Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_10_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 25, 2000, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick 4 Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel 4 Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building RECEIVED cp Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer 21 BOO Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. �/ 49 Eighth Street rn „. New Rochelle, New York 10801 6 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. vow Mr. Gunther said the first matter of business is a personal one and read an announcement received from Judy Gallent, the former Board attorney, announcing the birth of her son, Benjamin Gallent Metzner, on September 7, 2000. Mr. Gunther asked that the record show that the Board sends their warm congratulations. Mr. Davis said that he spoke to Ms. Gallent this evening and she sent her regards to the Board. Mr. Gunther said that the Minutes of the prior meetings will be covered at the end of the meeting. At this time, Mr. Gunther asked that the next meeting date be scheduled, as the scheduled date for the November meeting is the day before Thanksgiving. After some discussion, the November Zoning Board meeting date was set for Tuesday, November 21, 2000. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2403 (adjourned 6/28/00;8/10/00;8/23/00;9/26/00) 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. Mr. Gunther read a letter from Jane Lin, which is a part of the record, requesting an adjournment to the next meeting. Mr. Gunther said this matter will remain in the adjourned status for another month. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 2 The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2419 (adjourned 9/26/00) Application of Mr. &Mrs. B. Meighan requesting a variance to construct a rear 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 163.1. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 19.3 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto if the applicant for this matter indicated whether she wished to proceed, as this matter is also an adjourned case. Mr.Carpaneto said they are speaking about moving the location and submitting a new application for the same address next month. They are off the agenda this evening. Mr.Gunther asked if he received verbal notice,which Mr.Carpaneto verified. Mr.Carpaneto said he also spoke to the architect this afternoon. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2420 (adjourned 9/26/00) © Application of Mr.&Mrs.D.Cavanna requesting a variance to legalize an existing sun room and wood deck on the premises located at 38 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404,Lot 696. The deck and sun room to be legalized has a side yard of 5 ft. where 10 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a);and further,the deck and sun room would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Mark Mustacato,the architect for the applicant,addressed the Board. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Mustacato had pictures. The secretary said that no pictures had been submitted. Mr.Mustacato said the application is for an existing wood deck and a one-story sun room area. He said that the sun room area was originally a roofed/enclosed porch,it was completely finished and turned into a finished room. It fits within the footprint of the house. The deck is built over an existing patio and there is no increase in the nonconformity. The deck is the same essential footprint as the patio that was there. Mr.Mustacato said at the time the work was done,possibly ten years ago,the applicants were unaware that permits were required for that work. He said the property is nonconforming,as are many of the properties in that area. It is nonconforming with regard to total lot width and lot area and therefore,it is also nonconforming with regard to the setback. Mr.Mustacato said the sun room and deck are really in keeping with the neighborhood. The area is very well screened. There isn't any real-impact on any neighboring properties. These are the minimum © variances that will relieve their difficulties. He reiterated,it is a preexisting,nonconforming condition with regard where the house is sited and the width of the lot. It is not self-created. He said based on those details,this is the minimum variance that will relieve their situation. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 3 Mr.Gunther asked when the original extension was done on the house were the study and the sun room added. Mr.Mustacato said he really did not know if they were. He said the sun room was originally an enclosed porch,when Mr.&Mrs.Cavanna bought it. The other study was there. Mr.Gunther asked if the job was filed. Mr.Mustacato said turning the enclosed porch into a room was not filed,that is why it is a part of this application. Mr.Gunther said then none of this was filed. Mr.Mustacato said the deck nor the sun room were filed. Mr.Wexler said the projection on the side is a bay window,with which Mr.Mustacto agreed. Mr. Wexler asked if that is allowed,meaning that the setback figure required that he is requesting is from that bay window. Mr.Mustacato said he believes the closest point is actually the deck. Mr.Carpaneto said the deck is at 5 ft. Ms.Martin asked if the applicant is selling the house. Mr.Mustacato said it was brought to their attention a permit was needed to do this kind of work,at which time the applicant called him to do what was necessary. When they got a copy of the survey,they found out they needed a variance. Ms.Martin said it's been there for ten years. Mr.Mustacato said it has been there for at least ten years,probably fifteen. Ms.Martin asked about the neighbors. Mr.Mustacato said he believes they spoke with the neighbors,and that the neighbors had no objection. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There being none,he asked if Board members had any other questions. There were none. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.D.Cavanna have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, Q together with plans to legalize an existing sun room and wood deck on the premises located at 38 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404,Lot 696. The deck and sun room to be legalized has a side yard of 5 ft.where 10 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a);and further,the deck and sun room 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 Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 4 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 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.D.Cavanna 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. The balance is in favor of the applicant. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Given that this is a legalization of an existing condition which has been there for some time,there will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created. © B. Given the narrow lot,the applicants could not otherwise reasonably achieve their goals of having a sun room and an elevated portion of the deck without substantially depriving them of use of the outdoor portion of their property. C. The variance from the prior condition is an increase in height from the patio to the deck,which is relatively low and the variance is not substantial. • D. It does not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district for the reasons stated above. E. The difficulty here is self-created. It was the fault of construction without a permit.However,this is not determinative. 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 October 25,2000 Page 5 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.4-CASE 2421 Application of Joy and Robert Greenberg requesting a variance to legalize an existing deck(a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued due to the fact that the existing deck was inadvertently built closer to the property line than allowed by the zoning variance granted November 23,1999)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 raised wood deck as built has a side yard of 6.1 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Robert Greenberg,who resides at 19 West Drive,appeared to address the Board. He said he has been at a number of meetings covering the remodeling of his home. They are at the completion of the project. He started to go through the mechanics of getting a Certificate of Occupancy,and needed an amended,as- built,survey. When that was turned in to the Building Inspector,Ronald Carpaneto,he received a call stating that the wood deck in the back of the property by the kitchen was built 4 in.closer to the property line than they had variance permission to built it. Mr.Greenberg said this was an inadvertent outcome as Q he's gone to try to understand what happened. There is some confusion between the architect and the builder. He can't exactly explain how that 4 in.extension happened,other than it was a total oversight to him. He is present asking for a reasonable request,which is to legalize the deck and its additional porch. Ms.Martin said she is a little confused by the application dated September 18,2000 that discusses chimney and roof line. She asked what that has to do with this. Mr.Greenberg said perhaps they just took the last application when they came to the Board and added the 4 in.,and perhaps it carried with it some language of what was already approved. After some discussion,Mr.Greenberg said the only change from what the Board previously approved that he is requesting is an additional 4 in.on the wood deck. Mr.Wexler asked if 6.5 ft.was previously requested,with which Mr.Carpaneto agreed. Mr.Wexler said that the deck didn't grow. He asked if it's just 4 in.to the furthest point of the projection of the rear of the deck,with which Mr.Greenberg agreed. Mr.Wexler said it appears on the photographs there is a 3 in.overhang past the post and asked if that is where it was taken from. Mr.Greenberg said he is not a surveyor and he didn't do the work himself. Mr. Carpaneto said he also questioned that. He took it from the face of the 6 by 6's or 4 by 6's underneath the main girder,rather than the edge of the post. Mr.Carpaneto said that would have put him at 6.5 ft. To look at the deck to cut it back the way it is framed,it can't be done. Mr.Gunther asked how wide the deck is. OMr.Carpaneto said about 8 ft. Mr.Greenberg said it is about 8 ft.at the widest and it narrows,because his house comes out to maybe 31/2 ft. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 6 Mr.Simon asked about the entrance to the.deck. Mr.Greenberg said the entrance to the deck is through the kitchen. Mr.Simon asked the dimension of the deck. Mr.Greenberg said they were guessing about 8 ft. Mr.Wexler asked if the detail at the end of the deck is drawn like what was built. Mr.Greenberg said to the best of his knowledge. Mr.Wexler said there is 3'h in.of deck past the handrail. Mr.Greenberg said he doesn't really have an answer to that. Mr.Wexler said it is such a narrow deck,to throw that away is foolish. Mr.Greenberg said they ended up with a product they are satisfied with. Mr.Wexler said it appears that the deck was built above that post correctly,but below the handrail post it's projected 3 or 4 in.and it's not even useable. After further discussion regarding whether the deck was built according to dimensions on the plan above that,Mr.Greenberg said the confusion took place between the architect and the contractor. He has not been able to get a clear answer as to why what got built the way it got built,but the surveyor showed him stakes/lines,circled it and he is present to rectify it. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Joy and Robert Greenberg have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing deck(a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued due to the fact that the existing deck was inadvertently built closer to the property line than allowed by the zoning variance granted November 23,1999)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 raised wood deck as built has a side yard of 6.1 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)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 WHEREAS,Joy and Robert Greenberg submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and © has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 7 • 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. There will not be any undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties created. It is a very small change,an inadvertent change in the construction of the deck,and will have absolutely no impact on the neighborhood or nearby properties. B. There is no reasonable alternative for the applicant to amend the mistake,other than taking down part of the deck for a very minimal change to the plan at substantial expense. C. It is not a substantial variance. D. As stated several times, there will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It is an attractive structure. E. It is not a self-created difficulty. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Q 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. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2422 Application of David Lobl and Ellen Ferber requesting a variance to construct a storage shed on the premises located at 89 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116,Lot 644. The shed as proposed has a side yard of 1.5 ft.and its location is not within the rear 1/3 of the lot where a 5 ft.side yard and location within the rear 1/3 of the property is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(c)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 8 David Lobl,the applicant and resident of 89 North Chatsworth Avenue,appeared to address the Board. He said he is replacing an existing playhouse with one that is in much better condition. The current one was originally built in the late 20's when the house was constructed and said it is situated under enacted zoning laws in an improper place. The shed that is proposed is a slightly larger footprint and is actually less in height. The height of this shed is about 9 ft. The one they are looking at,by Post Woodworking, exhibit B,is 7 ft.in height,a less of a slope. Mr.Lobl said he had proposed to put it further back,which would have been in the rear one-third,but still within 18 in.of the side line. In speaking with the neighbors,Mr.Lobl invited them to participate in the decision,and they actually wanted it closer to where the existing shed is located. Therefore,Mr.Lobl moved it up to approximately start where the existing shed ends. It's just bordering the one-third area. Ms.Martin asked why that is. Mr.Lobl said the neighbors sometimes use their deck and wanted a view into the back yard. He said they could have put it farther back without a variance,but they invited the neighbors to participate. Mr.Lobl said he thinks they are away,because he didn't know the Board would want more than his declaration that he spoke with them and consulted with them. Thus,they weren't around to get a letter. Mr:Gunther said there is no requirement that an applicant get letters from other people. Mr.Lobl said he has more pictures,if the Board didn't have a chance to look at the site. Mr.Gunther asked how many feet there is between the rear of Mr.Lobl's house to the shed. Mr.Lobl said he didn't measure that distance,but thinks the rear third starts where the back of the stone BBQ pit is. He estimates from the stone BBQ pit to the rear of the house it is about 25 ft. He said in Q exhibit#3,he spoke to the Town Building'Department,to Post Woodworking and got their schematic diagram about sinking posts and putting it on gravel to make sure it is anchored properly to keep animals from burrowing underneath. Mr.Gunther why must it be 1.5 ft.from the side lot line,when 5 ft.is required. Mr.Lobl said the width of the property back there is only about 50 ft. They just didn't want it in the center of the yard,because it would ruin whatever open area they have there. It would make less available play space,etc. He said they were actually thinking of putting it further into one of the corners,because on one side of the property there is an existing garage that's on the lot line on the south side of the property. He said that 87 North Chatsworth Avenue has a driveway on one side of the house,a concrete garage in the back that has a broken window,no gutters and a hole in the roof. Mr.Gunther asked if it was looking toward the back,the rear left corner,with which Mr.Lobl agreed. Mr.Lobl said straight back there is a garage that is part of the premises on Valley. There are two other parcels which abut on the back. One of them is just wooded area,and the other has a fence that is about 51/2 ft.tall. He said he is looking at the bad side of the fence,and knows there is no regulation on that. Mr.Gunther said his question is when you have open space that is relatively flat where it can be placed, why wouldn't Mr.Lobl place it there,especially when the Zoning Ordinance states that structures such as this should be in the rear one-third of the yard. Mr.Lobl said it would ruin their open space. As there is no objection from the only adjacent property that it would actually impact,they are making an improvement because they already have an existing structure that is closer to the lot line that is in worse condition. Mr.Gunther said he is not questioning the improvement. He said Mr.Lobl is going to use 10 or 20 sq. ft.of space regardless of where it is. If Mr.Lobl pushes it into the rear third,he will have more open space closer to his home and would also comply with the zoning regulations. Mr.Lobl said his neighbor didn't want it in the rear third. His neighbor wanted it closer to the front of the house. The neighbor was actually encouraging Mr.Lobl to make it more outside of the one-third area. Mr.Lobl said he was making it closer to the lot line. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 9 Mr.Gunther said there are two issues,5 ft.and one-third. Mr.Lobl said his neighbor didn't want it in the rear one-third. He wanted it in the front. Mr.Gunther asked where the neighbor's house is located. Mr.Lobl said it is located at 91 North Chatsworth. Mr.Gunther asked if it was facing Mr.Lobl's house or was next to his house. Mr.Lobl said looking in his back yard,looking from his house to the back,it is on the right. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr.Wexler said it doesn't make sense to him why Mr.Lobl didn't want to remove the structure from the most active part of his back yard. Mr.Lobl said he did. He wanted it moved back. Mr.Wexler said if he did and wanted to move it back,why doesn't he move it back. He will not need a variance. It is as-of-right. • Mr.Lobl said they wanted to do it in consultation with their neighbors. He reiterated that they didn't want it farther back. Mr.Lobl said he didn't want it 5 ft.from the line in the rear one-third. They wanted it to the side,so they could preserve their open space in the back yard. Q Mr.Wexler said Mr.Lobl is taking a narrow lot that he has and putting a shed in the most active part of the back yard. Mr.Lobl said he is moving it from where it is,about 10 ft.back. Mr.Davis said assuming Mr.Lobl can have it within 18 in.of the lot line,he asked if Mr.Lobl would prefer to have it as he showed it or would he prefer to have it further back. He then asked if that is what Mr.Wexler was asking,with which Mr.Wexler agreed. Mr.Lobl said what is more important for him is to maintain a good relationship with the neighbors. They reached a mutual decision to put it there in consultation with them. He said if he were going to put it where he has the right to put it,within 18 in.,they would not be comfortable with that. It is sort of a compromise,because they could have come in and objected to it within 18 in.of the line,so they reached a mutual decision as to where to place this. Mr.Winick made an observation for the record that the applicant has consented in the rear one-third quadrant of this property,from Mr.Winick's observation,a swing set across basically the middle two- thirds of that lot will place the shed at the rear property line or near by it. When the Board gives that ability to use those existing structures,and he is not advocating they are going to,it would have that impact. There is also the place in front. Mr.Lobl said if they went to the back corner, there are three trees there with roots very close to the surface. If they go further to the left side where the other existing garage is,there is a tree there with roots close to the surface. In the middle of the property there is a concrete well which is closed up,but there is still a structure there plus a rather large Tulip tree which probably has a 10 ft.circumference. Those roots are also close to the surface. He said if it is being suggested that he go to the rear third and move it 5 ft.away from the line,then it will be right next to the concrete BBQ. It would be an obstacle course back there. Mr.Davis said he didn't think anyone was suggesting he move it 5 ft.from the line. They are asking how the decision was made. Mr.Lobl said they have been thinking about it for a while and reached that decision with their neighbors. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 10 Mr.Wexler said he was looking at the plot plan. It is an extra deep lot for an R-7.5 zone, 130 ft.in depth,even though it makes the square footage 7,500. The required minimum width of a lot is 75 ft. He has a 50 ft.lot,so he has a deeper lot than you normally would have in an R-7.5 zone. If he took the 100 ft.depth,which is normally not a 7.5 zone,the shed doesn't stand out. He is being penalized for having a deeper lot than normally in an R-7.5 zone. Mr.Gunther said isn't that stretching the point a little bit? Mr.Wexler said no. There are lots that are 100 ft.deep. Location is in the rear one-third of a 100 ft. lot. It's a 130 ft.deep lot,so there is more land. Mr.Gunther said that is all the more reason to put it in the rear. Since there are garages on the right and left,it can easily be placed in a location that is not visible by the neighbor on either the right or the left. Mr.Wexler said looking at the site plan in the location plan there is an open spot of land between the three houses,this applicant's,there's one to the left between the garages and in the back of those homes there is open space. This has to be able to relieve open space,because there is not a structure in the back.He said he was thinking beneficial and open space,where would it be more beneficial as open space is viewed from the homes around. It would be probably in the location that he is proposing,because the back line of the house lines up with the house on the right. Mr.Gunther said that 91 has a garage in the back. Mr.Lobl said no,91 does not have a garage in the back. No.87 has a garage in the back and 91 has a garage on the other side of the house that is a part of the structure. The other garage is from Valley Road. The yellow garage behind the BBQ pit is from Valley. © Mr.Gunther said that is obvious from No.8 Valley Road. He asked what the structure is in back of 91. Mr.Wexler said it might have been demolished:He said there are open spots of land back there. Putting another structure there might clog up that open space. Mr.Winick said there is no structure where it is depicted on the plan. Mr.Gunther reminded the Board members that one of the requirements in granting a variance is that it be the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Mr.Lobl said the only two people that can see the shed are 91 and 89. The people on Valley,there is a fence there. Mr.Lobl can's see their yard and they can't see his yard. If he put the shed where they have a right to do it,it would create more of an obstruction to open space. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED,3-2. Mr.Gunther and Mr.Simon were opposed. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,David Lobl and Ellen Ferber have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a storage shed on the premises located at 89 North Chatsworth Avenue and © known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116,Lot644. The shed as proposed has a side yard of 1.5 ft.and its location is not within the rear 1/3 of the lot where a 5 ft.side yard and location within the rear 1/3 of the property is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(c)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and Zoning Board October 25,2000 • Q • Page 11 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)(c);and WHEREAS,David Lobl and Ellen Ferber 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. In this instance, there will not be an undesirable change produced in the neighborhood,since there is a shed that already exists in the close proximity to the shed that is being proposed and the existing shed will be removed. B. There are other locations available,but those locations in the rear one-third of the yard would be a greater encroachment into the environment than the shed that presently exists and would interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighbors'properties to a greater extent and result in the loss of existing trees. © C. Given the configuration of the property of being a lot that is 130 ft.deep,given the location of the open space to the rear of this lot, the placement of the • existing structure at the far end of the lot that adjoins this house on the left and the rear,the placement of this shed in that one-third of the property,given it is a narrow lot of 50 ft.,would create a congestion in the rear of the site that does not presently exist. Keeping the shed as proposed,the house that is on the left which is deeper than the applicant's house,this shed lines up approximately with the rear of that house and leaves a reasonable amount of open space clear on the back of this lot that will adjoin open spaces to the property that it adjoins. D. Because of the unusual depth of the lot,the shed will be as far from the street as it would in the rear third of a conventionally sized lot E. Given the small size of the structure,given its relation to the side property line, given its distance from the rear lot line,it is not substantial. As stated before, it is in place of a shed that presently exits. This shed will be in approximately the same location as the shed he is going to replace and will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact, keeping it in this location will enhance the environmental conditions of the adjoining back yard. F. Since there was an existing shed, that shed was there prior to the applicant purchasing the house and the conditions that favor placing the shed within that proximity is not self-created. G. 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 Qdetrimental to the public welfare. H. 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. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 12 I. 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. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2423 Q Application of Mel and Elaine Merians requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition and to enclose an existing screened porch on the premises located at 10 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 194. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 19 ft. 10 in.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3),the front porch to be enclosed has a front yard of 32 ft.2 in.+-,where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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. Robert Keller,the architect for the project,addressed the Board. Mr.Keller said the Merians'house presently has a center hall building with a porch screened on one side and an enclosed porch on the other. There are two parts to the project. One is to enclose the present screened in porch on the left. That space is presently sitting about 8 ft.within the property setback line. It is an existing wood structure. One odd thing about the site is even though their property line is the side line,and demonstrated on the plans before the Board, there is a very nice stone wall which follows the road that is parallel more or less to the building which visually creates a much bigger depth to the yard. Visually,the setback is within what it should be,but technically it's not. On the other side,the existing enclosed porch,they are proposing to move out 10 ft.to the right into the driveway area and build another floor on top of that space. The addition to the right will have their art collection,as the Merians are avid art collectors. Their collection is presently on display. They would like to have some more.space to display their paintings. They are living,and would like to remain,in the house they have lived in for 35 years and then explained how the work will be done. Mr.Wexler asked Mr.Keller to point our the actual variances requested. Mr.Keller said they are requesting a variance to enclose the existing screened in porch,technically within a front setback. Mr.Wexler said where the front yard required is 40 ft.,with which Mr.Keller agreed. Q Mr.Keller said they have a visual setback,but technically the part being enclosed is within the front setback. • Mr.Wexler asked if the triangular piece of property in front is part of the right-of-way. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 13 Mr.Keller said he is assuming it must belong to the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr.Carpaneto said it shows it is part of the right-of-way. Mr.Keller said the wall goes around the entire lot,and you can see that the building changed. Mr.Davis said perhaps the thrust of Mr.Wexler's comments may have escaped the secretary,in light of the talking over. So the Minutes can accurately reflect the point he was making,perhaps Mr.Wexler could say it again. Mr. Wexler asked was who owns the property. It appears that it is in the right-of-way between the opposing property line on the side of that street. The road floats somewhere in between the two properties. Mr.Winick asked the overall length of the structure along Bonnie Briar Lane. Mr.Keller said he doesn't really know. The building is 25 ft. It's probably 45 ft./70 ft.long. Mr.Wexler said the new structure that's being created is only 25 ft. long,and it's not a very long structure. Mr.Keller said that's correct. It's adding about 10 ft.to the existing building. Mr.Wexler said it looks larger than it is. Mr.Winick said it''s adding a second story. Mr.Winick's only concern is that he thinks that the mass. The mass of that sheer wall will have a big visual impact. He is concerned it is somewhat out of keeping Qwith the surrounding property. Mr.Keller said most of the house in the neighborhood are probably larger than this house. Mr.Winick said they are big,but they seem to have more variation along the front. Mr.Keller said that most of the houses in the neighborhood are tudor style houses which have a different type of architecture,colonial related,a kind of flattened appearance. He said they have set the building back and intentionally not put a roof on top of the structure,to keep it low and to try to keep it not overwhelming the main mass that is in the building(the rest is inaudible). Mr.Wexler asked if there were photographs. Mr.Keller said there should be a package. The secretary checked the file and there were no photos. Mr.Gunther asked if they are black and white. Mr.Keller said they were handed in with the application. Mr.Keller said the side of the house is not very large. The addition being proposed is a third of that. Mr.Winick gave a simple scale of the addition. Looking at the picture that was given of the front of the house,by reference to the main structure,the addition is about 2 windows. Mr.Wexler asked if most of the homes conform to the 40 ft.setback,as he doesn't think so. Q Mr.Carpaneto said they look closer than that. Mr.Keller said he thinks the Merians'house is the furthest back. Most of the houses are probably about 10 ft.deep in places. The Merians probably have one of the smaller houses on the street. Mr.Wexler said in length it is deeper than the other ones,but pretty close in square footage. Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 14 Q Mr.Wexler asked if Sheldrake Drive is a paper street. Mr.Carpaneto said it appears to be. He thinks it is a privately owned right-of-way. Mr.Keller said there is one house there. Mr.Merians said it is part of the property. Mr.Keller said that the Merians have several letters from neighbors,indicating that they have no objections to their project. Mr.Gunther said letters were received in support of this application,which are a part of the record,from Sabrina Fiddelman of 12 Bonnie Briar Lane,the residents next door,another letter from Candy&Leon Gould of 7 Bonnie Briar Lane,which is across the street,Wilma R.Leinhardt of 1 Sheldrake Drive and Walter S.Bopp,stating they have no objection to the project. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. Mr.Wexler said on the survey submitted there are two parcels that make up this one parcel and asked if that is correct. Mr.Keller said he doesn't recall. • Mr.Wexler said the part that has Sheldrake Drive,there are separate metes and bounds on the survey and the dimension that's given from this house as it exists to that side property line is 22.06 ft. He asked if the piece of property that has the drive on it came with the house. © Mr.Keller said yes. Mr.Wexler said the survey is dated 1965 and asked when they purchased the house. Ms.Merians said they purchased the house in 1965. Mr.Wexler said he has never seen where they gave a dimension to a side property line that was not the side property line of the property. Mr.Wexler said it must have been two lots that were joined. Mr. Merians said it is his understanding that the driveway of the house behind them, Mr. &Mrs. Reinhardt's house,was built after Mr.Merians house was built. He said they were not the owners of the property at that time. In order for them to get arcs to the property in the back,a right-of-way was given by the old owners of Mr.Merians house so that they would share a driveway with them. In the search that was made,in order for Mr.Merians to buy the house,that information appears. That's what they have been doing for the past 35 years and the owners of the house before that. Mr.Wexler said it says there is a 25 ft.right-or-way. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA'is required. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mel and Elaine Merians have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, Q together with plans to construct a two-story addition and to enclose an existing screened porch on the premises located at 10 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 194. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 19 ft.10 in.