HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_05_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
MAY 22,2002,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman
Linda S.Harrington
Jillian A.Martin
Arthur Wexler
Paul A.Winick
Also Present: Judith M.Gallent,Counsel
Kevin T.Moore,Assistant Director of Building
Nancy Seligson,Liaison
Denise Carbone,Public Stenographer
Carbone&Associates,LTD.
11I N.Central Park Avenue
Hartsdale,New York 10530
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m.
Mr.Gunther said before we call the first case,I have a couple of administrative matters to cover with the
Board first for a point of information,a recent decision by the Court of Appeals that holds basically that
a tie vote taken at a Zoning board of Appeals meeting equals a denial.
Ms.Gallent said I passed the decision out. It's a couple of months old. You all have it. If you want me
to give you another,I will. But it does settle that question,which can come up from time to time.
Mr.Wexler said that it was a no action.
Ms.Gallent said that's not true anyway. If there is a quorum present and the resolution does not get the
majority,it constitutes a denial. You don't get to revote it. There are different views about it. There
were cases supporting both sides,but now it's been settled by the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Gunther said also there's another matter. Evidently the Town Board introduced a new law that if
enacted would create additions of alternative members to both the Board of Appeals,this Board,and the
Planning Board. If anyone would like a copy of that,it's called Local Law 2002. What it calls for is that
in the event of a matter before the Board where a member of the Board is unable to participate because
of a conflict of interest,then the alternative members may be called to participate. I will be happy to send
this draft around. It's really only for that instance. It's not if a member is sick or absent for some other
reason. It's only in the event of a conflict of interest.
Mr.Winick said is it solving the problems that we actually have?
Mr.Gunther said I think they're trying to think ahead.
Mr.Wexler said not if there is a known absentee for the evening.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
o1 Page 2
11 Mr.Gunther said correct,that's not the reason. The law really only states that an altemative member may
be called in the event of a conflict of interest where a Board member has to excuse themselves.
Ms.Gallent said I think it's a response to amendments in the Town Laws. The amendments are provided
for all the minutes.
Mr.Gunther said also with regard to changes in Local Law,I also received a copy of the proposed Local
Law regarding floor area ratio. If any Board member did not receive a copy and would like one,we can
look into that.
Mr.Winick asked,is that going to be a subject of the June 3,2002 Town Board meeting?
Ms.Gallent said no. It's my understanding it's a SEQRA training session.
Mr.Gunther asked that the first application be read.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2465(adjourned 9/19/01;11/28/01;4/24/02)
Application of Joy and Robert Greenberg requesting a variance to install air conditioning condenser units
on the premises located at 19 West Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 40. The air conditioning condenser units as proposed have a rear yard of
6.5 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further,the condensing units increase
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10
Zone District.
Robert Greenberg, of 19 West Drive, addressed the Board. Mr. Greenberg said I'm here to request
permission to move my air conditioner from it's current location to a new location. The rear of my house,
technically it's called the side yard,has a wood deck in the back. The air conditioning unit was put
underneath this wood deck. I actually bought a photo that I'd like to submit,marked exhibit#1. In the
photo you'll see that the clearance undemeath the deck is maybe 21 ft.to 3 ft. Having air conditioners
under the deck in that way causes a number of issues. One is the efficiency of the unit is compromised,
because it can't get a full intake. Secondly,the challenge asserted for the unit is fairly severe,because it's
very difficult to get in next to the unit. Third,the unit as you would imagine throws off some heat. If
you're standing or sitting on the deck above,the heat makes it uncomfortable to be sitting in that place.
Mr.Greenberg said in that photo the deck is to the right and there is an area to the left which currently
is lawn and a landscape area. I want to move it just outside the deck into a pocket of land that wouldn't
be covered by the deck.
Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Greenberg we received a letter. I don't know whether you got this or not,but
I'll read it. It's from Rochelle Stassa and is part of the record.
Mr.Greenberg submitted another photo,marked exhibit#2. This photo shows,if you follow the lot line,
the house around the corner. This was where I had originally planned on putting the unit. Had I put it
there,that wall directly does face the neighbor's house that wrote the letter. The reverberation of the
Town might extend more of an issue in this location. Where I'm seeking to put it,the house does not face
the neighbor. It faces towards the Leatherstocking Trail. Additionally,there was some discussion about
placing the unit on the opposite side of the house. I investigated that and found that that is not a viable
option,because the distance that the cruet would have to travel in the pipe would compromise the units
ability to work and feed my stuffing system as it feeds the interrupt by the house. I feel that this is really
the best choice of what's available and would not create a noise issue.
J
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 3
Mr.Gunther asked,do we have a copy of the site plan? I don't suppose the Board members have it,as
it has been held over a number of weeks.
Mr.Gunther asked,is the proposed location different now from where it was originally?
After some discussion,Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Greenberg to indicate on the survey where it's supposed
to be and where you're proposing it,which Mr.Greenberg did.
Mr. Greenberg said in this photo here,marked exhibit#2,this is the same as what exists. What I'm
proposing is not to put them there with this neighbor living here,but locate them here which would be on
the opposite side of the house. The second picture shows where that will be.
•
Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Roma to put a sticker on this,which was marked exhibit#3.
Mr.Wexler said that will be next to the existing deck?
Mr.Greenberg said next to the existing deck is my revised proposal is. The first proposal was on the side
of the house facing south.
Mr.Gunther said I'll pass this updated,as-built survey of the property dated,July 31,2000,around for
Board members. In pink it notes the old location which faces the Stassa's house and is now also indicated
on the new location by Mr.Greenberg where he's going to face it facing the Leatherstocking Trail not
facing the neighbor's house.
Mr.Wexler said it should be approximately 30 ft.from your side property line,the rear.
Mr.Greenberg said they call the back of my house the side yard.
Mr.Wexler said the back house facing the Leatherstocking Trail?
Mr.Greenberg said facing the Trail is technically the side yard,I believe.
Mr.Wexler said this would then be within 30 ft.of the rear yard,facing the neighbor's property. Mr.
Wexler said all I'm saying is what he's proposing it for originally,the condensers were going to be on the
rear yard approximately 16 ft.from the rear yard. By bringing the condensers around to the house,they
are about 30 ft.maybe even more than 30 ft.
Ms.Martin said further away.
Mr.Gunther said,does he need a variance then?
Mr.Wexler said on the side yard.
Ms.Gallent said the notice is no good. The notice is for the rear yard.
Mr.Gunther asked if there are any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were
none.
Mr.Gunther said if there are no comments,I'll ask for a sense of the Board. I don't have a problem with
the application as currently presented by Mr.Greenberg. Neither did Ms.Martin,Mr.Wexler nor Mr.
Winick.
Mr.Gunther said I think we'll need one more month to go through the renotice process,since the notice
is for a side as opposed to a rear. It will be renoticed. He informed Mr.Greenberg that he will not have
to come to the meeting next month. What we'll do is call the application.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 4
Mr.Wexler said I don't know about that,because the neighbors might be back next month.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2465 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the June 26,
2002 Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Roma to check the Building Department file to see if we have exhibit#3.
(MR.CARPANETO IS SPEAKING AND CAN'T BE HEARD CLEARLY!) •
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2471(adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01;12/19/01;2/26/02;4/4/02;4/24/02)
Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the
property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 8.5 ft.
where a maximum of 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone
District.
Mr. Gunther said we have since received a memorandum from the Director of Building which says the
Town has not been able to secure a sound engineer to review the sound study presented by Mr.Friedman
from Martin Alexander,P.E.,for the fence at the rear of the property. I have left messages with several
engineering firms who have not responded to my request. Therefore, at this time,the Town has no
comment regarding this matter.
Mr.Friedman said at least it proves that I'm truthful,when I explained how difficult it was for me to find
a sound engineer. I have nothing further to add on it,other than if it's not going to be granted I want to
make my record show that the record is very clear. It is not a rear yard lot line fence. It is 33 ft.inside
the property. The Building Director concurs with me that my reading of the Ordinances are correct and
that I have the right,as a matter of right,to build a shed along the entire rear of the property as high as
15 ft.,if I want to do that. If it is a sense of the Board that it's going to deny my application,then I will
apply for,obtain a building permit and do a shed along the back which will be 5/z ft.deep by the length
of the property with regard to the side yards that are required. There's nothing more that I can do. I've
given them plans. I've given sound engineers opinions. Evidently,Mr. Winick who has had some
concerns that I was not getting sufficient benefit,seems to me that's my call.
