HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_01_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
JANUARY 27, 1999, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
J. Rene Simon
Jillian A. Martin
Arthur Wexler
Paul A. Winick
Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel
Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building
Michelle Nieto, Public Stenographer
Terranova, Kazazes &Associates, Ltd.
49 Eighth Street
New Rochelle, New York 10801
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The January 12, 1999 Board meeting minutes were not yet ready to be reviewed and approved.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2329 (adjourned 9/23/98; 10/28/98;11/24/98;1/12/99)
Application of Rick Bernstein requesting a variance to construct a railroad tie retaining wall with a 4 ft.
high chain link fence. The railroad tie retaining wall with a chain link fence as proposed has an overall
height of 9 ft. 6 in. where a maximum 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence or wall
in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 24 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Lot 310.
The applicant said his attorney is not yet present.
Mr. Gunther asked if he would like to proceed or wait for the attorney to arrive.
Mr. Bernstein said he would prefer to wait for the attorney to arrive.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2336(adjourned 11/24/98)
Application of Mr. &Mrs. Michael Mollerus requesting a variance to construct a deck at the rear of the
house and a one-car detached garage in the rear yard. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 21.2 ft.
where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); the garage as proposed has a side yard of 1.0
ft. where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(c) and a rear yard of 1.4 ft. where 5.0 ft. is
required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)(b) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 2
located at 42 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
128 Lot 136.
Michael Mollerus of 42 Hillside Road appeared, along with Frank Ambrosio, the architect.
Mr. Ambrosio said he assumes the Board reviewed the site,and submitted photographs marked exhibit#1.
He said there is already a garage in the back yard which is poor shape. The applicant would like to
relocate the new garage on the side/back yard. There is an existing driveway going to the old garage
which uses up the whole back yard area. He is trying to regenerate the yard area by moving the garage
over, relocating it on the side. At its present location it is very difficult to get into the back yard. There
currently is a two-car garage more accurately a single car garage with storage area which is located
basically close to the lot line 1 ft. on the side and 1.4 ft. in the back. The applicant would also like to
construct a rear deck onto the existing residence. The rear deck is slightly out compliance for the setback
requirement. There is a 23 ft. 9'h in. setback where a 25.0 ft. setback is required.
Mr. Winick asked the depth of the deck.
Mr. Ambrosio said the depth is 11 ft.
Mr. Wexler asked how far the existing garage is from the rear property line and if it is a two-car garage.
Mr. Ambrosio said he did not know the exact dimensions, and that it is a two-car garage.
Mr. Mollerus said it is a grandfathered use.
Mr. Wexler asked how wide the garage is, as the survey shows a smaller garage.
Mr. Ambrosio said the garage is approximately 21 ft.by 20 ft. He did not have the numbers on that,but
there are pictures on it.
Mr. Wexler said the applicant needs a variance to keep the wall farthest away from the side yard in its
position as presented.
Mr. Ambrosio said it is very difficult to get in and out at that position with the 5 ft. setback. The corner
of the house and the corner of the landing as it is positioned now makes it a difficult turn especially when
backing out. That is the reason for trying to move it over as much as possible. Mr. Ambrosio is trying
to regenerate the space, as the applicant is not using it because it is in poor shape.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.
Ms. Martin asked what Mr. Ambrosio is proposing to do with the driveway.
Mr. Ambrosio said there are paved concrete strips, but Mr. Mollerus would like to install a more normal
driveway at a future time.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Ambrosio to explain the other pictures.
Mr. Ambrosio said the pictures are of the neighbors yards to show the Board that there is parking along
the side toward the garage, and that the only way for these owners to get out their garages is to back out.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any further questions.
Ms. Martin asked if the applicant had an opportunity to discuss his plans with the neighbors.
