Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_01_05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 5, 2000, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Absent: J. Rents Simon li IZ.e1 Also Present: Peter Paden, Esq., Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building RECEIVED Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer 1 MAR 1 2000 Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street PATRICIA A.DICIOCCiO New Rochelle, New York 10801 P�Y"a OtNR r te.V, 4.4 CALL TO ORDER 9 MO The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 8:00 p.m. 4111111, Mr. Gunther informed those present that there are only four Board members present this evening, one Board member is ill. The Board needs three members to vote for an application for an action to occur. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther informed those present that the review of the Minutes of the previous meeting will held over until the next meeting. The Chairman informed those present that the following application has been adjourned to the next meeting, January 26, 2000: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2365 (adjourned 9/23/99; 10/27/99;11/23/99) Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize the erection of an existing air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard of 7.64 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 652. The Chairman informed those present that the following application has been adjourned to the next meeting, January 26, 2000: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2375 (adjourned 11/23/99) Application of Stand Development Corporation/Steven Silverstein requesting a variance to construct a one- family dwelling. The lot on which the proposed one family dwelling is to be built upon, has a lot width of 79.12 ft. and a frontage of 97.0 ft. where 100.0 ft. is the required lot width and where 100.0 ft. is the required frontage pursuant to Section 240-36A(2) for a building lot in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 208 Mulberry Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 448. _ Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 2 52 The chairman read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2377(adjoumed 11/23/99) Application of Robert Lipkin and Susan Cohen requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition and paved parking area. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 25.97 ft.where 30.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);the off-street parking area as proposed is less than the 25 ft.required pursuant to Section 240-79B; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 181 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Lot 284. Mr.Gunther said at the last meeting the matter was adjourned to be renoticed from what was originally noticed,based upon the actual measurements of the property. Mr.Lipkin said that the application was incomplete and they needed additional time to provide additional drawings that would provide more precise measurements. The drawings have been provided. The original application included an extension for the house, which is now shown on the survey with the site's measurements. The application also included an application for a parking space, which on the initial application was off the existing driveway. However,nature has intervened. In October there was a wind storm which took down a tree in the back yard. After the last zoning board meeting they started to reconsider the placement of the parking space and realized with the tree down in the back yard and there no longer was another option because there was an existing curb cut on Glenn Road,so they removed their request for a parking space/driveway. Mr.Lipkins asked if there were any questions from the Board about the proposal. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, 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, Robert Lipkin and Susan Cohen have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-story addition and paved parking area. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 25.97 ft.where 30.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);the off- street parking area as proposed is less than the 25 ft.required pursuant to Section 240-79B;and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 181 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113,Lot 284;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 240-79B,Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Robert Lipkin and Susan Cohen 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 January 5,2000 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. Having inspected the property on two ncresions, studying the plans and specifications and hearing what has been said at the last session and this session of the Board and given the placement of the addition,the Board finds that there will not bean undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created. The addition is limited to the back of the property which is essentially screened from the neighbors and squares off the back of the house in a way that does not intrude on any of the adjoining properties,nor will the new placement of the driveway parking spot coming in off Glenn Road create any effect at all. In fact,it will be an improvement over the originally proposed parking space; B. Given the rocky terrain,there is no reasonable alternative that would not require an area variance given the size and shape of this lot; C. The variance is not substantial. It is not atypical,given the types of additions that are currently approved in this community; O D. There will not be any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. This is not a self-created difficulty. This house is old and built on a corner lot • which has certain restrictions that makes planning an addition difficult. It is the only place the addition can be. This is obviously a condition that was inherited when the property was purchased; 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: O1. 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 January 5,2000 Page 4 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 chairman read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2380(adjourned 11/23/99) Application of Jeffrey Benjamin requesting a variance to legalize a second kitchen on the premises located at 6 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126,Lot 38. Pursuant to Section 240-21A(1),the R-7.5 Zone District permits one-family dwelling units only. One- family dwellings may contain only one-dwelling unit,pursuant to Section 240-4. Jeffrey Benjamin of 6 Leafy Lane appeared to address the Board. Mr.Gunther recalled from the last meeting that a number of Board members asked for some follow-up information from the prior meetings. He asked if Mr. Benjamin had an opportunity to supply that O information. He said Mr.Wexler requested that the two non-transients come to this meeting,as the Board would like to hear from them and that as-built plans be presented. Mr. Carpaneto verified that the plans before the board accurately reflect the as-built conditions, superimposed over the plans originally approved by the Board. Mr.Benjamin said that the two non-transients are not present,because they are away due to family illness. He said he called and asked if the Board wanted to adjourn this matter this evening and they were directed to appear. Mr.Gunther said that the application is on the calendar,and the Board will proceed. He asked if there were any questions from Board members on whether to proceed or not to proceed. The Board members wanted to proceed. The court stenographer's transcript of this portion of the meeting,6 Leafy Lane,Block 126,Lot 38,is attached hereto. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law,therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously O RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2380 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the January 26,2000 Zoning Board meeting for counsel to draft an appropriate resolution for the next meeting to deny this application,based on proposed findings and Board discussion. The chairman read the next application as follows: • Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 5 APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2378 Application of Marla Delaney requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy for a one-family dwelling. The deck as it exists has a rear yard of 21.2 ft.where 25.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further,the existing lot coverage is 45.4%where 35%is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 18 Jason Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207,Lot 470. Mr.Eagelfeld of 16 Jason Lane appeared and stated that this application should be rejected based on the fact that the original site plan for this property indicates a 25 ft.minimum rear yard required setback. This person has already violated the law. He requests that the board deny this application for a Certificate of Occupancy. The gentleman currently living at that address since July has been living there without a Certificate of Occupancy. The person that currently lives there is a Mr.Delaney. Mr.Delaney does not technically own the house,he built the house and signed the ownership over to his wife in a divorce proceeding. She lives in Manhattan. He lives in the house as a life tenant,allegedly. Mr.Eagelfeld believes this application should therefore be denied. Mr.Gunther asked if Mr.Carpaneto received any notice from the applicant. Mr. Carpaneto said he had no notice from the applicant. He is surprised they are not present. After further discussion,on a motion made and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2378 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the January 26,2000 Zoning Board meeting. The chairman read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2379 Application of Eve Neuman requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.3 ft.where 10.0 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 on the premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118,Lot 300. Mike Csenge,the architect for the applicant appeared,as the applicant could not be present due to illness. Mr.Csenge explained the proposed addition attached to the rear of the property. A portion does encroach on the side yard,violating the side yard setback for which the variance is requested. The proposed addition is to expand the existing kitchen which is located in the rear corner of the house blocked with a mud room and an existing powder room to the rear. The owners are proposing to open it up a little bit and create a breakfast area in the back,thereby being able to use it from their kitchen. It is only a one-story addition. They have tried to keep the ridge line down to a minimum. The basic addition is rather small and comprises approximately 150 square feet or less, 148 new square feet of impervious surface,an increase in the impervious surface of about 2%. The property was looked at,studied and they could have prepared an additional approximately 1000 square feet with 16%more coverage without triggering the limits. They took into consideration their open space and the other neighbor's open space. Trying to be sensitive to some of those facts,the addition was scaled back and opened up the family room to their own rear yard. As a point of information,in neighboring towns the zoning codes have a provision that would let something like this be approved without a variance even though it is non-compliant. He then read from the New O Rochelle zoning code a paragraph out of their Section 23162. Mr.Csenge said that 6 ft.is a good distance to still maintain a property and get around. Mr.Csenge said he is not going past the original house which maintains the 7.3 ft.line. The other side is a little tighter at 5.6 ft.with the existing garage,and are still maintaining the legal distances to get around the property. Mr.Csenge asked if there were any questions. Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 6 Mr.Gunther asked the distance from the lot line to the next house. Mr.Csenge said he did not have a survey on that property. A discussion ensued regarding the possible footage of that distance. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any further questions from the public on this application. There being none,on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,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 Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Eve Neuman has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-story addition. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.3 ft.where 10.0 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 on the premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118,Lot 300;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),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Eve Neuman 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 fmds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on personal observation and review of the materials submitted,there is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created. The applicant is making a conservative extension of her house within the line of the side of the house as it currently exists,the minimum to achieve her goal; B. There is no reasonable alternative to increasing the space in the kitchen,given the configuration of the property and the egress from the house; Cip C. It is not a substantial variance,only increasing the coverage by approximately 2%on the property,which is an unusually long piece of property and there is plenty of open space in the back; Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 7 D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,based on observation of the property itself; E. There is no self-created difficulty. In this instance the property is already nonconforming; 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: I. 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 chairman read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2381 Application of Chris Hofstedt requesting a variance to construct a new master bedroom over an existing garage. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 13.15 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37(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-10 Zone District on the premises located at 292 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 615. Chris Hofstedt of 292 Murray Avenue appeared and addressed the Board. He explained his proposal, stating the plans do not change the footprint of the house nor increases the existing setback. oMr.Winick said that this variance was previously granted. Mr.Hofstedt said it was granted in September of'98. Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 8 Mr.Winick asked if he was back because it expired. Mr.Hofstedt said yes. Mr.Wexler said he remembers a fence. Mr.Hofstedt said there was a fence prior to this variance,a 5 ft.fence along Murray Avenue,which was not approved. There are no changes to the plan on the outside of the house,but on the inside a part of the new master bath has been reduced in size and explained how this was done. Mr.Hofstedt requested the Board extend the period to build,due to unforeseen problems. Mr.Gunther said that is no problem,to allow for an extended time to build: On motion of Mr.Gunther, 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.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Chris Hofstedt has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a new master bedroom over existing garage. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 13.15 ft.where 25.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37(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-10 Zone District on the premises located at 292 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 615;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 240-37(3),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Chris Hofstedt 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 produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood,since the structure itself is of a style that has a lot of changes in the roof. The addition will enhance the architecture of the existing building. While there is additional massing being formed over the garage in the rear of the house,because of its placement in relation to all other . properties in the area,it will not have a significant impact on them; B. The applicant cannot achieve the benefit requested in any other manner,since the house presently exists 13.15 ft.from the property line. The use that must be accommodated,another bedroom,is best built where it is presently proposed; Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 9 C. The variance is not substantial in respect to the required setback from the rear lot line. The house that presently exists is set back 13.15 ft.from the rear lot line,and this proposed addition will be no closer to the rear lot line than what presently exists. The footprint of the house will stay the same as it presently exists; D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,since the architecture that exists is in keeping • with the architecture of that specific part of the town,has a unique character to it and the proposed addition is within the vocabulary of that character; E. The difficulty is not self-created,since the house itself is set back 13.15 ft.from the rear lot line and the proposed addition follows the actual footprint of the house; 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 O 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 one(1)year of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one(1)year 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 chairman read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2382 Cr) addition. of Carlo Colaianni requesting a variance to legalize a carport and a first floor powder room addition. The existing carport to be legalized has rear yard of 4.4 ft.where 5.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)(b),the existing powder room to be legalized has a front yard of 24.8 ft.where 40.0 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(1);and further,the powder room increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the • Zoning Board January 5, 2000 Page 10 Cw. premises located at 1294 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 365. After some discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2382 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 26, 2000 Zoning Board meeting. A gentlemen from the audience said he is present for the Delancy application, Jason Lane, case #2378. Mr. Gunther informed the gentlemen that case will be called at the end of the meeting, as only neighbors made some comments. He asked if that gentlemen is representing the applicant. The gentlemen said he is the architect, but the attorney was supposed to come. He explained that the applicant is in the hospital and the attorney called to say he would appear. Mr. Gunther explained that the case will be called again at the end of the meeting. The chairman read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 9 - CASE 2383 Application of Stephen Land requesting a variance to construct an in-ground swimming pool. The in- ground pool as proposed has a rear yard setback of 15 ft. where 20 ft. is required pursuant to Section 192- 5(1)(b);and further, the pool is located within the required side yard where pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(c) this location would not be permitted in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 29 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208, Lot 546. Mr. Carpaneto informed the Board that this application has gone to the Planning Board for consideration for the Wetlands, it will then go to the CZMC and back to the Planning Board. Stephen Land of 29 Mohegan Road appeared to address the Board. He explained that the architect is out of town this week and will do his best to explain the plans. The house is situated on an almost 1/2 acre lot on Mohegan Road, and explained it is virtually on the right-hand quarter acre. He explained that the other quarter acre currently is vacant, which he would like to use for the pool. He said that the rocky outcropping is part of a steep, steep decline that comes across. It can be seen from the staircase that this is a very highly contoured property. They are trying to fit a standard-sized swimming pool within that portion of the lot that is not occupied by the existing rock outcropping, which has scenic beauty they want to preserve. They are requesting the pool be in the side yard, because there is no room whatsoever on any other side of the house for a pool. It is being placed in that particular area, given the contours of the land. He said to give the Board an idea of the neighbors, in the back there is the Leatherstocking Trail, to the left there is a similar kind of lot that also has a pool on the left-hand side of their lot that deals with a similar contour issue and received a variance a few years ago. Across there are Marshes. They are the only neighbors that have any proximity and both are supportive. The intent is that the shrubbery will be quite dense, so it will be screened from view from them. Mr. Wexler asked what type of fence is proposed. Mr. Land said the fence in back is a black chain-link fence, screened by the shrubbery. In front it will actually be nicer, probably an aluminum fence which is nicer than chain-link,coming across the front and around the side. AINW Mr. Wexler asked if it will look like a corral. Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 11 Mr.Land said he did not think so. The idea is to make it as unobtrusive as possible. He said there are neighbors on the other side that have a very visible white fence. Mr.Wexler asked if there will be post and rail and meshing on the inside. Mr.Land said that's what they had at the Hobeys. A discussion ensued regarding this issue,with Mr.Wexler expressing concern. Mr.Land said they might be able to run it through the shrubbery in some fashion. They would like to be as inconspicuous as possible. Mr.Gunther asked the issues with the variances,the 15 ft.setback in the rear. Mr.Land said it is 15 ft.rather than 20 ft. Because of the shrubbery and further declining grade,there will be no visibility from the Trail. Mr.Gunther asked about the setbacks in the front. Mr.Land said the setbacks in the front are considerable,but are hard to see on the plan. Ms.Martin asked about the pathway to the street,and will it also be fenced. Mr.Land said it is a set of boulders going down a steep decline,it will be fenced with a gate that will be a service entrance for gardeners without having to come through the front lawn. Mr.Gunther said the plans show 15 ft.to the coping from the rear of the pool to the rear line. To the front it shows 20.9 ft. He asked if the pool can be moved forward a bit to lessen the rear non- conformance. Mr.Land said it interferes with the grade. He then explained the setback and coping to the side yard. A discussion ensued regarding the size of the coping used. • Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. There being none,he asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none,on motion of Mr.Gunther,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.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Stephen Land has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct an in-ground swimming pool. The in-ground pool as proposed has a rear yard setback of 15 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(b);and further,the pool is located within the required side yard where pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(c)this location would not be permitted in an R- 15 Zone District on the premises located at 29 Mohegan Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 546;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 192-5(1)(b),Section 192-5(1)(c);and Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 12 OWHEREAS,Stephen Land 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. After viewing the site and the plans presented,the Board finds that there will not be any undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created by the addition of the swimming pool in a lovely park-like setting. It will be an improvement to the area; B. Given the configuration of this lot,its narrowness on the left,and the position of the existing house on the lot there is no other viable location for the pool; C. Given the proximity of the site to the Leatherstocking Trail,its slope and the irregular topography of the land,the variance requested is not substantial from a qualitative perspective; D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The pool as presented is sited very sensibly with respect to the environment in that the outcropping will remain and more vegetation will be planted to screen it from,and integrate in the Leatherstocking Trail; E. There is no self-created difficulty in this instance,since the applicant did not build this house on the property and it is the only appropriate site left for the pool; 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 ORESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 13 1. Mr.Land will make efforts to insure that the appearance of the fence along Mohegan Road will integrate well with the existing plantings and general appearance of the location. 2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 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 chairman read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.10-CASE 2384 O Application of Robert Petrocelli requesting a variance to construct a first floor powder room and closet addition. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.12 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further, the addition increaws the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 8 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115,Lot 590. Bill Stephanski,the architect,who lives in Chappaqua,New York,appeared to address the Board. He is present this evening to try to solve a problem for this elderly couple. The applicant needs a first floor powder room and closet addition on the first floor,which it does not have. He is using the existing structure,the family room,and is extending that toward the street. He explained the square footage to be used and said that the roof line conforms with existing shed roof of the family room. Mr.Wexler questioned drawing#3,the existing foundation,and asked if it has to go down to the soil. Mr.Land said that the existing foundation is there,they are dropping piers,at which time a discussion ensued. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none,on motion of Mr.Gunther,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. OOn motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Robert Petrocelli has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a first floor powder room and closet addition. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.12 ft.where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the addition Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 14 O increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 8 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115,Lot 590;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),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Robert Petrocelli 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. Based on personal observation of the property and review of the file,the Board finds that there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the O neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created. The addition extends only slightly beyond the front wall of the house, is not significant,does not stand out against the line of the other homes on the street and is not an uncharacteristic addition for the neighborhood; B. There is no reasonable alternative for the applicant to create a powder room and closet downstairs,which seems to be quite a necessity for the applicant; C. The variance is not substantial,but a small addition; D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It is an attractively designed addition that fits in with the house and the neighborhood; E. It is not a self-created difficulty,as it is a nonconforming house; 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 O 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 • Zoning Board January 5,2000 Page 15 O 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. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 26,2000. In reference to case#2378,the gentleman said the owner said he was planning to come this evening,but is not well enough tonight and apologized to the Board. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther and seconded,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2378 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the January 26,2000 Zoning Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded,the meeting was adjourneded jat 10:10 p.m. Margu to Roma,Recording Secretary