Mr.Friedman said there was also some concern about how much benefit there would be from the fence.
He said Ms.Martin has been to the property and Mr.Winick has been to the property. I think counsel
should instruct members of their obligation to notify the property owner before they come to visit and the
fact that they do not have police power to enter property without obtaining permission to do so. If I sound
upset,I am upset. This application has been pending for about a year. There is no reasonable reason for
us to have waited that long. Mr.Winick put his finger when he said I'm entitled to a decision either way.
If we can't favorably resolve it here,then I'll get a dispassionate magistrate to resolve it elsewhere or I'll
do my shed. One way or another,I'm going to build something back there. If I have the right to put up
a house exactly where I'm asking to put up a fence,I cannot conceive of what the objection could be. I've
got the right to put up a two-story house there. That's a minimum of 20 ft. I've got the right,as a matter
of right...interrupted.
Mr.Wexler said it's within the required setback.
Mr.Friedman said absolutely. I'm 33 ft.within the closest to the rear property line.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 5
Mr.Wexler said you can't go to your side property line where the house goes.
Mr.Friedman said with a shed with the appropriate side setback,I could do it. I can have virtually the
entire length(?)of the property to something in the order of 12 ft.or 15 ft.high. I don't want to do that,
but I will build a shed if that's the only way that I can do it.
Mr.Friedman said I appreciate the time you've put in. I do appreciate the fact that you took time on a
weekend to come and look and didn't just look at the pictures. That is appreciated,but I'd like to have
a decision. I have nothing further to offer. I see there is an objectant here. She may have something.
I have nothing further. Thank you.
Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other questions from Board members? There were none.
Mr.Wexler said there is a question from Mr.Friedman. Mr.Wexler said when we presented the thought
that you bring your fence a little closer to your pool to screen the outside of that other side of the fence,
you had a very strong argument that you were losing proper space. You're willing to now build a shed
5 ft.in depth.
Mr.Friedman said Mr.Wexler you misunderstand. The front of the shed would be where the fence is.
I would build back,over the slope. I've checked that with an engineer and I find there is absolutely no
problem in doing that. I would not reduce my yard one single inch.
Mr.Friedman said I didn't come in here and tell you a story for the sake of telling a story. This has been
well thought out. I've been living in this town for 30 years. I've tried very hard to be a good neighbor.
(� If I'm entitled to use my back yard,I'm going to use the back yard whether I protect it by using a shed
!� or by protecting it by using a fence. What I do is entirely up to this Board, not to me. I'm very
determined. If you want to know how determined I can be,read the story of the doctor on May 5th in the
New York Times on the front page of the magazine section. That was my case. I promise you,there will
be a shed or there will be a fence,but there's going to be protection. My wife and kids are going to enjoy
our pool and our back yard. I thank you for the time and the attention you've given.
Mr.Gunther asked,are there any other questions?
Mr.Winick said I have a couple,I guess really for the Building Department. We were at the property
yesterday and my concerns were....first of all I have to say that we got to this meeting tonight without
knowing that there was no engineer's report and that's ridiculous. I certainly could have tried to retain
one. I think about whether I would like to appear in front of this Board as an applicant and I sure would
like the smoothest ride I could get. You shouldn't take a month to fmd out you can't act. There certainly
could be more that we could do. It's clearly ultimately the Board's responsibility to either get what it
needs or not get what it needs. I'm really concerned that we get the whole site bills of the meeting only
to find out we have not. This has been two or three months now. That's not right. As a matter of
procedure,I don't think we're operating as affectively as we should be.
Mr.Winick said I was able to make a couple of conclusions yesterday just for myself.as I looked at the
property. One is that I think the fence at the proposed height will not adversely impact the property below
on Hickory Grove. I got comfortable with that yesterday. My concern,because I was actually really
concerned yesterday with the adjacent property,that's where I thought we were walking from the adjacent
property. I think there is an impact,based on how far that fence extends along the property. If as I
understand the purpose of the shield that as a sound barrier,the fence is larger than it needs to be in order
to accomplish the Friedman's goal of protecting the outside sitting areas and the pool area.
Mr.Winick said my way of thinking is the benefit to the applicant will not be outweighed by the detriment
to the two adjoining property owners,if that fence is built as it's constructed. My view is that if that were
cut back by three fence posts on each side,I would no longer feel that the balance is that way. That is
•
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 6
something that I think would seem to meet the applicant's needs,since there is still a solid barrier between
all of the habitable parts,the used parts of the back yard.
Mr.Gunther said you're talking about reducing the fence on the east and the west side.
Mr.Winick said along the length of the fence. He asked Mr.Friedman to sit down until we get done
talking,please. I appreciate aggressive lawyers. I am an aggressive lawyer. This I don't need. Let me
just talk and then you can say whatever you want.
Mr.Winick said three fence posts in from either right or left as you would be looking at the fence. I
would say again that it would be nice if we had an acoustic expert to tell us whether that would have any
affect,because neither Mr.Friedman's expert nor our solusary(?)experts could speak to that variation of
it. I would not vote for this as it's proposed on the plan,because I think the impact on the two neighbors
is quite severe.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other Board member questions or comments. There were none.
Mr.Gunther said Mr.Friedman before we come back I'm just going to call for public comments and then
we'll come back to you last.
Mr.Gunther asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment about the proposed
application.
Jane Liebowitz of 189 Hickory Grove Drive,the property below,addressed the Board. I still have the
objections,the same objections that I've stated before,but I'm wondering,Mr.Winick,when you say that
you feel comfortable with the way it would appear to the property below,if you stood in my yard below?
Mr. Winick said I believe I did. I didn't call you for permission. It is not our practice to call for
permission,but we walked the three lots below that fence. I'm sure one of them was yours.
Ms.Liebowitz said mine is directly below and is below most of the ones of the fence in the middle. Right
now the appearance is very different than it was two months ago,before there were leaves on the tree.
It's startling different. When the leaves aren't there,and they are not for a lot of the year,there's going
to be a huge barrier and obstruction. I would feel more comfortable knowing that there is a sound benefit,
before a fence like that was consented to.
Mr.Winick said it really up to the Board to make a determination whether or not Mr.Friedman's expert
...we have two choices as we always do,which is to take the expert report in evidence obviously and we
can take it for what it says or we can once again say we want to get another opinion for the Board and we
can adjourn and Mr.Friedman can take whatever remedy he thinks he's entitled to as a result of the study
or he can build a shed. He can do whatever he wants. Again,I think the question is neither that expert...
no expert has really articulated the degree of benefit in the way that I understand. I'm referring to
something else when I said the aesthetic impact on the adjoining property. We do have that question. We
have no...inaudible evidence. It's only a question of what the Board wants to do.
Mr.Wexler said I think there's another problem here. When you said when fences were presented to us
they were on top of a retaining wall. The height of that fence is measured from the ground on the low part
of that retaining wall. If he's putting an 8 ft.high fence on top of a retaining wall that's something about
2' ft.to 3 ft.in height,is that correct in the back?
Mr.Friedman said not quite. It's about a foot high,14 inches in that area.
Mr.Wexler said then the notice should be somewhere from 9' ft.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 7
Mr.Friedman said the fence is in front of it,Mr.Wexler. The fence is not being built on the retaining
wall. It's being built immediately in front of it. It's from the ground up,not....interrupted.
Mr.Wexler said bow far from the edge of the retaining wall?
Mr.Friedman said I don't think I measured it,but probably 12 inches.
Mr.Wexler said in the past we had steps from 4 ft.,now it's built on horizontally as you go up. There
aren't laws,at least on the books,that we haven't had to deal with heights of fences. That fence would
be construed to be from the bottom of that retaining wall measured 4 ft.in from that retaining wall. The
notice is not only an 8.5 ft.fence,it's anywhere from a 9 ft./10 ft.fence and it looks like in the picture
maybe even higher than that. We have to look at that. It's not just an 8.5 ft.fence from the down slope
of your property's viewpoint. Am I correct in that?
Mr.Moore said I don't know if this is the fence from the wall on the high side of the wall or is it below
the wall?
Mr.Wexler said the high side.
