HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_11_21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
NOVEMBER 21,2000,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Arthur Wexler,Acting Chairman
Jillian A.Martin
Paul A.Winick
Absent: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman
J.Rene Simon
Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Counsel
Ian A.Sbavitz,Counsel ,c1[t'1E04,
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building 44
Nancy Seligson,Liaison
Stephanie Poli,Public Stenographer 21 W
Terranova,Kazazes&Associates,Ltd.
49 Eighth Street New Rochelle,
New York 10801
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary OI 6
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mr.Wexler at 7:45 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr.Wexler advised those present that the review of the Minutes from the previous month's meeting will
be held over to the December Zoning Board meeting.
Mr. Wexler advised those present that application No. 1, case#2403, as listed below, requested an
adjournment and will hopefully be at the next meeting.
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2403(adjourned 6/28/00;8n0i00;8/23/00;9/26/00;1on5/0o)
Application of Jane Lin requesting a variance to maintain an existing chicken coop and pen. The existing
chicken coop and pen are located 4 ft. from the front property line on the premises located at 206
Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416,Lot
112. Pursuant to Section 240-33(B)(3)(b),such accessory structures are permitted to be located only within
the rear 1/3 of the property and must be located a minimum of 5 ft.from the property line in an R-50 Zone
District.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2426
Application of Melissa Donaghy requesting a variance to expand the second floor over existing living space
on the premises located at 736 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 18. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.6 ft.where 10 ft.is
•
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 2
t.:
required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);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.
Ms.Donaghy addressed the Board. She said the original problem is that they are building a second story
addition over an existing deck which has been in existence since 1981,prior to them owning the home.
It is her understanding that it was not within the 10 ft.property line when it was built at that time. They
are now looking to build directly on top of the existing deck.
Mr.Wexler said that normally there are five members on the Board,to vote on the applications. Since
there are only three Board members present this evening,a unanimous vote in the positive will be needed
for an application to be approved. Anything less than that is a nonaction.
Mr.Davis said Mr.Wexler can canvass the Board members,prior to taking a vote.
After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said all three votes have to be in favor.
Mr.Davis said the Board is not obligated to take a vote this evening.
Mr.Wexler explained to the applicant that the chairman is not present this evening and one member,Mr.
Simon,is ill. There is a quorum of three,but all three must vote in favor for an action to be approved.
Mr.Wexler said,as counsel suggested,the Board can be canvassed at the end of the presentation to get
the sense of the Board at which time a postponement can requested to the next meeting.
Ms. Donaghy said she wasn't prepared to make a presentation,and asked if there were any specific
questions the Board may have that she can clarify as to why they are choosing to do this work.
Mr.Wexler said it would be appropriate to state why she is choosing to do this.
Ms.Donaghy said it is obvious that she is eight months pregnant and has a small house in a very nice
neighborhood. She said they are choosing to expand it over that existing flat roof space to create another
bedroom and bathroom. They were originally considering expanding the attic,which would be more of
a problem. It would entail adding on a third floor and raising the height overall of the house. The house
is tall in the front to begin with. That is why they chose to expand it the simplest way to be able to get
a large bedroom and a separate bathroom,now that she will have two children. That is to build directly
over onto a flat roof that already exists,so they wouldn't be going over the property line any more than
presently exists and was approved in 1981 when that deck was built.
Mr.Wexler said he is confused with the plans,and asked Ms.Donaghy's help in going through them. He
said there are six steps going up to the master bedroom.
Ms.Donaghy said she doesn't think it is as many as six.
Mr.Wexler said there are five steps. He asked Mr.Donaghy to describe what that is.
. Ms.Donaghy said the small existing bedroom as seen on the plan,when looking out the window to that
bedroom,the flat roof that is on the existing deck is only about 2 ft.down from that window. To build
on that existing flat roof, you would have to step up from that existing small bedroom. That small
bedroom would become a closet and therefore would have to step up a couple of steps to go into the
existing bedroom,because of where the flat roof of that den presently is.
Mr.Donaghy said you are going up four steps to the family room.
Mr.Wexler said then your den is going up four steps above it.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 3
Ms.Donaghy said that is correct. The back yard is just one large rock like most yards in this area,and
that den was built on top of a rock in the back yard. That's what makes the lower den area of the house
higher than the front of the house and therefore you need to step up from the second floor to get into that
new area.
Mr.Wexler asked if there were any other questions.
Ms.Martin asked if Ms.Donaghy has had an opportunity to speak to the neighbors.
Ms.Donaghy said yes. Everyone in the immediate surroundings is aware of this and are very happy they
have chosen to have a second child and are choosing to stay in the area. It is the only way they can stay
in this area and have a three bedroom house,as opposed to having to move elsewhere. The way it is
purposely designed,it is not going to be blocking anyone's view or changing the overall aesthetics of the
house. That is why they chose not to build up the attic,because that would be raising the roof on both the
front and back of the house which would make it much taller and nonconforming as well. It wouldn't give
them as much space as the whole raised attic would,but it would allow them to get that extra regular sized
bedroom, as opposed to a 5 ft. by 8 ft. bedroom, and would be able to create a separate bathroom.
Otherwise,there haven't been any complaints or problems. People are pleased that they are choosing to
stay in the area and expand on their existing house.
Mr.Wexler asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There were none.
Mr.Wexler asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none,on motion of Mr.
Wexler,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,
3-0.
RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Melissa Donaghy has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together
with plans to expand the second floor over existing living space on the premises located at 736 Forest
Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 18. The
addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.6 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);
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(2)(a),and Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS, Melissa Donaghy 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
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
November 21,2000
Page 4
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. In reviewing the application and based on personal observation of the property
there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the
neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created. The applicant is
building on the existing footprint of the house,creating necessary additional
living space for her growing family. She has been sensitive to the rest of the
neighborhood in creating this addition to her property;
B. Given the fact that the house is nonconforming, there is not a reasonable
alternative which does not require the necessity of an area variance for the
applicant to achieve her goals;
C. This is not a substantial variance,given that the applicant is not changing the
footprint of the house but is adding an additional bedroom over existing living
space;
D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood or district;
E. The difficulty is not self-created;
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 5
Mr.Wexler informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit,during usual
business hours.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2427
Application of Richard Razor requesting a variance to construct a rear addition and rear wood deck on the
premises located at 1232 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 405,Lot 193. The addition and deck as proposed has a side yard of 4 ft.where
10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a);a total side yard of 15.7 ft.where 30 feet is required
pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b);and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building
is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District.
Richard Razor addressed the Board. He said they also have a growing family situation,as the Board can
see in the back of the room. They have three children under four years of age. They have been in their
current house for four years,and in Larchmont for six years. His wife lived in Larchmont her whole life.
They would like to go straight back,as they have a deep piece of property. The property goes back 175
ft.to the back yard. They would like to go straight back from the current house,no further on either side,
to increase the size of another bedroom,and add a great room on the side of the kitchen on the first floor.
They would like to stay in Town,love the Town and have been here for a while. In order to keep the
family in a house that is feasible for the family,this is what they would like to do. It won't interfere with
any of the neighbors. There is still plenty of yard beyond the back of the house. Again,these restrictions
on either side of the house were in existence before they moved in. Cosmetically,the rear of the house
will improve. They have a deck back there now. The deck would extend off the new building to be built.
Ms.Martin asked if the extension would be where the deck presently is.
Mr.Razor said essentially yes.
Ms.Martin asked if this has been discussed with the neighbors on that side.
Mr.Razor said they talked to a couple of the neighbors about it. They haven't had the opportunity to
speak with all of them,but definitely will.
Ms. Martin said the neighbors also had an opportunity to come to this meeting and seeing that none
attended,she is presuming it is alright.
Mr.Razor said they were under the impression that they didn't need to go to them.
Ms.Martin they are not obligated to do so.
Mrs.Razor said she did speak to one neighbor. They have new neighbors on one side that they do not
yet know. She did not specifically show the neighbors the plans.
Mr.Wexler asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr.Winick said if the variance
is granted,the grant should state that the variance is granted to the extent indicated on the plans that were
submitted and no other. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public. There
being none,on motion of Mr.Wexler,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.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 6
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Richard Razor has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with
plans to construct a rear addition and rear wood deck on the premises located at 1232 Palmer Avenue and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405,Lot 193. The addition and
deck as proposed has a side yard of 4 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a);a total
side yard of 15.7 ft.where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b);and further,the addition
would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a
residence in an R-15 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-36B(2)(a),Section 240-36B(2)(b),and Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Richard Razor 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
heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. Based on observation of the property and information presented to the Board this
evening,the property is a narrow lot and there are properties surrounding it.
The interior of the house will extend,after the proposed construction,almost
exactly to the rear building line of the properties on either side of it;
B. As a consequence, there will not be an undesirable change produced in the
character of the neighborhood. There will be minimal or no impact on the
adjoining properties. The only construction that extends past the existing
building line toward,the surrounding properties is a deck. Outside space around
the deck will remain;
C. Given the narrow width of the lot and current zoning,there is not a reasonable
alternative for the applicant to achieve his goals without a variance of some sort;
D. The variance is not substantial. It is what is required to create a reasonable
amount of living space. For the reasons previously stated,there will be no
adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood;
E. Obviously,it is not a self-created hardship. It is a normal condition,a product
of lot size,and the construction of the deck is the only thing the applicant can
do at this time;
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare;
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 7
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Wexler advised Mr.Razor that if in the future he decides to enclose the screened porch,he will have
to go for a variance.
Mr.Razor said he didn't think they intended to,but it is good to know.
Mr.Wexler said in this case,as opposed to the previous case,Mr.Carpaneto said a total side yard of 30
ft.is required.
A discussion ensued,with Mr.Carpaneto stating it is not in the same zone district.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2428
Application of Peter and Julie Gale requesting a variance to legalize an existing wood shed on the premises
located at 1 Lancia Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
206,Lot 447. The shed as built has a side yard of 2 ft.and a rear yard of 2 ft.where a 5 ft.side yard
and 5 ft.rear yard are required,pursuant to Section 240-36 B(3)(b)for an accessory structure in an R-15
Zone District.
Peter Gale addressed the Board. He stated that the reason for this modification is that they needed the shed
for extra storage. He said that they downsized in the last twelve(12)months to a smaller house and
converted the garage into a playroom. They have four(4)children,have lots of sports equipment and
bikes,and needed a place to store them. The best alternative they came up with was to construct this shed.
They have an "L"-shaped property, the remaining property outside of the house. Photographs were
submitted. There is no where else the shed could be put that would have avoided taking up play space,
and that would be less visible from the all the neighbors. The photographs attest to that.It perfectly fits
between his three(3)or four(4)trees,so that no trees had to be removed in the process.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 8
Mr.Winick asked how the shed got where it is.
Mr.Gale said it was brought in on a flatbed that can be maneuvered around things.
Mr.Winick said it clearly is in violation and asked who chose the site.
Mr.Gale said he chose the site.
Mr.Winick asked if Mr.Gale inquired as to the legality.
Mr.Gale said he didn't realize there was an issue in terms of placing it where they were going to place
it.
