Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999_11_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 23, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin J. Ren6 Simon 1 Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Michele DiEdwards, 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 7:48 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed those present that the review of the Minutes of the previous meeting and setting the next meeting date will be handled at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2357 (adjourned 6/23/99;8/19/99 to 9/99;9/23/99; 10/27/99)) Appeal of Byron Place Associates/Hoffmann of a determination of the Building Inspector that the current use of the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132, Lot 410 is not a legal non-conforming use,or in the alternative,an application for a use variance to permit light industrial use in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr. Gunther informed those present that a letter was received from the attorney representing one of the parties requesting the application be adjourned to the next meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2365 (adjourned 9/23/99; l0/27/99) Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize the erection of an existing air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard of 7.64 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 652. Mr. Gunther informed those present that this application will be held over to the next meeting The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 2 APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2371 (adjourned 10/27/99) 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 permitted pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(a); a rear yard of 9.6 ft. where 25.0 ft. is permitted 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. Ken Kurtz of Stephen Till Architects appeared to represent Joy and Robert Greenberg. He stated that he appeared last month looking for an additional variances to a variance previously granted in February of this year. Four items were requested at the time the work was presented. the first one was to add a door out of the family room on the south side of the house in the area of the side yard variance and to raise a portion of roof between 2 dormers. The dormers were originally granted a variance with a sloped roof between them. It is now intended to reduce the pitch of the roof to get increased headroom below it. At the time, they wanted to add a fireplace and chimney on the east wall in the area of the variance facing the neighbor and in doing to eliminate a window which is on that wall. Subsequent to that, the drawings were revised and the last two items eliminated. What they now have on the east wall in the area of the side yard variance facing the neighbor is what was approved on the original variance; a window in the family room, a window upstairs and a chimney. In order to eliminate that, the chimney was taken off that wall and moved to the other side of the second floor room, which is now supposed to be a master bedroom. It had originally been a bedroom and one-half in the original submission. The new chimney which is proposed is not in the area of the variance. It is somewhat smaller than the chimney that had been there and was demolished; smaller in width and approximately 15 ft. further from the property line than the original chimney had been. Any discussion pertaining to changes in that elevation do not apply, as they are withdrawing that. The items still being requested are to raise the roof in between the 2 dormers, which is visible from the Leather Stocking Trail but isn't visible from any other sides of the house. It is a pitched roof and sits in between two roofs of steeper pitching and is invisible. The drawings articulate an item not on the previous drawings of that door and would have been required and should have been, which is a 15 in. high two step tall stoop. A discussion ensued regarding the elevation being discussed, the new chimney, the windows, the door and the dormers originally proposed. After further discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Ms. Gallent said that the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and is considered nonjurisdictional. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. Tasos Kokoris, an architect asked by the neighbors to the east of the applicant's property to review the material submitted to the Building Department and to make relevant comments to the application,appeared. He stated that he looked at the plans submitted and found them to be substantially different than the plans originally approved for which the variance was granted and notified the Building Inspector. Mr. Kokoris said he wanted to make a point about silt conditions. Much of what is on file between the original drawing approval and today. There were also field conditions which necessitated changes to the plan. He stated being an architect, he realizes there needs to be some leeway and latitude given during construction for these things when they arise. When a Board grants a variance, there is an additional burden to insure that the drawings are followed that much more closely during construction. If there are any changes, the assumption is that they will come under heavy scrutiny. It is Mr. Kokoris' understanding that construction has progressed continually throughout the process, presumably at the risk of the applicant. Mr. Kokoris would like to focus on a particular item that is of great concern to the neighbors of the applicant; the second floor extension. They realize the need for the ground floor extension, but the second floor extension is very significant. It is a substantial encroachment on the zoning envelope, for which a variance was granted. It is a substantial encroachment to the visual filed of the neighbors; facing the front door of the house. Mr. Kokoris said that he reviewed the information in the Minutes of the meetings and the single Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 3 reason for the existence of this extension s ms to have been the requirement for a fourth bedroom. There is no other reason in record for the approval of that particular part of the application. It has been shown by the applicant that there is no longer a need for that fourth bedroom. He is now assigned to find out what the reason is for that part of the application as there is no need for a fourth bedroom. The fact that it has been built, is the result of the applicant feeling the Board will approve it anyway. If the extension is removed on the easterly side of/the project and the original outline of the building restored, there would functionally be no change to the plan that is submitted. There would be a master bedroom connected to the master bath. It would have been reduced from 161/2 ft. by 27 ft. to 161/2 ft. x 15 ft., which is still 11/2 ft. larger than the current bedroom on the other side of the house. The removal of that portion which is the objectional part of the application would not result in a loss of function and still result in a fairly well- functional three bedroom home. Allowing it to stay would be penalizing the neighbor by allowing a visual encroachment to exist without a good reason. Mr. Kokoris asked that it be reviewed carefully by the Board to satisfy that there is indeed a reason for that particular part of the application. Mr. Gunther said there is a need for Mr. Kokoris focus on what is visually objectionable to the neighbors. He asked if Mr. Kokoris is aware of the State requirements that the code follows, in terms of how or why the Board can grant a variance. Mr. Gunther said that he will be happy to review the five elements that the Board must consider. Mr. Kokoris said he is aware of the elements considered. Mr. Gunther proceeded to read the five elements the Board reviews. He said a similar discussion ensued when the application was originally proposed. If the exterior of the house is substantially identical, it makes no difference what the interior changes are. It is for the Board to make a determination whether or not there are substantial changes to the plan to either grant a variance or not. Mr. Kokoris said one of the criteria the Board reviews to grant an application, was to determine whether the applicant through another means can accomplish what is intended in a different way. When he reviewed the Minutes, it appeared that the reason that the applicant gave for not being able to accomplish the same results without the variance was the need for a fourth bedroom. Mr. Gunther said the reason for the variance was because of the position of the house on the property. In terms of the layout of the house, there was only one corner of the house where an addition could be added. Mr. Kokoris said based on the original application the neighbors accepted the outline,because it was shown that there was no other avenue for the applicant to generate a fourth bedroom other than to extend in that particular location. Mr. Gunther said he does not propose to speak for the applicant, the applicant can do his own presentation. He said the discussion with Mr. Kokoris is so that he can better understand the objection to the exterior of the house as it is presented. Mr. Kokoris said the exact objection is that they were never thrilled to have something visually objectionable rise across their front yard. However, they understood the need for it that could not be fulfilled otherwise; adding a bedroom to the house. The only way to accomplish that need was to add a bedroom and extend precisely there. That is no longer a need. He asked what the reason is for the extension. Mr. Gunther said he will let the applicant respond to that issue. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any other comments on this application. Michele Stassa, of 11 West Drive, the house whose front faces the new construction appeared. The first time she was before the Board, she asked why the bedroom extension could not be on the side of the house Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 4 O where they have a porch which would not encroach on anyones' view. They understood that the kitchen/family room would make sense only where it was without destroying the whole house. They were not happy, but made a concession because they wanted a four bedroom house, it would be worth more money when sold and they were planning on having another child. Last week when they were before the Board, they saw that there were three bedrooms and the only reason for the extension, an encroachment to their home, was to have a larger bedroom. They could have done that on the other side with no problem. The addition pushes it to the front of the house, which makes it very unique. The second floor is hulking. It is in front of them each time they leave or return. It is obtrusive and a major offense from every window on the front of their home. There was no need for this intrusion in that place. If the Board allows this construction, Mr. Stassa fears that a grave result will occur in future applications to the Zoning Board for people who request a variance for a hardship, suddenly that hardship is no longer there and they can do whatever they want inside. For the neighborhood, the community, the village and Town, they implore the Board to vote to rescind the variance for the second floor addition only. Push it back to the original wall, since the need no longer exists and the walls have not yet been finished. Mr. Stassa asked that the Board please listen to them and their neighbors whose voices were heard through their letters to the Board that were received at the last meeting. The applicants have received much consideration at a number of Board meetings and feel it is now time for consideration to be given to the neighbors who look to the Board for their protection. Mr. Gunther asked if anyone else would like to comment on this application. Mr. Gallent clarified the fact that hardship, as stated, is the old standard for a variance, and expanded on that issue. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant would like to comment. Robert Greenberg and his wife appeared. Mr. Greenberg stated they live at 19 West Drive. The only comment they would like to make is that they are sorry Ms. Stassa finds the project difficult. They hope the Board will grant the variance. They feel they have made efforts to reach compromises from the first conversations of more than one year ago, before appearing before the Board of Appeals, and reviewed together changes made regarding the window. The trees planted shield the view and the chimney was moved from the end of the house to the interior of the house. He listed 10 or 12 specific actions that the contractors have taken in the interior to maintain order to the site and minimize the impact. Mr. Greenberg appreciates the time the Board has taken and hopes the Board can see the substantial benefit to his family living in the house hopefully for decades to come. Mr. Greenberg said they believe it meets the impact to the neighborhood and community program. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from Board members. 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. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Joy and Robert Greenberg have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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 permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); a rear yard of 9.6 ft. where 25.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further, the addition increases the extent by which the Lbuilding 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; and Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 5 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-37B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Joy and Robert Greenberg submitted an application for variances 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 variances outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The Board spent a great deal of time looking at both the subject property and neighboring properties due to the changes the applicants propose for the use of their property internally. Based on inspection of the property, both inside and out, as well as a site visit to 11 West Drive, the neighboring property owned by the Stassas, which is located next door, the Board finds that the variances requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a sufficient detriment to the nearby properties to deny these variances. While the Board appreciates the Stassas' concern about the view they will have coming out of the front door of their house, the Board concludes that those concerns are not determinative in this case when viewed in light of the benefit to the applicant. Because the proposed construction is in the front of the Stassas property, the impact is less than if it were overlooking their back yard. The neighbors will see the addition only when they come in and out of their house. This impact is somewhat different and in the Board's view, of smaller magnitude than if the proposed addition were hanging over a place where the neighbors are spending a substantial amount of time outside. There is no record in terms of the detriment to the Stassas' property other than the visual impact referred to above. For example, the Stassas presented no evidence concerning loss of economic value. Certainly the addition is handsome, is appropriate for the building on which it is being added and for the community in which it is to be located. It will add value to that property and the neighborhood and is not inappropriate in a way that it will be a detriment to surrounding properties; B. There is no reasonable alternative to the granting of the variance. the record demonstrates that the applicant could not get all the interior features desired on the other side of the house as proposed by the Stassas. Moreover, the existing master bedroom, which measures 16' ft. by 15 ft., is very small by modern standards. C. While the variance may be substantial quantitatively, it is not substantial qualitatively. It is certainly proportional to the extended use of the room, and will not have a significant impact on the neighbor as described above. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Indeed, it has no impact, other than a visual one. Because of where the proposed construction is situated on the Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 6 property, there is no impact on the surrounding properties, other than the visual impact described by one neighbor who has been vocal in opposition. E. The difficulty experienced by the applicant is not a self-created difficulty, but a collision of modern expectations and an old house that is too small. Apparently the intended use of certain spaces in the house changed after construction began and revealed unforeseen conditions. While this is unfortunate because it upset expectations, it is not a self-created difficulty. Given the initial need for a fourth bedroom, the master bedroom and bathroom will allow the applicants, if they so desire, to easily subdivide the master bedroom into two bedrooms and still have a substantial master bedroom, with a master bathroom and fourth bedroom. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 2. 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. 3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. 4. The variance granted by the Board in connection with the subject property, dated February 24, 1999, is hereby rescinded. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2374 Application of High Tech Car Wash/Robert Gurrerio requesting an extension of a variance issued September 24, 1997 to maintain an awning sign. The awning letters as exist measure 2.0 ft. in height and the awning numerals as exist measure 1.0 ft. in height where 6 in. is the maximum height permitted for awning graphics pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign Law; and further, the lettering consists of two separate lines where a single line is the maximum permitted for awning lettering pursuant to Section 175- Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 7 15C of the Sign Law for a business use in an SB Zone District on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1 Dolores Battalia, of Stein & Battalia, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont, the attorney representing the applicant, appeared to address the Board. Ms. Battalia said that she represents High Tech Car Wash who is seeking a variance to maintain The existing awning and the lettering thereon. She stated that High Tech Car Wash has been in the community for a very long time. The Board knows it operates by Special Permit which is renewable every two (2) years. The Sign Ordinance had changed when they applied for the Special Permit last year. The lettering on the awning exceeds what is now permitted. The awning is a very, very expensive item costing approximately$15,000. It was just replaced about three years ago prior to the new owner purchasing it, and they would very much like to have the variance renewed. Unlike other variances, this does not run with the land. The sign is very much in keeping with the signage in the area. It is at the end of the Boston Post Road at the New Rochelle line in the Staples Shopping Center. There are a number of car dealerships in that non-residential area, so there will be no adverse impact on of the surrounding areas. The sign exists as it has for many years. Mr. Battalia submitted photographs of the Saturn Dealer nearby and Staples Shopping Center, marked exhibit#1-4. Ms. Battalia said that the applicant seeks a minimal variance to maintain the existing lettering which exists. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board or the public. Ms. Gallent said that a determination of significance is required. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. WHEREAS, this application is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and the Board has adopted a Negative Declaration, dated November 23, 1999, because the EAF reveals that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact; and On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, High Tech Car Wash/Robert Gurrerio requested an extension of a variance issued September 24, 1997 to maintain an awning sign. The awning letters as exist measure 2.0 ft. in height and the awning numerals as exist measure 1.0 ft. in height where 6 in. is the maximum height permitted for awning graphics pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign Law; and further, the lettering consists of two separate lines where a single line is the maximum permitted for awning lettering pursuant to Section 175- 15C of the Sign Law for a business use in an SB Zone District on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1; 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 175-15C; and WHEREAS, High Tech Car Wash/Robert Gurrerio submitted an application for an extension of a variance issued September 24, 1997 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 Town Law §175-15 and New York State Town Law §267-b: Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 8 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The variance does not create any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, as it merely permits the continuance of an existing condition; B. The non-complying condition appears to be the only reasonable alternative, because the awning, which was replaced after storm damage, cost $15,000.00 and the letters cannot be removed without replacing the awning; C. The variance is not substantial; D. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the environment; 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. This variance shall expire two years from the date hereof in accordance with Town Code §175-15(c). This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2375 Application of Stand Development Corporation/Steven Silverstein requesting a variance to construct a one- family dwelling. The lot on which the proposed one family dwelling is to be built upon, has a lot width of 79.12 ft. and a frontage of 97.0 ft. where 100.0 ft. is the required lot width and where 100.0 ft. is the required frontage pursuant to Section 240-36A(2) for a building lot in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 208 Mulberry Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 448. Jeff Meighan of 100 Mamaroneck Avenue, Mamaroneck, the attorney representing the applicant appeared, along with a member of the corporation, Steven Silverstein. Mr. Meighan stated Mr. Silverstein is the builder and a local resident. He stated this is a simple application that requires two(2) variances in order to construct a one-family dwelling on the property. He is the contract vendee for Calmanson and her son, Andrew, conditioned on approval of this application. In the file is a survey and a proposed location of the house on the lot along with elevations drawn by Mark Mustacato. Mr. Meighan gave some history to the Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 9 Board that is not apparent from the application,which he feels will be helpful to the Board and information seen in letters submitted and on file when the file was reviewed. Mr. Meighan said that this application is a combination of two separate lots. The first lot is the front triangular piece, lot 1 and 2 on the old 1911 Larchmont Gardens Subdivision which includes most of that area. That triangle is owned by-Mrs. Kalmanash, who purchased that property from a William Stein in 1956 who happened to live in lot 3 as indicated on the subdivision map. Mrs. Kalmanash lives in the house next door, if you face the property from Mulberry Street and moved out last fall. Mrs. Kalmanash and her husband lived at that location since the early '50's and bought from the original subdivider, Anthony DeCicco. Mr. Kalmanash died in 1983. The rear portion is a separate lot, lot 10, on a completely separate subdivision. The subdivision was approved by the Town Planning Board in 1951. There were about 26 lots on it. High Ridge Street was a part of that. It was an approved building lot on that subdivision map. The title to that property was in the name of Andrew Kalmanash. There is also a paper street in the rear of the property, because there had been intended that several lots would front on that paper street and the paper street would exit to Rockland Avenue; Secor Circle as shown on the Spinelli survey. The frontage for lot 10 would be a little over 40 ft. Most of the lots in the DeCicco subdivision were about 9,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. Some of the properties today are larger, because several lots were combined on that subdivision. Mr. Meighan feels it is important as Mr. Kalmanash thought of lot 10 as being a buildable lot and always considered that he had an ingress and egress to Rockland Avenue through the paper street of Secor Circle. He kept the title to lot 10 and the front, lots 1 and 2, in the old subdivision map in separate ownership from the house lots. All three parcels have been offered for sale. Only the house lot was purchased even though they were all offered together as a package. Mr. Silverstein wishes to build a house. The combined square feet of this proposed lot is over 15,000 sq. ft., which is in excess of most of the lots in the neighborhood. Lot 10, at the time of the subdivision map in 1951, was an approved map by the Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, with a lot width of approximately 79 ft. It is now required that there be 100 ft. In the '50's it was upzoned. In 1959, after checking with the Building Inspector, it was upzoned from 85 ft. to 100 ft. Lot 10 as it existed was an approved lot and it has been upzoned twice to currently 100 ft. The proposed house will be fully compliant with the Building Code. Mr. Meighan said given the five elements that the Board considers in an area variance, it is his and his clients opinion that construction of the house on this sized lot will not be an undesirable change in the character of this neighborhood. Across the street on Mulberry, lot 10, most of those properties are on lots that are below 10,000 sq. ft., in the area where the average size of a lot is 9,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. with some exceptions but not many. Mr. Meighan said the frontage on this matter is simply a matter of 3 ft., which is minimal. Visually, the front triangular piece goes sharply up. Lot 10 is a fairly level piece and is not seen from Mulberry. The proposed house would sit solely on lot 10. There is plenty of space around the house, it wouldn't be jammed in and would not affect the frontage along Mulberry Lane and the neighborhood. He then commented as follows: 1. Whether it would be a detriment to adjoining properties or nearby properties; some of the adjoining properties might feel their aesthetics are disturbed but as far as the zoning code and the policies of in setting the zoning code, this is a well sized lot for what is proposed. It had been maintained by the Kalmanashes and is maintained today in a nicely landscaped manner. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved in some other feasible way; the other possible way would be to try to use the paper street in the rear, Secor Circle, and combine the two lots and exit out onto Rockland Avenue. Although this would be possible, there probably would be clear resistance to this by the Town, as it is not a safe exit onto Rockland Avenue. It would be a flag lot because no other houses enter onto Secor Circle. It would be less attractive, especially to those two neighbors that adjoin Secor Circle, who would then have cars going back and forth on the side of their property. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 10 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial; a number of the letters read in the file speak of the width request as 20% which sounds substantial. When the history is considered, the fact that lot 10 was an approved lot back in the early '50's and there has been several up-zonings since then, it is one of the largest lots combined with over 15,000 sq. ft. and makes it far less substantial and hardly substantial at all. 4. Whether the property variance would have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; Mr. Meighan said he thinks not. Most of the letters Mr. Meighan read in the file spoke about concern about drainage and water runoff. The front parcel is very steep. The rear parcel is relatively flat. If you face the property from Mulberry, the parcels on the left are both higher. The applicant would not be draining onto them, but they onto the applicant. In any event, Mr. Silverstein and his father have looked at the property, along with Mr. Carducci, a contractor, and it is their belief that construction of the house, foundation drains and the creation of swales on the side of the property would make any kind of a possible water situation far better than it is now. Mr. Meighan does feel it is a problem now. 5. Mr. Meighan then addressed the last of the 5 items; whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; There is some truth in that for Mr. Meighan's client as he is buying this piece of property and that is self- created. It is a conditional contract. The Kalmanashes have owned these parcels since they were approved lots in the early '50's. Mr. Kalmanash sought to protect himself accordingly. In that sense, it is not self- created. Mr. Meighan said if the Board has any questions of him or his client, Mr. Silverstein, they will gladly answer them. Otherwise, they would like a chance to comment on the comments. Mr. Winick said in the letters he read, there is a lot of concern regarding the difficulty the curve of the street will be creating in traffic. There should be an examination of going out onto Rockland. Mr. Meighan said that the driveway will not come out perpendicular to Mulberry, but at an angle. He said that Mr. Silverstein can speak about that. Mr. Silverstein said that the road does not curve there. The house is more perpendicular to the curve than the driveway. There was further discussion regarding the drawings of the driveway, the curve and the right angles shown. Mr. Silverstein said that the driveway is going to follow along the incline and will carry with the angle. There is nothing to say that the driveway cannot be swung further to the right. Also, as far as the traffic pattern on Mulberry Lane, there is almost no traffic on Mulberry Lane. It is not a cut through street. Rockland is heavily traveled. Mr. Wexler asked about the topography on the front of the property. Mr. Silverstein said the garage floor is 9 ft. above the street. In terms of topography, they just didn't make a cut in the rock. The rock will be chipped out to get in the driveway. On the map they are showing about 2'h ft. of foundation. Mr. Wexler asked if the garage floor is 9 ft. above the street. Mr. Silverstein said yes. Everything from the left of the driveway will remain as is. There is a retaining wall on the left-hand side of the driveway all natural rock. Mr. Winick asked if the 15 ft. pitch will rise 9 ft. over. Mr. Silverstein said it is over 46 ft. from the property line and over a 60 ft. setback. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 11 A discussion ensued regarding the extent of the width of the variance requested. Mr. Gunther asked what method will be used to remove the rock. Mr. Silverstein said there will be no blasting,just chipping. Mr. Gunther asked the length of that process. Mr. Silverstein said it depends on how quickly it comes up, possibly less than one week or possibly 4 or 5 days. Mr. Gunther asked what the surface of the property is where the house will be located and asked if that is also rock. Mr. Silverstein said the surface is plantable and there is no rock. Mr. Gunther asked if there will be a full basement in the house and how far down will that be. Mr. Silverstein said he was not sure. There will definitely be a full garage underneath the house. An area will be excavated for the boiler room and possibly some crawl space. Mr. Gunther asked if this will also be done by chipping. Mr. Silverstein said yes. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Silverstein knew how far below the surface of the ground the rock is. Mr. Silverstein said in some places it comes through the surfaces. Further back on the lot, the rock disappears. A discussion ensued regarding the rock surface disappearing under the surface of the earth and uncovering the rock to find out. Mr. Wexler asked about the runoff that comes from the driveway. Mr. Carpaneto said a dry well can address that. Mr. Gunther said any time there is an impervious surface added to the property, the property owner is required to provide for runoff in excess of 100 sq. ft. It can't go into the storm sewer. A discussion ensued regarding the dry well, the runoff, the current rock condition, the driveway, with Mr. Carpaneto stating that is an engineering question to be handled by Malcolm Pirnie,the Consulting Engineer for the Town. Mr. Gallent said if information is needed, the Board can request that the applicant provide such information. Mr. Silverstein said it is his intention to hire an engineer to work with the Town engineer to provide recommendations and design drainage for the house on the site. Mr. Wexler said it is a small area, there is a lot of rock and the huge amount of runoff needs to be addressed and contained. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Winick said the question is, if it goes to the fourth factor; the adverse impact on the environmental conditions; the Board should request some showing from the contract vendee that during the consideration of the granting of a variance these particular concerns are addressed. Mr. Winick would like to see some evidence from a design professional to address the Board on these concerns before voting on this matter. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members at this point. There being none, he asked if there were any questions or comments from the public, but before doing so made the applicant aware that the Board has received numerous letters in opposition as follows: Ellen and Henry Korn of 26 Stoneyside; Gerald & Laura Shanley of 195 Mulberry; George Roniger of 50 Stoneyside; Andrew and Carole Sears of One Highridge Road; John Tiebout of 48 Stoneyside; Lisa Camerino of 29 Stoneyside; Mary Ann Lomonaco of 36 Stoneyside; Amy and Donald Levin of 147 Rockland Avenue; Linda and Thomas Spock of 43 Stoneyside. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public. George Roniger of 50 Stoneyside Drive addressed the Board. Mr. Roniger said that he brought with him two additional letters in opposition which he read into the record from Marianne Makman and Dr. Maynard Makman of 19 Stoneyside Drive. Mr. Gunther interrupted with a point of fact with regard to comments in the letter that the lot is not undersized. The requirement for zoning is 15,000 sq. ft. and this lot is 15,048 sq. ft. Mr. Roniger then read a letter in opposition from Richard J. Michaels of 24 Greystone Road, which is a part of the record. Mr. Roniger stated he had a fax addressed to him, but meant to the Board, from Masami Kanai, the person who purchased the house in which the Kalmanashes previously lived and abuts the property on Mulberry Lane. All these letters were marked exhibit#1. Mr. Roniger then summarized a lengthy letter he wrote to the Board, which is a part of the record. He opposes the requested variance. Mr. Winick said that Mr. Roniger said it was his understanding that the property was joined to the property with the house on it. Mr. Winick said Mr. Meighan told the Board it has been maintained as a separate building lot since 1950. Mr. Winick asked if Mr. Roniger disputed those facts. • Mr. Roniger said he is not aware that is a fact. Mr. Meighan said it is also separately taxed. Mr. Roniger said he rang Mr. Kanai's doorbell, the family that bought the house from the Kalmanashes, and it is his understanding there is a gentlemen who owns that property and a younger couple are tenants. Mr. Kanai is away. When he explained to them, through the language difficulty,that the property nearby was a separate property and the intention to build on it, they were taken aback. He wonders whether the property belongs to Mr. Tiebout, his neighbor, or to himself. The property has been treated legally as a separate property, a Kalmanash property. Donald Levin, of 147 Rockland Avenue, and his wife, Amy, appeared before the Board. Mr. Levin submitted some photographs of the property, marked exhibit 2. He stated that the rock is substantial. He said if the Board is going to investigate the water issue,just drive any time around the area after a rain and you will see the amount of water that accumulates below the street itself. Mr. Levin said that 20% seems like a large amount. He asked if it is correct that the zoning law requires a certain amount of footage in width in that the desired house plus whatever surrounding properties required is 20% more. Mr. Gunther said yes. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Wexler said the width of the lot is 100 ft. The width of the lot that exists on this lot is 79 ft., about 80% of the required width or 20% less. Mr. Levin said his house is behind this property, and they strongly oppose the requested variance. The variance would greatly change the character of the area, which is now open grass. Real estate value will be lost, as they currently see nature and the Long Island Sound. The pictures submitted were taken before the fall. Mr. Wexler asked where the pictures were taken from. Mr. Levin said they were taken from the back of his house walking straight along the neighboring house and the other houses down Stoneyside and across the street on Mulberry. Mr. Wexler asked what it shows. Mr. Levin said it shows empty space, somebody's side yard. Mr. Levin said he realizes the applicant is the builder, but it is actually Kalmanash as the applicant because of the conditions of sale. To address one of the five points considered, they could have achieved what they wanted another way. The property could have been sold as a whole piece if the Kalmanash family desired to sell it that way. Mr. Gunther asked if that was an assumption, or if Mr. Levin had specific information pertaining to that. Mr. Levin said it is an assumption, based on the reality of the real estate market. He believes the difference between 97 ft. and 100 ft. is a small amount, but certainly the 20% difference is substantial. Water drainage is a problem now. A small ditch was built by Mr. Kalmanash to run water off the back of his property that has been leveled out over the years which was intended to handle the water level problem. There is certainly a traffic safety problem due to the width of the street. Mr. Levin said they have lived in the house for 26 years. When they went to buy the house they were shown a map of the house and saw the paper road. They distinctly went with counsel to the Building Department and spoke with Mr. Carpaneto's predecessor and asked, "could this paper road be paved and could a home be built on the lot behind them" and they were told no. Because Mr. Kalmanash took on the role of being a caretaker of this paper lot, he cut down parts of trees, they had to call the police more than once and go to the Building Department to find out if Mr. Kalmanash's threat of paving that road and building a house on the property could be done and were told it could not be done, it is not a buildable lot. On that basis, the variance should not be granted. Mr. Gunther asked how long ago the owner of that property talked about building a house. Mr. Levin said the owner talked about it before he died in 1983. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public. John Tiebout, of 48 Stoneyside Drive addressed the Board. He said that his property abuts the property in question more than any other property does. He voiced his opposition to this appeal for a variance in a very simple and direct way. He purchased his property at 48 Stoneyside Drive with the explicit understanding that the lot under consideration was not zoned for building and it would remain empty. The price negotiated for his property to some extent was based on that assurance. It certainly would have figured heavily into the negotiations. He fears that the value of his property will decline if the variance • is granted. A non-monetary concern he has is that he has a deck that is right at the property line and for eight months out of the year he spends a great deal of time on the deck enjoying the view of the trees and the empty adjacent property. His home life and appreciation of his home would diminish severely if this variance is granted and the house allowed to be built. Mr. Gunther called the next person who wanted to speak. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 14 o Rod Hill, who has lived at 20 Stoneyside Drive, appeared to address the Board. Unfortunately, the topography of the neighborhood is such that he lives at the very lowest point. Everything drains down to his house. Over the years they have fought the waters very fiercely, rebuilding the cellar and putting in sump pumps. They still have a very marginal situation in heavy rains. One has to see what it is like. The street turns into a stream. Sometimes the manhole covers become dancing objects popping up and down. Anything that reduces the absorption of moisture uphill stream to their house is a major step. Putting a house on Mulberry at that spot, it is at a higher elevation than his house, with all the aforementioned issues regarding the runoff with the new driveway, it would seriously damage his property. He is opposed to the building. Mr. Gunther asked if the property can be seen from the house. Mr. Hill said it can be seen from the front of his house. Mr. Gunther said the Town does request that any surfaces over 100 sq. ft. be required to provide an erosion plan to handle the water runoff at the 25 year runoff and retain that water on the persons property not going into the Town storm drain. If they built on the property, less rain would be going off the property than it does today. Mr. Hill said that he hopes so. He wanted to reinforce the fact that it is a very narrow street where they propose to have a driveway and is not very well lit. There is vehicle traffic is rushing by, in addition to a lot of pedestrian traffic. It is a question of safety, as well as what has been presented. Ms. Harriett Barish, of 209 Mulberry Lane, which is directly across from the proposed building site, C appeared. She said she took some photographs looking out from her house and her side yard, marked exhibit 3. She feels that putting a house on that lot would really unfavorably change her home setting and the block home setting and the neighborhood setting. It would make the area much more crowded, where now there is a little open space where they live. It is sad to see so much building going on and the open areas getting built upon. It would certainly be an unfavorable change in the neighborhood where there are now trees and rock formations. When Ms. Barish purchased her house it was with the understanding that there was no buildable lot that existed. She has a very small space in the back of her home, and her larger yard is the side one which is truly in the front. She spends more of her outside time in the front of her house than in the back of the house. It will intrude, not just coming and going, but living outside. She is also concerned, even though counsel said there wasn't a water problem now. Her garage and laundry room still get water over the ankles and a sump pump is needed. She understands the Board will try to protect them with a plan, but the best laid plans do not always work. It is a narrow street with a wide curve. It was recently made slightly narrower by the beautiful new sidewalk. Ms. Barish's driveway would be directly across from the new driveway and it is dangerous. It is very hard to see around the curve and referred to the pictures submitted. There may not be a lot of cars at once, but the number of cars doesn't really matter. It is dangerous and the new construction will add to that. She is very concerned about that. Not only will it affect her visual viewing, but also her privacy. A discussion ensued regarding the zone district of the subject property and the side yard setbacks for such. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments. Amy Levin said they were told the road was landlocked, and a different ownership. At that point, the piece that fronts onto Mulberry was not attached legally to that other portion. They could not use the paper road to obtain access to the property to eliminate the landlock status. Perhaps now that they have added the triangular piece the views have changed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments. Andrew Sears, and his wife, Carole, of One Highridge Road, appeared. Mr. Sears said he purchased th• property after 1960. It was also their impression that this was an area that was firmly fixed and could not Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 15 C be disrupted with the kind of construction that is proposed. The element of environment, woodedness, rockiness, etc. would remain. He said construction vehicles and whatever else is required to build will be coming down Stoneyside. He thinks that when counsel stands before the Board and says that he doesn't think there is a water problem, it hardly weighs against what has been heard from the residents and individuals who have lived in and been part of the progress of this community for as long as they have. Mr. Sears has water too, but knows there is a letter from Mr. Shanley that lives at the base whose letter was pretty eloquent as to the kind of problem that he has. Mr. Sears cannot say that he is familiar with the kinds of presentations made. It does strike him as a reasonable concern that the presentation made was completely shabby. When asked by members of the panel have they considered how they are going to deal with containing the runoff giving an area built on rock, he said the outcroppings are seen, they are immense and that is why the neighborhood is made for it. He said he has a huge boulder in his boiler room. The rocks were not movable. He would like to submit to the panel about the chipping that was mentioned, they just disappear and go under the 2 in of topsoil. To come to the Board and present to them an area of stones and terrain that this is without concept of an engineering approach of what it is going to need in terms of noise, reverberation, blasting, non-chipping, water runoff simply is unacceptable. He thinks the entire operation and proposal is unfair, unworkable and illegal to everybody. With regard to the element of whether or not this is self-inflicted, it is that it may be supposition at this point. This property could have been sold at an intent value by the Kalmanashes had they sold it as a totality. The reason that the property wasn't sold as an entire piece, was a gamble taken and goes with the item as to whether or not it was self-inflicted. Mr. Sears said it is self-inflicted. After further presentation regarding the self-inflicted situation by Mr. Sears, Mr. Gunther said the contract vendee is the applicant and that is the only matter before the Board. What the owner of the property chooses to do or not to do is not a part of this application. Only the applicant, the contract vendee, is requesting the variance for the property. That is all the Board is dealing with, not any supposition about anything else. Mr. Sears said that he accepts that and understands it clearly. He doesn't think it would be equitable for the panel to consider underlying facts. Mr. Gunther stated that is irrelevant. Mr. Sears said it is a treacherous turn, probably one of the worst in the entire neighborhood. To put a driveway exiting in that area after counsel said he would not want a driveway exiting because of too much danger onto Rockland Avenue, the inconsistency is flagrant. Mr. Sears continued his presentation, talked about the new owners, the Japanese couple,youngsters in the neighborhood and Mr. Roniger's comments. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Sears that if he had specific knowledge about the contract of the purchase of the house the Board will be happy to hear it, but not about hearsay. Mr. Winick pointed out that the Board is trying to get the facts in which to make a finding, and takes Mr. Sears point about the self-inflicted presentation of the applicant. He stated he has the same problem with what is being said as if speaking in opposition. There are individuals that study traffic and drainage for a living. He said it is half clear when trying to take fact and apply complicated legal standards. He is concerned about the absence of fact that he is hearing on both sides of this application of how people feel about this. He suggests that interested people bring in tools to work with from either the applicant or in opposition. He said the question he has for counsel and the Building Department is, we do not have a whole lot of investigative staff on the Zoning Board and asked what resources the Board has. He said it is up to the applicant whether they want to radiate a factual report. However, it is up to the applicants and opponents to put evidence in front of the Board, so a decision can be made. Ms. Gallent said the Board can request experts be hired. Mr. Carpaneto said that the applicant would have to make application to the engineer, Malcolm Pimie, �.-. whether it is a zoning variance or not and can ask that it now be done. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 16 Mr. Winick said the applicant is responsible for the burden of proof and to go forward all the evidence in the record must be considered. This is an opportunity to put facts in the factual record to be considered. Mr. Wexler said this is the step that has to get passed before another step can occur. It must go to the review process in engineering to determine if it is a buildable lot. The Board is not at that point to review the case. The applicant has to address these issues. Mr. Sears asked if he is interpreting correctly the comments just made, that the burden of going forward in an intelligent and conscientious manner should be on the applicant. This is major construction of an entire house on a rocky lot. There has been no presentation made that these things are doable in an appropriate, local, legal and pragmatic way. It is not so much the angle of which the driveway would merge onto Stoneyside, but what is intrinsic on Stoneyside itself which is the gross sweep especially if as purported to honor the environmental aspect of retaining as much of the natural landscape as possible. Mr. Sears said that Mr. Gunther made an interesting point as to whether or not there was some prior comment about a house being built there. Perhaps Mr. Gunther was implying at that point that the matter was done. He stated this was something that perhaps was said in the midst of hotly contested exchanges of points of view in which the police was summoned, trees were cut, etc. Perhaps a reference was made by the Kalmanash family or Mr. Kalmanash, at that point in time, to building a house there sounded like a threat said in the heat of the moment. Mr. Gunther said that Mr. Sears was not there and asked if Mr. Sears had anything else to add. After further comments from Mr. Sears, he said that he appreciates the opportunity to speak and respectfully request, on behalf of his wife and the immediate neighbors present, that the Board deny the requested variance. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Mitchell,of Merritt Associates, the Realtor who handled the sale of the land and the house, appeared. He informed the Board that there were five offers on the land and four offers on the house. All buyers had the option to buy the house and the land or the land and the house. Nothing was decided. He said Mr. Silverstein had his offer in first but could not proceed with it because there was a buyer for the house and the Kalmanashes wanted to give the potential buyer the option to buy that land. Mr. Gunther asked if the person who purchased the house knew the circumstances. Mr. Mitchell said the purchaser knew the land was being sold to Mr. Silverstein who was proposing to build a house on it if a variance was received. Mr. Gunther asked if the person who purchased the house had the opportunity to also buy the property. Mr. Mitchell said absolutely. He said when the Building Inspector was approached on this land in May, he told him exactly what he said earlier, it looked like it could be doable but there would be variances needed. Mr. Winick asked if there were any offers to buy the house and land. Mr. Mitchell said there were no offers to buy the house and the land. He had four buyers for the house, none for the land. Further discussion ensued regarding the price of the land and the house and what Mr. Silverstein is now paying for it. Mr. Winick asked if any offers were received for the land. NEIL Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Mitchell said no one wanted to pay that much for the land and the house. Mr. Winick asked the price of the lot. Mr. Mitchell said he would rather not say, because there is not an affirmative contract. Mr. Winick said wouldn't the pricing for a commercial buyer for a buildable lot be different. Mr. Mitchell said possibly, but they recognized the topography and the work that would have to be done for excavation and drainage to make it a buildable lot. Mr. Wexler said parcel #11 of land is a substandard lot. He said that lot#10 has much more value as a potential business rather than joined. Mr. Mitchell said they wanted a full buyer for the house to buy the land. Mr. Winick said they wanted to buy at a price that was a contractor's price. Mr. Gunther called the next person who wanted to speak. Debbie Neuman, of 207 Mulberry Lane, addressed the Board. She said she is directly across from 206 Mulberry Lane. Slightly to the left of her house is the property in question. She spoke in support of this application. She and her husband moved into the Larchmont Gardens area in 1991, purchased their starter home at that time. They settled in the community, got to know their neighbors, decided this is where they wanted to stay and raise their family. They came to the Town of Mamaroneck and this particular area of Larchmont, because of the strong community, neighborhood and school system. Five years ago they had their first child, who just started in Murray Avenue kindergarten. They had their second child this past January and have since outgrown their house. They are in a likely position of having both her and her husband's parents reside with them. Ms. Neuman said they have been looking for the past 11/2 years for a larger house in the community. Plans were submitted earlier this year to the Board to enlarge the house they are now live in. Unfortunately, they were not able to go forward with that plan for budgetary consideration. They continued to look and a bid was put in for the Kalmanash house and were unsuccessful. When they learned that a house was going to be built on the lot across the street from them, they had many of the same concerns that all the neighbors present this evening have expressed at which time they realized they may be in the best position to assuage most of those concerns. They spoke to the builder, Mr. Silverstein, asked what he intended to do with the lot and asked to see the plans. They spoke to him at great length about their concerns, what his intentions and desires were and what the challenges were. She expressed her desire, in one of her first conversation with him, that it