HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_11_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
NOVEMBER 28,2001,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman
Arthur Wexler
Paul A.Winick
Absent: Richard Coico
Jillian A.Martin
Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Counsel
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building
Nancy Seligson,Liaison
Denise Carbone,Public Stenographer 4
Carbone&Associates,LTD. "EC EWE
111 N.Central Park Avenue DEC 26 2001
Hartsdale,New York 10530 r„rscl,p:rr'•,
nr
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Gunther said to let the record show that the Board tonight is a little short,two members are not
present. As a result,there are only three members present. We will be happy to hear your application.
If you decide that you would rather wait until another meeting when all five members are here,we will
be happy to postpone and adjourn your application until the next meeting. We can pass a resolution with
three members present. If you wish to proceed,please let us know. We will be happy to do that.
Mr.Wexler said the vote has to be unanimous,with which Mr.Gunther agreed.
Mr.Gunther asked if there if anyone present with regard to the following application:
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2465(adjourned 9/19/01
Application of Joy and Robert Greenberg requesting a variance to install air conditioning condenser units
on the premises located at 19 West Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 40. The air conditioning condenser units as proposed have a rear yard of
6.5 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further,the condensing units increase
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10
Zone District.
There was no one present for this application.
Mr.Gunther said to make note that we do have a letter from the applicant and from an adjoining neighbor,
requesting that we postpone the application until our April meeting.
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 2
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2465 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the April24,
2002 Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Roma to please be sure to mark the calendar to advise us to put this application
back on the calendar for April. It doesn't need to appear on the calendar until that time.
Mr.Gunther asked those present if anyone was present for application#lb,case#2459b,and#1c,case
#2478,Robert Bell Associates for Jeff and Karen Berman,as listed below. He said that the applicant has
requested that we hold that application over and call it later in the evening. They have another commitment
and will be here sometime after 8:30 p.m. Mr.Gunther said we will recall the following applications later:
APPLICATION NO.lb-CASE 2459b(adjourned 9/19/01;10/24/01)
Application of Robert Bell Associates for Jeff and Karen Berman requesting a variance to legalize a two-
story addition on the premises located at 5 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 1. The addition has a rear yard of 17.8 ft.where 25 ft.is required
pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.lc-CASE 2478(adjourned 10/24/0l)
Application of Robert Bell Associates for Jeff and Karen Berman requesting a variance to legalize a two-
story addition on the premises located at 5 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 1. The covered entry and steps has a rear yard of 15.08 ft.where 25
ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the
building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2471(adjourned 10/24/01)
Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the
property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 8.5 ft.
where a maximum of 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone
District.
Mr.Gunther said we have a letter from Ann Woods requesting that the hearing of this matter be adjourned
to our next hearing date.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2471,Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods,be,and
hereby is,adjourned to the December,2001 Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Gunther asked if Stephen Standor,the next applicant is present.
Mr.Standor said yes.
Mr.Gunther asked if he was ready to proceed.
Mr.Standor said he was ready to proceed.
•
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 3
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2473(adjourned Io/24ro1)
Application of Mr.&Mrs.Stephen Standor requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck on the
premises located at 72 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 109,Lot 216. The rear wood deck as proposed has a rear yard of 14 ft.where 25 ft.is required
pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
Mr.Gunther said before we start I just want you to know that there are only three Board members present
tonight,where there are normally five Board members. We can hear your case and move forward if you'd
like. We can vote on it. As long as three people vote one way or the other,you need three votes in one
direction to be approved. If you'd like to hold the application over until next month when five members
will be here,we can do that as well. We'll do whatever you want.
Mr.Standor said it's a tough decision. If the answer is no,do I have to resubmit or it doesn't make sense?
Mr.Gunther said here are the public scenarios. If all three people vote in favor,the application passes.
If two vote in favor and one votes opposed,we don't have an action. We have to come to a conclusion,
at which point we either adjourn the application until the next meeting anyway. If three people vote against
your application,then it failed.
Mr.Standor said let's leave it for next month,I'd feel safer.
Mr. Gunther said at the applicant's request,we are adjourning application#3,case 2473,to the next
Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Wexler asked to set the next meeting date.
After some discussion,the next meeting date was set for December 19,2001.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of application of Mr.&Mrs.Stephen Standor,case#2473,
be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2477
Application of Robert and Jayne Sternbach requesting a variance to construct a new bay to existing family
room kitchen area on the premises located at 14 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map
of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 349. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 17.3
ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent
by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone
District.
Frederick Matchner,who drew the plans for this project,was present to address the Board.
Mr.Gunther said I'm sure you've heard the instructions to the prior applicant,and asked if Mr.Matchner
if he would like to proceed.