Mr.Gunther said if it's on the high side,it counts as part of the wall.
Mr.Moore said if he has his 4 ft.setback.
Mr.Gunther said the top picture shows where the post is...inaudible.
Ms.Gallent said then the notice is wrong.
After some discussion among those members,Mr.Gunther said if there are any discussions that are relative
to the matter it has to be in public to be heard by the Board.
Mr.Moore said it's less than 4 ft.,so it counts as part of the height of the fence.
Mr.Wexler said we can pass it and the fence will be built at 6 ft.
Mr.Gunther said Mrs.Liebowitz,I think Board members have understood what the...inaudible. Thank
you.
Mr.Gunther asked if there is anyone else who wishes to make a comment on this application.
Mr.Friedman said when you were at the property Mr.Winick,if you looked at the right side facing the
rear fence,look at the right side,the problem is a slope off and the direct line of sight to the highway.
That's the real problem. If you're suggesting to come in 3 fence posts from the right and 3 fence posts
from the left,it destroys the entire premise of the fence. The rear problem is the noise from I-95 coming
right up the right side of the property. It's almost like a bowling alley. Just think about that for a minute
as you stand facing 1-95. He reiterated,it's a bowling alley. It goes straight down and there is nothing
at the side of the highway to protect,so the noise not only comes up,but to the extent that it bounces. I'll
now use the concerns you had in prior evenings testimony. From across the highway it bounces off the
walls on the other side of I-95 on the Connecticut side and bounces right back up. I've got all the noise
that I-95 can generate exactly where you want me to cut the fence out. Absolutely not. It makes no sense
to do it that way. I might as well save my money and build a fence,because it would serve no useful
purpose. But,you're right. Neither you nor I are engineers. We're both aggressive lawyers. I'm the
only one who brought an engineer and paid for an engineer and the Town has had months. Months ago
you requested,at least two meetings ago. That's not my problem and that's not my responsibility.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 8
Mr.Friedman said if there's such an animal here at fault,it's the fault of the Town,not me. I know that
the Building Director tried to get them one. He and I discussed it. He's unable to get one. Nobody wants
to come out to do this job for the money they earn. I paid twice what I would have to pay,just to get
someone to come out and I have to look and,say wait a minute he's a lioness(?)individual,he's subject
to whatever the laws provide for someone who deliberately makes a false report. You had concerns the
last time we were here and you're concern was you pay an expert and he says what you want. In my
practice that's not true. I'm assuming that the man was truthful and honest when using his license issued
by the State a way he earns his living he wrote a report. He came,he looked at the property and he gave
me his report. I assure you if I had wanted to give you the kind of report that you suggest may have been
given,that report would have said it cures the problem but it didn't. It was honest and he said you'll only
get a certain amount of relief from it. I'm willing to assume that lessor amount of relief instead of 100%
relief, because I'd rather have 25% relief than 0% relief. That's my argument. I don't think it's
unreasonable. Again, I appreciate your concerns, I really do,but I have to be concerned about my
concerns and one way or another,whether it's by fence or by shed,I'm going to use my back yard.
Again,I thank you.
Mr.Gunther asked are there any other comments from Board members?
Mr.Gunther proceeded to make a motion that this is a Type II Action,at which time Mr.Wexler said it's
not noticed properly.
Mr. Moore said the only concern I have is if that wall may even be a landscape feature,rather than a
retaining wall because it's so low. Apparently it's only 1 ft.high.
Mr.Wexler said from the pictures it looks closer than that.It's actually like a retaining wall.
Ms.Martin said I want to understand carefully your opinion....interrupted.
Mr.Friedman said please forgive me,I'm supposed to have hearing aids,I don't have them. My dog ate
one,so I'm having a real problem.
Ms.Martin said the right side of the property....interrupted
Mr.Friedman said as you face I-95.
Ms.Martin said as you're facing away,there's a set of steps in the area with kind of a patio with rocks
and whatever. That is an area where if your standing in your neighbor's yard the fence is very apparent,
right in front by their swing set. Is that the area you're talking about that you feel visually you would need
to shield the highway?
Mr.Friedman said we've got to do something. I want to point out,that neighbor is not here tonight. That
neighbor is a close friend. That neighbor knows all about the application and wants to talk to our
contractor,because she may be making the same application to continue it along the back of her property.
I don't know if that's going to happen,because there are some issues to whether she wants to spend the
money. That's the area I'm concerned about,Ms.Martin. As you say,it's I-95 on the right,because
that's the low point in the property and it's the open area where there's nothing between I-95 and that area.
Mr.Wexler asked,what happens to your fence? It's 8 ft.along the high part of your property and then
it will step down?
Mr.Friedman said the fence follows the ground. For example,if the fence here is 8 ft.above ground and
the ground goes up a half a foot,it goes up a half a foot. As it falls down,it tapers down still maintaining
8 ft. The top of the fence will not be a straight across fence as the top of your desks are. It will follow
the contour of the ground.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 9
Mr.Wexler said that ground from the survey,if you count the risers,is about 4 ft.lower than the ground
at the patio area,correct?
Mr.Friedman said right.
Mr.Wexler said I'm counting 8 risers,so it's approximately 4 ft.
Mr.Friedman said give or take,that's probably fair.
Mr.Wexler said so affectively that fence is 8 ft.high on a 4 ft.level,lower level...inaudible.
Mr.Friedman said I don't think so. I took Mr.Winick when he was there out onto the patio. When I
stood on the patio with him and we looked out,you could see that our eyesight established that the top of
the fence covered what you could see of the highway,so that the highway would be just below the top of
the fence. It would affectively block it,which was one of the issues that Mr.Winick raised which is why
I wanted to see it from the patio which is the high point from the wooden patio attached to the house.
When you looked out,the highway is below,just below the top of that fence. That's why I had them leave
a red flag on the top of the fence,so we would have a point to look at with your eyes when you looked
at it.
Mr.Wexler said that's working on the theory that if the fence height is above the ear level,your eyes,then
the sound will come over across it.
Mr.Friedman said I don't have such theories. As Mr.Winick has pointed out...interrupted.
Mr.Winick said that was my concern Arthur,that given the distance between where that fence is and
where the patio is,I have absolutely no comfort at this point that a fence that low is not going to dump
sound directly into the back yard. I don't know.
Mr. Friedman said Mr. Winick with all due respect, that's why your licensed as a lawyer. You're
admitted to practice law as I am. You're not a sound engineer. We had a licensed engineer come out.
That's what he does for a living. That's what the State has licensed him to do and you and I,with all due
respect,should not be substituting our judgment as a record lawyer what's right for the sound engineer.
If there was a question,if you were unhappy with it,then the Town should have gone out and gotten a
sound engineer.
Mr.Winick said Mr.Friedman I am unhappy with it. I asked the Town to do that and I ask the Town to
continue to do that,because frankly I don't think that this is a matter of punishment. It's a matter of
judgment that we have to ask,so I'm not going to punish the Town because they were unable to get the
sound engineer within the time frame that you would like them to. Your engineer was not here to be
questioned. The report is stagnant.
Mr.Friedman said did you ever ask him? I volunteered to have him,Mr.Winick. I said we'd have him
here.
Mr.Winick said we thought we were going to have an expert. I'm really not going to argue with you
tonight.
Mr.Friedman said I don't want to argue the case with you.
Mr.Winick said I don't think that your expert report addresses,among other things,the concern about the
access the diminution of height relative to your back yard is going to do. I think you're entitled before
you put a burden on your neighbor to the left and the neighbor to the right and the neighbors below,to
know what the law says,which is if the benefit to you outweighs the burden on surrounding properties.
Now I don't think we have that information.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 10
QMs.Gallent said perhaps more importantly there is a notice problem.
Mr.Winick said if there's a notice problem,than we can't act.
Ms.Gallent said you cannot act.
Mr.Friedman said I'm unaware of the notice problem.
Ms.Gallent said basically the law says that if you have a retaining wall and a fence inside of it,unless that
fence inside of it is 4 ft.horizontally from the retaining wall,the height of the retaining wall counts in the
conceded height of the fence. Therefore,since you're wooden fence is proposed to be 8 ft.to 8 h ft.,the
notice has to include the height of the 14 in.below. Therefore,the notice is insufficient. When the notice
is a notice of a lessor variance,than what is actually requested it's sufficient. It has to be renoticed to
request the additional 14 in.