Mr.Winick asked if he prepared the 8 ft.by 8 ft.gravel foundation and was a contractor involved.
Mr.Gale said he prepared it and no contractor was involved.
Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Carpaneto if that is a suitable foundation for a shed.
Mr.Carpaneto said yes.
Mr.Wexler asked if the weight of the shed above is what holds the 4 by 4's onto the ground.
Mr.Gale said yes. He hasn't tied it down,unless he gets a variance. He didn't want to have to rip it up
and move it again,if a variance isn't granted. It is all there and ready to go. He stated that he has spoken
to most of their neighbors about the shed.
Mr.Wexler said it appears that where Mr.Gale placed the shed is in the open spaces between the two(2)
homes that backs up to Mr.Gale's property. It doesn't back up directly to the house,with which Mr.Gale
agreed.
Mr.Gale said the two homes in the rear are pretty far back away from the shed also. As shown in the
picture,you can't see the shed.
Mr.Winick asked if the requirement is that it be on the back third of the property.
Mr.Gale said it has to be 5 ft.from the property line.
Mr.Carpaneto said it has to be on the back one-third.
Mr.Davis said it is really the issue of the 3 ft.,with which Mr.Gale agreed.
Mr.Wexler asked about the impact of that 3 ft.
Mr.Gale said it is the removal of trees. It also would make it more visible to the other homes. It has a
bush line on one side,a bush behind it and a tree line. It you pull it 3 ft.additionally into the yard,it will
be become more visible to the houses in question. That is why they placed it where they did.
After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said he has to fit this in between the trees.
Mr.Gale said he would have to turn the shed in order to make it go with the variance,if they were going
to go 5 ft.and 5 ft. Mr.Gale said there are two Cedars and a larger Oak tree. He asked if the Board
visited the site.
Ms.Martin said yes.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 9
Mr.Winick said he sees the point Mr.Gale is making. His concern is that if there was no screening
between Mr. Gale and his neighbor,he would hope it would be screened anywhere it is put on his
property. Obviously,it is a visual impairment. By granting a variance,and one of the advantages the
Board has is to condition the variance,his concern is that the shrubbery is screening the shed. There is
fairly large landscaping on the other side of the property line. At this point Mr.Gale's neighbors must,
in order to protect their view from that shed,maintain the screening on their property. What Mr.Winick
would like to know is whether or not there is a way that Mr.Gale can screen that shed from view to allow
the shed to be placed in the desired applied for location,so that they have the ability to use their property
so they can use the whole run of it.
Mr.Gale said they are only talking about one neighbor that might have that issue.
Mr.Winick said he is talking about the neighbor on the left facing the house and the shed.
Mr.Gale said if they have shrubbery or greenery on the side facing their property would that be helpful.
Mr.Winick said that would certainly deal with his concerns. He said the Board always asks people
whether or not their neighbors have consented and whether they talked to their neighbors. It is not a legal
requirement. They are required to think about it somewhat in the abstract.
Ms.Gale said she would be happy to plant something.
Mr.Winick said he doesn't know what can be maintained in that area.
Mr.Gale said you would probably have to trellis it and let some ivy grow.
Mr.Wexler said if there is no shrubbery on the other part of the land,shrubbery can be at 2 ft. The only
question is what will survive in that area. A condition might be that in the event that there is no shrubbery,
then Ms.Gale will plant shrubbery. He said it is heavily dense,right up to the property line.
Mr.Winick said there are two Cedars. He said he would be comfortable with that,because the only thing
that would drive the problem would be the neighbors. After some discussion,he asked if they could have
that kind of a friendly requirement to condition a variance.
Mr.Wexler said if nothing is stated,it will not be solved.
Mr.Wexler asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none,Mr.Wexler asked Mr.
Gale if he would like a sense of the Board before voting takes place.
Mr.Gale said yes.
Mr.Wexler got a sense of the Board,with Mr.Winick stating he would vote for it with the condition as
stated above.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously,3-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Peter and Julie Gale have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together
with plans to legalize an existing wood shed on the premises located at 1 Lancia Lane and known on the
•
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 10
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 206,Lot 447. The shed as built has a side
yard of 2 ft.and a rear yard of 2 ft.where a 5 ft.side yard and 5 ft.rear yard are required,pursuant to
Section 240-36 B(3)(b)for an accessory structure in an R-15 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-36 B(3)(b);and
WHEREAS,Peter and Julie Gale 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
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. It will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood,
or any detriment to the nearby properties. As pointed out by Mr.Gale in his
presentation, the other houses around the property are well back from the
property line where the shed is located. In its current location,as opposed to
a location where no variance will be granted,it is less visible from the street;
B. Given those restrictions, the applicant cannot achieve his goals via any
alternative that does not involve the necessity of an area variance;
C. The variance is not substantial,given the restrictions on the property. This is
a very shallow back yard where the house is situated on the property. Moving
the shed further away from the property line into the back yard would deny the
applicant the use of a major portion of their outside living space;
D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on any environmental or physical
conditions in the neighborhood or district;
E. It is a self-created difficulty,in the sense that the construction took place before
a variance was applied for,however under the law,this is not a determinative
factor;
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare;
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health,safety and welfare of the community;
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 11
' S
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT
RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. In the event that the existing shrubbery on the neighbor's property line to the west of
where the shed is located is ever removed,the then owner of this property shall plant
shrubbery to screen the shed from the view of that neighbor to the west. The shed shall
be reasonably screened from view,given existing lighting and the availability of the
appropriate shrubbery, to break up the visual impact of that shed on the adjoining
property.
2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this
Resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit.