Mr.Matchner said he understands and would like to proceed.
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 4
Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Matchner could run us through the drawings.
Mr.Matchner said we're adding a bay to a small family room. It's on an addition. I'm not sure when
that addition was added,but it was already part of the nonconforming front yard setback. When we were
looking at redesigning that portion of the house, everything was so tight there that getting that small
additional floor area made a big difference in terms of how the house could be used. It's going to be a
very modest increase to the nonconformance,so we're requesting a variance for that.
Mr.Gunther said basically you have two front yards.
Mr.Matchner said it's a corner lot,so it has two front yards.
Mr.Gunther said one front on Rockland and one on Brookside.
Mr.Gunther asked if there are any questions or comments from the Board. There were none.
Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application.
There were none.
Mr.Wexler asked how did you calculate the 17 ft.3 in.? Did the computer do that?
Mr.Matchner said he was working from the information off the survey,trying to draw it accurately and
then scaling it off that point.
Mr.Wexler said,so you're confident with that measurement.
Mr.Matchner said yes,I don't know.
Mr.Wexler said the only reason I'm asking that is giving a skewed line and you're scaling it,if you built
it and then you get an as-built survey it's 17 ft.2 in.and you have to come back for another variance.
Be aware of that. When you stake out that,will the surveyors stake it out before you build it? It's a little
thing,but will save you headaches later.
Mr.Matchner said it's a little thing,but we should probably get the surveyor there to make sure he shoots
a line that we're certain of.
Mr.Gunther said if there are no further comments,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,Robert and Jayne Sternbach have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a new bay to existing family room kitchen area on the premises located
at 14 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,
Lot 349. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 17.3 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section
240-37B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant
to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-37B(1)and Section 240-69;and
• Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 5
WHEREAS,Robert and Jayne Sternbach submitted an application for a variance to this Board
for the reasons set forth in such application;and
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon;and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. The proposed bay window will be put on the side of the house at 14 Rockland
Avenue where the impact,if any,would be on the neighbor across the street.
The increase for the area is so small that there will be no change to the
character of the neighborhood or any detriment to the nearby property.
B. Given the fact that the property has two front yards, the applicants cannot
achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative which doesn't involve an area
variance. The property is currently nonconforming.
C. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood or district.
D. The design is appropriate for the structure and there is a substantial amount of
room around the side of the house,given the fact that Brookside runs in front
of the house where the addition is proposed.
E. There is no self-created difficulty. Obviously this is a function of the fact that
the lot has two front yards and this is a corner lot.
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 28,2001
Page 6
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 Mr.Matchner to see the Building Department during regular hours for a permit.
Mr.Gunther called a brief recess at 8:00 p.m.
Mr.Gunther said as soon as we can,we'll call the next application.
The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2479
Application of Robert and Pam Joyce requestinga variance to enlarge a family room and terrace on the
PP Y g Y
premises located at 68 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map P of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 117,Lot 236. The family room and terrace have a side yard of-+7 feet where 10
feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-7.5 Zone District.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any pictures in the file.
Ms.Roma said no.
Chris Powell,the architect for the project,appeared to address the Board.
Mr.Wexler said do we do a plus or minus?
Mr.Powell said he apologizes for the plus or minus. I know plus or minus was an issue last time I was
here,but I had submitted these plans prior to that meeting for this.
Mr.Wexler said,what are asking for?
Mr.Powell said what we're doing is adding a family room extension in the back. Then there is an existing
terrace that is split onto two different levels. I'm raising it up from grade about 5 ft.,at the area where
it splits and drops down to the ground. I need a variance to do that,because it exceeds the height limit
off the ground and gets too close to the property line. Also,the new extension is less than 10 ft.
Mr.Wexler said,what are you asking for in a defined amount of feet for the setback,not plus or minus?
Mr.Powell said 7 ft. I determined the 7 ft.by taking the distance that I had from the survey. The front
corner of the family room toward the street was from the property line and the distance of feet that it
moved and just came to the closest.
Mr.Wexler said and therefore you will maintain the 7 ft.
Mr.Powell said,right.
(INAUDIBLE COMMENTS)
•
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 7
Mr.Gunther said we don't know what the existing square today is,do we?
Mr.Powell said we don't know,but it is graphically within the existing boundary of the house.
After some discussion,Mr.Powell said I'm sure it's within that boundary.
Mr.Wexler said probably about 10 ft.
Mr.Powell said I did the original extension on the house,which was the kitchen on the opposite side and
that stairway falls within the confines if you were to extend that line back.