Mr.Friedman said let me ask counsel,has a determination been made that this is a rear lot line fence,
because it's 33 ft.from the rear lot line? I can't seem to get an answer from the Building Department.
If the fence is 33 ft.inside the rear line of the property,is it a rear lot line fence subject to the 5 ft.rule?
I can't get a straight answer and it doesn't seem to me that it can be if you have the right to build a two-
story house at that point. It doesn't make sense.
Ms.Gallent said it's not a question that anyone is asking me look up,but all I can say is if the Building
Inspector wrote up the denial the way he did,he must have made a determination.
Q Mr. Wexler said it doesn't matter whether it's a rear yard. The definition of a fence is a structure,
including a wall,enclosing a yard or portion of the yard,used to prevent or impede entrance or to mark
the boundaries. It can be anywhere in your yard. It doesn't have to be on the property line.
Mr.Friedman said I understand that. I want to be sure that I do understand something,that even though
there's a right to put up a structure,a building 15 ft.high,the fence is inappropriate. I just want to be
sure I understand,that's all.
Mr.Wexler said you could also,at 30 ft.from your rear property line,put up a 35 ft.high structure. It's
a house,but a house has a different feeling in an environment than a fence.
Mr.Friedman said I understand,thank you.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,and seconded,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2471 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the June 26,
2002 Zoning Board meeting with a request that the Building Department appropriately issue a correct
notice.
A discussion ensued regarding the date of the Town Board meeting,a public hearing,which is June 20,
2002.
Ms. Seligson said they changed the date from Wednesday to Thursday for the Town Board meeting.
Normally it would have been Wednesday, June 19, 2002, but it was changed due to graduation to
Thursday,June 20,2002.
Mr.Gunther reiterated that Wednesday,June 26,2002,is the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Mr.Gunther asked,do you have some sound engineers that you could recommend?
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 11
OCOULD NOT HEAR THE REPLY.
Mr.Gunther said I also request,Marguerite,that notice go to the Director of Building. If he has a memo
for us,such as the one that was given us today regarding trying to get a sound engineer,it go in with the
envelopes that are delivered one week before the meeting rather than waiting until the evening of the
meeting.
Mr.Winick asked when and what time is the Town Board meeting?
Mr.Gunther said the Public Hearing on this case is scheduled for June 20,2002.
Ms.Seligson said the normal time for the Town board meeting is 8:15 p.m.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2484(adjourned 1/23/02;2/26/02;4/24/02)
Application of Robert Stavis requesting a variance to legalize three stone buttresses at Carriage House wall
and to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall on the premises located at 211
Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417,Lot
77. The buttresses as constructed have a side yard of 29 ft.where 35 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section
240-33B(2);the pier as constructed as part of the front wall has a height of 6 ft.3 in.where 5 ft is
permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;and further,the buttresses increase the extent by which the building
is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 Zone District.
Mr.Gunther said that this matter has been called before a number of times. It was adjourned January 23,
2002,February 26,2002 and April 24,2002. We received another letter from the applicant in April,
which Board members probably have,requesting what he says is a two-month adjournment. At the end
of the letter he says by the May meeting I will be able to provide the Board with appropriate additional
material. Then he sent another letter requesting another adjournment to the June meeting. Looking back
at our Minutes I see in the February 26,2002 meeting,there were discussions with Mr.Noto,who was
representing Mr. Stavis. There was a note that it is our practice not to allow an application to go on
indefinitely obviously. Mr.Noto said it might be sixty days,because we're going to do a search of heirs
and thirty days just won't be enough with the holidays,etc. We also received a letter,I think Board
members have the letter,from Kevin Ryan,Attorney at Law,representing a property owner in the area.
Mr.Gunther said I also understand that it is almost a year that this matter is pending before the Town.The
Building Department issued a Notice of Disapproval last summer,the summer of 2001,requesting that the
applicant take action. There is also other legal action pending on'this matter that keeps getting postponed,
because the Zoning Board continues to postpone.
Mr.Winick said in some ways I think,looking at Mr.Ryan's letter particularly,Mr. Stavis has been
preaching on que. We have a title dispute here and it's not going to be resolved here. I don't think that
with a dispute like that,we could ever rule on the Zoning Application. He certainly has able counsel in
Mr.Noto,and it seems to me that what we aught to do at this point is dismiss this application. Is there
an outstanding summons enforcement.
Mr.Noto said yes.
Mr.Winick said I've always found in those circumstances the judges are willing to listen to reason. If he's
got an action to determine his right to that property,let him bring it to the Supreme Court where it belongs
and I'm sure that there is some part that states whatever they're doing. This is simply the wrong place for
this to be right now. I think we aught to dismiss it.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 12
Mr.Gunther said dismiss or deny it. I would prefer to deny it and let them seek other methods,because
what's happening is that we are just perpetuating the proposal.
Ms.Gallent said I'm not sure you can deny it,because the question is jurisdictional. A denial would
require you go through the facts of the law. You can't even reach the facts.
Mr. Winick said it seems to me we certainly can. We can go through all the factors and make a
determination,but any determination that we make we're deciding about your property and you're not
involved in the application.
Mr.Wexler said there are two issues here. One is the front wall. We can address the front wall and then
dismiss the other one.
Mr. Winick said on the one there are three buttresses. I would dismiss it at this point for lack of
jurisdiction in the community,because I'm not convinced that we have jurisdiction.
Ms.Gallent said I think that's more appropriate.
Mr.Winick said if the Article 78 doesn't convince the court that we have jurisdiction,he has to prove title.
After further discussion,Mr.Gunther asked do you want to deal with it as a whole and let the applicant
come back on the pillars?
Mr.Winick said I think if we have something that we can rule on here,we should rule on it. I have to
admit to a slight case of amnesia about that corner. It's been a while since we've talked about it.
Ms.Gallent said maybe we should let you refresh your records.
Mr.Winick said I haven't looked at the Minutes. We need to go back and read all the Minutes of all the
meetings. That was quite some number of months ago. Mr.Winick asked Ms.Gallent is it possible for
us to dismiss it as to the other things that are requested and adjourn it for a month. That's the motion I
was going to make.
Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Winick to make that motion.
On a motion made by Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2484 be,and hereby is,adjourned for one month,
to the June 26,2002 Zoning Board meeting,as to only that part of the application which is to allow the
existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall on the premises at 211 Hommocks Road. As to the
other part of the application which involves buttresses constructed along the side of the property,I move
that we dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Ms.Gallen asked Mr.Winick to give just one sentence.
Mr. Winick said the reason being that there has not been, at this point,a satisfactory showing of the
applicant's title to the property on which the buttresses sit.
Ms.Gallent said which is a precondition for this Board's jurisdiction.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2491(adjourned 2/26/02;4/4/02;4/24/02)
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 13
Application of Michael D. &Carla Mathias requesting a variance to construct a tennis court on the
premises located at 5 Cornell Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 201,Lot 205. The tennis court as proposed is not within the rear one-third of the property as
required pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(a);and further,the fence has a total height of 10 ft.where a
maximum of 8 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(e)for a tennis court fence in an R-30 Zone
District.
Mr.Gunther said before we proceed,I just want to inform counsel to prep all of the Board members for
anyone who may have missed last time. There was prior discussion on this matter with regard to the
reason why or the manner in which we're hearing this application since it is identical to the previous one.
Ms.Gallent said it's an application that's being reheard. Therefore,it requires a unanimous vote. If you
want to change the prior resolution,you must do it by a unanimous vote. The prior resolution was to
deny. If you wanted to grant,if there was a resolution to grant now,it would have to pass by a unanimous
vote.
Mr.Gunther said since the last time you came before us,we denied it.
Mr.Gunther said,Mr.Fanelli would you please identify yourself for the record.
Mr.Fanelli said,I'm Thomas Fanelli,an attorney,200 North Central Avenue,Hartsdale,New York.
I'm here to represent Mr.&Mrs.Mathias. They send their apologies to the Board,but they had prior
commitments for this evening. I'd also note that Michael Valentine is here from DeRosa Tennis
Corporation,who would be the contractor installing this. If there are any questions as to the construction,
he is available to comment on those.
