HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_09_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
SEPTEMBER 26,2000,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Arthur Wexler,Acting Chairman
Jillian A.Martin
J.Rend Simon
Paul A.Winick
Absent: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman T 1
Also Present: Peter R.Paden,Counsel y'v 4 2
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building wO
CA
Barbara Terranova,Public Stenographer "1 ICT 26 21111
Terranova,Kazazes&Associates,Ltd.
49 Eighth Streettreat GP °IN
New Rochelle,New York 10801
Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary 'Gi
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman,Arthur Wexler,at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Wexler informed those present that the chairman, Thomas E. Gunther, has been detained in
Minneapolis. Therefore,Mr.Wexler will be acting as chairman.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.1-CASE 2401(adjourned 6/28/00;8/10/00;8/23/00)
Application of Pamela Washington requesting a variance to convert a garage into recreation space on the
premises located at 21 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 220,Lot 225. The conversion of the existing garage into recreation space would cause a vehicle
to park within 6 ft.of the front property line where a setback of 25.0 ft.is required for parking a vehicle
pursuant to Section 240-79B for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
Mr.Wexler asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. No one was present regarding
this application. Mr.Wexler said he will hold this matter over until later in the meeting.
Mr.Carpaneto said Ms.Washington was going to resubmit plans,but that has not been done.
After some discussion,Mr.Winick said the Board should not proceed when the applicant is not present.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2403(adjourned 6/28/00;8/10/00;8/23/00)
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
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 2
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.Wexler informed those present that it has been requested this application be postponed until the next
meeting.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2410(adjourned 8/23/00)
Application of Anilesh and Maria Ahuja requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition and in-
ground pool on the premises located at Premium Point and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 509,Lot 86. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard setback of
8.0 ft.where 35.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-33B(2),the in-ground pool as proposed has a 6
ft.setback from the principal structure where 15 ft.is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(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-50 Zone District.
Robert Keller,the architect for the project,appeared. He said he appeared at the Zoning Board last month
for this project,there were no objections,except at the time they thought there would be some hip roofs
on the building. They changed the design to be a flat roof. The Board had asked that he return with
updated elevations. He is present this evening to say that the building will be a flat roof structure,as
indicated on the revised plans.
( Mr.Wexler asked if there were any comments from the Board. There being none,he asked if there were
any comments from the audience. There being none,on motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Martin,
the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Anilesh and Maria Ahuja have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a second floor addition and in-ground pool on the premises located at
Premium Point and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 509,Lot
86. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard setback of 8.0 ft.where 35.0 ft.is required
pursuant to Section 240-33B(2),the in-ground pool as proposed has a 6 ft.setback from the principal
structure where 15 ft.is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(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-50 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 240-33B(2),Section 192-5A(1)(a),Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Anilesh and Maria Ahuja 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
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 3
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 in the back of the house with a side yard setback of
8 ft. That area is screened,and because of how the house is situated on that
section of the property there will be no impact on the adjoining property;
B. There is no reasonable alternative which wouldn't involve an area variance,
because of how the property is situated on the lot. Because of the square
footage desired, there would have to be an impingement somewhere on the
property. There is no reasonable'alternative that is less than the one being
granted by this variance;
C. The variance is not substantial. It is a second story addition on an existing
structure. To the extent that the pool has a smaller setback than the principal
structure,that is mandated by the rock condition. Adequate safeguards are in
pace to allow that short a distance;
D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood or district;
E. The difficulty is not self-created. Obviously the house is where it is on the lot
and the subsurface conditions are as found;
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.
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 4
�.i
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 application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2417
Application of Carol and David Wickham requesting a variance to construct a one-story family room
addition on the premises located at 32 Revere Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 215,Lot 469. The family room addition as proposed has a front yard of 19 ft.
where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), a side yard of 3 ft. where 8 ft. is required
pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(A);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District.
James Fleming,the architect for the project,appeared,along with Mr.&Mrs.Wickham.
