Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_07_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 24, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Arthur Wexler 4 i Absent: Nina Recio 4 J. Rene Simon WI. Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel 10y it William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector Judy Perrino, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, Ltd. 414 1 1 111 N. Central Park Avenue �L Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Gunther welcomed everyone to the meeting and said before the start of the official agenda he would like to extend a greeting to the Board's new counsel, Judith Gallent, of the law firm Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn &Berman, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York City. Ms. Gunther then said the review of minutes will be held at the end of the meeting along with setting the calendar. Mr. Gunther reminded the Board members and members of the public that all presenters this evening should speak up so they can be heard by the court reporter. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2234 Application of Robert/Renee Brissette requesting a variance to construct a 5 ft. fence and 3 ft. high retaining wall. The total height of the fence and wall as proposed would be 8.0 ft. where a maximum height of 5.0 ft. is allowed pursuant to Section 89-44D for a fence for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Lot 446. Robert and Renee Brissette were present along with their infant daughter, Rachel, from 42 Hillcrest Avenue, Larchmont. Mr. Brissette said there is an area in the backyard which is an unlevel, narrow piece of property. The applicant is proposing to level the property and install a patio in the backyard. To complete the patio, a fence is needed on the back line of the property. Basically for safety reasons, for their thirteen month old daughter, the applicant would like to have a fence at the back line of the property that can contain children. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 2 He passed around photographs of the existing condition. Mr. Brissette said there is a 6 ft. drop-off directly adjacent to the applicant's property and a stone slab at the bottom. If a child were to fall off of the back lot, it would fall approximately 6 ft. down to a stone slab. There are thirty plus children living on their street. The applicant is trying to maintain a safe and pleasant environment for themselves as well as the children, and feels that the increased fence height would foster such an environment. Mr. Brissette also presented letters to the Board for its review from the neighbors who would be directly impacted by the proposed construction. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Brissette to explain the pictures, which were numbered for clarification. Mr. Brissette said the photographs numbered 1 through 4 highlight the existing situation. Photograph number 3 is taken from the back of the house which shows the 6 ft. drop-off. Pictures numbered 1 and 2 show same. Picture number 2 was taken on the property behind Mr. Brissette looking at Mr. Brissette's property. Mr. Gunther asked where picture number 2 was taken from the survey before the Board, as the survey shows a garage. Mr. Gunther asked if the retaining wall is along the back wall. Mr. Brissette said there used to be a garage, and along the back wall is a stone wall about 6 ft. high. Mr. Wexler asked if the retaining wall is on the applicant's property. Mr. Brissette said it forms the back line of the property between the applicant's property and the property directly adjacent to the applicant's. 1110 Mr. Wexler then asked if the property, when it slopes off from the retaining wall, is on his property or the adjacent property. Mr. Brissette said they basically meet and form the back line. Mr. Gunther said in the drawing provided to the Board, 3 ft. railroad ties are shown, and indicated same on the drawing before the Board. He also stated that the ground slopes off and goes straight down. Mr. Gunther asked the distance to the property below. Mr. Brissette said the drop-off is basically 6 ft. Mr. Gunther then said what the applicant is proposing to do is build the wall up 3 ft. and put a 5 ft. fence on top of that. Mr. Brissette said every 4 ft. there is a fence post which reaches a maximum height of 5 ft. The bulk of the fence is 4 ft. high. Mr. Wexler said there might be a problem with the public notice on this application. The Zoning Ordinance requires the height of the fence to be measured from the adjacent property line. There is already a 6 ft. high stone wall then another 3 ft. high retaining wall. Mr. Brissette said there is no 3 ft. retaining wall. Mr. Wexler said the existing condition has a stone wall, the applicant is proposing to put up 3 ft. railroad 4410 ties on top of it and then 5 ft. of fence. Mr. Brissette said he is proposing to install soil, fill, railroad ties and basically 4 ft. of fence. Mr. Wexler said the total is much greater than what was stated in the public notice. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Kelleher said the confusion is which side of the fence a person is standing on. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther said the effective impact of the proposed fence is somewhere between 13 to 14 ft. depending upon the side from which it is measured and asked counsel if that poses a notice difficulty. Ms. Gallent said that the defect in the notice is that it doesn't accurately reflect the height of the fence as measured from the adjacent property line. Even though the notice makes clear the type of variance requested, it doesn't accurately reflect the extent of the variance required. To be on the safe side it should be renoticed. Mr. Gunther then informed the applicant that the questions asked and the answer received is part of what the Board does in reviewing an application as public notice has to be given for any requests for a variance. The Board can grant a variance that is less than what is asked for but cannot grant anything more than what is asked for. What was noticed was a 5 ft. fence on a 3 ft. retaining wall, when in fact it is really a 6 ft. retaining wall plus a 3 ft. retaining wall and a 5 ft. fence. Mr. Brissette said then the Board is counting the back wall noted in photograph number 4, which is basically part of the property. Mr. Kelleher said the only error is that it does not have to be part of the applicant's property. The wall that is there now does not have to be part of the applicant's property. If you are going to continue that height, it already has a height of approximately 6 ft. The way the code is written, existing vertical dimension must be included in the description of what it will be. The applicant is only adding the three railroad ties and the 4 ft. fence. The way it must be presented to the public is that the impact, someone standing on the other property and looking at it, is going to be the existing wall; i.e. the three(3)railroad ties and the 4 ft. fence. Mr. Brissette said he has a letter from Laura Perara and her husband who live behind the applicant who do not have a problem with the proposal. Mr. Wexler said legally the way the application was noticed if the Board were to grant a variance the applicant could only put the 3 ft. of railroad ties on top of the existing wall and do no more. There is a provision in the code for instances like this, that you have to step back retaining walls. If someone wanted to build on property up against someone else's property, the allowance is 4 ft. or 5 ft. horizontally then go up higher again. You cannot build a wall greater than 5 ft. at the edge of one's property as a retaining wall. It must be terraced. What the applicant is asking for at this time is as if there was no retaining wall at the end of the applicant's property. Mr. Brissette said then the problem is that the Board views it as continuing the stone wall. Mr. Kelleher said that is the way the code is written. A discussion followed. Mr. Wexler said it means the application has to be renoticed to the public, and the applicant must come back before the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Gunther said the August meeting will be moved to the first week in September. Mr. Brissette asked if having letters from individuals impacted has any bearing on the application. Mr. Kelleher said it doesn't change the code. Unfortunately, the application was not properly noticed. It certainly has an impact on the ultimate decision, but does not change the rules the Board must abide by. Mr. Brissette said he is not trying to change the rules. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Gallent said it is for the applicant's protection. If the Board granted a variance based on the deficient notice it would be challengeable. Mr. Brissette said he understands the challengeability,but asked who would be challenging the application. Mr. Kelleher said as an example, suppose the people that are in favor of the proposal sold their house and a new neighbor moved in, didn't like what he saw 13 ft. up in the air, went down to the Building Department and asked how it was done at which time he was told the individual was granted a variance. The individual might say let me review it, let my attorney review it and it is recognized there was a flaw in the way the notice presented the application. Mr. Brissette said then they are being penalized 60 days to the point where it is not buildable this year. Mr. Wexler said the application and drawings should have been correct, presenting the addition to what currently exists. The drawing should have an existing retaining wall and an existing grade. Mr. Brissette said he showed the papers to William Gerety the Assistant Building Inspector and they passed. Mr. Wexler said that does not relieve the Board of its responsibility to insure that the variance is correctly noticed and considered. Mr. Brissette said he is being penalized, and that it is not an oversight that he thinks he made. Mr. Brissette said he is not blaming the Board but he did the presentation carefully, step by step, asked Mr. Gerety if it was acceptable and if not would supply what is needed. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Gerety if he is obligated to go out to the site to review the applications. Mr. Gerety said the department is not obligated to go out to the site to review applications. Mr. Wexler told Mr. Brissette that Mr. Gerety is taking on face value what Mr. Brissette presented as being correct. Mr. Brissette said Mr. Gerety lived two doors down and thinks he would know. Mr. Wexler said Mr. Gerety does not live two doors down now and that is irrelevant in any event. Mr. Brissette is presenting the application to the building official, with the conditions that exist and wants a building permit. The official looks at the plans presented, reviews them and for whatever reasons taken on the information presented states the applicant needs a variance, prepares an objection, sends it to the applicant and gives remedies. The applicant chose to come for a variance. The applicant came to the Board, it was noticed as per the application that was submitted and there is a problem. The application as presented was wrong. Mr. Kelleher said that perhaps if an architect or engineer who was familiar with the building codes had been engaged by the applicant to make the plans to be presented to the Board for the variance that professional may have been familiar enough with the code to say this is the way it must be presented. Mr. Brissette said he was told he did not need a professional if he were going to put in a patio, and that fed his decision to prepare himself. Mr. Kelleher said the Board was not discussing a patio, for which a variance is not needed, but the applicant needs a variance for the fence. Mr. Kelleher said it is not a misdirection on anyone's part, but the fact is the Board has a code book which must be enforced. It is not a discretionary matter. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Brissette said the Board presents him with very little recourse other than to add a line to the drawing and come back in two months. Mr. Wexler said he would like to inform Mr. Brissette about questions he might have to prepare for. Mr. Brissette has trees on the rear property, is filling in that tree area and asked how the applicant proposes to insure that those trees survive. Mr. Brissette said the current trees are Hemlocks, which have been diseased, and Mr. Brissette plans to remove them. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Brissette planned on replanting in that area. Mr. Brissette said he had not made any plans for replanting, but can fill it in with soil and as necessary install trees and save whatever can be saved. A discussion followed regarding the planting of trees and survival of same. Mr. Wexler told Mr. Brissette that he should inform the Board about his proposed plans regarding the area of the trees, as it has an impact on the variance. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Gerety about the tree law regarding taking out trees. Mr. Gerety said the tree law applies only to lots of one-half acres or more. Mr. Gunther said on the plan that says proposed, it states 15 and asked if that represents 15 ft. Mr. Brissette said yes. Mr. Wexler asked if presently the back yard is 21 ft. in depth. Mr. Brissette said when he reapplies if he needs an architect or anyone else, please advise so no errors are made that might penalize him. Mr.Wexler informed Mr. Brissette to speak to the Building Department about the retaining wall supporting the new earth. Mr. Gunther said there is no requirement that plans must be submitted by an architect. Mr. Kelleher said the only point he was trying to make is that if someone more familiar with the building code in the Town of Mamaroneck might have been helpful to the applicant because they would have advised the applicant that it cannot be presented as 8 ft. The way the application is written it has to be presented to the public that it is actually a vertical line, when finished, of 13 ft. Mr. Brissette said he will go by any rule that the Building Department has, but he dealt with quite a few individuals in the Building Department and showed them the plans. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Brissette if he had also presented the photographs to the Building Department. Mr. Brissette said he did not present the photographs. Mr. Wexler said then how would the Building Department know there is a retaining wall. The survey presented does not give much information. Normally surveys presented show retaining walls that show conditions that occur on that property line. The survey the applicant presented to the Board shows a garage, which is not on the property, and items in the application are not facts that are existing. Mr. Kelleher said an architect that submits an application knows the codes and what is required. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 6 S Mr. Wexler said the main problem is the fact that the application is noticed wrong. Mr. Brissette said he is removing all the trees and denuding that back line of the Hemlocks and Oaks. In preparation for the next meeting Mr. Brissette asked if there is anything the Board can recommend that needs to be addressed. Mr. Wexler said the applicant should think about what is going to be put back in that area. Mr. Brissette said basically soil and grass. Mr. Wexler said there might be a problem getting approval, unless the applicant is prepared to answer these questions. Mr. Kelleher said usually in most cases that involve the removal of shrubbery, trees or greenery, it would be helpful to say the diseased Hemlocks are being removed but rhododendron or something else is going to be installed in its place. Mr. Brissette said he could not specifically list the plants, but naturally will install some plants to soften the area. Mr. Wexler said the wall proposed is 14 ft. in height, which is a very high barrier on the property line. Mr. Brissette said if Mr. Wexler saw the backyard, there is a stone slab and something is needed. Mr. Wexler indicated that he had made a site visit. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, Mr. Gunther said the application needs to be renoticed. Ms. Gallent said the application should be resubmitted and renoticed as corrected. Mr. Gunther asked about the time period regarding the resubmission. Mr. Gerety said due to the extenuating circumstances, the application will automatically be put on the next agenda as the first case and advised Mr. Brissette to give him a call in the morning to discuss same. Ms. Gallent said the case can be adjourned and it will be renoticed. It might be cleaner if the applicant would withdraw the current application and it will be renoticed as a new application. Mr. Brissette requested the application as presented be withdrawn. Mr. Gunther said the next meeting of the Zoning Board will be September 4, 1996 in place of the August meeting which will not be held, and then September 25, 1996. At this point in time Mr. Gunther said before the next case is read to make notice that the application of Frank and Antoinette Auricchio for a proposed vehicle storage yard, a use variance at 5 Fifth Avenue, has been withdrawn by the applicant. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2235 Application of John Fraioli requesting a variance to maintain an altered pantry with a side yard of 6.8 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a); the total side yard is 18.1 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b); and further, the addition increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 7 premises located at 85 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127 Lot 313. Mr. Gunther said before the applicant proceeds, he wanted to remind the applicant and any other applicants present that only three of the five Board members are present tonight. Accordingly, in order to pass, a motion must have the unanimous support of the Board. The Board can hear the case or the case can be held over until the next meeting at the applicant's request. Mr. Fraioli, the applicant, appeared and said the house was purchased in 1970 as is; i.e. an attic finished off, a bathroom in the basement and the pantry that is an issue now. The pantry is no closer to the building line than it was in 1927. Mr. Fraioli said there were three letters in the file from neighbors that predate the existing structure. The 2 ft. addition is existing,which is one of one the reasons the house was purchased because of additional room in the kitchen. Mr. Fraioli is in the process of refinancing and the bank has informed the applicant a Certificate of Occupancy is needed. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Fraioli if the variance is for the little tiny square on the property. Mr. Fraioli said that was correct. The kitchen is so small that if the pantry had to be removed, it would take away from the percentage of kitchen space as there is not much storage space. A discussion ensued regarding the plans. Mr. Gunther asked when the addition occurred. Mr. Fraioli said the house was built in 1929. He purchased it in 1970 and does not know the exact date of the addition. He explained the pictures in the file. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John Fraioli has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to maintain an altered pantry with a side yard of 6.8 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a); the total side yard is 18.1 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89- 34B(2)(b); and further, the addition increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 85 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127 Lot 313; 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 89-34B(2)(a), Section 89-34B(2)(b), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, John Fraioli 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 July 24, 1996 Page 8 WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The construction of the house predates the adoption of the zoning code. 2. The applicant purchased the house with the existing pantry in the 1970's. 3. It is only for the purpose of obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy to satisfy a mortgage lender that the variance is necessary. No changes to the structure are proposed. 4. The addition is no closer to the side property line than the house existed prior to the building of the addition. 5. The applicant submitted a petition and a number of letters from the Fraioli's neighbors in support of the application. 6. 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. 7. The variance is the minimum 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. 8. 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 is granted solely for the plans presented to the Board in connection with this application. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Wexler questioned the procedure now followed in granting a variance, due to the new laws adopted by the Town of Mamaroneck. Ms. Gallent said when a case is a Type II action there is no need to declare Lead Agency status,but it still has to be determined what kind of action it is under SEQRA, which will now be the procedure followed. Mr. Fraioli asked if there is a grandfather clause in the Town of Mamaroneck, because there is a bathroom in the basement which may have to be removed. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Gunther said Mr. Fraioli should ask the Building Inspector, which Mr. Fraioli said he would do. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2236 Application of Terrence P. O'Keefe requesting a variance to construct a 2 story addition with a front yard of 22.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(1); the side yard would be 3.9 ft. where 10.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a);and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 82 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 1. Mr. Wexler asked if this application is different than the application submitted and the variance granted in 1994. Mr. McWilliams said the application is the same. Mr. Wexler said Mr. Gunther should then inform the applicant there are only three members present and in order for a vote to carry it must be a majority vote. Mr. Gunther said as a reminder as he had mentioned earlier there are only three members present and a decision must be unanimous. If only two people vote in favor of an action, it does not carry. The Board can proceed with the application or hold it over until the next meeting. Gregory McWilliams, 317 Elwood Avenue, Hawthorne, NY 10532, the architect and Terrence O'Keefe, 82 Murray Avenue, Larchmont appeared. Mr. McWilliams said Mr. O'Keefe would like to proceed. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant had any pictures. Mr. McWilliams said yes, and presented the pictures to the Board for their perusal. Mr. McWilliams said the applicant had presented the same application to the Board in September of 1994 and was granted a variance. Due to personal circumstances, Mr. O'Keefe was not able to proceed with the addition and construction. The time limit ran out, and the applicant is again before the Board to secure the same variance. Mr. McWilliams said the property is a corner lot with an existing house that is presently jammed up against one side lot line which is approximately 3 ft. 10 in. from the property line where 10 ft. is required. The property which is approximately 11,000 sq. ft. is in an R-7.5 residential zone. The applicant is proposing an extension at the back of the house, an extension of an existing porch on the front of the house and a two story addition on the portion of the side where no variance is required. A variance is needed for the front yard to extend the porch, as 30 ft. is required and the applicant has approximately 22 ft. On the side yard the applicant is not getting any closer, but the fact that the house is less than 4 ft. from the property line the applicant is adding on to the back actually increasing the distance as the applicant proceeds out. The proposal is a two story addition, adding bedrooms and a living room as the applicant is cramped for space. Due to family considerations and children, the applicant would like to add a bedroom upstairs, a bathroom and living space on the first floor with an expanded kitchen and dining area. The total addition is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,100 to 1,200 sq. ft. The sketch the Board has before them the applicant thinks is an improvement to the house, the design is sensitive to the house, the house is very visible from the corner of Murray Avenue and Mr. McWilliams feels it is a worthwhile addition. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. McWilliams had studied alternatives without requiring the building to be closer to the front yard setback than it presently is. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 10 Mr. McWilliams said basically with angles coming off the front porch. The front porch right now is 25 ft. from the property line. To get a balance to the front elevation of the house instead of having an askew angle of 22 or 27 degrees whatever, the applicant finds it appropriate by squaring off in front. It is an open porch. The existing porch presently is enclosed with jalousie windows. The applicant proposes to remove the jalousie windows and extend porch. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. McWilliams has looked at alternatives not requiring a variance. Mr. McWilliams said it is physically possible, but the aesthetics is the primary concern. Mr. Kelleher said if the same sized lot were not constrained by the fact that the applicant is on a corner, the applicant probably would not require a variance. Mr. McWilliams said the applicant actually would, because the one side yard is slightly less than 4 ft. Mr. Kelleher asked if Mr. O'Keefe had a chance to discuss the plans with the neighbors. Mr. O'Keefe said yes, they are all fully supportive. Mr. Wexler said the front elevation indicates a line, and demonstrated on the rendering before the Board, which would indicate an angle on the porch. Mr. McWilliams said that is correct. The applicant is going to hit down the roof at that point. Mr. Wexler then asked what the line represented on the drawing, again demonstrating on the rendering before the Board. Mr. McWilliams said the line should not be there. Mr. Wexler said if that line was there, the applicant would not need a variance and the applicant would be no closer to the front line as presently exists. A discussion followed. Mr. Wexler said then the elevation in that area is not correct. Mr. McWilliams said there is an extra line drawn on the plan. Mr. Wexler said if this case is a non-action, does that mean the case is voted on again, or does it close the case. Last time the case was presented there were four in favor and one against, Mr. Wexler being that individual. The applicant has not changed the application. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Gunther to explain a majority vote was needed for approval. At this point, there is no reason for Mr. Wexler to change his position on this case, and he wants to be sure the applicant is not put in a bind by this fact. Mr. Gunther said the Board can also ask the applicant if he wants to proceed. Mr. McWilliams asked Mr. Wexler, as a member of the Board and obviously very well attuned to the community, what the problem is. Mr. Wexler said he understands the intent and the product being presented. There is no question that it will be an improvement to the house that is currently there, but there are other solutions to the site. The applicant is not burdened by the site other than the applicant is close to one side. The site is large, basically flat that is elevated above the street. The applicant has a lot of alternatives. Mr. Wexler has a problem with the 22 ft. from the property line. In looking at the front elevation there is a line, that was an intent to break that porch back not to come that close. In the site plan the walls have that angle and Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 11 have a problem with the massing there and the proximity to the front property line, the visual point on such a large parcel. These types of solutions are for small parcels. Mr. McWilliams said the property was a double lot when house was built by whomever owned it. Mr. Wexler said is has not changed since the last application was submitted, and with only three Board members present Mr. Wexler does not want to be put into a position to stop the proposed addition. Ms. Gallent said it is clear if a vote were taken tonight, the variance would not be granted and informed the applicant he has the option of waiting until the next meeting when there will be a full Board. Mr. McWilliams asked if the same Board members will be present, because it previously was a four to one vote. As nothing has changed, it would be safe to assume a four one vote will occur again. Ms. Gallent said there is no point to voting on it tonight as it is not going to pass, and the applicant really needs the Board to vote on it at the next meeting. Mr. Wexler said it will not pass tonight unless the applicant modifies what is presented to the Board. Mr. Gunther made a suggestion that the applicant discuss with the architect whether they wish to proceed and then inform the Board. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on the application. There were none. Mr. Gunther said while the Board is waiting for the applicant to return, there is other business to attend to. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 22, 1996, which was seconded by Mr. Kelleher and unanimously approved, 4-0. Mr. Gunther made a motion to approve the Minutes of June 26, 1996, which was seconded by Mr. Wexler and unanimously approved, 4-0. Mr. Gunther asked the secretary if she knew where Board member Mr. Simon was. Ms. Roma, the recording secretary, said Mr. Simon had another meeting this evening and would be unable to attend. Mr. Gunther asked the secretary to call Mr. Simon as he was also absent at the June meeting as well and Mr. Gunther is concerned. Mr. Gunther then said he has one other certification that he would like to propose and have signed by the Board members. It is a certification of a motion made two meetings ago, "Whereas the Board finds: (1) the Board expresses its thanks and sincere appreciation to John Kirkpatrick, Esq. for his long hours worked; (2)the Board expresses its sincere thanks and heartfelt appreciation for his morally sound,always prudent and sometimes humorous support needed to bear through many interesting and challenging applications over the years, of his service to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals." That motion was carried unanimously at June 26, 1996 meeting and asked that it be witnessed by the members of the Board. Mr. Gunther said when it is signed by all the members, the secretary will forward same to Mr. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Kelleher said when the O'Keefe application came before the Board in October, 1994 the Minutes of that meeting, the certification, mentions Arthur Wexler, Thomas Gunther, as chairman, Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Simon and asked who the fifth Board member was that night. Mr. Gunther said if he was the chairman, it would have been Ms. Recio. Mr. Wexler asked Ms. Gallent is she could research if a non-action means no, as previously on another Board when a non-action occurred it meant no. Ms. Gallent said there is some litigation about that, and she will research same. Mr. Kelleher said his recollection is that Mr. Wexler is correct, because that prompted the Board in going out of their way to inform the applicants if there is a short Board the case can be held over. Ms. Gallent said that a 2-1 vote is not a straw vote, the proposal does not carry. She said that she believes that the 2-1 vote is binding and the Board cannot reconsider the matter unless the statutory requirements for reconsideration are satisfied. Mr. Gunther said in view of the Board's experience with some other recent cases, however the current case moves the Board needs to do a full evaluation of its impact and be sure that all the requirements of the Zoning Board Code are met. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. O'Keefe that the Board members were speaking among themselves about the application and asked how he would like to proceed. Mr. McWilliams said if the applicant were to take Mr. Wexler's suggestion and put that chamfer on the corner end would that change his thinking? Mr. Wexler said it would give him an opportunity to change his mind. The question is, what is that chamfer. The chamfer can be described by a perpendicular measurement out, and he would be more inclined to consider voting in favor of the application. A discussion followed. Mr. Gunther said he needs to have clarified in his mind what the impact is on the structure and design. Mr. Wexler said it would be more traditional in front porches as they wrap around the cornice, and it would be more in spirit of what the applicant is trying to present. Mr. Gunther said he would like the applicant to explain what he is proposing regarding the modification. Mr. McWilliams said the applicant would be lessening the front yard setback where 30.0 ft. is required and the applicant was requesting a reduction to 22 ft. and now would probably be about 23 to 24 ft. Instead of a square corner, it is being angled although still in the front yard. Mr. Kelleher asked if the request would be a lesser variance. Mr. McWilliams said the request would be a lesser variance and a greater front yard. Mr. Wexler said it appears to be about 24 ft. Mr. Gunther said taking 2 ft. off the open front porch, and basically running the porch as demonstrated on the sketch. Mr. Wexler said it would be more parallel to the proposed second story to the building, again demonstrating on the sketch, which would look more like the elevation presented; i.e. the angled corner of the porch, you can see it breaking back to the end of the porch. There are lines on the drawing Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 13 indicating that was the intent at some point. A discussion ensued with Mr. Wexler making the corrected drawing on the plan. Mr. Gunther said what is being described is a line on the lower level plan drawing in the lower right-hand corner, taking the horizontal and vertical corner off so that it matches the same angle as the new slider window, and asked how many feet the reduction is. Mr. Wexler said assuming the drawing is correct, the reduction is approximately 24 ft. A discussion followed with Mr. Wexler stating 23.6 ft. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or public on this application. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked counsel if there are particular concerns that need to be addressed for findings with the application. Ms. Gallent said it is important to address to the findings that are set forth in Town Law §267-b(3). "The Zoning Board shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant." That is the overall standard. Then the law tries to give the factors that must be found. In making such a determination, the Board shall also consider, "(1)whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2)whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4)whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of a variance." Mr. Gunther said other methods available for the applicant to add onto his house without requiring a variance would be a question to the Board. Mr. Kelleher said that question was asked by Mr. Wexler and answered by the applicant's architect which is already in the record. Mr. Gunther said he recognizes and recalls that Mr. Wexler's response had to do with the fact there is a 3.9 ft. side yard setback, but it also happens to be a very large building envelope on this 11,000+ square foot lot where only part of the extension has been shaved off and not enough to eliminate a front yard setback. Mr. McWilliams said in terms of the floor plan of the house, the kitchen, living room, dining room are already placed. Regarding adding on to the house, the applicant wants to work with the circulation pattern of the existing house. The front entry where the porch is, if there were not a porch in front of the new addition it is obvious aesthetically it would not look good. The 3.9 ft. on the one side yard has no bearing at all on the front porch or the area where living space is being added because the living room and bedroom is there. The front seems to be creating questions. The kitchen area and side entrance are not within the front yard the applicant is requesting a variance for. Mr. Kelleher said if one goes up and down Murray Avenue, the proposed porch is emulated in approximately 50% of the homes in the area. Mr. McWilliams said physically you can take any house and add a second floor to it physically and structurally, but aesthetics should merit some consideration as a hardship or an issue considered. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members on any of the items. Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 14 Mr. Kelleher said what is proposed before is being proposed again, and would improve the appearance of the property that is there now. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant had an elevation from the 3.9 ft. and asked what happens from the view of the adjacent property side elevation and asked if it was ever developed. Mr. McWilliams said the applicant has two elevations, and if Mr. Wexler looks at the side elevation referring to the one story drawing and the roof as it slopes down before the Board, it is the same element. Mr. Wexler said he cannot figure out how the roof slopes down and asked if there is a ridge line occurring on the lower floor plan. Mr. McWilliams said Mr. Wexler should look at the upper floor plan. Mr. Wexler asked if the triangular sections of the roof closest to the existing upstairs is flat. Mr. McWilliams said yes. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously,3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Terrence P. O'Keefe has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a 2 story addition with a front yard of 23.5 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(1); the side yard would be 3.9 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89- 34B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 82 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 1; 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 89-34B(1),Section 89-34B(2)(a), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Terrence P. O'Keefe 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 applicant has agreed to modify his application so that the front yard setback of 23.5 ft. will be the minimum setback with the intent that the front porch be so constructed that the front leading edge of the porch that is parallel to the front of the building break and at a point perpendicular to that front line of the porch at the break in the proposed living room wall at an angle of 45 degrees, establishing a setback of approximately 23.5 ft. or a little greater. WHEREAS, the Board fords that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 15 1. The front yard presently is 25.11 ft. and the reduction to approximately 23.5 ft. is not substantial in nature. 2. The house is burdened by being very close to its side property line and by having a front property line that comes closer to the house as it goes more northerly creating a difficulty for the applicant in utilizing the property as necessary. • 3. The variance in the front yard is a one story porch and not the main structure of the house, which is two stories in height. 4. The rear addition is no closer to the side property line than the house as it presently exists. 5. The house is burdened with an irregularly shaped lot in that the primary front yard comes closer to the house as it goes to the corner; i.e. two(2) front yards. Accordingly, other methods of completing the construction or addition to the property are unavailable without a variance. In addition, the location of the house on the lot precludes the construction of the addition without a variance. 6. There is existing heavy dense screening along the side yard eliminating the impact of the proposed window facing the adjacent property. 7. The addition does not alter the character of the neighborhood;indeed many of the houses in the area have porches similar to the proposed porch. 8. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It is the Board's view, based on a view of the subject premises and surrounding neighborhood and its review of the plans submitted by the applicant that the addition will enhance the house and surrounding community by conforming it to the prevailing character of the area. 9. The proposed addition is a betterment to the structure and neighborhood and the design is attractive. 10. The rear addition is a one story addition requiring a variance to the side yard. 11. The side yard at its closest point is currently 3.9 ft. and the proposed addition is no closer to the side lot line that presently exits. 12. The Board granted a variance for the proposed addition in October, 1994. That variance has expired. 13. 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. 14. The variance is the minimum 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. 15. 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 Zoning Board July 24, 1996 Page 16 RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. When constructing the new driveway, the large, existing oak tree shall be preserved and not disturbed. 2. The large shed facing Edgewood Avenue shall be taken down prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. These variances are for the set of plans presented to the Board in connection with this application as modified by the applicant's architect at the Board's July 24, 1996 meeting. These modifications are initialed and dated by both the applicant's architect, Gregory McWilliams, and by a representative of the Board. Construction shall be in strict compliance with these modified plans. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 5. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 6. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther said there are no pictures that depict the size of the house next to the applicant's house and asked if the applicant is adding any height. Mr. McWilliams said on the side of the adjacent house the Board is referring to, there is no change as the new addition is on the other side. NEXT MEETING There will be no August meeting. The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 4, 1996 ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 72iaaM Margu ' e Roma, Recording Secretary