady said that he mentioned during the course of all this,that they will decide on certain things as
the house progresses. He's never heard of any architect or contractor using a variance during the course
of construction.They should know exactly where every inch is going to be. Every socket,every electrical
outlet should be recorded.
Mr.Gunther said Mr.Brady is absolutely correct. However,once someone goes in to alter an existing
property and it is taken apart,you are making certain assumptions as to what's there. When you take it
apart and you find something different,for example, if the foundation is insufficient to handle the
remaining part of the construction he has to build,he may have to make modifications. If he makes an
change to the plans that get approved,if they get approved,he has to go back to the Building Department
and see if it falls within the terms that are allowed. If they're not,then he has to go back to this Board
if a variance is needed for that part.
Richard Seltzer,of 17 Mohegan Road,addressed the Board. He said he thinks it is a little bit disingenuous
to belittle the amount of variance. Nobody is going to build$1,000,000.house,as they've disclosed in
their papers they're spending to build this house,if they can't have an appropriate entrance to it. He
doesn't believe that they're going to disfigure the neighborhood with this behemoth if they can't have the
gracious entrance. That's why the.Board should deny this variance. This variance that they seek holdup '
' the massive$1,000,000.house that this woman wants to build in the neighborhood.'
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments frompublic. There were none.
Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Franz if he had anything else to add.
Mr.Franz said he didn't think so.
Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Franz that he isn't prepared to have a vote this evening on his application. He
certainly wants to go back,take another look at the property and get another sense of prospective of what
Mr.Franz is proposing,as it relates to the surrounding community. One of the elements that he reviews
is the change that is produced to the'character of the neighborhood as a result of any application that is
approved. He certainly wants to reevaluate to be in a better position for himself and suggests that Board
members do the same thing. He said if Mr.Franz wanted to help him,and it is entirely voluntary on his
part,by providing a comparison of what he is proposing and the heights of all the other houses by standing
in the middle of Mohegan Road,looking at the properties and seeing what it looks like in comparison to
all the others in the form of a drawing of some sort that would probably be a little more helpful to him.
Otherwise he would just be looking at his set of plans trying to figure it out in his own mind.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Franz if he can tell him what the height of the house is,as compared to existing
property next to it.
Mr.Franz said 20 ft.to 30 ft.is the change.
Mr.Wexler asked if that is the height of the ridge.
Mr.Franz said it is not the height of the ridge,but the height of the building as defined by the Ordinance.
Mr.Wexler asked the height of the structure.
Mr.Franz said meaning what.
Mr.Wexler said meaning the ridge.
Mr.Franz he reiterated,meaning what,because the height is defined in the Ordinance.
Mr.Wexler said the question was the height of the ridge.
• Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 33
Mr.Franz said he doesn't know that.
Mr.Gunther said if he can get that information,what he'd like to know is the ridge height of the proposed
property and what's the ridge height of the existing property.
Mr.Wexler asked property meaning house/structure.
Mr.Gunther said the house.
Mr.Gunther asked if other Board members have any other questions.
Ms.Martin reiterated that she is very concerned about the shadow.
Mr.Gunther said they talked about that,but there is also a request,which is entirely up to Mr.Franz,if
he wishes to provide that or not in terms of a shadow analysis of both the premises to the east and to the
west.
Mr.Gunther asked if any other Board members have any questions. •
•
Mr.Coico said he has one question concerning trees. He heard that they may need to remove trees and
- asked if Mr.Franz has any sense or estimate of how many trees and what size tree.
Mr.Franz said he didn't come with that and he doesn't want to start throwing around guesses and going
from memory. He reiterated that any trees that need to be removed will be surveyed and the removal
permit process will be followed. He doesn't have anything finalized on that.
Mr.Gunther said the topographical map that he provided lists all the trees that are on the site and asked
if he knew which ones are proposed to be removed if he could circle those for the Board.
Mr.Franz said he couldn't do it know,because they still don't know. It hasn't been determined. He said
that he mentioned earlier that,in the short term with respect to erosion control,etc.,they have retained
a landscape architect. He said that's in the short term,because they need that to get a building permit.
In the long term,he is going to do that survey.
Mr.Gunther said he doesn't need the erosion control plan at this point. Mr.Franz certainly will need that
later on in the process.
Mr.Wexler asked how many square feet are on this property.
Mr.Franz asked if he means the land itself,just under 20,000 sq.ft.,which is about 30%larger than the
minimum lot size for the zone.
Mr.Wexler said he won't have to do a tree survey/tree removal plan.
Mr.Carpaneto said not if it's under 20,000 sq.ft.
Mr.Wexler said unless it's deemed to be a new structure.
Mr.Franz asked if they are going to set a date.
Mr.Wexler said he would like to see how Mr.Franz would solve what he is asking for without a variance.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. He then asked what the fourth
Wednesday date is for next month.