Mr.Fanelli said when we were last here I think we went over it and covered it. This property is dissected
by the line between the Town of Mamaroneck and the Town of Scarsdale. It lies within both towns.
Under the Zoning Code in Mamaroneck,the tennis court is required to be in the last one-third of the
property. Under the Zoning Code of the Town of Scarsdale,the tennis court is required to be behind the
front line of the house. If this property were solely within the Town of Scarsdale,we would not need a
variance,we would be completely within the Zoning Code. A portion of this tennis would be within the
Town of Scarsdale and will be behind the front line of the house as required within the Town of Scarsdale.
That would leave us to the conclusion that we can build the forward section of the tennis court and we can
build the aft section of the tennis court within the Town of Mamaroneck. We're seeking your permission
to build the middle section which is hash marked.
Mr.Fanelli said there were concerns as to the location of this tennis court. The property to the west of
this. The nearest part of that structure is a garage and beyond the garage and forward of the garage is the
house,so there's not much of the tennis court that's going to be exposed to the neighbor on that side. I
also point out that that neighbor is predominantly in the Town of Scarsdale, which would be,I would
purport to you,the controlling zoning as to whether we're affecting a Scarsdale neighbor. I would say that
you should have very little interest in that neighbor to the west,because he's not within your jurisdiction.
The neighbors to the east are on the opposite side of the property and are going to be the least affected by
this tennis court. The neighbor to the south is a golf course and they are not going to be affected. It's
not residential.
Mr. Fanelli said when we were last here, we had some discussion as to the height of the fence. We
provided topographical references on the property and that is assuming that the property is 100 ft.of height
where the street and the driveway meet. Then it slopes downward and the references are showing the
height of the property.
Mr.Fanelli said the surface of the tennis court will be at an 85 ft.or an 851 ft.height relative to the
height of the road. There's going to be a 6 in.pitch from one side of the property to the other,therefore
the'h ft.difference. That's for rainfall runoff. The tennis court then is going to be actually 15 ft.below
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 14
the height of the road. The height of the road at the corner on the other side is 99.35 ft.,so we're really
not talking about any substantial difference in the height of the road across the front of the property. We
are then talking about building the fence within a retaining wall. The retaining wall is going to be 4 ft.
high. There is a separate drawing which we provided the last time which clearly shows that the top of a
10 ft.high chain link fence will come out some 5 ft.below the grade of the road from which you would
view it. There's going to be a 4 ft.retaining wall outside of the fence. There's going to be an upward
slope upon which Scarsdale is requiring us to put 5 ft.high bushes,which will mean that for practical
purposes the fence is not going to be visible from the road. As to the fence in the back of the property
which is on southerly side,there is now existing a 10 ft.fence which is already encompassing the existing
tennis court. Across the south portion,that fence would wind up being relocated only by a foot or two.
There is also,on the westerly side,a 10 ft.fence which again will be relocated,but it will be relocated
away from that property so that we are less of a burden on the neighbors. Much of our concerns in the
prior meetings were that where our side yard set off is,we had to reposition this porch to bring it 30 ft.
from the side yard to the side of the court. For Scarsdale purposes,it brings us to a 24 ft.set off on the
side yard. For the Mamaroneck property,you're only requiring a 16 ft.side yard. So we're again more
within that confine.
Mr.Fanelli said we are willing,if you would permit us,to move the court backwards to the southerly line,
violating the 15 ft.side yard,but that's the golf course behind it. If you want us further away from the
road,we're willing to go that way, We're not necessarily asking for it,but if it makes the Board happy
we'll go that way.
Mr.Fanelli said I think we've taken every step we can to show you. We've also added,while our prior
drawings did not show,visual site barriers around the entire court. It was our intention to do that to
maintain the view that you would have no matter where you were on the court. We were going to put
bushes around the entire court. We are now showing those,so that will be an additional site and sound
barrier.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application.
Mr.Fanelli said I'd also point out the number of times that this has been on,there has never been any
opposition from the public or from the neighbors.
Mr.Gunther thanked Mr.Fanelli for going through the level of detail that the Board requested. I think
you've answered questioned concerns about view,screening and impact of the fence and position. Thank
you.
Mr.Fanelli thanked Mr.Gunther.
Mr.Gunther said if there are no other questions from Board members,I'll make a motion.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, 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.
Mr.Gunther asked if anyone cared to make a motion on the merits.
Mr.Wexler asked did we agree to hear it again?
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 15
Mr.Fanelli said that was done at the last meeting. As counsel pointed out,that was done on the basis of
rehearing the existing and not that this was a substantial change and therefore,and I'm begging you for,
a unanimous vote to approve.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Michael D. and Carla Mathias have submitted an application to the Building
Inspector,together with plans to construct a tennis court on the premises located at 5 Cornell Street and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 201,Lot 205. The tennis court
as proposed is not within the rear one-third of the property as required pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(a);
and further,the fence has a total height of 10 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(e)
for a tennis court fence in an R-30 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 240-21C(7)(a)and Section 240-21C(7)(e);and
WHEREAS,Michael D.and Carla Mathias 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
O 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 fmds 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. As pictured on the drawing submitted to the Board,dated May 15,2002,the
proposed tennis court as relocated will be thoroughly screened from the road and
thoroughly screened from adjoining properties and for that reason will not
produce much of a change at all in the character of the neighborhood,much less
a detriment.
B. There is no reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an
area variance. Given that the property line runs through the middle,the Town
of Mamaroneck controls at least a portion of this property. There's no place to
put the court with a north/south orientation that would not require a similar
variance.
C. With the odd circumstance of this property, the variance is not substantial.
Essentially,this is a Scarsdale controlled property over much of its area. What
is being built here conforms with Scarsdale's requirement.
D. This is not a self-created difficulty. We don't know the history of the tennis
court,but obviously it is where it is. There's nothing that the applicant has
done. His property is shaped in this way and there is no east/west orientation
Cm)
or south orientation that doesn't require a variance.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 16
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:
I. 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.
QThis decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Winick thanked Mr.Fanelli for his very sensitive presentation.
Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for your building
permit.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2497
Application of Daniel Teboul requesting a variance to construct a family room addition on the premises
located at 38 Orchard Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
218,Lot 246. The family room addition as proposed has a total side yard of 19.8 ft.where 25 ft.is
required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
Daniel Teboul,who lives at 38 Orchard Road,appeared to address the Board. He said I'm here to propose
a family room addition of 345 sq.ft. I live in a house which is right now 1,750 sq.ft.which would make
it with the addition 2,100 sq.ft. The issue is the side yard. The combined side yard would be 19.8 ft.
instead of 25 ft. The reason why the side yard is so small is because the measurements from the Building
Department are being taken from the little room that I have on the side of the house. When you look at
it from the left side,this used to be an entrance. It's not anymore. Now it's just a pantry. I showed how
it looks in the photograph.
Mr.Gunther asked,you requested a left side?
Mr.Teboul said yes,when you're looking from Orchard Road,you're looking at the left side. There is
a viola,4 ft.by 6 ft. Mr.Teboul submitted pictures and said exhibit#1 used to be an entrance and this
is exhibit#2.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 17
Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Moore would that projection come under the...inaudible of refusal?
Mr.Moore said I haven't seen the pictures.
There was some discussion among Board members.
Mr.Moore asked,you mean that whole entire bay?
Mr.Wexler said...inaudible instead of taking it away,it becomes almost like a bay and you're allowed
to project 2 ft.into a required rear yard. On the side yard what will happen is that you're on the 19.8 ft.
might be 21 ft. It's an initial record of a variance request.
Ms.Gallent said the notice is fine.
Mr.Wexler reiterated that the notice is fine. It's less of a variance request.
Mr.Teboul said if we were to measure from the house and not from the bay,the variance needed would
be very minimal since at the back of the room we don't need any variance,I would have more than 26 ft.
I would need a little triangle in the front which is roughly 50 sq.ft.
Mr.Teboul said in terms of the neighborhood,I asked by neighbors directly involved,one on each side,
and three in the back what were their opinion was and four of them,one on the side and three in the back,
agreed and thought it was a good idea. I have letters here to submit,marked exhibit#3,4 letters.
Mr.Teboul said one neighbor on the other side was concerned about a water problem.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application.