Mr.Gunther asked if there any questions from the public on this application. There were none.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, 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,Robert and Pam Joyce have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
, together with plans to enlarge a family room and terrace on the premises located at 68 North Chatsworth
Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117,Lot 236. The
family room and terrace have a side yard of-+7 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-
38B(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-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(2)(a)and Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Robert and Pam Joyce submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the
reasons set forth in such application;and
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon;and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. The addition as proposed will not create an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. The proposed
addition is in the back of the property,so it will be virtually invisible from the
street. It certainly will not have any impact on any but perhaps the adjoining
property.
•
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 8
B. This particular addition as proposed will not be a detriment to the property that
is adjacent,because of how the house is situated on the lot and the fact that the
adjoining property,the useable portion,is not directly across the property line
from where this addition is going.
C. The impact on the adjoining property will be minimal.
D. There does not appear to be a way to enlarge the space that doesn't involve
some area variance. The obvious place without encroaching on the back yard
for an addition is in this notch in the property,where this proposed addition is
slated to go. Because of the side yard restriction,any addition will require an
area variance.
E. The variance is not substantial. It's a relatively small addition and appropriate
in size for the neighborhood and the community,nor is the difficulty here self-
created. This is a fairly typical situation with changing use patterns and old
houses on small lots.
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.
Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for your permit.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
•
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 9
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2480
Application of Abe and Cynthia Sanders requesting a variance to construct a family room addition to the
rear of the building on the premises located at 135 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114,Lot 357. The addition as proposed has a side
yard of 5.4 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-7.5 Zone District.
Patricia Wilson,the architect for Remodeling Consultants,addressed the Board on this application.
Ms.Wilson said essentially we're extending the nonconforming side yard,which is 5 ft.4 in. The total
addition is 13 ft.by 25 ft. We're taking an existing family room and removing it from the second floor
of the house,since it's a raised first floor which is a heated room. We're removing that,extending it and
relocating the kitchen in it,thereby creating a larger family room.
Mr.Gunther said in looking at your plot plan,it indicates 5 ft.3 in.
Ms.Wilson said 5.3 in.,which is 5 ft.4 in.
After some discussion,Ms.Wilson said we are not changing the building line. We're retaining that exact
building line for the addition.
Mr.Gunther asked Ms.Roma if there were any pictures.
Ms.Roma said there were no pictures in the file.
Ms.Wilson said she has some pictures,which were submitted and marked exhibit 1.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr.Gunther asked that Ms.Wilson speak loud,so it can be recorded.
Ms.Wilson said we're removing this deck and this existing wall,removing this deck and stairs and adding
an extension directly across...inaudible 13 ft.,which is no further out than the deck.
Mr.Wexler said this is existing and you're filling in that space.
Ms.Wilson said with an entirely new structure.
Mr.Wexler said you're not coming out any further.
Mr.Winick said so the extension in the back yard will not be any deeper.
Ms.Wilson said any deeper than...inaudible.
Mr.Wexler said are you going to be duplicating that stone work?
Ms.Wilson said yes. There's actually no new stone work. We're using stucco and a...inaudible.
(INAUDIBLE)
Mr.Wexler said right now the existing kitchen has stones.
•
. Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 10
Ms.Wilson said that remains.
Mr.Gunther again reminded Ms.Wilson to speak up.
Mr.Wexler said you're building a second floor over the first floor.
Ms.Wilson said yes.
After some discussion about drawing 2,Mr.Gunther said page#2 of the plans submitted show the existing
as-built foundation plan and the new first floor plan from what's being added to the existing house. The
new exterior will match the existing.
Ms.Wilson said right.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none.
Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were 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,Abe and Cynthia Sanders have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a family room addition to the rear of the building on the premises located
at 135 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 114,Lot 357. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 5.4 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant
to Section 240-38B(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-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(2)(a)and Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Abe and Cynthia Sanders submitted an application for a variance to this Board for
the reasons set forth in such application;and
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon;and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. The addition as proposed is on the back of this property and principally impacts
the back yard of the property on which it's constructed. Because of its
placement,it will have virtually no impact on any surrounding property,with
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 11
the exception of 137 Chatsworth Avenue immediately adjacent. In the case of
that property,the impact will not be a detriment.
B. This addition squares off the existing structure, and it does not extend the
footprint of the building,except by an overhang of a couple of feet which is not
going to impact the neighbor in any substantial way.
C. Given the side yard restriction,there is no other place to put an addition without
impacting the back yard to an unnecessary and undesirable degree. As is a
consequence,there is no alternative which does not involve the nen csity of an
area variance.
D. The variance is not substantial. It is a relatively small addition. It's scaled to
square off the house and that was very typical.
E. Given the age of the property,the placement of the house on the lot and the side
lot restrictions,which are typical,one cannot say that the difficulty was self-
created. It's the normal problem we see on the small lots here.