Mr.Fleming said the applicants are proposing to build a one-story addition on the left side of the house
as you face it,12.5 ft.from the existing structure. The basic reason it is placed at this location is because
there is garage that is below that area as you come off Revere Road. There is a high retaining wall and
the garage is built off the street. They would like to build on top of that structure. The original garage
structure comes very close to the side property line. It is a pie-shaped lot. The owners decided to make
that area useable as habitable space,as it is off the existing enclosed porch and their living room. It will
be used as a family room. They didn't want to consider the addition in the rear,because it is a pie-shaped
lot. Mr.Fleming had photographs which show the back yard open area,submitted as exhibit#1. He said
they would like to maintain the back yard,rather than have the one protrusion come out. There aren't big
back yards and they would like to preserve it. It is very narrow toward the rear of the property. He said
they have consulted their neighbors,and there are no objections.
Mr.Fleming said it seemed that the addition would extend approximately 6 ft.from the side lot line once
he saw where the actual edge of the construction of the garage below ground was. As described in the
description it says 3 ft.,it will actually be closer to 6 ft.,and thus less of a variance is needed.
Mr.Wexler asked if the survey was off.
Mr.Fleming said it is possible,it was drawn very quickly.
Mr.Wexler said that the drawing shows it at 6 ft.
Mr.Fleming said that was discovered once he got out there and starting putting down the actual line. He
said from the preliminary information he had from the original survey that distance would have been about
3 ft.according to the survey.
Mr.Wexler asked if it was the site plan survey.
Mr.Fleming said there is a survey in the package also.
Mr.Wexler asked where did Mr.Fleming get the site plan from.
Mr.Fleming said from that survey.
Mr.Wexler said it scaled about 6 ft.
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 5
Mr.Fleming said he does not know how the discrepancy happened,but once he was out there in reality
it will be about 6 ft.
Mr.Wexler asked how to proceed.
Mr.Carpaneto said he is asking for less of a variance.
Mr.Wexler said it is noticed at 3 ft. While there is no dimension on the drawing,it scales about 6 ft.
Mr.Carpaneto said technically there isn't a problem with the notice,because they are asking for less.
Mr. Wexler said the 3 ft.would require a greater variance. The 6 ft. has a better chance of being
approved.
Ms.Martin said doesn't it have to be constructed according to the plans,at which time a discussion ensued.
Mr.Fleming said the neighbors were contacted and there are no objections to it. It would be a great
benefit for the owner to do this as proposed,rather than in the rear,so they can preserve their yard. That
is the biggest consideration on this piece of property.
Ms.Martin asked if there is any problem doing the construction over the garage.
Mr.Fleming said he couldn't see any. It would be as if it were a story below.
Mr.Wexler asked if there were any questions from the Board. There being none,he asked if there were
any questions from the public. There were none.
On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED
unanimously,4-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Carol and David Wickham have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a one-story family room addition on the premises located at 32 Revere
Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 215,Lot 469. The
family room addition as proposed has a front yard of 19 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section
240-39B(1),a side yard of 3 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(A);and further,
the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for
a residence in an R-6 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 240-39B(1),Section 240-39B(2)(A),Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Carol and David Wickham 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
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 6
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. Based on the information submitted today and upon observation of the property,
there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created. It is a small addition
to the property on top of an existing structure. Because the side yard of the
adjoining property that faces the addition is narrow,it is not used for recreation
purposes by the neighbor;
B. Given the unusual shape of the lot which has a triangular back yard, the
applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative. An addition in.
the rear would be much more burdensome for both the applicant and the
neighboring properties;
C. There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed addition;
D. The variance is not substantial. It increases the height on that side of the house.
No one will be directly affected by that;
E. For the reasons already discussed, there will be no adverse impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It is not
a self-created difficulty. The house was built quite a while ago as were most of
the houses in the area. Modern expectations for family dwellings are often no
longer satisfied by this houses of this era;
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.
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 7
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 all the applicants on the agenda were notified that the meeting was to be held this
evening.
The secretary said they all received notice.
Mr.Winick suggested the Board hear from the individuals present for application#2401,21 Briarcliff
Road. He said that application will not be ruled on this evening. He said he is sensitive to the fact that
neighbors come out. If there is something they want to say,it should be taken into the record and the
applicant can read the record and respond to it if they want to.
Howard Ives of 84 Briarcliff Road spoke. He said it was his understanding that it was a condition that the
applicant would be coming back with a set of plans. Mr.Ives said he did not feel it would be appropriate
for him to comment on the application,before the applicant presented her case.
At this point in time,the secretary said that the next Zoning Board meeting will be October 25,2000.
