Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_05_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes O / AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 24,2000,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Jillian A.Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A.Winick Absent: J.Rend Simon Also Present: Judith M.Gallent,Esq.,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Barbara Terranova,Public Stenographer Terranova,Kazazes&Associates,Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle,New York 10801 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary QCALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 8:56 p.m. Mr.Gunther informed those present that the first two applications,as listed below,will be adjourned to a subsequent meeting: APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2357(adjourned 6/23/99;8/19/99 to 9/99;9/23/99;10/27/99;11/23/99 to 1/26/00 to 4/26/00 to 5/24/00; Appeal of Byron Place Associates/Hoffmann of a determination of the Building Inspector that the current use of the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132,Lot 410 is not a legal non-conforming use,or in the alternative,an application for a use variance to permit light industrial use in an R-7.5 Zone District. APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2365(adjourned 9/23/99;10/27/99;11/23/99;1/5/00;1/26/00;2/29/00;3/22/00) Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize an existing air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard of 7.64 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503,Lot 652. Mr.Gunther noted that there are only three Board members present. Mr.Simon is ill and Mr.Wexler will be late. Mr.Wexler is representing one of his clients in another town and the Board does not now exactly what time he will arrive. Mr.Gunther said the Board will be happy to hear any case,however for Qa motion to carry three members must vote in favor. The Board can hear cases and move forward. If, however,anyone wishes to wait for the fourth Board member to arrive tonight or have the case heard at a subsequent meeting,the Board will be happy to entertain that as well with no prejudice. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 2 OThe Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2387(adjoumed 2/29/00;3/22/00;4/26/00) Application of Veronique and Marshall Parke requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 6 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3); and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Briar Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 421. Mr.Fleming asked that this application be called at the end of the meeting. Mr.Gunther said the matter will be adjourned and called later in the meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2396(adjourned 4/26/00) Application of William Powell/Gail Shargel requesting a variance to construct two 2-story rear additions. The additions as proposed have a rear yard of 13.66 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(3);and further,the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 63 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114,Lot 61. O Robert Keller,the architect for the project,appeared. He said they appeared before the Board at the last meeting. The Board had no problems with the project, other than having the side and rear yards reinterpreted and to show the Board a hard-line version of what was drawn. The last time they only had sketches with a one-story addition to one side and a two-story addition as drawn on the other side. The Board should now have hard-lined drawings showing what was requested last time. Mr.Gunther said the Board also requested that Mr.Keller show there is no second floor addition on the left side of the house. Mr.Keller said that is indicated on these drawings. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none,on motion of Mr.Gunther, seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, William Powell and Gail Shargel have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct one 2-story and one 1-story rear additions as modified. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 13.66 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further,the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 63 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114,Lot 61;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(3),Section 240-69;and Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 3 WHEREAS,William Powell and Gail Shargel 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. Based on discussion had last week,which is reflected in the Minutes,inspection of the property and review of the new drawings submitted,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties created. The location of the additions are consistent with the area. They don't protrude at all. The one impact discussed and heard about last week, which was an impact on the neighbor,has been mitigated to that neighbor's and the Board's satisfaction by the scaling down of that addition to a single story. B. Given the lot shape,the applicants cannot achieve their goals via an alternative Q that does not require some form of an area variance. It is a fan-shaped lot,they have simply run out of room in every direction and just continued to build. C. The variance is not substantial,given the size of the property. D. There is no adverse impact at all on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Clearly,the variance is not required by any self-created difficulty. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 0 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 4 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2398 Application of Laura Chamberlain and Mark Stein requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition. The proposed one-story addition has a rear yard of 22.0 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3),a total lot coverage of 38%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-38F;and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 25 Huguenot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 372. Robert Motzkin,Motzkin/Blum Architects,of 75 Carleon Avenue,Larchmont,appeared representing Ms. Chamberlain and Mr.Stein. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any pictures in the file,which were supplied by the secretary. Mr.Motzkin said the application is for a small triangular section of the proposed addition,one-story,which encroaches into the rear yard a maximum of 2 ft. There is also an application for a waiver of the maximum lot coverage. The existing residence and impervious surface coverage is now 35.8%where 35% is the maximum. It currently exceeds the lot coverage maximum. The proposed coverage would increase the coverage to 38%. There are two pieces to this application, the first being a small triangular encroachment into the rear yard. The rear yard varies,because it is an irregular lot. The minimum dimension is 23 ft.,but it varies to over 50 ft. The second condition is the lot coverage. The residence only covers approximately 15.6%of the lot. It is the stone terrace,walkways and paved driveway area that caused it to exceed the lot coverage requirement. That is because the driveway is a turnaround into the rear yard of the house. Mr.Gunther asked if this was a side yard and not a rear yard,what would the setback requirement be. Mr.Motzkin said the existing residence already encroaches into what would be a side yard. If the adjacent yard would be a side yard,the existing residence already encroaches to a point of 20.26 ft.which would be the alternative yards. What is proposed would be the least of the encroachment issues. Mr.Motzkin said that the front of the house fronts on the Huguenot side. Mr.Gunther said if that were a traditional side yard and it was not sitting on the corner,what would the setbacks be. Mr.Carpaneto said 10 ft. Mr.Gunther asked what size yard the house would have with the construction. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 5 ©^� Mr.Carpaneto said roughly 23 ft. Mr.Gunther said even though the variance asks for 22 ft.? Mr.Carpaneto said that is correct. The 22 ft.was taken for safety,because of the way the lot is shaped. Mr.Motzkin said the addition is not substantial. The encroachment is not substantial. It is a one-story addition that is proposed. It is not undesirable and not a detriment to nearby properties and will not adversely impact the neighborhood. Mr.Gunther asked the width of the new addition. Mr.Motzkin said it varies. It is 6.25 ft.that projects toward Mountain Avenue for the majority of the length. Mr.Gunther asked what it is at the widest point. Mr.Motzkin said approximately 9 ft.,almost 10 ft. The 10 ft.distance is not an encroachment. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. There being none,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. Mr.Wexler had not yet arrived. O 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,Laura Chamberlain and Mark Stein have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-story addition. The proposed one-story addition has a rear yard of 22.0 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3),a total lot coverage of 38% where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-38F;and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 25 Huguenot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 372;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(3),Section 240-38F,Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Laura Chamberlain and Mark Stein 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 24,2000 Page 6 O r� A. There isn't going to be any significant change,certainly not an undesirable one produced,in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties created, as the encroachment it is quite small. While it does increase a nonconforming use,it is not uncommon in the community or in that area. The additional encroachment,while it is 1-story in height,the depth of it is not a significant increase to the mass of the building. B. Based on review of the plans and the extremely cogent presentation by the applicant's architect, there really is no alternative that will accomplish functionally what the applicant is looking for that does not require a variance. C. The variance is not substantial. D. It will not have an adverse impact on the environmental or physical conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Clearly this is not a self-created difficulty,but yet another lot where the zoning code has overtaken the property and people's expectations in some way exceed the code. In this case,they should be satisfied in a way that does not have any impact on the adjoining properties. The property is burdened because it is positioned as a corner property. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. oThis 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 for a building permit during regular business hours. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 7 OA Mr.Motzlrin asked if the Board voted on the lot coverage issue. Mr.Gunther said the Board voted on approval for the variance in total. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2399 Application of Marla Delancey requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy. The deck as it exists has a rear yard of 21.2 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37 B(3)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 18 Jason Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207,Lot 470. John Mahoney,with the law firm of John W.Mahoney,4 Fair Meadow Drive,Brewster,New York, appeared on behalf of the applicant,Marla Delancey. Mr.Mahoney thanked the Board for hearing the application again. When they were previously before the Board,they had a number of problems with the property. Thankfully,they have been working with Mr.Carpaneto's office and all of those problems have been resolved,but for one. There is a deck leading from the second floor bedroom. Because of the positioning of the house on the lot,the house is slightly skewed and the deck being built square to the house there is a portion,a tip,that encroaches beyond the 25 ft.setback requirements. The occupant of the house,Mr.Delancey,is confined to a wheelchair. The problems they have had zoning-wise prior to this all related to his use of the premises with his wheelchair such as over-paving the property,because he needed the ability to wheel himself around. The driveway was taken up,stone was placed down and Mr. Delancey can no longer use the front entrance of his house,because his wheelchair will not be able to go O over the stone. He states this because he believes Mr.Delancey has made a number of attempts to comply with the requirements of the zoning board where he had mistakenly not complied during the construction of the house,believing that his handicap would have allowed those types of amendments. Mr.Mahoney said as it stands now the deck is off of his bedroom,Mr.Delancey comes out of the sliding glass doors onto that deck with a wheelchair. If that deck is narrowed so that there is no encroachment,Mr.Delancey does not control that wheelchair all that well and there is a great danger that he will end up going down the stairs with it. That was the reason the deck was made the size it was made,to permit him a turning radius so he can safely come out there and safely use the deck which now,because of the other changes that were made,is probably the only portion of the property that he can wheel out onto. For that reason Mr. Mahoney believes that there is certainly no impact on the surrounding homes,no impact on the community and the encroachment is 3.8 ft.at an elevation probably at something like 16 ft. Mr.Mahoney does not see how there can be a legitimate objection and yet the benefit to the property owner or to the resident of the property is immeasurable as is the quality of life that provides for him to be able to use that deck. Mr.Gunther asked how the deck came into existence in the first place. Mr.Mahoney said the home was a new construction. During the course of construction,the deck was part of the plans. However, the deck was narrower on the plans and was enlarged during the course of construction. Mr.Gunther asked if that was done without approval of the Building Department. Mr.Mahoney said not only was it done without approval of the Building Department,but maybe without approval of the homeowner. This was not something that was done purposefully on the part of the homeowner. It was something done by the builders in watching Mr.Delancey navigate the property during the course of construction and discussing with him the dangers of coming out of that sliding glass door and going down the staircase. Mr.Gunther said if Mr.Delancey is confined to a wheelchair,he doesn't use the staircase. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 8 Mr.Mahoney said Mr.Delancey doesn't use the staircase,but the staircase would still be required for access for all others in the household. Mr.Gunther said he is referring to Mr.Mahoney's comment about if the deck was any narrower and the stairwell,which is the primary element that goes beyond the building envelope. Other members of the household can use other entry and exit areas from the house that will not require using the stairs. Mr.Mahoney said they will be required to either come through his bedroom or to go through the dining room of the house. Mr.Gunther asked if the primary reason for the deck is for Mr.Delancey to come out by himself? Mr. Mahoney said it is for Mr. Delancey to be able to come out and enjoy any portion of his own property,because there is no place else he can wheel the wheelchair out other than that second floor deck from his bedroom. Mr.Gunther said it may be a safer condition to close the stairwell off,if he is confined to a wheelchair. Mr.Mahoney said it would also close off the use of the deck for the rest of the members of the household. Mr.Winick asked what the access is from inside the house. Mr.Mahoney said it is from Mr.Delancey's bedroom or through the dining room. Mr.Gunther said on the plan provided,it shows a dining room and kitchen. Mr.Mahoney said there is a doorway shown on the plans to the far left,the small doorway. Mr.Mahoney pointed out the doorway,the kitchen/dining room and double sliding glass doors. This doorway as shown on the plans is non-functional,based on the design of the interior of the home. After some discussion regarding this issue,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr.Winick said that,the bedroom access is through the sliding glass doors at right angle to the kitchen entry,where the number 3 appears,with which Mr.Mahoney agreed. Mr.Winick asked how Mr.Delancey moves up and down the stairs. Mr.Mahoney said there is an elevator within the home. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. Max Eaglefeld,of 16 Jason Lane,addressed the Board. Mr.Eaglefeld said as previously pointed out to the Board,the original plan did call for a 25 ft.setback,marked on the diagram as noted. He noticed this evening that people have requested a variance before they construct. Here,the construction was done first and now they are asking for a variance. In terms of the presentation by Mr.Mahoney there are some significant things that Mr. Eaglefeld would like to add; (1) the house is now up for sale with Houlihan/Lawrence. So,Mr.Delancey is not receiving any benefits in that access room that is required. Mr.Eaglefeld saw a moving truck them a few weeks ago. He believes Mr.Delancey no longer resides at 18 Jason Lane. Therefore,it becomes a moot point as to whether or not this construction was necessary for his purposes. Mr.Eaglefeld said he has never had direct access to it and he has never seen Mr. Delancey outside on his deck on a wheelchair. Mr.Eaglefeld feels this particular request should be denied. Mr.Wexler arrived. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 9 Mr.Winick said Mr.Eaglefeld has the Houlihan/Lawrence brochure with him and asked if the property is listed in that brochure. Mr.Eaglefeld said it is listed and pointed it out to the Board. Mr.Winick said that Mr.Eaglefeld just handed him a Houlihan/Lawrence brochure, Spring 2000,an advertising supplement to the New York Times. On page 15,he has shown Mr.Winick a picture which he circled,marked exhibit#1,that Mr.Eaglefeld has identified as being a picture of the house that is the subject of this application on Jason Lane. Mr.Winick asked the applicant's lawyer whether he knew that the house is listed for sale. Mr.Mahoney said the house was listed for sale two previous times and withdrawn. He believes the house will be withdrawn again this time. As far as Mr.Delancey being a tenant there,he would share the telephone number of the house with any member of the Board for them to call Mr.Delancey right now. Mr.Mahoney said he just left there and Mr.Delancey is there. Mr.Mahoney said that Mr.Eaglefeld had sued Mr.Delancey in this court and his case was dismissed. Ever since then,he has taken every step possible to harass Mr.Delancey. Nothing he has added this evening,in any way,talks about how this encroachment of 3.8 ft.will have an impact on the community or have any negative impact on anyone in the neighborhood. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public on this application. There being none,Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Mahoney why the house was removed from the market. Mr.Mahoney said that Mr.Delancey was having health problems. It was believed that if he moved to Q Florida,his health would improve. Since then his health has deteriorated,the move would no longer have substantial benefits for him and may put an additional strain upon him if he did move. Mr.Gunther asked if there is any indication that the house will again be put on the market for sale. Mr.Mahoney said not at this time. Mr.Winick asked Mr.Eaglefeld if there is any knowledge when the magazine,marked exhibit#1,was distributed. Mr.Eagelfeld said he took it out of the New York Times supplement and if it is not listed on the magazine it was approximately two months ago. He suggested that the Board call Houlihan/Lawrence in reference to this matter. He added that his own personal situation with regard to Mr.Delancey,stating the only reason this case was dismissed here is because he is not the owner. His wife is the owner of the property. Mr.Gunther stated that every once in a while the Board has applications come before it where the applicant takes it upon themselves to do what they want and come in and ask for permission for it after the fact. The Town doesn't generally look to kindly on that sort of approach,because if everyone did that the Board would have chaos in terms of zoning and what the Town would look like. Mr.Mahoney said he fully agrees with Mr. Gunther,but he believes if Mr. Gunther speaks with Mr. Carpaneto and sees the amount of money that was used to change the mistakes that were made,this is not someone who is flaunting authority in front of the Town saying he is going to do it his way. They have complied with every other request that mistakenly had been done during the course of construction at a great cost and expense. There is no one attempting to demean the authority of the zoning commission or the laws of the Town of Mamaroneck. This was something that was done during the course of construction,because of the builder watching Mr.Delancey and believing there would be danger to him if it was done in another manner. Mr.Gunther asked when the house was built. • Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 10 Mr.Mahoney said approximately a year ago,February 1999. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. Mr.Eagelfeld indicated that Mr.Delancey had every opportunity to request a variance the way it should have and could have been done. Now he wants to blame a builder or contractor for his failure. Let him sue the contractor or the builder who did it. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments. There being none,he asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr.Winick had a question for counsel. He said the second factor of the statute,which is whether the applicant can achieve its goals via a reasonable alternative that does not involve the necessity of an area variance,and asked if that factor is given any greater weight than the other factors themselves. Ms.Gallent said no. The statute doesn't specify the weight to be given the factors except the last one which the statute indicates is not determinative is determinative. Mr.Wexler said there was a question about the coverage earlier. Mr.Mahoney said there was a question about the coverage. All of that has been removed,because the coverage no longer exists. Mr.Wexler asked if there were up-to-date photographs. Mr.Gunther said the pictures available are the same pictures that were before the Board the last time. After further discussion,on a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law,therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Mr.Winick made the following motion,which was seconded by Mr.Wexler. Mr. Gunther and Ms. Martin were opposed: WHEREAS,Marla Delancey has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy for a one-family dwelling. The deck as it exists has a rear yard of 21.2 ft.where 25.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37 B(3)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 18 Jason Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207,Lot 470;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(3);and WHEREAS,Marla Delancey 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: • Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 11 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: ' A. This is the closest case that one could have applying the factors that are present. If it demonstrates anything,it demonstrates the inadequacy of the statute which has been visited quite often by the Legislature. In a different world,a self- created should bar a variance under normal circumstances,but that is not the law the Board has to deal with today. B. Based on visits to the property,the Board finds that no undesirable change will be produced in the character or the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created. C. Looking at the plan that the Board has been given,a relatively small percentage of the deck is outside the setback. The property,when it does come across as a setback does come across at an angle. It is effectively a slice out of one corner of the deck. Virtually,to the extent possible,to isolate that,that alone is close to the other part of the deck and does not create much if a change at all in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The bulk of the deck will be there without a variance. • D. The reason given the Board for a need for a deck is completely plausible. When it was presented to the Board the last time it appeared and was told to the Board that the access out on the deck that Mr.Delancey uses was the one near the staircase. The Board finds that the applicant can achieve his goals because of use of the deck by wheeling the wheelchair out of the bedroom sliding doors without a variance. There is no need for that staircase to be outside the setback in order to accommodate Mr.Delancey's wheelchair. E. The variance is not substantial,given the angle of the setback line to the deck, nor will it have any impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. F. There has been a self-created difficulty. The Board is tired of having people who hire professionals to construct houses and then disclaim any responsibility for their actions. This is a house that is now on the market for$800,000.and one has to assume even the owner is responsible for a certain amount of sophistication. It certainly has the ability and the builder has the knowledge to ask the building department to coordinate any change in plans. This is a very close case. In this case the only thing that motivates the Board to grant the application is simply that it is such a small percentage of the deck that it does not have an impact on the surrounding properties. At this point in time a discussion ensued,as the motion did not carry. Mr.Winick said he could use the month for further review. On a motion duly made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2399 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the June 28, 2000 Zoning Board meeting. • Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 12 o Mr.Gunther noted for the record that one of the board members,Ms.Martin,had to leave the meeting at 8:30 p.m.due to a family emergency. There are currently three(3)Board members present,as was earlier in the evening. Mr. Gunther asked if the next applicant,application#7, Case#2400,Stephen Land,is present. Mr. Gunther said before the Board starts with the building application,he wanted to address another applicant. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Fleming there are still only three(3)Board members present,asked if he would like the Board to hear his case,application#3,case#2387,this evening or would he like the case held over to the next meeting. Mr.Fleming said they do have something to present and would like to present it. Mr.Gunther said the case will be called after the next case is heard. The Secretary read the next application as follows: • APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2400 • • Application of Stephen Land requesting a variance to construct a wall and fence. The wall and fence as proposed has a total height of 8 ft.where a maximum of 5 ft..is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 29 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 546. Stephen Land,29 Mohegan Road,addressed the Board. Mr.Land said this is a half acre lot and pointed O out where the house is on this quarter acre. The other quarter acre is where they are putting the pool. •They were before the Board a few months ago because to preserve the rock formations and comply with the front setbacks the only way they can put in a standard size pool was to be close to the rear property line because of another variance,so they requested and got a variance for that. They also got a side yard variance as well. According to the landscape plan,they have arranged to have a whole screening wall of evergreens and dogwoods,etc.to