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 3
Mr. Mollerus said he did so when the application was before the Planning Board in December of 1998,
with both neighbors, the one to the in the back yard and the one immediately to the side of the garage, and
neither voiced any objections.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There
being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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, Mr. & Mrs. Michael Mollerus have submitted an application to the Building
Inspector, together with plans to construct a deck at the rear of the house and a one-car detached garage
in the rear yard. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 21.2 ft. where 25.0 ft. is permitted pursuant
to Section 240-38B(3);the garage as proposed has a side yard of 1.0 ft.where 5.0 ft.is permitted pursuant
to Section 240-38B(2)(c) and a rear yard of 1.4 ft. where 5.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-
38B(3)(b)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Hillside Road and known
on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 136; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(3), Section 240-38B(2)(c), Section 240-38B(3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Michael Mollerus 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. In
reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. Based on personal observation of the property and testimony of the architect and
home owner, there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of
the neighborhood or significant detriment to nearby properties created. The
garage itself is aligned on the side of the house, similar to other houses in the
immediate area. The current garage is in poor condition and located in a
relatively inaccessible portion of the property, and the house is nonconforming;
B. This is the most reasonable alternative for the applicant to achieve their goals
to make a smaller garage. To set the garage within the setback requirement
would make access to the property awkward;
C. The wooden deck is not a significant or substantial variance in the setback
requirements;
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 4
D. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood,as it was stated that it is similar to other houses
in the immediate area;
E. There is no 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;
G. The variance is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in
the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood
and the health, safety and welfare of the community;
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
Mr. Gunther recalled Application No. 1, Case 2329.
Dolores Battalia of Stein&Battalia,2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont, appeared and addressed the Board.
Ms. Battalia said when they appeared at the last meeting, Board members raised issues to be corrected.
She believes the plans presented this evening do so. The engineer for the project met with the building
inspector, reviewed the elevation question raised by Mr. Wexler and will explain corrections that were
made. The application was revised at the last meeting setting the retaining wall back 20 in., placing the
fence in front of that and installing plantings, marked exhibit#1, along the entire property line facing the
Leatherstocking Trail.
Benedict Salanitro explained that the height of the retaining wall will be 4 ft. and 5 ft.
Mr. Wexler is still concerned about the height of the wall and suggested that Mr. Salanitro could have
taken an elevation shot to present to the Board showing the conditions along the rear property wall at
grade. He asked Mr. Salanitro if the wall will be completely level on top or stepped.
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 5
Mr. Salanitro said it will be slopping. If the Board understands the grade that is shown on the top and
bottom wall,the top of the wall will be slopping with the property at an angle and the last railroad tie will
be cut.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the elevations and how the wall will be constructed.
Ms. Battalia said most of the wall will be covered with the plantings.
Mr. Salanitro said the problem is rock ledge. He is trying to follow the contour of the existing property
as much as possible.
Mr. Wexler said Mr. Salanitro is trying to make a useable level piece of land on top with an irregular
terrain below which is slopping away from the side of the property to the other property. The wall is
either going to be level or stepped. If Mr. Salanitro wants to make a level piece of property from the
contours presented, the wall is going to be higher than 6 ft. at some point.
Mr. Salanitro said it would not. The grade will make it appear not sloped. One has to take the visual
impact in relationship to the existing grade and how the wall will look. It will be sloped, but with the
grade going from one corner to the other corner and the 2 ft. drop, it will actually look level.,because the
grade is not level.
A discussion ensued regarding softening the acute angle of the corner.
Ms. Battalia said if the wall was not there the plantings would be just as low and no one would see them.
Mr. Wexler said it is an unusable piece of property in that corner. It is the reluctance of Ms. Battalia's
client to try to soften this wall.
Mr. Battalia said the applicant believes it is a useable area.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from any of the Board members. There being none,
he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on motion of
Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr.Gunther, 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 4-1; Mr.
Wexler was opposed:
WHEREAS, Rick Bernstein has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with
plans to construct a railroad tie retaining wall with a 4 ft. high chain link fence. The railroad tie retaining
wall with a chain link fence as proposed has an overall height of 9 ft. 6 in. where a maximum 5 ft. is
permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence or wall in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located
at 24 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
204 Lot 310; 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 240-52A; and
WHEREAS, Rick Bernstein submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons
set forth in such application; and
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 6
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. In
reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. Having looked at the property several times and having extensively studied the
plans over a number of sessions, as the plans have been modified in the final
application, there will not be any undesirable change produced in the character
of the neighborhood and no detriment to nearby properties created by the
proposed variance. The Board has looked at several site-line surveys taken from
the Leatherstocking Trail, which is a primary feature that might be effected by
this application as it borders the property. The conclusion from observations
made with the screening, which is part of the application, is that there will be
a minimal impact on the view from the Leatherstocking Trail, and, in this case,
is not an undesirable change;
B. The applicant cannot achieve its goals via a reasonable alternative that does not
involve the necessity of an area variance, due to the topography and the need for
a play space that is safe for small children;
C. The variance is not substantial. However, if the variance were substantial, it
would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district given the plantings and the other efforts that have
been undertaken in the application to minimize the impact that might be created
by the variance;
D. There is no self-created difficulty,balancing the characteristics of the property.
It is inherent in the slope and in the rocky nature of the terrain.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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. The plantings noted on the plans submitted shall be maintained.