Nancy Sterbenz of 34 Orchard Road,Larchmont,New York addressed the Board. She said I am here
because I am disturbed at the disturbance of the land. Also,we have done some funny things that have
made life on Orchard Road not as pleasant as it should be. We have made mistakes in the past. They have
increased the flooding in homes. My property happens to be a large property,in the middle of the block
towards Weaver from the one who is adding the addition. I got a letter from the Town saying that there
was something wrong with something he was doing. He needed a variance or something.
Mr.Gunther said anyone who lives within 400 ft.of an applicant gets a copy of the agenda.
Ms.Sterbenz said yes,I got it. She said they are good neighbors. There's no problem with that. It's just
that we have taken to changing what the law or what the rules are on the Orchard Road area many times
and each time we do that we get into trouble. I don't like to see the trouble. We get flooded properties.
We upset the nature of the thing and this is going to take more land away from his drainage basin,his
property,and it could be that it will come into my yard. I don't think it's going to come into my yard,
because my house is on the highest point of the street. I bought a map that shows it. I don't have any
flooding,but a lot of people do. He's going to put it into housing rather than into lawn. Lawn is not a
whole lot better,but at least it's absorbent. Wood chips are much better and I have lot's of wood chip
areas in my yard. I am concerned about the flooding. There has always been flooding. The house on
other side of me gets flooded. The Town built the highway higher and covered over the drain and there's
O a water fall there like Niagara Falls every time there's a hard rain into their yard and into their house. I
just don't want to see any more mistakes like that. One of the houses down at the corner,there was an
easement that they could go through the property,but they built a building across from it so it can't be used
and you can't go out with the water down behind the lots and out of Orchard Road down to the end. This
is continuing and I just don't want to see that type of thing. I thought maybe he could build across the
back of the house,but we haven't talked until I just came in the door because we've been away. I thought
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 18
possibly we could establish something that could be arranged. I'm not unhappy with him.I'm not unhappy
with the neighbors. I just would like to see the property line more respective when it comes to trees,
because I've been on the Building Commission and I've been on the whatever it is that looks at trees and
also for the sound. I know the problems that we get into and I would.like them not to be in my
neighborhood. They talked about putting a ditch across the middle of my yard and I did say they could
not do that. My yard is all on rock.
Mr.Gunther said are you referring to the Town wanting to do a ditch?
Ms.Sterbenz said my problem is I can't hear anymore.
Mr.Gunther asked,you are referring to the Town talking about putting a ditch through your yard,not Mr.
Teboul.
Ms.Sterbenz said no,I was referring to the Town. It was after I was on the Building Commission,but
I said what you wrote on the letter and said no they may not do that.
Mr.Gunther said before you sit down,I just want to ask a question of the Building Inspector for your
benefit. I know what the answer is,but I'd rather have him tell you. The question has to do with anytime
anyone builds something over the earth,what's the requirement in terms of drainage?
Mr.Moore said if it's more than 100 sq.ft.,the water has to be captured and conveyed to a dry well.
Mr.Gunther asked,did you hear what he said?
Ms.Sterbenz said no.
Mr. Gunther said anytime anyone builds anything more than 100 sq. ft., and this is,this is 300 and
something sq.ft.,the property owner has to provide a means for the water runoff to go into a dry well.
Ms.Sterbenz said so that means that he has to take care of any floods. There's a puddle that runs in the
back of my yard and I don't really worry about it. The worst puddles are gone.
Mr.Gunther said I think on Orchard Road there is another issue here.
Mr.Wexler said they're gone,where did they go? It hasn't rained,that's why they're not there.
Ms.Sterbenz said it's in my yard.
Mr.Wexler said it's in my yard now.
Ms.Sterbenz said I don't know where your water even comes from.
Mr.Wexler said I know exactly where my water comes from.
Ms.Sterbenz said mine comes from Femwood,but I'm not worried about my water. Don't bring that up
again.
Mr. Gunther said I know that the Town is aware of the storm drain problem on Orchard Road. This
matter is separate and distinct from that and any water concerns,as a result of building over,the property
G!r'1 owner has a requirement to build a dry well to handle that on his property.
Ms.Sterbenz said what I'm saying is that the more you actually take away and put in your buildings,the
more likely there will be water. This is a variance that they're asking for. You are perhaps asking for
trouble.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 19
Mr.Gunther thanked Ms.Sterbenz.
Ms.Sterbenz said I'm just saying this as a general thing all over anyway.
Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other comments from the public on this application. There were none.
Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other questions from Board members.
Mr.Wexler said I would like to clarify the water conditions for a minute. The intermittent involved with
my neighbor with the water problem. From my observation on heavy storms there's a depression on
Orchard Road. The depression curves on the west side of your property in that area. In heavy,heavy rain
as it comes down off Weaver Street,it doesn't freely flow where it should go down to the Sheldrake River,
the stream. It gets hung up in this depression. In very,very heavy rains it's over burdened and comes
into the yards between your house and#24 and collects here in a lake and really burdens one specific house
more than any other.
Ms.Sterbenz asked,collects where,collects in their yard?
Mr.Wexler said yes,but it also flows into mine. Another one of my neighbors put an addition on and
raised her property about 8 inches and it really redirects the water.
Ms.Sterbenz said a lot of it that comes in my yard comes from Femwood.
Mr.Wexler said I don't know how that possibly happens,but that's a different issue. What I'm trying to
say is what can be built on the applicant in front does not affect the actual problem that is in that area.
Ms.Sterbenz said I forgot,may I say something?
Mr.Gunther said yes.
Ms.Sterbenz asked have you been there,to which they replied yes. She said the trees between us are a
problem. They are on the lot line. The problem with that is that two of them,one of them is cut down
now and the logs are all over the place,and the other one is on both properties. All these trees have roots
on both properties. The problem with that for me is that the Maples are spreading roots all over the place.
I have roots coming up in my garden and I like my garden. I like my flowers and things like that and they
are becoming a serious problem. If he puts his house on that side,those roots I know go all the way to
his house. If he cuts all those roots,I'll have that tree coming down on my yard,on my house and I really
don't want that. That is another grievance that I have and it worries me every time there is a storm. We
did lose several trees this year,as you know.
Mr.Gunther thanked Ms.Sterbenz.
Mr.Gunther said if there are no other questions from Board members,I'll make a motion.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously,5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Daniel Teboul has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with
plans to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 38 Orchard Road and known on the
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 20
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218,Lot 246. The family room addition as
proposed has a total side yard of 19.8 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b)for
a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-37B(2)(b);and
WHEREAS,Daniel Teboul 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,which is a room to be added onto one side of the house,
will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to the nearby property. There is a small impact on the neighbor,
certainly aesthetically,but this is a function of the way the two houses are
situated on the property next to each other. The addition will face a portion of
the property,which surely has not been used in some time,a sitting area that
faces the side of the house and a narrow area on the adjoining property as well.
As such,there will be very little impact,if any,on the adjoining property.
B. The neighbor who spoke at the hearing has raised several concerns. Two are
worthy of comment. A concern was expressed about the addition creating a
flooding hazard. However,the Town's Soil Erosion Control Law required as
a practical matter that the drainage capability of the soil that's going to be
covered be replaced through an altemative means such as a catch basin. The
Town quite wisely passed a law some time ago to deal with this particular
problem.
C. The neighbor also expressed some concern about a tree and the fact that the
roots will be cut. There is nothing in the record that suggests that this is going
to create any kind of neighborhood hazard. In fact,from personal knowledge,
the Board is aware that Maple trees can withstand quite a bit of damage to their
roots and still remain strong. I think that the applicant should be cautioned
because if the tree were to fall there's certainly a liability and an insurance here
which he may want to address. Weighing the benefit to the applicant against
this undeterminable risk,on balance,the Board believes the application should
be granted.
D. There is not a self-created difficulty here. This is another lot where the width
of the lot is such and the placement of the house on the lot requires a variance
in order to create enough living space to meet modern expectations.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 21
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for your building
permit.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2502
Application of Anthony Coschigano requesting a variance to construct a second story sitting area and closet
on the premises located at 2 Carroll Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 390. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 18 ft.where 30 ft.is
required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the
building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
Anthony Coschigano who lives at 2 Carroll Place,Larchmont,New York 10538 appeared to address the
Board. Mr. Coschigano said in the middle of this process that we started, I understand we are now
growing and decided that the project I was going to hold off on to put a second story on some day,I may
as well do it now before I lose my opportunity. Hopefully,this is the last time.