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.
Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for your building permit during regular
business hours.
• Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 12
Mr.Gunther said in regard to application#1b,case 2459b,adjourned from our September and October
meeting,Robert Bell Associates for Jeff and Karen Berman,he asked counsel if he recommends the Board
deal with each one separately or should he read both of them together.
Mr.Davis said there are two separate resolutions.
Mr. Gunther proceeded to read application#1b,case 2459b,as noted herein. Mr. Gunther said this
application has been on for several meetings. We have had tremendous discussion and numerous comments
from the public on the application. As a result, at our last session the Board concluded its public
discussion portion of the meeting and moved to discussion of a draft resolution which we are now ready
to vote on.
Mr.Gunther read through the proposed resolution,which is a part of the record.
On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was proposed and adopted
unanimously,3-0.
RESOLVED,that this a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6
NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Jeffrey Berman(the"Applicant")has applied for a variance from the Town of Mamaroneck
Zoning Board of Appeals(the"Board")to legalize a rear yard addition to his home located at 5 Avon Road
(Block 208,Lot 1)(the"Property").,The house with the addition as constructed has a rear yard of 17.8
feet where a prior variance,dated December 20,2000(the"December 20 Variance"),requires a rear yard
of 19.1 feet';
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site on numerous occasions,reviewed the
application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and
several hearings thereon;and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck heard testimony from the Applicant and
neighbors residing in the vicinity of the Property regarding their views of the requested variance as
reflected in the minutes of the Board's September 19 and October 24,2001 meetings;and
WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required
pursuant to New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The benefit to the Applicant if the variance is granted will outweigh any detriment to the
health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion,the Board
considered the following factors:
A. Whether there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: The Board concludes
that the variance requested -- 14.4 inches and less than 3 square feet of
additional encroachment in the rear yard of 16,500 square foot lot beyond the
encroachment authorized in the December 20 Variance-will not produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. Based on observations of Board members,the Board concludes that
5 Avon Road is located in a Rl-5 Zone where a 25 foot rear yard is required pursuant to Town
Code Section 240-36(B)(3).
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 13
due to the irregular shape of the lot,which resembles the toe of a shoe with a
very generous front yard and no side yards,the 14.4 inches of the addition at
issue in the Application is barely visible from the street. The Board observed
that the garage obscures the view from the street of this portion of the addition.
Moreover,because of the unusual shape of the lot,what is properly designated
under the Town Code as the rear yard of the Property,abuts the side yard of the
adjoining house located 7 Avon Road. These yards appear as adjoining side
yards. The 17.8 foot distance between the house and the adjoining lot is greater
than the 10 foot minimum side yard that is required in the R-15 zoning district
in which the Property is located. Accordingly,the variance will not negatively
affect the character of the area.
Moreover,after careful consideration of the record the Board finds that the 14.4
inches of the addition for which the Variance is requested does not create a
detriment to nearby properties. Specifically,the Board was concerned about the
impact on the adjoining property located at 7 Avon Road. The record reveals
that the addition replaced a wood deck and doorway that were located within 5
feet and 15 feet of the property line, respectively. These structures were
removed to facilitate the addition. The deck was not replaced and the original
door was replaced by another door,which is located approximately 20 feet from
the property line--further from the property line than the original door. A play
set that was used in association with the deck was also removed. As a result,
there are fewer active uses in this area of the lot, and consequently, less
intrusion on the neighbors at 7 Avon Road.
The Board heard testimony from the owners of 7 Avon Road,the Westons,
contending that the 14.4 inches of the addition at issue will negatively affect
their sunlight,privacy, and solitude. No shadow or sunlight studies were
submitted to the Board to substantiate the claim that the portion of the addition
at issue here will result in undue shadow on the home at 7 Avon Road.
However,the record reveals that the 14.4 inches at issue does not involve the
ridge line of the addition,but rather the eave line,which is lower than the ridge
line. Accordingly,it appears that the portion of the addition at issue does not
have a negative impact on shadows affecting 7 Avon Road. Moreover, any
impact of the 14.4 inches on the neighbors'sunlight is de minimis because the
distance of the houses in this area,which from the plans and inspection appears
to be approximately 25 to 30 feet.
With respect to privacy,the Westons testified that the location of the rear door
of the Addition negatively affects their privacy because of its relation to their
bedroom window. However,the record reveals the distance between the new
door and the Weston's bedroom window was measured by laser to be 40 feet,
while the distance between the location of the old rear door and the Weston's
bedroom window was approximately 39 feet. More importantly,the new rear
door is at a right angle to 7 Avon Road,rather than facing it as the old rear
door did. Accordingly, the Board finds that the new rear door does not
negatively impact the privacy of the Westons'bedroom window,and,indeed,
may improve the situation.