+-where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3),the front porch to be enclosed has a front yard of 32 ft. 2 in.+-,where 40 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3);and further,the addition increases the Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 15 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(3),Section 240-38B(3),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mel and Elaine Merians 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. The balance is in favor of the applicant. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The proposed enclosure of the existing screened porch has no impact. It is an existing part of the footprint of the house. The appearance of the property will not change any way that that property is experienced from the outside. This is a neighborhood of substantial houses,most of them quite large. © B. The new conditions, while substantial, will not take this house out of the character of houses in that community. C. There will be no change in the character of the neighborhood created. It might even be more in keeping with the neighborhood,certainly no less than it is now, nor will there be a detriment to nearby properties created. The architect pointed out this evening the relative increase in the width of the property with the house as proposed. It is about 25 ft. The addition is considerably less than half of the structure. D. Given the size and shape of the lot,the applicant cannot add an addition to the side without some form of area variance. There is no alternative that does not require an area variance of some sort. E. The variance is substantial, in the sense that it allows a somewhat large structure. Given the nature of the surrounding houses,this will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood conditions. It is also not a self-created difficulty. The lot is as it has been since 1965 when the house was purchased. Nothing was done,other than to wish to have a structure more in keeping with the area. 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 October 25,2000 Page 16 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 asked if this has to go to the Planning Board. Mr.Carpaneto said yes. Mr.Gunther informed the applicant to go to the Building Department during regular hours for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: © APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2424 Application of Michael J.Moran requesting a variance to construct a windowed sun room at the rear of the house on the premises located at 23 Fenbrook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 309,Lot 11. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 33 ft.+-where 50 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(3);and further,the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District. Michael Moran appeared to address the Board. Mr.Moran said he is present on behalf of himself and his wife to a request a variance for an addition they want to put onto the rear of their bedroom. The addition will take approximately half of their deck. It will be 20 ft.by 12 ft. They are taking approximately 10 ft.by 12 ft.off the deck,to put the addition on. Mr.Wexler asked if he is lining up the rear of the addition with the edge of deck,as shown on the drawing. Mr.Moran said it's going to be a little shorter than that. They are not going as far as the end of the deck. Mr.Wexler said that the site plan shows it lining up. Mr.Moran said it's lining up with the rear of the deck,as the site plan shows. He said for the rear setback,they need 50 ft. With the addition,it is a 33 ft.setback on the property. It is a well screened in addition. There are trees to the left of the addition looking at the house,trees in the back,and to the right is another screened in breaker between them and Murdock Woods. Mr.Gunther asked if there were photographs. Mr.Moran said he submitted photographs. • The secretary said there were no photographs in the file. Mr.Wexler asked how high it will be. Zoning Board October 25,2000 • Page 17 Mr.Moran said the inside will be a 9 ft.ceiling. The peak is going to be 13 ft. It's going to go right underneath the sill of the second floor bedroom window. Mr.Wexler asked if there will be any construction. Mr.Moran said it will be 90%glass on the wall,with 2 skylights and a ceiling,stick built 2 by 6's,2 by 12 on the floor joists,and it's going to be on piers. Mr.Wexler asked if the room is to be heated. Mr.Moran said the room is to be heated off the existing zone for that bedroom. There is a separate bedroom zone and it will be connected to that zone. Mr.Wexler commented on a similar instance that happened in Scarsdale. He said this room exceeds the energy code by about 80%. Mr.Carpaneto said he will call the architect regarding Part 5 of the energy code. Mr.Wexler said what New York State started in 1979 was the New York State Energy Code to conserve energy,so that homes would be built with insulation,with minimal glass area closed up to conserve energy after the fuel crisis. In this part of state,which is the southern tier,it's 17%/18%glass area to keep to electric and insulated glass and R19 in the attic. You can put 17%glass there. In this room,add up all this glass in this area,it exceeds 17%. You have to look at the whole house and say,by a 10%glass area as an example in the whole house,and there is 100%glass area here,that's a much smaller area,does the glass area of this room as proposed and the glass area of the house equal 17%or less. If it doesn't and it's greater,you have to add insulation in the attic to offset the loss of heat through the exterior walls. It Q has to be presented to the Building Inspector. Mr:Wexler said Mr.Moran is heating this it,and that is why he asked that question. Mr.Moran said they will have low heating,energy glass and 2 by 6 partitions. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Michael J.Moran has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a windowed sun room at the rear of the house on the premises located at 23 Fenbrook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 309,Lot 11. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 33 ft.+-where 50 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(3);and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-34B(3),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Michael J. Moran submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and Q WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 18 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 review of the file and observation of the property,there will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created,particularly in light of the relatively large rear yard area. • B. There is not a reasonable alternative to construct a sun room off of the bedroom that will not involve an area variance. C. It is not a substantial variance. The odd configuration of the property,which is pie-shaped, does not allow for the construction without the granting of a variance of this nature. D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. • E. There is no self-created difficulty,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 Q 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 a building permit,during usual business hours. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 19 APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2425 Application of Thomas and Rosemary O'Brien requesting a variance to construct a new deck with a handicapped accessible ramp on the premises located at 169 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116,Lot 201. The deck and the ramp as proposed have a front yard of 10.9 ft.+-where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and further,the deck and ramp as proposed would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Larry Gordon,the architect for the project,appeared to address the Board. He said they are proposing a deck with a handicapped ramp,as Mrs.O'Brien,who is also present,is confined to a wheelchair. Mr.Gordon said the nature of the shape of the property allows them to put a deck in only one location. They wanted it close to the kitchen area. That's the only location they feel the deck can be put. For Mrs. O'Brien to use the deck,they have to put a ramp. Mr.Gordon said it's a corner property,so in effect it has two front yards. Mr.Wexler asked if it is one of the bungalow things,which Mr.Gordon verified,stating it's an arts and crafts type. Mr.Gunther asked if Mrs.O'Brien has lived in the house for a long time. Mr.Gordon asked Mrs.O'Brien how many years she has lived there. • Mrs.O'Brien said she has lived in the house since 1953. © Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members on this application. Mr.Winick said this deck looks to be more or less the minimum amount of space that you need for a person in a wheelchair. Mr.Gordon said it was kept only 7 ft.where the stairs are located,which gives them a fairly minimal space here. Mr.Winick said once the turn is made,it's the ramp. Mr.Gordon said it's all ramp after that,once the turn is made. Mr.Wexler said it,is a long ramp for a person with a disability,with a short gain. After some discussion,Mr.Gordon said if it is measured,at least one-third of the deck is ramp. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Thomas and Rosemary O'Brien have submitted an application to the Building Q Inspector,together with plans to construct a new deck with a handicapped accessible ramp on the premises located at 169 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116,Lot 201. The deck and the ramp as proposed has a front yard of 10.9 ft.+-where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and further,the deck and ramp as proposed would increase the Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 20 © 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 240-38B(1),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Thomas and Rosemary O'Brien 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. The balance is in favor of the benefit to the applicant. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on observation of the property and presentation this evening,there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties•created. The deck is quite attractive,it has a railing which is appropriate for the style of the house and is good looking. QB. The applicants cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative that doesn't require an area variance,given the ADA required for a ramp and the available yard space. C. The variance is not substantial. The deck is low to the ground. Under the circumstances the railing is to code,no higher. It will have no more of an impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district than is absolutely ne e..ary. D. It will not be adverse. E. There is really no self-created difficulty here. It is in regard to a medical problem. 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 • Q 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. • Zoning Board October 25,2000 Page 21 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • After some discussion and corrections made,on a motion made by Mr.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Martin, the amended Minutes of the June 28,2000 Zoning Board meeting were approved 3-0. Mr.Gunther and Mr.Simon abstained. On a motion made by Mr.Wexler,seconded by Ms. Martin,the Minutes of the September 26,2000 Zoning Board meeting were approved 4-0. Mr.Gunther abstained. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on Tuesday,November 21,2000. ADJOURNMENT QOn a motion and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Margu 'te Roma,Recording Secretary