After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto informed Mr.Ives to call before the next meeting to check on the
status of this case.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion made by Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the Minutes of the August 10,2000 and
August 23,2000 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2418
Application of Arthur E.Gillman requesting a variance to construct a dining room addition with a covered,
screened terrace and covered entrance terrace on the premises located at 34 Pryer Manor Road and known
on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 506,Lot 244. The dining room,
screened terrace and screened entrance addition has a front yard of 16.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required
pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District.
Connie Werbin,who is working for Dr.&Mrs.Gillman,who is coordinating the work on the renovation
of the house,appeared for the applicants. She said as stated,they are doing improvements to the house
that hasn't had any improvements made since it was built in the mid'50's. She said that Dr.Gillman was
married ten days ago,and she was hired to handle the improvements. Ms.Werbin said the house doesn't
now have a dining room,and they are bumping out so it has it own space. She wanted to give them an
outdoor dining area,so they put in a small screened porch. For aesthetic reasons they extended that over
to beyond the front door,so that there would be a nice entrance to the house. They are also making some
improvements to the side entrance, the one mostly used from the driveway. It will be a much prettier
house. It is going to be closer to the street. Mr.Werbin said she does not quite understand the distances,
because when she looks at the survey although the nearest corner to the street line is only something like
34 ft.away,it actually measures out a lot more than that. She is presuming there is very large strip that
belongs to the Town,a right-of-way,which must be 15/20 ft.,because there is a lot of property in front
of this house.
Mr.Wexler said according to the survey,it shows the right-of-way to be 18 ft.from the actual side of the
house.
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 8
Ms.Werbin said she doesn't know if the Board has any problem with this. She said the other houses in
the area are much closer to the street than this particular house,and they did not anticipate any problems
with it. They feel it is going to be a big improvement.
Mr.Wexler asked if presently the dining is in the living room.
Ms.Werbin said there is a dining area that is in the middle of that long strip that consists of a kitchen area,
eating area and living area on the fireplace end of the house. The house is a front to back split level and
it is very difficult to extend it in any other direction. It can't be extended in any other direction,because
the other side of the house is two-story. If you go down to a lower level it will be useless,because when
they get a hurricane that level is flooded to between 18 in.and 2 ft. The upper level is the bedroom level.
That will remain the same.
Mr.Wexler asked if it is in the flood plain. He said all the construction being done has to meet the
requirements of the flood plain.
Ms.Werbin said yes. She said that the engineer has done a plan for the runoff.
Mr.Wexler asked how they will be doing the foundation,as they have to allow for water to penetrate and
exit.
Mr.Carpaneto said they will have to use the window openings. That is a requirement of the Surface Water
Erosion&Sediment Control application. He said these plans are for zoning purposes.
Mr.Wexler asked if there were any questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there
were any questions from the public. There were none.
On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Simon,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED
unanimously,4-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Arthur E.Gillman has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together
with plans to construct a dining room addition with a covered, screened terrace and covered entrance
terrace on the premises located at 34 Pryer Manor Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 506,Lot 244. The dining room,screened terrace and screened entrance
addition has a front yard of 16.5 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)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
WHEREAS, Arthur E. Gillman 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
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 9
ti
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 house is on a generously sized corner lot,catty-corner on that lot. It is set
quite far back from the street,including a right-of-way. The addition comes out
16 ft.in total,still leaves quite a bit of front yard and is in keeping with the
character of the neighboring houses. There would be no change in the character
of the neighborhood,nor,given the size of the lot will there be any affect at all
on nearby properties;
B. In light of the existing layout and siting of the house, these rooms cannot be
placed anywhere else that wouldn't require a variance;
C. The variance is not substantial. Given the amount of space remaining it is a
relatively small variance;
D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district;
E. Clearly,it is not a self-created difficulty. The house is in its original condition
and the proposed addition is a reprise to the existing configuration of the
structure.
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.
Zoning Board
September 26,2000
Page 10
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2419
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.Carpaneto said Mr.Meighan said he would be present this evening,but is not.
On a motion made by Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2419 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the October
25,2000 Zoning Board meeting.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2420
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.
There was no one present for this application.
On a motion made by Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2420 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the October
25,2000 Zoning Board meeting.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 25,2000.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the
meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Margu to Roma,Recording g Secretary
'