Finally,the Westons alleged that the rear door of the house,which is contained
within the 14.4 inches at issue in this application and provides egress from the
Berman's mudroom adjacent to the kitchen,results in increased noise on their
property. Indeed, noise appears to be their primary objection to this
Application. However, the Westons presented no credible evidence of noise
levels resulting from the addition. Nor did they allege that the noise associated
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 14
i `.
with the rear door results in a Code violation or constitutes a private nuisance.
Based on the evidence in the record,the Board finds that the noise about which
the Westons complain is noise common in a residential area that is typical in a
community such as ours where properties are relatively close together. It is not
offensive noise in the sense that it is out of character with a residential
community. It is the noise produced by a family going about the business of
living in a suburban community in 2001. Moreover,the Board finds based on
personal observations and common sense that the removal of the deck and play
set,which involve people congregating and conversing,has most likely resulted
in a reduction in the noise coming from this area of the Property. The noise
associated with the new door is by contrast,transient.
The Westons requested that the variance be granted on the condition that the
Applicant remove the rear door. The Board declines this suggestion for two
reasons. First, the Board believes that although perhaps not required by the
Building Code,a direct means of egress from the kitchen is prudent for reasons
of fire safety. Second,the Applicant indicated that if the Variance were denied,
he could(without an additional variance)and would relocate the rear door about
6 inches from its current location. Accordingly,it appears that requiring the
Applicant to remove the non-conforming portion of the addition entirely or just
the rear door would do little to alleviate the Westons' concerns about noise
emanating from this area of the Property and would result in an awkward
configuration of the home at 5 Avon Road,with little if any benefit to the
Weston.
The Board finds that the construction of the proposed covered entry to the rear
door(which is the subject of a separate variance application(Case 2478)and
resolution)will mitigate the noise associated with the use of the rear door to the
extent practicable. Moreover,the Board finds that the provision of vegetative
screening--specifically,five foot tall shrubs spaced 3 feet on center running
parallel to the house from the end of the covered entry to the end of the garage,
will also mitigate the noise associated with the rear door.
Accordingly,the Board finds that the Variance will not produce an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some
feasible method,other than an area variance: The Applicant contends that
he has no feasible alternatives to the requested variance because the addition has
already been constructed. The Board rejects this reasoning because it would,
in essence, reward those who,for whatever reason, build in violation of the
Code and/or the resolutions of this Board. The Board concludes,however,that
there are no reasonable alternatives to the grant of the variance requested
because if the variance were denied and the 14.4 offending inches of the addition
removed(at a cost estimated to be approximately$10,000),the Applicant could,
and,as the testimony reveals,would,construct a rear door in the same area of
the house within the setback permitted by the December 20 Variance. As
explained above,this would result in virtually identical noise impacts. The only
thing that would be accomplished is that the portion of the addition that would
remain would be unsightly.Under these circumstances,the Board concludes that
there are no reasonable alternatives to the grant of the requested variance.
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 15
C. Whether the requested variance is substantial: In considering the
substantiality of an area variance,the Board must look not only at the variance
quantitatively,but qualitatively as well. While the variance would result in a
rear yard that is 28.8%less than the 25 feet required,as described above,its
impact is minimal. Therefor the Board fmds that the requested variance is not
substantial.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical
environmental conditions in the neighborhood: There is no evidence in the
record to suggest that the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on
physical or environmental conditions in the area. As described above, the
Westons and their attorney testified that the area of the addition in question has
an adverse impact on noise conditions. However, as explained above, they
presented no credible evidence that the type and level of noise resulting from the
construction at issue is anything other than residential noise typical of the area.
E. Whether the alletted difficulty was self-created: The difficulty that causes the
need for the requested variance was the Applicant's reliance on a 1995 survey
of the property, obtained by the Applicant's predecessor in title, that is in
conflict with a 2001 survey of the Property obtained by the Applicant. The
December 20 Variance authorized a rear yard setback of 19.1 feet. The record
reveals that the addition was built in using data from the 1995 survey to locate
the addition on the Property. After the Addition had been framed and enclosed,
the Applicant hired his own surveyor,who measured the nearest point of the
Addition to be 17.9 feet from the property line.
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.
Based on these facts,the Board concludes that the Applicant's difficulty was self-created,albeit through
no fault of his own. However,the law instructs that the self-created nature of a difficulty is not dispositive
of the Board's inquiry. The record contains no evidence of bad faith. It appears that the error was made
in good faith reliance on a certified and filed survey. Indeed,the 1995 survey has not been proven to be
wrong;it merely differs from a more recent survey. Under these circumstances the Board gives this factor
little weight in its Town Law§267-b analysis.