5. 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.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2429
Application of Mr.&Mrs.Bruce Meighan requesting a variance to construct a wood deck on the premises
located at 38 Shadow Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
501,Lot 163. The rear wood deck as proposed has rear yard of 17.3 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant
to Section 240-38B(3)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
Mrs.Meighan,who goes by the name Amy Brelia,appeared along with her husband,Bruce Meighan,and
her son,Graham,age 9.
Mr.Wexler asked if people have trouble finding their house.
Ms.Brelia said all the time,because of the border situation.
Mr.Meighan said they have a New Rochelle post office address,which is a problem itself.
Ms.Brelia said they are doing an addition and would like to have a deck placed onto the addition which
extends from the kitchen door to the proposed kitchen door,approximately 19 ft.long along the house
extending out approximately 12 ft. That would then be level with the current flagstone patio that has been
in existence since the house was built. She said they have a very shallow back yard and are on top of a
hill. Her property abuts Robbins Nest. Her two(2)neighbors are in the Town of Mamaroneck,and look
upon the back yard of her house. She spoke to both neighbors and told them about building the addition
and deck. Mr.Rosenberger resides at 5 Robbins Nest Lane and was not opposed. She said his back yard
is extremely deep,for the type of back yards that people have in the Town of Mamaroneck. She said the
tax map the Board has shows the very shallow back yard.
Mr.Wexler said she is building an addition,and asked if the request for a variance is just for a deck.
•
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 12
Mr.Carpaneto said currently there is construction going on that does not require a variance. The proposed
deck is in the rear and does require a variance.
Ms.Brelia said it is alongside the house,because there is no space in back.
Mr.Meighan said the purpose of the deck is to have egress from the new addition and provide a means
to get down to an existing patio which already is 12 ft.to 13 ft.away from the house. It is only 18 in.
above the ground. The function of that deck is really to have access to that patio.
Ms.Brelia added that it is to have immediate access to the outside and be able to then sit outside,as
opposed to going down a landing,which is currently there,to then go down to the patio. Ms.Brelia said
her two neighbors that abut to the property,Mr.Rosenberger at#5,and Carol Carozza,a local attorney
who works out of New Rochelle. Ms.Carozza gave Ms.Brelia a letter,marked exhibit#1,in favor of
the request. She said those are the only two neighbors that would be affected by their particular deck.
After some discussion,Ms.Brelia pointed out various parcels and size of land in that area.
Mr.Meighan said he thought it was only 20 ft.wide,runs for an extensive length and angles over to
Harrison Drive.
Mr.Wexler said that is a separate parcel.
Ms.Meighan said she spoke to the real estate tax office and they said it was the same person who owns
this house,Howard. There were some questions she didn't understand as to who owns that piece of
property. There is nothing that is built there. It's just woods,so to speak. It's on a slope.
Mr.Wexler asked if there was anything else.
Ms.Meighan asked if there were any questions.
There being none,Mr.Wexler asked if there were any questions from the Board. There being none,he
asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously,3-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Bruce Meighan have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 38 Shadow Lane and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 163. The rear wood deck as
proposed has a rear yard of 17.3 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)for a residence
in an R-7.5 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(3);and
WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Bruce Meighan submitted an application for a variance to this Board
for the reasons set forth in such application;and
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 13
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and
heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. Based on personal observation of the property, review of the files and the
presentation of the applicant,there will be no undesirable change produced in
the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The
applicant is asking for a variance in conjunction with a large addition they are
putting on their house which does not otherwise require a variance. The deck
is intended to integrate the facilities of the property as it currently exists,with
the new addition. The property is sufficiently removed from other properties
in the neighborhood and will not impact on them,to any extent;
B. There is no other reasonable alternative for the applicant to maintain some
outside area and access to the patio,as it currently exists. The placement of the
house on the property requires that amount of space necessary to achieve their
goal;
C. The variance is not substantial;
D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood or district;
E. It is not a self-crested difficultly in this instance;
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.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 14
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.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2430
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.
James Fleming, the architect for the project, appeared to address the Board. He explained that the
applicants are in Florida and could not attend. Mr.Fleming handed in some photographs,marked exhibit
1. He said in the packet there is an affidavit that was given to the owners,the McTeigues,when they
purchased the property in 1986. Because of the oddity in the structure,he looked through the building files
with Mr. Carpaneto. There was an "L" shaped structure built back there in 1935. At some point,
according to that affidavit,they filled in the corner of the'L"and you see the structure that is there now.
You can see that it is tightly tucked in the back of the property from these photographs and also from the
survey. Mr.Fleming said he couldn't even get around the right side of it to get around the back. There
is basically very little paperwork on it in the file.
Mr.Fleming said that Mr.McTeigue is attempting to sell the house and the property between the front
piece. The front structure is in the Village of Larchmont. The Town line runs right through the middle
of property on an angle. They would like to get this legalized. It's basically been there from the origin
of the neighborhood. He doesn't think it will change the neighborhood. It's just there. It is of a benefit
to the owner to get all the paperwork straightened out on it. It is not a self-created problem. It was built
when there wasn't any reference to this. It was probably built as many accessory structures are around
the area,too close and overlapping sloppily on a rear yard property line.
Mr.Wexler asked what it was originally.
Mr.Fleming said the drawing was hard to decipher. It looked like a garage and a living quarters next to
it. It was an"L"-shaped structure. Mr.Fleming doesn't think the whole thing was a garage. It really
wouldn't even fit a car now.
Mr.Wexler asked if you can have a structure that close to the property line.
Mr.Carpaneto said that is another issue. They also have to go for a state variance.