2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 7
3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
5. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2342
Application of Joy and Robert Greenberg requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition and deck.
The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-
37B(2)(a); a rear yard of 9.6 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 Zone District 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.
Stephen Tilly,the architect, and his colleague Ken Kurtz, the project architect from his office, of 22 Elm
Street, Dobbs Ferry appeared, along with Joy and Robert Greenberg.
Mr. Tilly said he has various boards of pictures, viewed by the other boards he has already appeared
before, for the Board to view which show the existing conditions. The only new exhibit is a copy of the
specifications being added to the record, marked exhibit#1. He stated the applicant is proposing to build
an addition. He explained that because the house runs west to east horizontally and because of the way
the property works, the rear yard looks like the side yard as it sits to the right-hand side of the front. He
pointed out the addition as proposed,which is in red, and comes out 3 ft. 11 in.behind the existing garage
and comes back to the corner of the existing bay window and squares it off. The use of the addition is to
provide informal play area directly adjacent to the kitchen. The house has two formal rooms on the ground
floor and a kitchen but does not allow kids to play on the ground floor which is important for individuals
with busy schedules who want to supervise their childrens' play. To remedy that an 11 ft. room is being
added to the outside of the existing width of the fireplace that generates the 3 ft. 11 in. offset. The open
deck is not impervious. The water moves through the open deck structure. Because of the grade work,
it will be 4 ft. off the ground. If it was 3 ft. off the ground it would be as-of-right,but the applicant is
1 ft. above that in order to maintain an even walkout from the first floor which requires the variance.
From the zoning law it should be a side yard, which it appears to be. The addition is 318 sq. ft. on the
ground floor. Steps have been taken to minimize the encroachment. The drive in front is a right-of-way
that provides access to other properties. Mr. Tilly said he has appeared before the CZMC and the Planning
Board, has tentative approval but has to go back for erosion control measures.
Mr. Winick asked Mr. Tilly to point out the kitchen, which was done and explained.
Mr. Gunther asked if the setbacks are shown on the plan.
Mr. Tilly said they are shown on the plan marked T-1.
Mr. Simon asked what happened to the deck, which Mr. Tilly addressed.
Mr. Wexler said the 10 ft. right-of-way is not a part of the property, with which Mr. Tilly agreed.
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 8
Mr. Wexler asked who owns the right-of-way, and if there is an easement.
Linda Volpano addressed the Board and said she thinks she owns the easement.
Mr. Wexler said it might change the coverage requirements.
Mr. Tilly said the property has an easement across that could belong to the other property, but that is
speculative. It is a preexisting nonconforming property.
A discussion ensued regarding rear yard setback.
Mr. Tilly said 16.8 ft. is the existing setback.
Ms. Martin asked if that is to the edge of the garage, with which Mr. Tilly agreed:
Mr. Gunther asked if the existing rear setback side line goes across the Westchester County Park
Commission.
Mr. Tilly said that is 10 ft.
Mr. Kurtz said the deck will be encroaching.
' Mr. Gunther asked at what elevation.
After some discussion, Mr. Kurtz said from 98 to 102.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Carpaneto if there is any problem that one side yard is 6.5 and the sum of the side
yards don't equal 25 ft?
Mr. Carpaneto asked Mr. Wexler to explain which way for the side yard.
Mr. Wexler said taken across the 6.5 ft. side yard and across to the front of the garage that is attached to
the house there is approximately 13 to 14 ft., if that is considered the side yard.
Mr. Kurtz said the combined side yard on the zoning chart is 25 ft. It is already nonconforming.
Mr. Carpaneto said the side yard has to do with the addition span.
Mr. Wexler said the applicant is building a new wood deck at 6.5 ft. Noted, the maximum is 15 ft.
A discussion ensued between the building inspector and Mr. Wexler regarding a side yard on one side and
the setbacks required for future reference.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.