The Weston's attorney has asserted that the"builder's error" in this case precludes the granting of the
requested variance. The Board has been advised by counsel that this is not the law. Rather,the cases
instruct that the amount of weight to be given such an error is within the Board's discretion.
Finally,the Board notes that there was a tremendous amount of public concern expressed in this matter.
The Board received a multitude of letters and heard hours of testimony from the public both in opposition
to and in support of this Application. The Board understands and respects the strong opinions in the
immediately affected community. However,it is constrained to base its decision solely on the factors set
•
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 16
forth in Town law§267-b. It may not base its decision on the intensity of public opinion on a particular
issue,unless those opinions are germane to the Town Law§267-b factors.
For the reasons set forth above, the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals determines in
accordance with Town Law§267-b that the record demonstrates that the benefit to the Applicant from the
grant of the variances outweighs any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community.
Accordingly,the Board hereby grants the variance requested on the following conditions:
1. This variance authorizes construction shown on the plans submitted,dated November
10,2000,and no other.
2. The Applicant shall construct a covered entry as shown on the plans dated November 10,
2000,and as authorized by this Board in its resolution,dated November 28,2001 in Case
No.2478;
3. The Applicant shall provide vegetative screening consisting of five foot tall shrubs spaced
3 feet on center running parallel to the house from the end of the covered entry to the
end of the garage.
4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this
Resolution.
5. 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.
6. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
NOW THEREFOR,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of
Appeals GRANTS the Variance requested.
Mr.Gunther said now we will go on to case#2478,as noted herein.
Mr.Gunther read through the proposed resolution,which is a part of the record.
On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was proposed and adopted
unanimously,3-0.
RESOLVED,that this a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6
NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Jeffrey and Karen Berman(the"Applicants")have applied for a variance from the Town of
Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals(the"Board")to construct a covered entry and steps in the rear
yard of his their home located at 5 Avon Road(Block 208,Lot 1) (the"Property"). The proposed
construction has a rear yard of 15.08 feet where 25 feet is required for a residence in an R-15 Zone
pursuant to Town Code§240-36(B),and further,the proposed construction increases the extent by which
the building is nonconforming pursuant to§240-69;
WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site on numerous occasions,reviewed the
application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and
several hearings thereon;and
•
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 17
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck heard testimony from the Applicants and
neighbors residing in the vicinity of the Property regarding their views of the requested variance as
reflected in the minutes of the Board's September 19 and October 24,2001 meetings;and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required
pursuant to New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The benefit to the Applicant if the variance is granted will outweigh any detriment to the
health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion,the Board
considered the following factors:
A. Whether there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Before considering
this factor,the Board takes note of the context in which this application arises.
The Applicants received a variance from this Board on December 20,2000 to
construct a rear yard addition that came within 19.1 feet of the rear property
line. The Applicants have testified that they believed that the plans approved in
the December 20,2000 variance included steps providing egress from the above-
grade rear door of the addition that was shown on the plans. Alternatively,the
Applicants argued that even if they were not,no variance was required for the
steps pursuant to §240-51 of the Zoning Ordinance. In a resolution dated,
September 19,2001,the Board rejected these claims,finding that§240-51 does
not authorize steps and their platforms to project into a rear yard,but rather
authorizes them to penetrate side and front yards only. Accordingly,a variance
is required for the proposed steps.'
The Applicants propose to construct four steps that come within 15.08 feet of
the rear property line with a four foot enclosure designed to mitigate the noise
associated with the use of the back door. The Applicants also propose to
eliminate an existing window well and retaining wall to make room for the stairs
and walkway along the rear wall of the house. The enclosure will have roofing,
siding and trim to match the existing house finishes.
The Board finds that the variance requested -- four additional feet of
encroachment in the rear yard of 16,500 square foot lot beyond the
encroachment authorized in the December 20 Variance--will not produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. The additional encroachment is limited to a small portion
(approximately 30.06 square feet or.18%of a 16,500 square foot lot). Based
on observations of Board members,the Board concludes that due to the irregular
shape of the lot,which resembles the toe of a shoe with a very generous front
yard and no side yards,the steps at issue will be barely visible from both Avon
and Dundee Roads. To the extent they are visible,they are to be constructed
of materials that will match the existing house and will blend both with the
house itself and the residential character of the area.