• Ms.Martin said I like your house. I like your pond.
Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Coschigano to explain this application.
Mr.Winick asked,that's on top of your garage?
Mr.Coschigano said it's on top of the family room that's going on top of the garage.
Ms.Martin said it is an addition to what he was going to do before.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 22
Mr.Coschigano said it's an addition to the addition. It was a single story addition. As I said,my family
is now growing and I'm losing my office. I'm going to need an area to put my office and some closets.
Mr.Winick said this would be a second story above the garage.
Mr.Coschigano said that's correct. The original addition was a one-story addition above the garage to
increase the size of the family room. Someone left their plans there yesterday.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any pictures.
Ms.Roma said there are no pictures in the file.
Mr.Coschigano said no,there's an elevation on the plan. He said,do you mean pictures of the existing?
Mr.Gunther said yes.
Mr.Coschigano said I had that on the first application.
Mr.Gunther said as far as any questions from Board members,I have none.
Mr.Gunther asked if there are any questions or comments 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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Anthony Coschigano has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together
with plans to construct a second story sitting area and closet on the premises located at 2 Carroll Place and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 390. The addition as
proposed has a front yard of 18 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);and further,
the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for
a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-37B(1)and Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Anthony Coschigano submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the
reasons set forth in such application;and
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon;and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 23
A. This is a property that's before the Board a couple of times. It previously was
granted a variance that permitted construction of the garage on top of which the
current construction is proposed. Board members have visited the property and
know it well. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character
of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Carroll Place is a dead-
end street. The way this property is situated the addition will be visible from
quite a distance. The one neighbor will be able to see it directly. Ninety
degrees of that faces the Leatherstocking Trail. There are a few neighbors who
will be impacted directly by the increase in the mass of the structure. However,
given the style of construction as shown on the plan this will not create any
visual unpleasantness.
B. The applicant will not be able to achieve his goals via an alternative that does
not involve an area variance. Given the shape of this lot anything that the
applicant does will require a variance.
C. The variance is not substantial. Given the existing roof line of the house that
has already been granted approval by this Board,the incremental change created
by this addition will not be substantial given the architectural treatment which
is quite appropriate and attractive.
D. The difficulty is not self-created. This is again another lot whose shape and size
that requires a variance.
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.
QThis decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Coschigano thanked the Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 24
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the Minutes of the February 26,2002,April
4,2002 and April 24,2002 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved,with a starting time change
on April 4,2002 and April 24,2002,from 8:47 p.m.to 7:47 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr.Gunther asked if there was any other business.
Mr.Winick said I have one piece of business which is two-sided on the January meeting.
A discussion ensued about applicants signing a general release,so that the Board has their prior approval
to view the properties.
Ms.Martin said if they have a problem with that,it's up to them to say we want to be called.
Ms.Gallent said they can talk to you.
Mr.Winick said why don't you just save it for the full Board,because whatever you think is going to work
on us is going to work on the majority.
Ms.Martin said I think it would be more comfortable if we could put some kind of a notice or release so
that we have their prior permission to go.
Ms.Gallent said O.K. I'm not sure if....inaudible. They just have to sign it.
Ms.Martin said if they have a problem with that,it's up to them to say we want to be called. I don't mind
calling them,if they really want to be called.
Mr.Gunther asked,will you contact the Town Attorney to have him draft something to approve in the
normal application process,the application for a zoning variance?
Ms.Gallent said sure.
Mr.Wexler said I'm going to tell you something else about the application for zoning. They do this in
other communities. They have on their application the applicant must answer the five steps in the
application. They answer as a response to why they want the variance. It would be helpful,so the
applicant understands what is required in the process. It's not just an as-of-right.
Ms.Gallent said it's good for the applicant to prepare to write a little..inaudible.
Mr.Winick said the applications you submit usually do.
Ms.Gallent said it's not part of the..inaudible,but there is a description that reads into the variance.
Mr.Wexler said it's actually five paragraphs that relate to the five sets that we do that's in answer to one
of those questions.
Ms.Gallent asked,that's what you're suggesting?
QMr.Wexler said yes.
Ms.Harrington said I have a question about putting this notice in with the package when people come in
to apply. I apologize to all the attorneys in the room,but if the Town Attomey looks at it,attorneys tend
to magnify everything and would it create an issue of someone's liability if you were to be hurt on your
property. Part of the application is that you have to grant somebody to come on your property whenever.
Zoning Board
May 22,2002
Page 25
Mr.Winick said no. I guess the Town Attorney makes a judgment. My view of it would read that you
are consenting,because you want the variance. No one is forcing you to apply for a variance. Frankly,
I think if you invite people onto your property who have to deal with it,I don't know how you can have
a variance application and not expect people to go onto your property. I don't think the fact that you can
require consent as a condition would change anything. If you consent, you make an application,you
choose to make the application.
Ms.Harrington said then you have to waiver your left hanging.
Mr.Winick said waiver your what?
Ms.Gallen said you can make it a point and say I'm not waiving whatever.
Mr.Winick said if that's somebody elses property you have a duty to care,which is arguable under a lot
of different circumstances. You cannot leave bear traps around your property. When they step on them,
they're wild. If they're trespassers,it's almost a different thing. I don't think it will change anything to
require them to allow us onto the properties to look at the property and...inaudible your obligation.
Ms.Harrington said I very rarely go actually physically on the property. I go by every single one or I'll
go in the street behind them.
Mr.Winick said I'm carrying Michael Raso and asked if that's done already.
Ms.Harrington said that was put over for a deck. He was considering putting the deck on.
Mr.Winick asked,our we still carrying him from the calendar?
Ms.Gallent said we're carrying it over. A portion was granted and a portion was not.
Mr.Gunther said there was no elevation of the deck. There was approval for bay window only. If he
wants the deck,he'll have to come back for that.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on June 26,2002.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business,on a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
AtAt4,
Marguerit oma,Recording Secretary
O
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals under the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck(Unincorporated Area),will be held in the COURT ROOM,740 West
Boston Post Road,Mamaroneck,New York on SEPTEMBER 25,2002 at 7:45 p.m.to consider the following
applications:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2471(adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01;12/19/01;2/26/02;4/4/02;4/24/02;5/22/02;6/26/02;7/23/02;
8/7/02)
Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property
on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 213,Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 13.5 ft.where a maximum of 5 ft.is
permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2503 (adjourned 6/26/02;7/23/02;8/7/02)
Application of Dr.&Mrs.Albert Kramer requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence in the front yard on
the premises located at 267 Griffin Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 341,Lot 530. The fence as built has a height of 5 ft.where 4 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A
for a fence in a front yard in an R-20 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2516(adjourned 7/23/02;8/7/02)
Application of Brian and Linda Harrington requesting a variance to construct a rear deck on the premises located
at 742 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 33.
The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 8.9 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);a total side
yard of 20.85 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b);lot coverage of 36%where 35%is
required pursuant to Section 240-37F; and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-I0 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2517(adjourned 7/23/02)
Application of Mr.and Mrs.Bruce Goodman requesting a variance to legalize an existing rear yard deck on the
premises located at 62 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
223,Lot 141. The deck as built has a rear yard of 2.5 ft.where 25 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);
a side yard of 4.3 ft.where 10 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);a lot coverage of 41%where
35%is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F;and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2521
Application of Mr.and Mrs.Leo Schwartz requesting a variance to construct a rear yard patio on the premises
located at 27 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
224,Lot 938. The patio as proposed has a rear yard of 14 ft. 1 in.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section
240-36B(3);and further,the patio increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section
240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2525
Application of Caren Wisner requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for a pool deck constructed on the premises
located at 17 Gate House Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330,
Lot 350.7. The deck as built has a rear yard of 20.1 ft.where 40.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3)
for a residence in an R-20 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2526
Application of Bruce Robinson requesting a variance to construct a wrought iron fence above a retaining wall on
the premises located at 83 Lookout Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 117,Lot 84. The fence above the wall has a total height of 9 ft.where a maximum of 4 ft.is permitted
pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-10 Zone District.
Q.