Mr.Fleming said he has a call in to the State architect to come down in the beginning of December to see
what can happen with that,as a state variance is also involved.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 15
Mr.Wexler asked why he is in front of the Board now if there is an open issue,because he is asking for
a legalization.
Mr.Fleming said the State Building Code requires setbacks.
Mr.Wexler said the request attempts to legalize alterations and additions to an existing rear dwelling. If
the State says no he can't do what is being applied for or that it can't be modified,why is the Zoning
Board saying it can.
Mr.Carpaneto said he spoke to Erica Kreeger,of the New York State Code Division.They have had
cases like this before. As long as there is some separation between the actual structures,they have granted
this type of variance before. The State Code says the structure is 5 ft.per dwelling,5 ft.to an interior
lot line. Mr.Carpaneto doesn't believe there will be an issue with the State.
Mr.Davis said even if there is an issue with the State,the question has to do with the word legalize. The
question before the Board is whether the Board is willing to vary the requirements of the Town Zoning
Law. That may or may not be sufficient to legalize this addition.
Mr.Wexler said on a variance,one is to allow a second dwelling on a single lot,and the code says that
is not allowed.
Mr.Carpaneto said there are two(2)houses,but the lot is split with the Village and Town.
Ms.Martin asked if it is a double lot.
Mr.Wexler said the lot has no access to the street.
Mr.Carpaneto said there are two houses on the lot,one house in the Town.
Mr.Wexler said there are two houses on the lot. The Town code says you cannot have two(2)dwelling
units on one lot,even if the lot was oversized and met the requirements. It cannot be done. The way you
have to legalize this,a variance makes this a two-family lot.
Mr.Davis said that is a use variance.
Mr.Fleming said they are asking for are area variance.
Mr. Carpaneto said the present plans in the file shows a dwelling that at one point was legal. It is
nonconforming. An area variance is not a use variance.
Mr.Davis said at the time a second dwelling structure was placed there,it was lawful.
Mr.Winick said in 1935,whenever this was done,if there is an area variance it supersedes the zoning and
asked if that is grandfathered also.
Mr.Carpaneto said there is nothing in the record,as far as the building being in violation.
Mr.Winick said in 1935 if the building was where it is now and was built at a time when it was legal,
there is nothing to legalize. It predates the zoning.
Mr.Carpaneto said additional work was done to it after the original plan.
A discussion ensued regarding when the work was performed.
Mr.Winick said all the evidence the Board has indicates it was done in 1930.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 16
Mr.Fleming said the affidavit also refers to the second/rear structure.
Mr.Winick said it says it hasn't changed since 1932,except for minor alterations.
Mr.Fleming said they filed that and probably it did right after it.
Mr.Wexler said in looking at the construction that is there,is it an assumption that it was done at the same
time.
After some discussion,Mr.Fleming said yes.
Mr.Wexler asked counsel what is the Board's obligation of liability,if the applicant cannot get around to
the front of the building.
Mr.Fleming said in reference to what Mr.Wexler is asking,it probably wouldn't come up unless a bank
was giving a mortgage and getting involved. Then they want to see something that states it is O.K.to go.
That is what the McTeigues are looking for. That is why they went to the Building Department,to see
what is actually wrong with the structure.
Mr.Wexler asked what is wrong with it.
Mr. Fleming said the rear structure is too close to the property line, and there are two dwellings.
However,they pay taxes to both the Town and Village. This one structure is the Town of Mamaroneck.
Mr.Winick said the two structures are in different jurisdictions.
Mr.Fleming said he doesn't know how the tax works either,because they pay both. He said it is well
screened. The properties to the back and to the sides are all very similar in terms of this neighborhood.
They are setback deep on a lot or in a position on the properties that would not necessarily conform right
now. It is a very tight,small lot neighborhood. He pointed out the property on the tax map and a
discussion ensued. He said the applicants are looking for some way, by area variance and by State
variance,to legalize the structure.
Mr.Wexler said even though it is built on someone elses property.
Mr.Fleming said he doesn't believe it is.
Mr.Wexler said the property line goes through the corner of the house,as shown on the survey,at which
time a discussion ensued regarding legalization.
Mr.Winick said it's just going to end up as an exception to the title.
Mr.Carpaneto said he only has to go with what is on the record.
Mr.Davis said what the Board is discussing is in response to Mr.Winick's question,why a structure is
legal when constructed and now requires a variance. He said in Mr.Carpaneto's view,it looks like some
of the work,although there is no evidence in the record,was done after 1954,in which case it would not
have been legal. The only permits referred to in the affidavit says 1949.
Mr.Wexler asked how it would be known it was done after 1954.
Mr.Carpaneto said he wouldn't,but has to assume that.
Mr.Winick said all the evidence the Board has is an affidavit which says that this was used as a dwelling
from 1932. The affidavit attached to the application says the rear building was occupied as a one-family
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 17
k.
dwelling,and the front building was occupied and used as a two-family dwelling. Such use and occupancy
has been continuous with no breaks from 1932 to this date. There is a discussion about alterations to the
front building. There is no discussion about alterations to the back building. He doesn't see that there is
anything for the Board to rule on.
Mr.Carpaneto said he doesn't know when the alterations were done to the back building,but there were
alterations done to the back building.
A discussion ensued regarding the possible date when alterations occurred.
Mr.Davis said the point is there were alterations,they are asking for a Certificate of Occupancy and no
one can establish when the alterations were done.
Mr.Carpaneto said he has to assume they were done yesterday,to protect the Town.
Mr.Winick asked if that is a reasonable presumption that they were done after the zoning ordinance,
consequently a variance is required.