Moreover,because of the unusual shape of the lot,what is properly designated
under the Town Code as the rear yard of the Property,abuts the side yard of the
adjoining house located 7 Avon Road. These yards appear as adjoining side
yards. The 15.08 foot distance between the house in the area of the proposed
' The Board notes that the proposed steps hug the side of the house whereas those originally
proposed in the construction drawings were oriented into the rear yard.
• Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 18
steps and the adjoining lot is greater than the 10 foot minimum side yard that is
required in the R-15 zoning district in which the Property is located.
Accordingly,the variance will not negatively affect the character of the area.
After careful consideration of the record the Board fords that the variance
requested will not create a detriment to nearby properties. Specifically,the
Board was concerned about the impact on the adjoining property located at 7
Avon Road. The record reveals that the addition to which the steps and
enclosure would provide access and the steps and enclosure themselves replaced
a wood deck and doorway that were located within 5 feet and 15 feet of the
property line, respectively. These structures were removed to facilitate the
addition. The deck was not replaced and the original door was replaced by
another door,which is located approximately 20 feet from the property line--
about 1 foot further from the property line than the original door. A play set
that was used in association with the deck was also removed. As a result,there
are fewer active uses in this area of the lot,and consequently,less intrusion on
the neighbors at 7 Avon Road.
The Board heard testimony from the owners of 7 Avon Road,the Westons,
contending that the addition and the steps at issue will negatively affect their
sunlight,privacy,and solitude. No shadow or sunlight studies were submitted
to the Board to substantiate the claim that the portion of the addition at issue
here will result in undue shadow on the home at 7 Avon Road. Moreover,any
impact of the proposed steps and enclosure on the neighbors'sunlight would be
de minimis because the distance of the houses in this area,which from the plans
and inspection appears to be approximately 25 to 30 feet.
With respect to privacy,the Westons testified that the location of the rear door
to which the steps provide access negatively affects their privacy because of its
relation to their bedroom window. First the Board notes that the rear door is
not part of this application. Second,the record reveals the distance between the
new rear door and the Weston's bedroom window was measured by laser to be
40 feet,while the distance between the location of the old rear door and the
Weston's bedroom window was approximately 39 feet. More importantly,the
new rear door is at a right angle to 7 Avon Road,rather than facing it as the old
rear door did. Accordingly,the Board finds that the steps,which provide access
to the new rear door, do not negatively impact the privacy of the Westons'
bedroom window.
Finally,the Westons alleged that the rear door of the house and their associated
steps at issue in this application results in increased noise on their property.
Indeed, noise appears to be their primary objection to this application.
However,the Westons presented no evidence of noise levels resulting from the
use of the rear door and steps. Nor did they allege that the noise associated
with the rear door and steps results in a Code violation or constitutes a private
nuisance. Based on the evidence in the record,the Board finds that the noise
about which the Westons complain is noise common in a residential area that is
typical in a community such as ours where properties are relatively close
together. It is not offensive noise in the sense that it is out of character with a
residential community. It is the noise produced by a family going about the
business of living in a suburban community in 2001. Moreover,the Board finds
based on personal observations and logic that the removal of the deck and play
set,which involve people congregating and conversing,has most likely resulted
. Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 19
in a reduction in the noise coming from this area of the Property. The noise
associated with the new door and proposed steps is by contrast,transient.
The Westons attorney asserted that the enclosure would function like a
megaphone,concentrating the noise from the use of the door and casting it out
closer to the Westons' bedroom windows than what currently exists. This
statement by an attorney who is not qualified as a noise expert was not based on
any evidence and the Board rejects it. The Board finds that the construction of
the proposed covered entry with sound attenuating insulation will mitigate the
noise associated with the use of the rear door to the extent practicable.
Moreover, the Board finds that the provision of vegetative screening --
specifically,five foot tall shrubs spaced 3 feet on center running parallel to the
house from the end of the covered entry to the end of the garage, will also
mitigate the noise associated with steps and rear door.
Accordingly,the Board finds that the grant of the variance will not produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible
method,other than an area variance: The Board has already granted a variance to
permit the rear door of the house to remain in its current location. Due to the existing
grade of the Property,the only alternative that would permit the use of the back door
without the need for a variance would be to regrade the rear yard so that the door would
open at grade,rather than several feet in the air. The Board finds that this alternative
is not feasible because it would result in an unsightly construction that would have greater
impact on the neighbors by bringing any noise associated with the use of the door and
surrounding area(to which they strongly object)closer to their second-story bedroom
window.
The Westons suggested that the Applicants construct a 16 foot enclosure from the rear
door that would enclose the walkway to a point beyond their bedroom windows.
However,this alternative would require an even greater variance and bring the houses
closer to each other than what is proposed in this Application. Accordingly,the Board
finds that the benefit sought by the Applicants-the use of the rear door to provide egress
from the mudroom adjacent to he kitchen-cannot be obtained without a variance in a
manner that mitigates the impact to the neighbors.