PUBLIC NOTICE
SEPTEMBER 25,2002(continued)
11111.) APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2527
Application of Joel and Eleanor Katz requesting a variance to legalize an existing deck on the premises located at
57 Moran Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504,Lot 168. The
deck as built has a front yard of 22 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);and further,the
deck would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence
in an R-10 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.9-CASE 2528
Application of Mr.&Mrs.Michael Hollander requesting an extension in time to the variance granted on February
26,2002 to construct a one-story addition with a wood deck and a front entry and covered porch with steps on the
premises located at 52 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
217,Lot 482. The rear one-story addition has a side yard of 5 ft.10 in.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section
240-39B(2)(a);the front entry with steps has a front yard of 19 ft. 10 in.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to
Section 240-39B(1);a side yard of 7 ft.3 in.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further,
the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence
in a R-6 Zone District.
These appeals are taken under Article XII Section 77 of the Zoning Ordinance adopted June 29, 1959,entitled
"Board of Appeals".
All persons interested in the above applications are invited to attend the meeting at which time they will be given
an opportunity to be heard.
Plans for the above cases may be inspected at the Office of the Building Inspector at the Town Center,740 West
Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York during regular business hours. This notice is sent to all property
owners within a 400 foot radius of each new application.
TOWN OF MAMARONECK BUILDING DEPARTMENT---PHONE(914)381-7830
THOMAS E.GUNTHER,CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals under the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck(Unincorporated Area),will be held in the COURT ROOM,740 West
Boston Post Road,Mamaroneck,New York on TUESDAY,OCTOBER 22,2002 at 7:45 p.m.to consider the
following applications:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2503 (adjourned 6/26/02;7/23/02;8/7/02;9/25/02)
Application of Dr.&Mrs.Albert Kramer requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence in the front yard on
the premises located at 267 Griffin Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 341,Lot 530. The fence as built has a height of 5 ft.where 4 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A
for a fence in a front yard in an R-20 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2517(adjourned 7/23/02;9/25/02)(renotice radius)
Application of Mr.and Mrs.Bruce Goodman requesting a variance to legalize an existing rear yard deck on the
premises located at 62 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town-of Mamaroneck as Block
223,Lot 141. The deck as built has a rear yard of 2.5 ft.where 25 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);
a side yard of 4.3 ft.where 10 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);a lot coverage of 41%where 35%
is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F,a fence with a total height of 6 ft.2 in.where 5 ft.is required pursuant
to Section 240-52A;and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2521(adjourned 9/25/02)
Application of Mr.and Mrs.Leo Schwartz requesting a variance to construct a rear yard patio on the premises
located at 27 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
Q 224,Lot 938. The patio as proposed has a rear yard of 14 ft. 1 in.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section
240-36B(3);and further,the patio increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section
240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2529
Application of Dean Vivolo requesting a variance to construct a family room and breakfast area at the rear of the
house on the premises located at 30 Deane Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 505,Lot 380. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 5 ft.6 in.where 8 ft.is required
pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);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-I0 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2530
Application of Katherine and Walter McTeigue requesting a certificate of occupancy to legalize alterations and
additions to an existing rear dwelling on the premises located at 6 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503,Lot 579. The side wall of the structure that faces to the northwest
encroaches upon the adjoining parcel as much as 0.8 ft.where a 10 ft.side yard is required pursuant to Section 240-
38B(2)(a);the structure has a total side yard of 1.6 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b);
has a rear yard of 4.0 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3). The nonconformity of the rear
yard setback and the side yard setback on the southeasterly side was increased by the unpermitted alterations and
additions. Additionally,the alterations increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2531
Application of Helen Rauh requesting a variance to legalize a central air conditioning condenser on the premises
located at 85 Taylor Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126,Lot
459. The air conditioning condenser as proposed has a side yard of 4 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to
Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the condenser would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming
pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
-1-
PUBLIC NOTICE
OCTOBER 22,2002(continued)
APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2532
Application of Carlo and Dina Castorino requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck on the premises located
at 47 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122,Lot 110.
The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 22.45 ft.where 25 ft.is proposed pursuant to Section 240-39B(3)for a
residence in an R-6 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2533
Application of George D'Angelo requesting a variance to construct a vehicle delivery pavilion and addition to the
existing parking deck on the premises located at 2155 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of
the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 1. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 23 ft.where 75 ft.
is required to allow for parking in the front of the building pursuant to Section 240-45B(1);a building coverage of
34.2%where a maximum of 25%is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45A(3);a proposed sign 4 ft.6 in.in height
where a maximum of 32 inches in height is permitted pursuant to Section 175-11B for a building in an SB Zone
District.
These appeals are taken under Article XII Section 77 of the Zoning Ordinance adopted June 29, 1959,entitled
"Board of Appeals".
All persons interested in the above applications are invited to attend the meeting at which time they will be given
an opportunity to be heard.
Plans for the above cases may be inspected at the Office of the Building Inspector at the Town Center,740 West
Boston Post Road,Mamaroneck, New York during regular business hours. This notice is sent to all property
owners within a 400 foot radius of each new application.
OTOWN OF MAMARONECK BUILDING DEPARTMENT---PHONE(914)381-7830
THOMAS E.GUNTHER,CHAIRMAN
-2-
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals under the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck(Unincorporated Area),will be held in the SENIOR CENTER,740 West
Boston Post Road,Mamaroneck,New York on NOVEMBER 20,2002 at 7:45 p.m.to consider the following
applications:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2471(adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01;12/19/01;2/26/02;4/4/02;4/24/02;5/22/02;6/26/02;7/23/02;
8/7/02;9/25/02)
Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property
on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 213,Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 13.5 ft.where a maximum of 5 ft.is
permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2530(adjourned 10/22/02)
Application of Katherine and Walter McTeigue requesting a certificate of occupancy to legalize alterations and
additions to an existing rear dwelling on the premises located at 6 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503,Lot 579. The side wall of the structure that faces to the northwest
encroaches upon the adjoining parcel as much as 0.8 ft.where a 10 ft.side yard is required pursuant to Section 240-
38B(2)(a);the structure has a total side yard of 1.6 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b);
has a rear yard of 4.0 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3). The nonconformity of the rear
yard setback and the side yard setback on the southeasterly side was increased by the unpermitted alterations and
additions. Additionally,the alterations increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2531(adjourned 10/22/02/corrected)(renoticed radius)
O Application of Helen Rauh requesting a variance to legalize a central air conditioning condenser on the premises
located at 85 Taylor Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126,Lot
459. The air conditioning condenser as proposed has a side yard of 4 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to
Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the condenser would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming
pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2534
Application of Mr.&Mrs.Peter Schlegel requesting a variance to construct a rear and side wood deck on the
premises located at 121 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 211,Lot 144. The deck as proposed has a total side yard of 19 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to
Section 240-37 B(2)(b);and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant
to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-10 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2535
Application of Richard Kitsis requesting a variance to enclose a side porch on the premises located at 198 East
Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 104. The
porch to be enclosed has a total side yard of 23.8 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b);
and further,the porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for
a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2536
Application of Marc and Susanne Bokert requesting a variance to legalize an existing enclosed porch on the premises
located at 28 Mountain Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116,
Lot 319. The sun porch as built has a side yard of 8 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);
and further,the sun porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2537
o Application of Anthony and Angela Manson requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck on the premises
located at 29 Doris Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333,Lot
1508.1. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 20 ft.6 in.where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOVEMBER 20,2002(continued)
35B(3);and further,the deck increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a residence in an R-20 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2539
Application of Ms.Carol Smith requesting a variance to legalize 93 ft.of 6 ft.high stockade fence in the rear yard
on the premises located at 36 Valley road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 114,Lot 555. The fence in the rear yard as erected has a height of 6 ft.where 5 ft.is permitted pursuant
to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
These appeals are taken under Article XII Section 77 of the Zoning Ordinance adopted June 29, 1959,entitled
"Board of Appeals".
All persons interested in the above applications are invited to attend the meeting at which time they will be given
an opportunity to be heard.
Plans for the above cases may be inspected at the Office of the Building Inspector at the Town Center,740 West
Boston Post Road,Mamaroneck, New York during regular business hours. This notice is sent to all property
owners within a 400 foot radius of each new application.
TOWN OF MAMARONECK BUILDING DEPARTMENT—PHONE(914)381-7830
THOMAS E.GUNTHER,CHAIRMAN
O