Mr. Winick asked the dimensions of the family room.
Mr. Kurtz said it is 11 ft. wide. It is 20.6 ft. on the outside.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions. There being none,he asked if there were any other
questions or comments from the public on this application.
Rochelle Stasa of 11 West Drive appeared and addressed the Board. She pointed out to the Board where
her residence is in comparison to the Greenberg residence and pointed out the side/rear yard of the
Greenberg residence. Ms. Stasa said they had discussed the building with the Greenbergs,but had not seen
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 9
an elevation plan until last evening after returning from a trip to Florida. They did not realize the size and
character of the two-story addition.
After some discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there is a question in Ms. Stasa's mind as to why it is called
a rear yard.
Ms. Stasa said there is a question in her mind as to the loss of the space in the rear and side. When they
saw the elevation,they realized that the two-story addition is closer to them and will pose a major intrusion
into their privacy from the bedroom and bathroom. It will create an impact on the light and view of the
woods. According to the public notice, the Greenberg's already have a nonconforming building. They
are now asking to go beyond that. Ms. Stasa said she has a little terrace near that area, and it will be 9
ft. from the property which is rather close. Ms. Stasa said they welcome changes that will not infringe
upon their privacy. She asked why the addition could not be made in other side yard areas, or what is
truthfully the back of the house, not what the Board is calling the back which is definitely a side yard and
demonstrated on the plans before the Board. She said perhaps another set of plans could be offered that
would use the parts of the property that are more conforming in a less intrusive manner. Ms. Stasa
proposes that the Greenbergs submit an alternative drawing that would not impose on the property and
would offer a solution that would provide privacy for both parties to assure a more equitable situation for
all and for future home owners. She feels her property and home will lose value if the construction
proceeds as proposed. Ms. Stasa asked that the Board consider new plans and allow them time to speak
with an architect or attorney to see what can be done. Ms. Stasa said they live with the neighbors very
closely, and have to use their driveway. They don't want any animosity, but in looking at the plans
presented at the side of the house, it is right in their face. Ms. Stasa said she has photographs as well of
the space, marked exhibit 2.
Mr. Winick asked what the setback is on a common property line to the front of Ms. Stasa's house.
Ms. Stasa said there is a driveway.
After some discussion, Mr. Winick said there is 35 ft. from the common property line to the applicant.
George Stasa of 11 West Drive,Larchmont appeared and addressed the Board. The photograph shows the
existing house as it is now viewed from the common wall between the two properties. The proposed
addition which, if you match the elevation in the photograph, will propose a structure coming out
approximately 10 ft. further toward the Stasa property. It is not just adding a deck, but a two-story
structure, which they feel will intrude upon the space. The other concern is the use of the common
driveway by tradesman. They have already had occasion where the easement has been blocked by trucks
and service vehicles and need free access and egress from their house. He doesn't know what the impact
will be of a house being that close to an individual's property line from an evaluation of his own property.
He also questions a further violation of the zoning law by further encroachment, and feels some
consideration should be given. He has additional photographs of the garage taken from the wall that
divides the property, marked exhibit#3, and a photograph taken from the common driveway to the spaces
that currently exist between the two houses. On the other side is a picture taken from the tree area. The
other photograph he has shows a common driveway with the easement. With only one truck parked
inappropriately,he will be unable to get in and out of it freely.
Linda Volpano addressed the Board. She pointed out where vehicles can park to allow parking for
construction vehicles.
Mr. Wexler said there is a parcel on the assessment map on the other side of the right-of-way and asked
if it is vacant lot and did Ms. Volpano own it.
Mr. Volpano said she owns it.
Mr. Wexler said the presentation focuses on the first floor for additional family space. He did not mention
the need for the space on second-floor and asked Mr. Greenberg to elaborate on that issue.
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 10
Robert Greenberg of 17 West Drive addressed the Board. He stated his home has a master bedroom, two
bedrooms and a third room which could be used as a bedroom, but according to zoning not a full bedroom
• due to the ceiling. They are interested in adding another bedroom, to have another child, to give the child
his or her own bedroom. Adding a bedroom to their home will increase the overall value of their home.
The investment he is proposing, by the time everything is completed, will probably be in or around
$300,000.,placing the cost of his home plus the investment above a million dollars. Over a million dollars
for a three bedroom house is a difficult proposition,but adding a forth bedroom increases the value of the
home and the homes of the adjoining properties.