C. Whether the requested variance is substantial: In considering the substantiality of an
area variance, the Board must look not only at the variance quantitatively, but
qualitatively as well. While the variance would result in a rear yard that is 40%less than
the 25 feet required, this encroachment involves only 30 square feet--.18% of the
16,500 square foot lot,and as described above,its impact will be minimal and will be
mitigated by the use of sound insulation and vegetative screening. Therefor the Board
finds that the requested variance is not substantial.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical
environmental conditions in the neighborhood: There is no evidence in the record to
suggest that the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on physical or
environmental conditions in the area. As described above,the Westons and their attorney
testified that the steps and enclosure will have an adverse impact on noise conditions.
However,as explained above,they presented no credible evidence that the type and/or
level of noise resulting from the construction at issue would be anything other than
residential noise typical of the area.
[ :. -
Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 20
® E. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Due to the complicated circumstances
of this Application and those related to it(Cases 2459,2459b,2434 and 2438),it is
unclear whether the Applicant's difficulty here was self-created in the narrow sense.
However,even if it were the Board would give it little weight. The law instructs that
the self-created nature of a difficulty is not dispositive of the Board's inquiry. The
proposed steps and covered entry will have little impact and certainly less impact than
the structures that the addition and steps replaced. Under these circumstances the Board
gives this factor little weight in its Town Law§267-b analysis.
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.
For the reasons set forth above, the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals determines in
accordance with Town Law§267-b that the record demonstrates that the benefit to the Applicant from the
grant of the variances outweighs any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community.
Accordingly,the Board hereby GRANTS the variance requested on the following conditions:
•
1. This variance authorizes construction shown on the plans submitted, dated
December 20,2000,and no other.
2. The Applicant shall provide vegetative screening consisting of five foot tall
shrubs spaced 3 feet on center running parallel to the house from the end of the
covered entry to the end of the garage.
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.
NOW THEREFOR,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals
GRANTS the Variance requested.
Mr.Wexler said that condition is also covered in the prior one,so it isn't a true two plantings,it's just
one right.
Mr.Gunther said one level of screening,but the condition of the first variance is that it be there. The
condition of the second variance is that it be there,too.
Mr. Gunther said if the applicant is here, the applicant can seek a Building Permit from the Building
Department during regular business hours.
• Karen Berman said can I ask you when that will be ready,so I can have all that stuff...inaudible so we
know exactly what we need to know.
• Zoning Board
November 28,2001
Page 21
Mr.Carpaneto said give us a few days.
Mr.Gunther recognized that fact that Mr.Wexler needed to leave at this time.
(inaudible) Mr.Weston said I just have a procedural question.
Mr.Gunther asked what his question is.
Rick Weston,of 7 Avon Road,said his question is this. It's a question for the Board regarding discussion
of the second variance. You identified a number of distances,conditions and other things,yet in the
motion itself those are not specific. Should the motion be specific as to those things,or is it sufficient that
they're contained in your discussion of granting a motion?
Mr.Davis said a motion is to adopt a resolution.
Mr.Weston said so all of the conditions that are specified from the outset to the very end are included
...inaudible.
Mr.Davis said yes.
Mr.Gunther said the resolution that was passed was that the applicant is permitted to build and it is all
specifically spelled out. Nothing is vague. The exact specifications,the number of feet and inches and
all the rest of that,is all listed.
• Mr.Weston said it's all listed,perfect.
Mr.Gunther said a certified version of the resolution that I read will be available shortly,in about one
week,and you will be able to get a copy of it.
Karen Berman said I just want to get clear,when do I get the specifications and when can I start? Winter
is any day.
Mr.Carpaneto said probably in about one week,when the permit is issued.
Ms.Berman asked,do I not start doing anything,until I...(inaudible).
Mr.Carpaneto said start doing anything until all the plans are in.
Ms.Berman said so it's about a week until I have a permit,and I can't start working on moving the stairs
and stuff like that,the demo. She said there are some stairs,and she has to remove the window. She
asked if she can start to remove them.
Mr.Carpaneto said to give him a call tomorrow.
Mr.Davis said let's do this tomorrow morning. Let's adjourn the meeting.
Mr.Gunther made a suggestion that the meeting be adjourned,as this is really just a procedural issue.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Mr.Gunther informed Ms.Roma that we will have to hold over the review of previous Minutes,because
we don't have all Board members present. We don't have a quorum.
Zoning Board
/ November 28,2001
Page 22
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on December 19,2001.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Gunther adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
Marguerit Recording Secretary
•
•