Mr.Winick said it's April 25,2001.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 34
After some discussion among Board members regarding availability on that date,Mr.Wexler said he would
not be able to attend the meeting on that date.
Mr.Winick said he would particularly like Mr.Wexler to be present at that meeting.
After further discussion,the next meeting date was set for Tuesday,April 24,2001.
Mr.Wexler informed Mr.Franz that if he's going to present anything to the Board that gets sent in their
packets,can he reduce it so it isn't as big as this.
Mr.Franz asked what size he would like,to which Mr.Wexler said half the size of this.
The secretary informed Mr.Franz that information is sent out to Board members one week before the
meeting. She needs to have the information at least a few days before that time,to make copies,etc.
Mr.Franz said he will submit a comparison shadow survey and an alternate solution by the 14th of April
. He asked if there was anything else the Board wanted.
Mr.Wexler said the ridge height of the structure.
Mr.Franz asked if he wanted the height of the ridge closest to the surrounding grade.
Mr.Wexler said the height of the ridge relative to the existing structure.
Mr.Franz said the difference from the existing ridge to the new ridge.
Mr.Wexler said there a couple of ridges there.
Mr.Winick said Richard told us to get a sense of what the changes is in height of the structure from what's
existing,because that's what the Board will be looking at.
Mr.Wexler said one of the easiest ways he might be able to convey that graphically is to,on the side
elevations,draw the shapes of the front elevation.
Mr.Gunther said one of the things that he asked about was if he had some one standing on the street
looking at all the houses,to see the difference between them.
Mr.Franz said like comparisons to adjacent houses. Mr. Franz asked if he means as it sits on the
topography.
Mr.Gunther said yes. He said he would be happy to draw for him,in his own classic style of drawing
here,something that looks as classy as this,where you can see the difference between one house versus
another. Is there a big difference. Is there a little difference. That takes into account the topography,
because it just might be,as the topography notes,they are all exactly the same.
Mr.Seltzer said does that have to be on both sides of Mohegan Road.
Mr.Gunther said no,just one side.
Ms.Seltzer said their side is much lower. That's why they have to do both sides.
Mr.Seltzer said they are on this last(?)which is going to be shadowed by this large house.
Mr.Gunther said then do a shadow evaluation.
•
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 35
Mr.Seltzer said in the shadow analysis,could he ask that they show what the shadow effect of the building
is one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset.
Mr.Franz said that's usually the way these shadow analysis are done.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Wexler what is the norm the Board has sought in the past on shadow impact.
Mr.Wexler said 3:00 o'clock.
Mr.Gunther asked if there is a maximum and a minimum.
Mr.Franz said what they're going to be limited to,because he has to have this done before April 14,2001,
is showing the path of the shadow on a particular date. He said if they are going to go through that,they
can probably show it at a few different times during the day.
Mr.Gunther said he doesn't want to get into specifying what Mr.Franz should show. He will leave it to
him to secure something that shows the Board the impact.
_ Mr.Seltzer said he knows,this is consistent with something that he's commented on very recently and
asked if they could have an opportunity to see the submissions sufficiently in advance of the next hearing I.
date,so there could be fair public comments.
Mr.Gunther asked the secretary about availability.
The secretary said as soon as information is submitted,it is available.
Mr.Gunther said the packages to the Board members go out one week before the meeting. Therefore,he
can be sure she will have all the sufficient materials submitted.
Mr.Seltzer thanked Mr.Gunther.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Kane he had any questions.
Mr.Kane said Mr.Gunther answered it.
Mr.Carpaneto said that the material will also be copied.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2442 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the April,
• 2000 Zoning Board meeting.
A brief break was taken at this time.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2443
Application of David and Debra Riessen requesting a variance to construct a covered porch and rear wood
deck on the premises located at 46 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 117,Lot 119. The front porch addition as proposed has a front yard of 25 ft.+-
where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);a side yard of 6.4 ft.+-where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a). The rear wood deck as proposed has a rear yard of 18.5 ft.+-where
25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3),a side yard of 6.3 ft. +-where 10 ft. is required
pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a). The project as proposed has a lot coverage of 40%+-where 35%is
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 36
•
permitted pursuant to Section 240-38F;'and further,the additions increase the extent by which the building
is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
Laura Elterman,the architect on this project,and David Riessen,the owner of the residence,appeared.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were photos.
The secretary said the Board has them already.
Ms.Elterman said it is the bright yellow house in the photographs that they're talking about.
Mr.Gunther said the house is distinctive.