Mr. Wexler said there is an existing master bedroom, an existing bedroom off the hall at the entry; an
existing den, which could be a bedroom, making four habitable rooms.
Mr. Greenberg said one of the issues of the room that is the den is that the traffic line from one room to
the other has to go through that room, there is no egress and no way to build a hallway to maintain the
privacy of that room. It is used as a den and he feels it would be very difficult to make that room a
bedroom.
Mr. Tilly said the room the Board is counting as a bedroom is space over the garage which has no closet
space and it would be difficult to have a child growing up without a closet.
Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Tilly would like to respond to some of the comments made by the neighbors with
regard to the location of the addition,why it is proposed in its current location as opposed to being on the
other side of the property.
Mr. Tilly said the kind of space that a house lacks, is designed around different lifestyles. To try to add
the proposed space to the end will require considerable recasting of the house. The applicants would be
better off finding another house then trying to take the best room of the house and turning that into a
kitchen/family room and then turn a small kitchen into a living room. It will destroy the good qualities.
He understands the concerns and has minimized the square footage. If the Board looks at the underlying
zoning, it seems that these houses were built long before zoning came which created a lot of
nonconforming situations. If the Board looks at the underlying zoning this compensates for a side yard
requirement that being a 20 ft. separation between structures. In this zone it is as-of-right to have a 20
ft. separation between structures. As it so happens there is 35 ft. plus the 9 ft., leaving only 30 ft. to the
house. That is still well in excess of what the underlying zoning code requires. Mr. Tilly said they did
try to communicate with the neighbors, and are trying to do the right thing. They also want to do what
is economic and appropriate for this structure.
Mr. Gunther asked if the proposed two-story addition, family room and bedroom, can be placed in what
someone considers the rear of the property, the north drive?
•
Mr. Tilly said that would need more of a variance then what is being requested.
Mr. Gunther then asked why the room is 11 ft. wide.
Mr. Tilly said normally the minimum room size is a 12 ft. The HUD minimum property standards for
a bedroom are close to 9 ft. Mr. Tilly said he is now doing a low-income housing project and would never
consider a bedroom that is that small.
• Mr. Gunther asked if was impractical.
• Mr.Tilly said it is not only impractical,but unfumishable. They don't have the ability,given the rear yard
and the environmental issue, to run the addition heading back because of the way the house is set up. One
could take inches, but that would not dramatically change the impact.
Mr.Wexler asked given the concerns of the neighbors next door,given the location of the existing kitchen,
family room, second bedroom upstairs and looking at the side elevation, how can the impact be lessened?
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 11
Mr. Greenberg said when developing the plans,he shared the drawings with the neighbor. His wife, Joy,
actually went out with them, walked the line of where it would be. At that,time, they indicated their
blessings to proceed and made one stipulation that some trees be planted on the line between the houses.
Mr. Greenberg agreed to plant the trees either on his property or their land. Mr. Greenberg stated that
would create a visual barrier.
Mr. Wexler said in reviewing the right corner of the floor elevation, the gable wall is being brought up
as high as the house.
Mr. Greenberg said the roof line is being extended.
Mr. Wexler said if he were to pitch the gable of the upper part above the window line even moderately
as he is doing on the other side, the illusion of that structure is not looking at a vertical wall approximately
28 ft. high but more of a detail of the house, which is the lower horizontal eave line. Mr. Wexler is
looking at the visual impact. He understands the plan and configuration of the house, the need of the
applicants and how difficult it would be to try to achieve the configuration of the house on this piece of
property to achieve the applicants goals any other way. Mr. Wexler asked how the impact can now be
softened,as the benefit to the applicant is great where the impact really is on the adjoining property. Mr.
Wexler feels it can be done, to reduce the massing.
Mr. Tilly said he would have to discuss this with the applicant.
Mr. Greenberg said it will create a hardship. The master bedroom is on the other side of the house has
the roof line that impedes into the closet, limiting space.
Mr. Wexler said on drawing A-6 what is being proposed for that bedroom is a ceiling height, at the high
point,of 10 ft. 6 in. There is a vertical wall that starts at 7 ft. If the applicant were to follow up on that
line to maintain the 10 ft. 6 in. height, there is definitely very useable space.