Mr.Carpaneto said yes,and the applicant must prove otherwise.
Mr.Davis said to put it differently,one who applies for a Certificate of Occupancy should establish those
conditions.
Mr.Carpaneto said the only reason he didn't bring it up to the second dwelling is because it was built in
the'30's and it was legal. He said he knows there are two houses on the lot.
After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said a house he lives in now got a variance in 1925 to make it a two-
family house and asked why would this be legal.
Mr.Carpaneto said possibly because one is in the Village and one is in the Town,it didn't require it. He
doesn't know what was done at that time and can't answer that question.
Mr.Davis asked if there were any sources of information that would be helpful in the tax records.
Mr.Fleming said there may be something in the County Office regarding the deed,but doesn't think it
would show any physical circumstances.
Mr.Davis said Mr.Fleming knows what the alterations are. If the Board saw the 1949 permit application
that it referred to,it might be helpful.
Mr.Wexler asked when they expect to hear from the State.
Mr.Fleming said Welsh is coming down on the 23rd of December.
Mr.Wexler said the Board is going to have a meeting before that. He is not comfortable with this.
Mr.Davis said the Board has the facts and must determine whether it can grant a variance with respect
to dealing with the encroachments on adjacent properties.
Mr.Winick asked how that can be legalized.
Mr.Davis said he doesn't think the Board has the authority to grant a variance affecting the property of
someone who hasn't applied for it. He would like to the Board to think about that question.
Mr.Wexler asked if there are any records in the Town stating what zoning was in effect in 1935.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 18
V
Mr.Carpaneto said the Town has Ordinances that go back to 1935,but he has no specific record in the
file as to how this was treated.
Mr.Wexler said it had a permit.
Mr.Carpaneto said there is no record it had a variance.
Mr.Winick said the encroachment obviously is an issue between the two properties. If the Board were
to grant a variance,it could be granted up to his lot line,with which Mr.Davis agreed.
Mr.Davis said he doesn't see how it could be granted past his lot line.
Mr.Wexler asked what will that do,as the bank is looking to get a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr.Winick said it will probably be an exception to title. It would have to be.
Mr.Davis said title companies insure lot encroachments.
Mr.Winick said you might still be able to get title,subject to that request.
Mr.Davis said the Certificate of Occupancy the Board is talking about is a Town lot.
After some discussion,Mr.Davis said there may be a history of this in the Town. This may not be the
first time this has arisen.
Mr.Wexler asked if the main structure is on file now with the Town.
Mr.Carpaneto said no.
Mr.Wexler asked if it was on file with the Village.
Mr.Fleming said he worked on the front house and had to go to the Village.
Mr.Wexler said the boundary line is in two communities. It goes through the property. He asked if you
can put two houses on it without either one knowing.
Mr.Davis said you could get away with it.
Mr.Fleming made reference to another piece of property just off Harrison Drive that had a garage with
a chauffeurs residence in it.
Mr.Wexler asked if it has a kitchen in it.
Mr.Fleming said it had what was referred to as a mechanical room in it.
Mr. Davis said it sounds like they would benefit from an additional attempt to sort out the history,
including seeing whether the Village files by chance have an application containing more information about
it.
Mr. Fleming asked if there is something the owner can get from the owner that the property it is
encroaching on.
Mr.Davis said he thinks they are present.
Zoning Board
• November 21,2000
Page 19
Tom Gramolini,a property owner of 8 Harrison Drive,addressed the Board. He said there are a number
of issues here:
1. He respectfully requests that this application be denied, because the property does
encroach on his property.
2. That structure was changed in the'60's,because as a child he saw changes to that
structure which were not in any of the affidavits submitted. There was siding put on the
house,which further encroached on his property,there was enlargement of the bedroom
upstairs and an increase in the bathroom on the second floor. In the rear of the building
there was a block structure that was constructed to expand the structure,to allow for
storage and also a boiler room in back of the garage was added.
3. On the other side of the house there was a one-car garage,which is now considered a
den.
Mr.Gramolini said there were certainly alterations to the building. He doesn't understand how a variance
can be approved when a structure is on another property. He feels it doesn't make any sense.
Mr.Davis asked how long Mr.Gramolini lived in that area,for the purpose of establishing his knowledge
of what happened in the 1960's.
Mr. Gramolini said he lived at 8 Harrison Drive from 1955 until 1981,which is where his Mom also
resides. The property was in five(5)names;his three brothers,his father and mother. One of his
brothers is deceased and his father is deceased also. The persons that know the history of that property
are obviously no longer around. He does remember some changes made to that structure. He recollects
that there was a garage that was converted to a living dwelling,from past history. Mr. Gramolini is
amazed that the Board asked everybody else if they contacted any of the surrounding neighbors. The
McTeigues or Mr.Fleming never contacted them. If his mother didn't see the public notice,they wouldn't
have know this was going on. This is all going on behind the scenes.
Mr.Gramolini said this property changed hands in 1986. At that time they knew there was a problem with
the property,but they got around it. Now they want to legalize it and he doesn't think that is right. They
knew back then,and they are trying to hide something. He respectfully requests that the Board deny this
application.
Mr.Gramolini said he doesn't know anything about the State stuff. He said he will get a lawyer. The
point is that he is more than happy to talk to the McTeigues to get something done about this structure.
He doesn't know what the zoning requirement would be in terms of selling land,but the problem is there
is not that much space between his mother's house,their house and that structure in the rear. There is
maybe 10 ft.to 15 ft. It is a narrow piece of land.
Mr.Winick said the Board needs some advice from counsel regarding the encroachment,before the Board
can act. Clearly,the Board is not going to act until they have information on that.