Ms.Elterman said the main part is they are proposing to put a covered porch in the front of the house on
the yard,extending basically the side lot adjacent on the east side of the property about 61 ft.beyond the
15 ft.property line. In 1994 the house was added onto. It was a small place to begin with that didn't have
a porch. It was a very quaint little house. In 1994 the previous owners added an addition,a porch they
always dreamed:about having. They desperately wanted that and wanted to put back some of the.original '
• _ • character into the house. The scale of the house,aesthetically,right now,it's very tall,it's very elongated
-and lacks any articulation whatsoever. They felt that the porch would also satisfy their dreams about a ---
_ - porch,put back what'was there at one point and also break down the scale of the house and have some
articulation. They are also proposing putting on some shutters and some other things,to try to make it
look a little bit more in character with the rest of the houses on the street. They all have shutters. There
are porches that are enclosed on different houses in the neighborhood.
•
Ms.Elterman said the other proposal is for the deck in the back,just extending out from the existing
study/living room and having some doors that could open out to a deck area in the rear.
Mr.Gunther said he is noticing on the application,from the denial,that it makes reference to the lot
coverage being plus or minus 40%where 35% is required. He said Ms. Elterman doesn't have any
numbers in the application regarding total lot coverage as it exists.
Ms.Elferman said she believes it is around 29%,30%. She's not 100%sure. She needs to check that.
She said they are just adding,in terms of lot coverage,a porch which is 220 sq.ft.
Mr.Carpaneto said it's around 30%,31%.
Mr.Wexler asked if it's zoned to 40%.
Mr.Carpaneto said yes.
Mr.Wexler said it's 10%.
Mr.Gunther asked if 35%is the maximum zone.
Ms.Elterman said she believes it probably is 35%,and reiterated they're only adding 220 sq.ft.
Mr.Carpaneto said there is also a driveway and walkway existing. It was at around 31%and it's going
up to about 40%.
Mr.Wexler asked if the driveway was not there before.
Mr.Carpaneto said it was there before.
Ms.Elterman said the only new area is the covered porch that's on the deck. She said it was 35%and
turned into 40%.
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 37
Mr.Wexler said it is 6,000 sq.ft.,so it's 40%of the house. On the plans it's about 36'h%of the house.
Mr.Gunther said it's over already.
Mr.Wexler.said it's a little side yard and a nice,piece of property. He said they have no options. They
have no garage,other than right in front of the house. They're penalized,because they have to get to the
garage with these materials. The grass in other areas is now established.
Mr.Gunther asked if it's established,would that be counted as coverage.
Mr.Carpaneto said no.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any comments from the neighbors on this.
Mr.Riessen said they talked to everybody and everybody seemed to think that it would improve the
property. It's going to make it much prettier,he thinks.
Mr.Wexler asked if they're going to take the shingles off the back and then-do construction.
Ms.Elterman said they're actually not going to do that. It was on the application,but at the time in terms
_ of cost they probably will not do that stuff but will do wood shingles and keep it the way it is.
Mr.Wexler asked if the wood is in bad shape.
Ms.Elterman said no,it's not in bad shape. It was architectural,trying to differentiate,articulate different
areas of the house. They probably will just focus on the front,to stay in budget.
Mr.Wexler said he misinterpreted. She said now they're going to do shingles.
Ms.Elterman said they're going to leave the shingles as they are.
Mr.Gunther asked if they are painted cedar.
Ms.Elterman said she doesn't think they're cedar. They're painted copper.
Mr.Gunther said he doesn't have any other questions,and asked if there were any other questions from
Board members. There were none. He asked if there were any questions from the public. There were
none.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, 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,David and Debra Riessen have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a covered porch and rear wood deck on the premises located at 46 Echo
Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117,Lot 119. The
front porch addition as proposed has a front yard of 25 ft.+-where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section
240-38B(1);a side yard of 6.4 ft.+-where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a). The rear
wood deck as proposed has a rear yard of 18.5 ft.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-
38B(3),a side yard of 6.3 ft.+-where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a). The project
as proposed has a lot coverage of 40%+-where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-38F;and further,
Zoning Board
{ March 28,2001
Page 38
the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for
a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(1),Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-38B(3),Section 240-38F,Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,David and Debra Riessen 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 Board members'personal observations of the property and testimony
of the applicant and architect, the Board concludes that there will be no
undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
. to nearby properties. The alteration as proposed will soften the house and make
it more attractive in the neighborhood.
B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via any reasonable alternative,because
there is no other place to locate the front porch other than in the front and the
deck in the back. It is a rather small piece of property and there is no
reasonable alternative for the applicant.
C. It is a very small piece of property and incrementally it's not going to be much
greater than what already exists in terms of setbacks on the property as it's
currently situated.
D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood.
E. This is not a self-created difficulty. It is a small piece of property and it's an
unusual house that benefits from alterations.
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
Zoning Board
March 28,2001
Page 39
RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
building permit.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr.Gunther informed those present that the review of the previous month's meeting will be held over to
the next meeting.
_ OTHER BUSINESS
Mr.Gunther welcomed it's newest member,Richard Coico.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on Tuesday,April 24,2001.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
ccc
2 _ f
Marl to ��
Mar Roma,Recording Secretary