Mr. Tilly said that can be discussed with the applicant.
Mr. Wexler said the vertical wall can be brought down to 8 ft. or 9 ft.
Ms. Stasa feels so many other things can be done in the area that is available for use without imposing,
not only on Ms. Stasa's privacy but the applicants privacy as well. Ms. Stasa's said it will be so
uncomfortable to have this structure. She did walk through,but until seeing the view she did today, she
could not imagine the actual results. Ms. Stasa said she has been in the house, there are four bedrooms.
When the house was purchased, money was given back to the Greenbergs to fix the window that was
nonconforming which made that forth bedroom a non-useable bedroom.
Joy Greenberg addressed the Board. She said concerning the side of the house, which is technically the
rear, in order to maintain privacy for both of them they are trying to move all the traffic away from that
side of the house to the back. She said they are also improving the wall, the hideous side to their house.
They are now improving that and making their view that much better by adding trim,proposing a prettier
window, moving traffic away from them because she is interested in privacy and much as they are.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked
if there were any other questions from the public on this application.
Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning which had no
comment.
Mr. Gunther proposes that the applicant may want to consider one of the suggestions that the Board made
with regard to altering the side roof line that might reduce the impact to the neighbor's side and submit a
drawing that represents that before the Board considers moving forward with the application having a sense
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 12
of understanding for the impact to the neighbor as well as the need for the applicant to find a reasonable
solution for their difficulty. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from Board members.
After some discussion among Board members, Mr. Gunther said he is suggesting that the applicant
minimize the impact of the wall which he thinks Ms. Stasa feels is a bit offensive and find a way
architecturally for the applicant to reduce the impact on that area. He does not feel there is any reasonable
alternative to move the room to the back or the other side of the house, based upon the layout as well as
of the setback requirements of the Town.
Mr. Winick said it is imperative to assess what the impact is on what the applicant wants and the impact
is on the neighbor. Mr. Winick is cognizant of fact the applicants are talking about a 30 to 35 ft. distance
between the front of the neighbor's house and the property line. Mr. Winick thinks there is another way
it could be addressed, as previously seen in the Bernstein application,and would like to know what that
will look like.
Mr. Wexler said that should be added to Mr. Gunther's request.
Mr. Gunther suggested that the architect provide another plan including the plantings on the plan as well.
Mr. Simon said he would like to have a photo of the Stasa's residence as well. •
A discussion ensued regarding the photos submitted in regard to Mr. Simon's request, as there was one
photo submitted showing same.
Mr. Gunther said this proposal will also allow Board members the opportunity to take a second look at the
property and make their own assessment as to the potential impact.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions and if Mr. Tilly needed to consultant with his client,
as he will adjourn the application to the next meeting to allow the submission of the requests of the Board.
After some discussion regarding the next meeting, the date was set for February 24, 1999 at 8:00 p.m.,
due to.a conflict of time with one of the Board members.
Ms. Stasa asked if someone can represent them at the next meeting, if they are out of town, with which
Mr. Gunther agreed.
Mr.Wexler said that while the addition is 35 ft.,plus or minus, from the neighbor's house,it is a uniquely
positioned addition to the house. The impact that the Stasa's will have, more so than anything else, will
be the windows and the light coming from them at night. Looking at the elevation, the impact is almost
minimal. The room the applicants have at the end is a nice room with large windows. Mr. Wexler
suggested that those windows be restudied, so that they won't be so large and have such an impact.
Mr. Gunther asked if a copy of the letter will be given to the applicant, which Ms. Stasa provided, with
an address as well.
On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2342 be, and hereby is,adjourned to the February
24, 1999 Zoning Board meeting for the applicant to have an opportunity to review revised plans as
requested.
Mr. Gunther asked if anyone was present for Application No. 4, Case 2343,application of Boris Chauca
requesting a use variance to reinstate the use of a two-family dwelling,which is a nonconforming use in
an SB Zone District, after the dwelling has been vacant for a period of more than one year. Occupancy
of the building in question as a two family-dwelling requires a use variance from the Zoning Board of
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 13
Appeals, pursuant to Section 240-68D, for a two-family dwelling in an SB Zone District on the premises
located at 606 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
130 Lot 533,as the applicant requested, at the beginning of this meeting, that the case be adjourned to the
next meeting.