Mr.Carpaneto said he thinks it was shown as some kind of bungalow. It may have had a garage. It was
more than just a place to park a car. There was also living area. Mr.Carpaneto said the drawings are
on tissue,but are more than what's on the survey.
Mr.Fleming said it was difficult to use that drawing. He said his drawing is an as-built,what's there now.
It was difficult to take that and assume how much of that other part of the"L"fit into the house.
Mr.Wexler asked if Mr.Fleming remembered what was found in the Village.
Mr.Fleming said it had the same exact survey. He doesn't believe there were any drawings on file for
the front house. He had to measure what he was interested in and recreate them.
g
• NovemberZonin 21,2000Board
Page 20
Mr.Winick asked if that was on the front building,with which Mr.Fleming agreed.
Mr.Wexler said the same border line that's in the Village and the Town,looking at the tax map,bisects
a couple of homes. Mr.Wexler asked what happens in that case.
Mr.Carpaneto said probably the portion of the lot or the part of the house that's larger dictates whether
it gets filed in the Town or Village,depending which contains that larger portion.
Mr.Wexler said the Board needs more information on this.
Mr.Carpaneto said when the applicant came in he didn't think it was a simple thing and explained that to
him. He said obviously these two parties need to get together.
Mr.Fleming said he wanted to respond to a couple of things. He said that he is the architect and comes
before the Board on technical issues. He doesn't contact neighbors,but leaves that to the owner.
Mr.Gramolini said he doesn't recall if the McTeigues ever lived in that property.
Mr.Fleming said his son-in-law lived there. Mr.Fleming said he is doing this by phone with them and
was sent this affidavit. That's all he!mows,along with what he saw in the file.
Mr.Gramolini said if Mr.Fleming speaks to owners he could tell them they could have called,as this is
a roundabout way to hear of this. He said as far as he is concerned,he is trying to hide something.
Mr.Fleming said he is not trying to hide anything. He is only before the Board to present the paperwork.
He said the McTeigues will be happy to call Mr.Gramolini.
Mr.Gramolini asked what is acceptable in terms of the boundary,so that they can legalize what they have
to legalize.
Mr.Winick said that is what the Board asked connsrl.
Mr.Davis said he advises the Board. For Mr. Gramolini to get answers himself,he should retain an
attorney.
Mr.Gramolini said he just wants to get an idea of what is acceptable on that site.
Mr.Wexler said an easement.
Mr.Winick said in terms of conveying things to get around the encroachment issue.
Mr.Davis said that is several steps ahead of where the Board is. The first question the Board has to
answer is whether the Board has the authority to grant a variance which affects property other than the
lot in question. If it does not,than an easement wouldn't be sufficient. He then referred the Board to a
section in the code,Section 240.89,with respect to variances which talks about assisting the owner of
property to get reasonable use of the land or the building involved. In that case,the Board has the power
to grant a variance,but in no other case. He said the use of somebody elses land,would be another case.
Ms.Martin said it is not a reasonable use.
' Mr.Davis said you are entitled to get reasonable use of your own land,but the Board is not entitled to help
someone get reasonable use of somebody elses land.
Mr.Wexler asked,assuming this land owner has an easement for the use of it,why won't that be sufficient
to legalize it and have a legal document stating he can use the property.
Zoning Board
•
November 21,2000
Page 21
Mr.Davis said technically the discussion is not conclusive. The answer is that the limits of your authority
is to grant a variance to a property owner by that property owner's boundary line.
Mr.Gramolini said he doesn't believe there is an easement.
Mr.Davis said the first thing is we have to advise the Board and(1)set the limits of the subject authority
in light of the encroachment;(2)confirming the legal state of affairs involving two(2)structures on the
same lot,in two(2)different municipalities;(3)somebody should see whether there is any additional
history; whether by affidavit from someone who lived next door at the time,or by a supplemental affidavit
from a non-resident owner or by checking the file.
Mr.Wexler said that would establish that the work that was done is done. A variance is needed at this
stage,as the zoning presently exists.
Mr.Davis said if the work was done without a permit during the present zoning regime,the Board has to
establish that it was not legal at the time it was done. If it was done previously,it had to be legal at the
time it was done. Knowing when it was done and what was in affect at the time will determine that.
Mr.Wexler said the work that was done is work to a second dwelling on a single lot,additional work,and
that requires a use variance or an area variance.
Mr.Davis said that is assuming the use of the second building is permissible.
Mr. Wexler said assuming the use of that building is permissible, you are legalizing something that
extended that use.
Mr.Carpaneto said it is not an extension of a use.
Mr.Winick asked Mr.Wexler if he is saying the applicant has a nonconforming use if you enlarge the
house and if it is a nonconforming use,a use variance is needed in order to do that. Mr.Winick asked
Mr.Davis to answer that.
Mr.Davis said he will research the answer for the next meeting.
Mr.Fleming said the front house is a two-family house.
Mr.Wexler said it is now a two-family dwelling.
Mr.Gramolini asked how many cars they are allowed,and if that is a zoning issue.
Ms.Martin said it is stated in the affidavit.
•
Mr.Gramolini said the point he wanted to make was when the property was sold there was no Certificate
of Occupancy at that point.
Mr.Carpaneto said it was apparently sold a couple of times.
Mr. Gramolini said it suggests that the structure was not legal, because no one had a Certificate of
Occupancy for it.
Mr.Fleming said since 1990 the banks have been requesting Certificates of Occupancy for anything,be
it a stoop or an addition.
Mr. Wexler suggested sending a request to the Building Department,who would then investigate the
matter.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 22
Mr.Carpaneto said if they are asked to do a Letter of Compliance,the Building Department will go out
and look at the structure. If they see things that are not on the property card,then a red flag is issued.