screen it from the street. He then explained how the fence runs along street and said they are proposing to move it back through the shrubbery. He stated that a difficulty arose in connection with the rear fence. The rear fence on the plans originally filed and approved would have gone in front of the shrubbery in back by Barnum and along the Leatherstocking Trail which runs behind the house. If the fence ran along the line,which he pointed out,there is really no access at all to the shrubbery to maintain it. You can't get through the fence on the other side of the stone wall,as there is a 4 ft.drop. He had assumed they could correct that by putting the fence right next to the stone wall behind the shrubbery,until he learned that if it is less than 3 ft.from the stone wall the height of the stone wall must be added to the height of the fence. As can be seen from the elevation,it shows the height of the stone wall plus the height of the fence would be a combined height of 8 ft.and requires a zoning variance be approved. This particular arrangement can only be viewed from the Trail. If on the Trail it is 100 ft.away and when looking at this thing what will be seen is the stone wall and above that the fence. The fence will not be a chain link fence,but a decorative iron fence the same grade that will be around the rest of the property. It is an aluminum'fence that is an attractive fence,rather than just chain link fence. To have this set in 3 ft.,no difference can be seen from the viewpoint of someone a good distance away. If it were required to be setback 3 ft.,he doesn't think the shrubbery can be put there as there is no way to maintain underneath the plantings if there is no access to it. It makes perfect sense to run the fence along the line and have the shrubbery,as indicated,inside the fence. The fence will actually be largely invisible anyway. He said the wall has been built. It is actually a boulder wall. • Mr.Wexler asked why they chose to put the aluminum fence going back and not something that blends more into the environment,as it is not an inexpensive fence and it won't be able to be seen from his property. Mr.Wexler suggested a green vinyl coated chain link that would blend in with the trees and it won't really be seen. Mr.Wexler said they were curious as to why Mr.Land made that decision to spend that money. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 13 OMr.Land explained why it was chosen. Mr.Wexler asked what the requirements are for the fence other than the height. Mr.Carpaneto said the requirements are that it be 4 ft. It can be 4 ft.stepped in. Around the pool the requirement is 4 in.vertical maximum,or if a chain link 2 and 3/8,no foot holds. Mr.Wexler said it is fairly wooded. Around that pool is really just a green metal chain link fence that wraps around and it can't really be seen,see exhibit#1. Mr.Land said there is a line of trees,there will be shrubbery and a whole layer of fence. Mr.Wexler said in the winter time it will be bare. Mr.Land said in the winter time some of it will be seen,and it will be a quality fence. Mr.Gunther asked how close it is to the fence at the rear line. Mr.Land said the wall is just inside the rear line. Mr.Gunther said if the wall is adjacent to the rear line,how wide is the wall. Mr.Land said it is a couple of feet. Mr.Gunther asked the distance of the fence to the rear property. Mr.Land said it would be about 2 ft. A discussion ensued. Mr.Winick said the Board approved the plan that has landscaping on it. The usual resolution requires the applicant build in accordance with the plan. He asked,as of today is the applicant required to install the shrubbery as noted on the plan? Mr.Carpaneto said yes,that doesn't change. Mr.Winick said then the applicant is not free not to install the shrubbery on the back property line that appears on the plan. Mr.Wexler said that's right,with which Mr.Carpaneto agreed. Mr.Winick said in the absence of a variance,if the fence cannot be put on the 4 ft.setback,the variance that has to be asked for is to allow him to build without the shrubbery and to install the fence. He said the fence conflicts with the shrubbery. Mr.Land said the shrubbery can still be planted according to the plan,but he couldn't maintain it. Mr.Winick said he is very concerned about any fence going over the Leatherstocking Trail. He doesn't understand what maintenance is required of the shrubbery that requires access that couldn't be gotten. He asked what the problem is that Mr.Land is trying to solve by moving the fence. Q Mr.Land said he is trying to solve two problems. One is an aesthetic problem;he is sitting on the terrace and wants to see shrubbery not a fence. Mr.Winick said there are two aesthetic problems,one from outside his property on the Leatherstocking Trail. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 14 O ` Mr.Land said he is looking for the ability to see the shrubs he is planting and not see the fence in front of the shrubs. Second,this shrubbery and associated ground cover is going to need to be weeded and attended to from time to time. Once that fence goes up,unless it is brought out another foot or two to have a walking space in there it is hard to do that. He did not appreciate when he was previously before the Board to be locked in by the approval process. Mr.Winick asked if Mr.Land can speak about what the impact is on the Leatherstocking Trail Mr.Land said he is a great user of the Leatherstocking Trail. He would not do anything to conflict with the character of the Trail. Mr.Winick said that Mr.Land has a way to go in construction and would like to have more time to go and look at that property to consider it from the Leatherstocking Trail,given there are several choices of possibilities. He is not prepared to vote on this. Mr.Land said it is his sixth appearance before a Town Board. Mr.Winick informed Mr.Land about another application the Board previously considered in there which was a severe critique of the type of fence Mr.Land is planning to use. A discussion ensued. Mr.Winick said there are a couple of problems he sees in this. The choice of shrubbery creates an issue, because for a period of time this fence is going to lose its backdrop. Which means for a period of time when the Trail is being used it is going to be a metal fence,a very regular shape,that is visible from the Trail. Mr.Land said that was there in the planning. There was going to be that fence there,but 3 ft.further away is immaterial. Mr.Wexler said it will not be right on the line of the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr.Land said if it is deciduous,it would be good. Mr.Wexler said except you can see the structure through the branches. A lot of things will cover it from the view from the Leatherstocking if it is planted on Mr.Land's side of the shrubbery. Mr.Wexler said he is offended by this fence. He finds it is a very,very strong statement,very machine made in a very natural environment. Mr.Land said he is surprised by the suggestion Mr.Wexler is making. Mr.Wexler said when a metal fence is put on a property line,it makes a statement. It is in a natural environment and they are not natural to that environment. Mr.Land said he has a question,because they were looking at chain link. He said Mr.Wexler mentioned there are fences that are not aluminum or chain link and those have not been brought to his attention. Mr.Wexler informed Mr.Land to ask his architect to give him some suggestions for something that will blend into the environment. Mr.Gunther told Mr.Land that the Board has a tremendous sensitivity to the environmental areas of the Town,the Leatherstocking Trail in particular. The Board doesn't view it as a view from a great distance away,because if the Trail goes right into the property then somebody has a right to walk on the Trail right up to the property line. There is a great deal of sensitivity towards what is there. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 15 Mr.Land raised a question,because a question came about the landscaping. He explained that the tree that is marked KD,Kousa Dogwood,is a Korean Dogwood. The most recent landscape plan he had,he forgot at home,has it being a pink American Dogwood. He said they asked for American Dogwoods rather than Japanese Dogwoods,notwithstanding the disease risk, because they think they are more attractive. He needs to understand if they can plant those dogwoods. Ms.Gallent said the Building Inspector will make that determination. Mr.Carpaneto responded that it's O.K.,as long as it is the same sized tree as shown. Mr. Winick asked counsel if the variance is being requested for the fence, with the conflict that is something already on the plan that was approved,does that have to be noted on the application? Ms.Gallent said what he has to do now is to keep the shrubbery the way it is shown. Mr.Land said that the shrubbery is all moved. He said he doesn't know what to do with the original plan. Mr.Wexler said Mr.Land can move the plant 2 ft.closer to the pool and have access to it. Mr.Wexler said the Board is saying Mr.Land can't build in that 4 ft. It is not allowed. Mr.Winick said without a variance where that fence would go,and it says minimum clearance,is where the plans requires shrubbery. Mr.Wexler said the Board is saying that the plants are there for screening. Mr.Land said this is the plan on file,and said he doesn't know whether he is entitled to move the fence. Mr.Carpaneto said yes,because the variance didn't have to do with the fence. The variance has to do with the pool. Mr.Land asked if he can take down that shrub. Mr.Carpaneto said he doesn't believe the shrubs are an issue. He will have to review the certification. He knows that the Board spoke about screening from the road. Mr.Carpaneto said the variance was granted for the pool. Mr.Carpaneto's contention is that he cannot move the pool. Mr.Wexler said that the whole plan,not just the pool,was what was presented to the Board. If the plan did not have that shrubbery there,the Board might have required that shrubbery to screen the activity of that pool from the Leatherstocking Trail. The Boarud saw the shrubbery there,he made the presentation it was there and the Board did not have to put it down as a requirement. It was on the plan. Mr. Winick said the Court of Appeals has made it very clear that the Board take very seriously the restrictions put in resolutions,because it says it must be in conformance with the plan. Mr.Gallent said that is for Ron's determination in the first instance. —does the construction comply with the plan? Mr.Carpaneto asked if Mr.Land ever said he was going to take the shrubbery down? Ms.Gallent said he said he might. Mr.Land said there is a strong policy in favor of people doing things in compliance with the law,better than breaking the law and asking for approval afterwards. He is realizing,as he hears the discussion this • • Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 16 O- '' evening,he is not sure he knows what aspect of this plan he is going to try to implement and what aspects he can vary from. Mr.Gallent said that is a conversation he should have with the Building Inspector. This Board takes appeals. The Building Inspector is the one who interprets in the first instance. When Mr.Land has a question,he should bring it to the Building Inspector,who can answer it. Ms.Gallent would feel more comfortable if Mr.Carpaneto answers Mr.Land's questions. Mr.Land said he is not saying he is going to mow all the stuff down if the fence cannot be moved back. He is saying he does not know what to do. He has to consult with the landscape architect. It puts him in a pickle as to how to maintain this. To bring it in another couple of feet puts him practically up the pool pass. Mr.Wexler said there are three members of the Board present. It appears that two are not going to vote in favor of the application,from the discussions. He advised Mr.Land to adjourn the matter to the next month. Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other comments from the public on this application. There being none, Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Land that this matter will be adjourned to next meeting with his approval. Mr.Land asked what the meeting date will be. Mr.Gunther said it is normally the fourth Wednesday of the month,which would be June 28,2000. Mr.Wexler said it gives Mr.Land an opportunity,since he hit rock where he is building the pool,that he might possibly reevaluate the shape and position of the pool given the dollar value involved. After some discussion,Mr.Land said that the hole is already half dug. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2400 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the June 28, 2000 Zoning Board meeting. MR.GUNTHER RECALLED CASE APPLICATION NO.3,CASE#2387. Application of Veronique and Marshall Parke requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 6 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3); and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Briar Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 421. Mr.Gunther informed those present that the application was already read. James Fleming, the architect for the project,appeared along with Veronique Parke, the owner of the property at 11 Briar Close. Mr.Fleming distributed plans to the Board,marked exhibit#1. He said after the last meeting and considering what's been done,the owner has decided to take out the family room addition and reduce the request so that the request as follows. They went from 6 ft.from the rear property line. Last time they went to 11 ft.,after it was staked by the surveyor. After some deliberation,they are now asking for a variance of 13'h ft.to the corner of just the bathroom protrusion,which can be seen on the plan in front of the Board. It is less than 45 sq.ft.of addition. From the nearest corner,only at that one point,it is 13'h ft.to the property line. Mr.Wexler asked about the other corner. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 17 Mr.Fleming said the other corner is at least 16 ft.with the foliage coming in,as seen in the new pictures attached to a board,marked exhibit 1A. He said the Board can see that the ledge,which is exposed and moss covered,does start rising rapidly up to the rock as shown on the other drawing at the previous meeting: Mr.Fleming said he thinks the plan is quite clear. What they have done is taken the kitchen and opened the side to what was the existing dining room and made that the area they requested to use as a family room/eating area in the previous application. They are making the sacrifice of the dining room for this house,but they feel they can live in it this way. Certainly in the future the buyer or owner of the house could return it a dining room if they so wanted with no difference in the plan. The bathroom is currently very tight. They are requesting this minimal addition to the house. He said it certainly is in the more remote part of the rear property line,which is fading away to the east,and it really wouldn't be noticeable as an addition to the house. They have worked out a way to remove most of the proposed addition. Mr.Fleming said that the owner has thought through the problems that have been brought up. They do wish to live in a way they are accustomed to in the house and would like it approved. This is something they worked out to come to a solution. Mr.Wexler asked where the existing kitchen and bathrooms are located. Mr.Fleming pointed these out on the plan before the Board. Mr. Gunther asked that the record show that Mr.Fleming is merely showing,but not discussing,the application and plans with some people in the audience. If they have any questions,they will be addressed to and by the Board. After further discussion between Mr.Fleming,the Board and the audience,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from public on the proposal. ORichard Sussman,of 3 Briar Close,addressed the Board. He said he assumes there is no reason to repeat everything that he previously put on the record,as it is a part of the record,with which Mr.Gunther agreed. Mr.Sussman said he finds it odd that the public could be made aware of a variance request,come to a meeting and it is something completely different. He said he doesn't understand the process of how this works,because he thought he was coming in to speak about what was noticed and it is something quite different than what he thought. Mr.Gallent said because the variance requested is less than what was noticed,there is no requirement necessary. After some discussion regarding this,Mr.Gunther said if an applicant is looking for"X"and they want "X+"something,the Board has to go back to the notice process again. If it is a lesser request,it is no further notice is necessary. Mr.Sussman said that is fine and duly noted. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Sussman had an opportunity to look at the photos. Mr..Sussman said he had an opportunity to briefly look at them Saturday night. He reiterated that there is no need to repeat again what is already on the record. Obviously they have made a significant attempt to change what they proposed. He said he never got a chance to look at the first proposal in detail,but obviously what they now have as an encroachment is a room which is completely different than what the encroachment was before. He doesn't even know if that was a proposed enlargement of a room before. OHe said the important points to make are that it is still further encroaching upon setbacks which is setback upon a very important public property. There is a very,very strong public policy against that and there should be. Mr.Sussman said any encroachment upon it is not insignificant. In the last couple of weeks he was back there and the foliage makes some difference. This year in particular,it has grown rampantly due to all the water. Everything is completely overgrown. Large portions of the Trail,actually the Trail Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 18 O ' itself,is even diminished from maybe 6 ft./7 ft.to about 3 ft.,because of excess growth. Right now the level of blockage is quite high. One important point is clearly the policy of allowing people to further encroach upon an area such as the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr.Sussman noted that Ms.Gallent attributed a tremendous amount or said that of the factors involved in a decision,one of them was the self-imposition by the applicant of the need for this and that would attribute a great amount of weight. Ms.Gallent said that the statute makes clear that whatever need is self-created is not determinative Mr.Sussman said that being so,it is a different plan,he still thinks the main point is that it is allowing encroachment on the Trail and it is not less intrusive than it was before. That is clearly true,but Mr. Sussman thinks the public policy of allowing people to do this where there are already encroachments that previously existed and no conditions have changed since then,he thinks is really a fundamental decision here. • Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public. Janet Day,of 33 Glen Eagles Drive,addressed the Board. She reiterated that she attended the meeting two meetings ago. She said this house is already 16 ft.instead of 25 ft. Just on principle,she opposes any enlargement of the house. People are taking advantage of the Trail constantly. She worries about their next door neighbors,but that is another issue. Mr.Wexler said he is really amazed. He said they were sitting there for the last application and listened to the last application,Mr.Land. The applicant was proposing to put a 300 ft.long,5 ft.high black • manmade fence which was open to the public for comment. They heard the presentation. No one commented. Mr. Sussman said it was said it was not going to be decided. It was coming back with an alternate proposal and he felt there was no need to object. Mr.Wexler reiterated that it was open to the public for comment. It might have changed the minds here. It was open. Mr.Sussman didn't say a word. It has a far greater impact potentially on this very sensitive area. Mr.Wexler is just amazed by this. Mr. Sussman said that the clear sense of the Board was that this was not going to be acceptable, the applicant was going to come back with an alternate proposal and it didn't seem important to him to object when it was not going to be decided. Mr.Wexler said he made a blanket statement that no encroachment should happen. Ms.Day said this is the first she knew of anything about the other situation. She was appalled to hear about another situation. It is obvious that people have no respect for the Trail. She would like to request that the Life Center or possibly other nearby agencies be notified when anybody is proposing an encroachment or a building near the Trail. Mr.Gunther said that there is a public notice required for this and all the Town public meetings. It does get published in The Journal News seven days before the meeting. Ms.Gallent said that is required by statute. In addition,all property owners within a 400 ft.radius are notified,which is a Town practice. QMs.Day asked if the agenda is published. Ms.Gallent said it is,at which time a discussion ensued regarding this issue. Ms.Day asked if it was posted in the Town Center. The secretary verified that it is. Ms.Day asked if a copy was available. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 19 Mr.Carpaneto said there are always copies available. Also,any of the files on the agenda can be reviewed at any time. Mr. Gunther said as a point of information,the zoning board meeting occurs usually on the fourth Wednesday of every month and hasn't been changed in approximately 15 years,unless otherwise changed at the previous meeting. Ms.Day said she only became aware of this situation because she knows exactly where the property is and received a notice. When she got the notice,she inquired to find out where it was and got involved. She said she does not know about the policies pertaining to the Trail. Mr.Winick said he does not know if this is an appropriate place to talk about it,because the notice that was sent is required by law. Mr.Winick suggested that the place to resolve this issue is in front of the Town Board in regard to code and service requirements. He doesn't think it should be left to the discretion of anybody. It should be made a legal requirement. He doesn't know who can determine the proper way to write a law,but the Town Board are the people who write the laws that the zoning board tries to comply with the code. That is where Ms.Day should go,if she wants to setup a notice requirement. He doesn't think the Board should discretionarily single out the Life Center or anybody else. Mr.Winick thinks it is an appropriate legislative decision for the Town Board to make. Mr.Winick asked Mr.Fleming in looking at the plan,there is essentially a bump-out for bathroom. He said if he were to extend the rear wall of the master bedroom, is that where the existing wall of the bathroom is?. Mr.Fleming said that is correct. Mr.Winck asked the square footage of that bathroom. After some discussion,Mr.Fleming said there is a shower,a sink and a water closet. It is probably 35 ft. Mr.Gunther asked if there is any reason why it goes this way and not that way? Mn.Fleming said it is just the physical size of added fixture. • Mr.Winick said the added fixture is a tub which is about 3 ft.in its narrow dimension plus what? Mr.Fleming said plus 6 ft. It is 6 ft.by 3 ft. It is a regular tub. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none,he asked if there were any other comments from the public,before the public hearing is closed. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Sussman that if he is interested in looking at the prior plan with Ms.Day,he can do so. Mr.Sussman asked if the part that is marked the terrace is something that will also be constructed. Mr.Fleming said there is one there,which is going to be fit into the natural profile of the rock. Mr.Sussman asked if the terrace is the square off of the present kitchen and if the terrace is proposed to © be wrapped all the way around with steps. Mr.•Fleming said that is correct. Mr.Sussman said the deck is where a variance was granted last time for a portion of it. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 20 Mr.Winick said there is no variance required for that. Mr.Fleming said it is a flagstone footing. Mr.Carpaneto said if it is less than 18 in.,it can go 5 ft.from the property line. Mr.Sussman looked at the prior plan dated April 24,2000. Mr.Fleming repeated that they have gone a long way to hopefully come to a solution that everybody is amenable to and it does improve. It doesn't really impact what's back there in any substantial manner. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Fleming wants to move forward and have the Board vote on the application or hold it over. Mr.Fleming said he would like to move ahead. After further discussion,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Veronique and Marshall Parke have submitted an application to the Building Q Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-story rear addition. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 13.6 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Briar Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 421;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 240-36B(3),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Veronique and Marshall Parke submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and • WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This addition,which projects out 5 ft.from the rear of the house and is 9.4 ft. Q in length along the rear access of the house,is very small. It conforms to the shape of the house in style and is very minimal in scope. It faces a rock outcropping as the land rises behind the house. Accordingly,it will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood in general and on the Leatherstocking Trail in particular. • Zoning Board May 24,2000 • Page 21 minimal impact on the neighborhood in general and on the Leatherstocking Trail in particular. B. Given the location of the house on the property, the position of the master bedroom in the house,and the size of the master bath that presently exists,there is no other location that the applicant can use to solve the difficulty of the size of the bathroom that presently exists. C. The variance is not substantial. Given the square footage of the house,2,225 sq. ft.,the addition is approximately a 1'k%increase in the floor area of the • house and is a minimal size. Also,given that the addition will have a minimal impact on the surrounding area, including the Leatherstocking Trail, it is insubstantial. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The additional runoff from the roof runs back to the house rather than away from the house,given the topography of the back of the house. It is small and fits into the architecture of the house. The addition is 45 sq.ft.and will not generate additional activity on the property in the area of the Trail,because there are no sliding doors or other access points to the rear of the house from the addition. E. It is not a self-created situation. The house as originally built was sited to the rear of the lot. There is no other way to add a bathtub to the bathroom without being in the area requested. The applicants have greatly reduced their request o for enlarging their house to adjust to their family needs,reevaluated the interior spaces and have to give up a major function of the house to reduce the size of the request. • F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. • NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans'presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. Q 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. Zoning Board May 24,2000 Page 22 O4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Ms.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for a building permit. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on June 28,2000. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the Minutes of the April 26,2000 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved,3-0. Ms.Martin left earlier in the meeting,as noted. ADJOURNMENT • On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Margudfite Roma,Recording Secretary