No one was present for that case.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2344
Application of Peter Camaj requesting a variance to convert an existing pharmacy retail business into a
pizza/pasta restaurant. The proposed change of use requires 14 parking spaces,pursuant to Section 240-78,
(Off-street parking requirements) for a new use in a B Business Zone District. No spaces have been
allotted for this proposed new use on the premises located at 170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 657.
Peter Camaj, of 30 Ellsworth Street, Rye, New York appeared.
Mr. Wexler asked where the intended business will be located.
Mr. Camaj said it will be located at the previous business location of Plaza Pharmacy.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any photographs, which the secretary provided.
Mr. Camaj said his architect and attorney are not in attendance this evening, due to conflicts. Mr. Camaj
said he has been in the pizza business for 22 years. His other places of business are in the Bronx,
Manhattan, upstate New York, So. Jersey and about four years ago established a business in Rye, off of
Purchase Street. He has been looking to open another store and found a location in Larchmont. He is
before the Board to propose such a place at the above-noted location.
A discussion ensued regarding parking, which are area variances.
Mr. Carpaneto said because it is a new use, parking will have to be addressed.
Mr. Wexler asked if parking is grandfathered.
Mr. Carpaneto said there are no spaces for that use at that location.
Mr. Wexler said in the central business district of the Village of Larchmont to encourage store owners to
improve their property, they grandfathered in existing parking. If an additional 500 sq. ft. of space is
requested, one additional parking spot is needed to be provided somewhere or the applicant must request
a variance. He asked if the fourteen (14) spaces requested in this variance are for the whole space and
asked if anything had previously been grandfathered.
Ms. Gallent said it is the use that generates the parking.
The discussion continued regarding parking for the Pharmacy, the six(6)spaces required for that use and
the required spaces for the intended use, technically approximately an additional eight(8) spaces.
Mr. Camaj said Gjoko bought the three stores at this location and has three (3) parking spots. He then
proceeded to explain the parking needs for the various stores at that location. He said he is asking for
three(3)to six(6)spaces to accommodate his business. Mr. Camaj said that he studied that location for
approximately one and one-half months. In the evening, after 5:00/5:30 p.m., there are many spots open
in the street and surrounding area. Mr. Camaj said that area needs activity.
Zoning Board
January 27, 1999
Page 14
Mr. Gunther asked about the hours of the other businesses along that area.
Mr. Camaj said he believes the hours of operation are from the morning until approximately 7:00 p.m.
After that time, everything is closed except Gjoko on Friday and Saturday.
Mr. Wexler asked how many employees Mr. Camaj will have.
Mr. Camaj said approximately five(5)employees from the Bronx, who take the train. Only he will have
a car.
Mr. Wexler asked if there will be waiter service.
Mr. Camaj said there will be one waitress, his daughter.
Mr. Wexler said he doesn't think the store should be vacant. He asked how does one relieve the
imposition of parking? What options are open? The Board has the parking down from fourteen (14) to
eight(8)more spaces. If permit spaces become available, in the past the Board has requested the applicant
secure those spaces and do so every year to supply parking for himself and/or employees until the parking
requirement is fulfilled. It will be an effort to resolve the condition,as the Board knows there is a parking
deficiency. These are the options the Board can impose.
After some discussion, Mr. Wexler said parking requirements are generated by square footage.
Ms. Gallent said the Town issues parking permits. Mr. Wexler is suggesting that when a permit becomes
available for a parking space, Mr. Camaj get on the list to be able to obtain a permit for that space.
Mr. Camaj said he will do that until he has the eight (8) required spaces.
A discussion ensued regarding permit parking, whether used or not, and customer parking.
Ms. Gallent said if granted, a condition can be made that the applicant must apply to be put on a list for
available parking spaces. Ms. Gallent stated that this matter has to be referred to the CZMC, it cannot
be voted on this evening. It is also an unlisted action, and a determination of significance must be
prepared. The matter can be voted on at the next meeting.
Ms. Gallent informed those present that the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of
Planning which had no comment.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on a motion made by
Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2344 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the February
24, 1999 Zoning Board meeting at 8:00 p.m. pending response from the CZMC and whatever appropriate
documentation is needed for a negative declaration per SEQRA obligation.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 24, 1999 at 8:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
,r)141 .fit .� _
Margue 't Roma, Recording Secretary