A title company is going to look in a folder and just report open permits and Certificates of Occupancy.
They don't know if a second story exists. That's done by the attorney or realtor.
Mr.Fleming said Mr. McTeigue is aware of that now. When he bought it, there was no problem.
Apparently this affidavit was just given to him,and he gave it to me. He knows it is required now and
that is why he is before the Board to find someway to resolve it.
Mr.Davis asked if the property was purchased in 1986,which Mr.Fleming verified. Mr.Davis said the
affidavit is dated 1984.
Mr.Fleming said he is not sure of the exact date.
Mr.Gramolini said he does not know the exact change of hands.
Mr.Davis said the affidavit was notarized March 6,1984.
After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said that information is available and should be on the title.
Mr.Winick said you can see why it might have taken a while to sell this one.
Mr.Davis said it is interesting to speculate why someone requested the affidavit.
Mr.Gramolini said if they requested the affidavit,they knew something was wrong with the encroachment
and the structure.
Mr. Winick said you could certainly speculate that they wanted some evidence that the use has been
continuous since the 1930's. Mr.Winick said counsel has things to do,before the next meeting. He asked
Mr.Carpaneto if the Board can ask him to look in the Village file and the Town file,property files,to see
whatever information is there.
Mr.Carpaneto said he can look for available information.
Mr.Winick asked if any other properties have records.
Mr.Carpaneto said there are some ownership transfers that are in the Town Assessor's office.
Mr. Winick said what they are interested in at this time,is looking for things that indicate when all
alterations were done and whether they were done pursuant to permits issued.
Mr.Davis said although Mr. Carpaneto may volunteer to search records, the burden of supplying the
Board with sufficient information to justify a variance is the burden of the applicant.
Mr.Winick said his only concern is that the Board knows it's been done. Mr.Carpaneto can do it if he
wants to do it or the Board will not have that information. He is concerned that if the advise is going to
be that they have no idea when something is done, then they have to assume it done the day before
yesterday for the variance required and doesn't help the Board.
Mr.Davis said there are middle grounds. It may be that each one could look at the construction and
because of the way the construction was done associate it with some period of time that is not a precise
year.
Mr.Gramolini said it has vinyl siding on the house. He doesn't know if vinyl siding was back in the 30's
and 40's.
Zoning Board
November 21,2000
Page 23
•
Mr.Fleming said he thought it was metal siding and he will look at it.
Mr.Davis suggested Mr.Fleming advise his client of the questions and of fact that it is their responsibility
to furnish the Board with whatever information is needed.
Mr. Wexler said they might have done everything and were making a judgment on the information
available.
Mr.Davis said at some point the Board is going to have a record before them. Then the Board will have
to make a decision as to whether the record is sufficient to grant a variance or not.
Mr.Wexler said what he is trying to say is there can be a thing that says a two-family house wasn't
allowed,two dwellings on a lot.
After some discussion,Mr.Winick said Mr.Wexler is concerned that an applicant might not get all of the
information.
Mr.Davis reiterated that the question is whether the Board will have sufficient information to grant a
variance.
Mr.Wexler said he fords it strange that in the house he lives in,a variance was granted on the house in
1925. They literally added a second house,slapped it right on the house,and made it a two-family house.
A variance was granted in an R-10 single-family zone in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Mr.Fleming said he does know that early variances,very early on,rarely had setbacks.
Mr.Wexler said this wasn't for a setback.
Mr.Davis said he is missing his point.
Mr.Wexler said he is saying that the house he lives in was built in 1917. In 1925 they applied for a
building permit to create a 3 bedroom house attached to a big one bedroom house. A variance was sought
out and granted for a 3 bedroom house.
Mr.Davis asked if it was granted a two-family dwelling.
Mr.Wexler said yes,in 1925. In 1977 the house was sold. The family that bought the house was in the
process of converting it to a one-family house. Mr.Wexler bought the house and completed the operation.
When he had to go for a new mortgage in 1990,Mr.Wexler had to get the Certificate of Occupancy back
to a single-family house. A variance was granted.
Mr.Carpaneto said it was a little different. Maybe the zoning wasn't as sophisticated back then,saw the
dividing line going through it and said they have a house in Mamaroneck and a house in Larchmont.
Mr.Wexler said the essence of it is that it is one lot.
Mr. Winck said this is another legal question,which is they have a divided lot where the Village of
Larchmont zoning laws apply to a portion of the lot.
Mr.Carpaneto said they were issued the permit for that construction in the back. There is some kind of
a permit for that construction in the back from the Town.
Mr.Winick asked whose building lot it is. Is it the Town. He asked who defines that lot. Is it the Town,
is it Village or some other.
Zoning Board
• November 21,2000
Page 24
Mr.Carpaneto said his take would be it would be the Village,because that is where the frontage is.
Mr.Winick said that maybe no one ever considered that there were two dwellings on it.
Mr.Fleming said he did work on the front house,also came to the Town and was sent to the Village.
Mr.Carpaneto said because the Town does not have the front. •
Mr.Wexler said Mr.Fleming had a site plan.
Mr.Fleming said he had the same survey.
Mr.Davis asked what the tax records of the Town and Village show as the lot.
The Board referred to the tax map of the Town of Mamaroneck.
On a motion made by Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2430 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the
December,2000 Zoning Board meeting.
NEXT MEETING
After some discussion,the next meeting of this Board will be held on December 20,2000.
•
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion of Mr.Winck,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
albejtALUIOL
Marguetite Roma,Recording Secretary
f�
L