were possible to plan a house in the middle of the lot and have a house that fits into the character of the neighborhood as if it had been there as long as the house she is residing in which was built in the late '20's, if it could have that same character and appearance, that is the house she would want built on that lot. They investigated his references, went to se- the houses he had built in this community and outside of this community, spoke to people he has worked with firsthand, compared his work to other work by recently built houses in the neighborhood by other builders and found his work to be superior. He was found to be open and willing to every request they have made for satisfying their particular needs. In raising all the concerns the neighbors have raised, it is not the big one. They live across the street from this land, their driveway is on the same street. She just spent four figures to build a dam in her front yard to prevent water from going into her garage and basement for the third winter in a row. She has bailed water out of her garage and basement while pregnant with no electricity in the house. She knows the water problem and compliments the Town for the hard work they have put in over the past months to solve those water problems. She is confident the Town will be successful and their efforts to widen the street, which she understands has been widened. She shares all the concerns with her neighbors. She also shares the Board's needs and their confidence that the house which will go on that land will be a house that will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood and will follow all the rules and regulations. She said that her husband and herself would not be interested in building a house on that property. They want to Zoning Board November 23, 1999 © Page 18 stay in this neighborhood and want to remain good neighbors. She reiterated that she is speaking in support of this application this evening. Bill Spelman and Barbara Spelman of 197 Mulberry Lane submitted letters into the record, marked exhibit #5. Mr. Spelman asked counsel, assuming this goes forward, what the standard is that the Board reviews in deciding whether or not the applicant carries his burden. Ms. Gallent said there several factors to be considered and expanded on that issue. Mr. Spelman said he had no other comments and thanked the Board for their time. Richard Neumann, of 207 Mulberry, whose wife spoke a moment ago addressed the Board. He said they are committed to this neighborhood and its special qualities; a walkable sidewalk neighborhood. It's not like Chappaqua where you have to drive every place. The houses are close together. He mentioned that he grew up on an acre lot in Arizona and loved it. There was a lot of land, but there is something special about this kind of neighborhood especially when one has small children as they do. He said they like their neighbors and regret being on opposite sides of this controversy and hope to build a house on this particular lot with Mr. Silverstein that would minimize all the feelings they may have that their rights are being infringed upon or their progress is being infringed upon. He stated that they tried to buy Mr. Kalmanashes house, but were unsuccessful. He never would have thought of spending the extra money for that land, no matter how little it was being offered for, due to the expense of raising a family today. When they first talked to Mr. Silverstein, they wanted to see that a house was being built that they might feel comfortable with. They were skeptical of that possibility, but decided to ask for it and it turns out that he was thinking of building a house that was entirely appropriate for the neighborhood in terms of architectural style and Qsize. This is a neighborhood in which most of the houses are nonconforming. He said his house is too close to the property line, the back yard is not wide enough, which is very common in this neighborhood. The problem with this lot is not that it is too small, but just that it is oddly shaped which is why the variance has to be asked for. He stated that they investigated Mr. Silverstein very carefully. Mr. Neumann said he does not like to supervise people closely, when they have been assigned work. He would rather hire people who have the internal motivation to do a careful, precise job on their own without a lot of input from him. What they found in Mr. Silverstein's past work is that he has been a responsible builder, is very good at details, very careful and precise with respect to the sites in the neighborhoods he's dealt with. In terms of the water, they had three floods last winter. Every time they have a flood, he has to take a day or more off from work to clean out the basement and garage. He said they live upstream from that lot. The water is coming down Highridge, turns right, goes down Mulberry with some going straight into the Shanley's yard, straight into the Spelman's yard. A lot goes down Mr. Neumann's driveway. He does not know how much water will be produced by this lot, but it is already at flood stage before it gets to that lot. Mr. Neumann said his basement, which has had to be cleaned out so often over the years, is proof of that. In terms of the traffic and the safety, he has two small children and are day to day obsessional about their safety. He is not troubled by another driveway on the street. He doesn't feel it puts his children in any danger. Mr. Neumann said he is speaking in favor of the application. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. If so, he hopes they have constructive information for the Board. If the comments are emotional, the Board has heard enough of that. George Roniger said he neglected to mention there are two neighbors who asked to be associated with his letter; Karen and Stephen Madris, 47 Stoneyside Drive and Jim and Alice Miller, 8 Stoneyside Drive. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. Don Levin,of 147 Rockland Avenue, said he would like the Board to understand or attempt to understand why the predecessor to the head of the Building Department told him in person, and told other people present this evening, that the house could not be built there. He said his wife indicated that a question came up of where the driveway would be. It is a landlocked area and there is no place for the cars to go. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 19 Cr Then the question came up if cars could go on the paper road or down Mulberry. It was assumed if they couldn't go down Mulberry because of the steepness of that area, the driveway would have to be on such an angle it was assumed that it was use the paper road or nothing. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. Mr. Sears asked to comment, at which time Mr. Gunther informed him he can speak only if he has something new to add. Mr. Sears commented that not only was the asking price for the lot not disclosed, but the time it was on the market was not disclosed and whether or not there was any real effort to sell. Mr. Gunther said that is irrelevant to the application. The application is to build something on the property. It is immaterial to the Board as to any other element about the sale of the property. Mr. Levin said that one of the aspects in the criteria is whether this will enhance the value of the neighborhood. It is difficult to credit an argument that this will enhance the value and quality of the neighborhood and disregard the neighbors themselves. He then discussed the rock on the site that disappears on the top, saying that the topsoil on top rests on something and clearly it is more and more rock. Without chipping away at the rock as proposed, there are other nice properties in Larchmont available for similar costs to the Neumann's should they wish to pursue that. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. Jeff Meighan said he can tolerate all the adjectives that Mr. Sears used about him, except for the one about the water situation in the Town of Mamaroneck. He said he has lived in the Town longer than Mr. Sears has and has seen the water problems far longer than he has. He stated he was talking about the fact that there is no apparent water problem on this particular property in relation to the adjoining properties. He did not mean that there is no water problem in the Town of Mamaroneck. He said that Mr. Silverstein would anticipate it in his process, because he has built in the Town before and has gone through the engineering process with regard to the construction and drainage, etc. That would be a process that would normally follow the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Meighan said they are willing to do a drainage study and erosion plan before the building permit stage, plus a study on the driveway and the pitch, the angle and the safety for the next hearing. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other requests from Board members for the applicant. Mr. Wexler asked that the applicant present to the Board how he perceives to solve the drainage problem and also address the runoff. Mr. Meighan said if that is what the Board wants it will be done. Mr. Wexler said that the angle of the driveway has to be at 15 degrees, the maximum, and rather steep. He would like to see the access to the house through the driveway. If possible he would also like to have the house staked out on the site to see the relationship. Mr. Meighan questioned the second point about the access. Mr. Wexler said the only access to the house is up the driveway. How would one get up to the house from P, the street. He said the 15% driveway is very steep, and expanded on that issue. It is a very sensitive piece of property, very picturesque and the Board has to use the five points it has to review this matter. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the Board on this application. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 01/114 Page 20 Mr. Simon said there are two lots that have been there for a long time. Why are people concerned someone will buy the land? The land will not be blasted and he does not see a problem. They will need erosion plans which must be submitted to the engineer for review and approval, so that the runoff can be addressed before a permit is issued. The lot has been empty for many years. Everyone loved the decor and didn't want a house built. The lot is still a building lot and the house is a good design. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding Mr. Simon's statement. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2375 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 5, 1999 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Wexler advised the applicant to notify the Building Department if they are not ready for the January 5, 2000 Zoning Board meeting, which is in essence the December Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gunther said there will also be a Zoning Board meeting for the month of January, on January 26, 2000. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Roniger said that the property was never offered to him. A five minute recess was taken at this time. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2376 Application of Thomas Gooley and Polly Kolotas requesting a variance to construct a family room addition and screened porch. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 9.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 508. Larry Gordon appeared to represent the applicant and explained the process involved. The applicant is looking for a 6 in. variance because the existing house, which is nonconforming, is now 91/2 ft. from the side yard where 10 ft. is required. The requested variance is proposed so they will not have to bump into the new kitchen as it is extended and not disrupt the plan. It makes a better configuration for the proposal. Mr. Wexler asked if site plan was available. Mr. Gordon said there is a site plan. Mr. Gordon presented letters from the two neighbors on either side and the neighbor right behind the applicant and affected by the proposal, marked exhibit#1, in support of the application. Mr. Gunther asked the extent of the increase. Mr. Gordon said it will be 6 in. from the side yard. He is making the addition in line with the exiting house. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 21 Mr. Gunther said his question was, it is 18 to 32% lot coverage and asked for the additional square footage. Mr. Wexler said it is 650 sq. ft., with which Mr. Gordon agreed. Mr. Gunther said three letters were submitted, marked exhibit #1, with no objections; Robert & Mary Sickles, 50 Clover Road,William&Suzanne Wolf, 53 Femwood Road, Carol Kieban, 45 Fernwood Road. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from Board members. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Thomas Gooley and Polly Kolotas have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a family room addition and screened porch. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 9.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 508; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Thomas Gooley and Polly Kolotas submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on review of the file and personal observations of the property itself, there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created. It is an extension of a kitchen in the rear of the house where a porch already exists. It is a very minimal variance that will align the side of the house with what currently exists; B. There is not a reasonable alternative for the location and expansion of the kitchen; C. It is not a substantial variance, but rather a few inches. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 O Page 22 { D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. It is not a self-created difficulty; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. c, 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. 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 SET' the Building Department during regular hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2377 Application of Robert Lipkins and Susan Cohen requesting a variance to construct a master bedroom suite and paved parking area. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 23.29 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); the proposed paved parking area has setback from the front property line of 23 ft. where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-79B; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 181 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Lot 284. Robert Lipkins appeared to address the Board. Mr. Lipkins said he, his wife and ten year old son have lived at that residence for 7 years. He explained he is planning a master bedroom suite, family room off the kitchen and a paved parking area. He said it is a very small house with two bedrooms on the second ,tom floor and one bathroom between them. He feels there is need for separation between themselves and their son for some privacy. Mr. Lipkins said he would like to add a master bedroom suite on the ground floor due to a disability he has that limits his mobility and would like to minimize his need to climb stairs. The site was studied with their architects to decide where to place the addition. On the garage side of the house Zoning Board r 01/ November 23, 1999 Page 23 there is a large rock outcropping, which made it impracticable. That left the area on the other side of the house, occupied currently by a screened porch, which is the requested proposal. He stated they are also seeking to add a paved parking area to allow either of their cars to leave without having to jockey them back and forth. Also, in inclement weather it will permit them to enter the garage through the door that will be created and back the cars directly out without having to transverse slippery pavement. They believe the proposed addition will benefit-The family with only the most minimal impact on the community. They also believe there will not be any significant detriment to the neighborhood. The addition designed is in keeping with the character of the house and attractive. They do not see any reasonable alternative in terms of where they could site the master bedroom. In both of the nonconformances they are requesting variances, which is just a matter of a few feet in each case. They don't feel it is a substantial variance. They don't feel there will be an adverse environmental impact, and submitted a soil, sediment and surface water control plan conducted by a well-respected professional and assume that will be adequate to protect the community. It is not a self-created difficulty, except that they chose to undertake this project at this point. Mr. Lipkins thanked the Board for hearing his arguments and respectfully requests that the variance for what is proposed be granted. Mr. Winick questioned the setback of 23 ft. on the application for the paved parking area. He doesn't see how that can be correct. Mr. Carpaneto said it is pushed back off the street. Mr. Wexler said he doesn't see a site plan with the application. A discussion ensued regarding this issue, the rock outcropping behind where the parking space will go and Oriht the distance from the property line. Mr. Wexler said what's required normally is a site plan of what is proposed with measurements. There are no measurements from the established property line to what is proposed. The application is insufficient. It does not show the dimensions for the addition, nor does it specify the setbacks for the paved area in the front property line. Mr. Winick said there is no measured drawing. From his observation, it cannot be correct. The Board would like to see a drawing. Mr. Gunther said either the application is correct and the drawing is incorrect. Mr. Carpaneto said that he had contacted the surveyor regarding this matter. A discussion ensued regarding the measurements on the survey and the plan, at which time Ms. Gallent said it is not noticed properly. After further discussion, Mr. Carpaneto referred the Board to Section 240-79B,Layout and location of off- street parking facilities. The Board then discussed the proposed request for a paved parking area and what was submitted with the application in relation to this section. Mr. Gunther said the Board will adjourn the application because it has to be renoticed with the correct setbacks. If the size of the variance will be larger, it will have to be renoticed. If the size of the variance is less, there is no need for it to be renoticed. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the square footage noticed and the survey submitted. Mr. Carpaneto said that he contacted the surveyor and did have questions regarding the measurements. Mr. Wexler suggested the applicant have the architect contact the surveyor and coordinate the facts, so the architect can prepare the proper drawings. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 © Page 24 On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2377 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 5, 2000 Zoning Board meeting to allow for this matter to be renoticed, the applicant present an appropriate plot plan showing the distances from the house to the side or front yards and the extent of the variance as requested that clearly shows the Measurements. If the architect cannot get the material together for the January 5, 2000 meeting, the next meeting date is January 26, 2000. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2380 Application of Jeffrey Benjamin requesting a variance to legalize a second kitchen on the premises located at 6 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126, Lot 38. Pursuant to Section 240-21A(1),the R-7.5 Zone District permits one-family dwelling units only. One- family dwellings may contain only one-dwelling unit, pursuant to Section 240-4. Jeffrey Benjamin, the owner of 6 Leafy Lane, and Andrea Assael, his wife, appeared. He stated the application is to maintain an existing condition at his house, the presence of two kitchens. One kitchen is for general use and one is a kosher kitchen. There will be no negative impact on surrounding areas, as the outside of the house will remain the same, it is an existing condition and will not require any additional construction of any sort. He has received an unexpected response from the request that he didn't expect. He stated that he grew up in a house with two kitchens and never gave it a second thought. There was always a separate kosher kitchen to be used on holidays and Passover. When he was fixed with surprising opposition from the neighborhood, he wondered if there was any precedent to maintaining two kitchens in a one-family house. As a point of information as stated previously to his neighbors, he has no desire to make a two-family house and he does not have a two-family house. He has a single family house with two kitchens in it. Ms. Gallent said that raises a point about the way this was noticed. This was noticed as an application requesting a variance to legalize a second kitchen. It would be a use variance for a two-family use. It seems Mr. Benjamin is actually appealing the Building Inspectors determination that the second kitchen does not exist for a second family. Mr. Benjamin said he is not asking for a two-family house, but to legalize the existing second kitchen. He said that he didn't know if this was common in Mamaroneck and did check in surrounding towns; Greenburg and New Rochelle. To his surprise, in addition to second kitchens for kosher reasons, people openly think there are second kitchens in single family houses for other reasons; i.e. summer kitchen and a canning kitchen which are maintained in various houses existing in Greenburg and in New Rochelle. He does not know if any of them exist in Mamaroneck. A petition was circulated on his block filled with hearsay stating that they wished to make it into a two-family house. Mr. Benjamin would like to say in closing, before turning the matter over to his wife, that all he wants is the latitude to exercise his religious beliefs as he see fit and not be infringed upon. Mr. Winick asked at the time the variance was granted, if Mr. Benjamin indicated that the kitchen was going to be removed and it would be turned into a den. Mr. Benjamin said he never indicated that. Mr. Winick asked if Mr. Benjamin currently has au pairs in his house. Mr. Benjamin said he does. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 25 Mr. Winick said based on the material that's been talked about this evening, the au pairs should come to the meeting before the Board votes. He stated that the au pairs are either tenants or not tenants. Clearly if there are no tenants in that apartment, this application is over. Ms. Gallent reiterated the applicant is appealing the Building Inspector's determination that the second kitchen in this home is in a two-family house. It is not an illegal two-family house. The Board can agree with the Building Inspector. Mr. Winick said he is trying to figure out what basis he agrees with. Ms. Gallent said the basis should be on the facts. Mr. Winick said the current use could be a fact, the applicant's statement of intended use could be a fact, the au pairs turning out to be college students renting could be a fact, the fact that the structure lends itself to separate rentable units could be a fact. Mr. Wexler said there is no plan. Mr. Carpaneto said that there is a drawing. Mr. Winick asked if they can get a copy of the drawings. Mr. Carpaneto said they can get them for the next meeting. Andrea Assael said they have two new au pairs, as the last ones moved back to Honduras. She feels they should come before the Board at the next meeting and testify to their baby sitting duties and living arrangements. Mr. Winick asked Ms. Assael how many children she has, and if she worked outside the home. Ms. Assael said she has three children and works from home designing jewelry. Mr. Wexler asked Ms. Assael which plan shows the kosher kitchen. After some discussion, Ms. Assael said the old plan shows the kosher kitchen. Ms. Martin asked if the au pairs are kosher. Ms. Assael said that they are not kosher. They use the new addition kitchen for themselves. Ms. Martin asked if the proposed kosher kitchen is where they will cook for the family. Ms. Assael said that is correct and explained when the kitchen is in use, which is fairly often. A discussion ensued regarding dietary order specifically related to maintaining a kosher kitchen. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public on this application. Michael Lurie, an attorney who resides at 5 Leafy Lane, appeared. He stated he has been authorized to appear for 14 Town residents, 12 who reside on Leafy Lane, and gave Notice of Appearances from all of them, marked exhibit#1. He pointed out there are a total of 9 single family dwellings on Leafy Lane. He represents 7 owners of those 9 houses. One of those owners, 1 Leafy Lane, has communicated directly with the Board, is out of Town and he has not been able to communicate with him. The other individual he does not represent is 6 Leafy Lane, Benjamin. He then gave the history of Leafy Lane and the zoning problems it has had. He pointed out that 11 Leafy Lane, which was owned for a long period of time by Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 26 Carl Tortorella over a period of 8 or 10 years, was in violation of a Certificate of Occupancy for a one- family home. He originally sought to obtain a three-family Certificate of Occupancy which was denied in 1980 by the Board, finding it was a one-family house. Over the next several years the residents continually complained to the Town. Nothing was ever done. In 1987, after many complaints they were finally noticed of the violations sent to the owner of that property. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Lurie that any comments should be directly related to the application before the Board. Mr. Lurie reiterated that he is only giving the Board the history. The issue is that for a period of 20 years, the street residents complained to the Town about unothordox happenings and the Town never saw fit to respond nor take appropriate action. Mr. Gunther stated that is irrelevant to the application presently before the Board. Mr. Gunther again reiterated that if Mr. Lurie has some comments that directly relates to the application before the Board, specifically for this residence, the Board will be happy to hear it. If they relate to any other residence on the street or any other street in the Town that are unrelated to this residence, it is irrelevant. It is a waste of everyone's time to talk about matters that relate to other properties. Only this property is what the Board is discussing at this time. It is the only matter the Board has jurisdiction over at this point. Mr. Lurie said that he understands what Mr. Gunther said. Apparently the only jurisdiction before the Board today is the issue of a kosher kitchen. After further comments, he said there may be illegal tenants residing on this property. The property may have been changed from a one-family to a two-family inspite of this Board last year issuing and granting a variance for one kitchen. He said when complaints are made to the Town, which the Town is responsible for docketing, following and notifying people of resolutions, it does not get done. There has been no response to the people on the street with respect to 6 Leafy Lane when the residents notified the Building Inspector that there was an illegal occupancy and an illegal kitchen not in conformity with the plan. Mr. Carpaneto said they were notified. Ms. Gallent said what the Building Inspector noticed is that he believes that the second kitchen is in a condition of a two-family home. The applicants disagree with that. Mr. Lurie said he understands that, but is trying to make clear that they would like some response. Mr. Winick asked Mr. Lurie to get to the facts that have to do with this application. After further discussion regarding the violation sent, Mr. Lurie said in June, 1998, an application was submitted to the Building Department for an alteration to a one-family dwelling. He submitted a copy of that application, marked exhibit#2, which communicates it is a one-family to a one-family. There were no changes in respect to the number of apartments or the number of dwelling units. The Building Inspector disapproved the application, an appeal was made to the Board and on September 10, 1998 the Board approved the application. Mr. Lurie then submitted an abstract of the Minutes of that meeting, submitted to the Board and marked exhibit#3. Mr. Lurie said in September, 1999, approximately a year after the variance was approved, the residents of Leafy Lane had taken in tenants. On September 15, 1999 a letter signed by almost all of the residents on the street was sent to the Building Inspector. On October 3, 1999, a letter was received from Jeffrey Benjamin, marked exhibit#4. referring to the concerns with respect to 11 Leafy Lane. Instead of talking about au pairs, it mentioned that they had a baby sitter and her boyfriend. He also submitted a sworn affidavit, dated November 18, 1999, of Barbara Barber residing at 7 Leafy Lane, who could not be present this evening, indicating that she called Iona Housing on October 5, 1999 and asked if Benjamin of Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 27 6 Leafy Lane had put a 1 bedroom apartment for rent with them. It was verified it was listed with them and it had been rented. On November 17, 1999 she called Iona Housing again and Jessica confirmed that 6 Leafy lane had come in during the summer, but could not find an application for it but remembered it, This was submitted as exhibit#5, evidence that the property was being rented. On October 6, 1999, the Benjamin's submitted an application to the Building Department for a kosher kitchen. Needless to say the application was disapproved. The date it was disapproved, October 27, 1999, a Notice of Appeal was filed. Mr. Lurie said people file applications knowing they are going to be denied so that they immediately file appeals knowing that they can stall and delay matters. With respect to the complaints made by the residents of Leafy Lane, Mr. Lurie called Jean Putnam to make a statement. Ms. Putnam said they are very much indignant that they did not get any written response from any of the Town officials to their complaints. She is very familiar with the house, and has been there many times. The back of that house serves as an excellent opportunity to rent an apartment. She continued her presentation using the drawings before the Board, pointing out the original house, the addition, the private entrance at the back of the house into the original kitchen, the bedroom, a bath and a closet. According to the original plans submitted by Mr. Benjamin, these two rooms, the bedroom and kitchen, were to be demolished and a den was to be built there. There is a couple living in there, cooking in the kitchen every night and there is also a tenant in the basement room she is familiar with and understands they are using that as a living room. In addition to this horrendous situation, there are cars illegally parked. Mr. Gunther asked if Ms. Putnam has personally seen the people living there. Ms. Putnam said no. Ms. Putnam said they are very annoyed that they have not been notified in writing by the Town and referred the Board to code 89-76 of the Zoning Code, making reference to #11 and #9 Leafy Lane who had illegal kitchens in a one-family district which they succeeded in getting rid of. She said that sets a precedent, the law is based on precedent and the law is that there is not to be a two-family house in a one-family district. She said that au pairs do not need their own kitchen, they usually dine with the family and au pairs do not come in pairs. Mr. Lurie then called Mr. Mercado. Mr. Mercado said he lives at 11 Leafy Lane. Sometime in July, Andrea told him she had put an advertisement for the apartment for rent. A month later she told him she rented the apartment to a nice college couple, getting the security deposit from the girl's mother. She also stated that she only wanted to be paid in cash, so there would be no audit trail later on. When he asked her about the apartment, she volunteered to show it to him and explained the various location of the rooms. A few weeks later she had a run-in with Mr. Ibelli, who is present this evening, and she told Mr. Mercado she had asked Mr. Ibelli to move his car because her tenant needed the spot and told him to forget it later on. Mr. Lurie submitted an affidavit from Mr. Mercado, marked exhibit#6. Dominic Ibelli of 3 Leafy Lane appeared and addressed the Board. He then reiterated the conversation regarding needing the space for her tenant. He said when he realized it was not her property, he told her she couldn't have the space. Mr. Lurie pointed out that Mr. Benjamin fulfilled his plan to convert his property to a two-family residence in contradiction with Town Zoning Ordinance and variance granted on September 10th. He built an addition for the purpose of taking in tenants, he advertised for tenants and when the residents became aware of this lied to the them telling them they were au pairs and/or baby sitters. With respect to the issue of baby sitter, he submitted a letter from Robert Barber of 7 Leafy Lane who could not be present this evening, marked exhibit#7. Mr. Lurie said he got involved when he saw the application to the Town for a kosher kitchen. He realizes it is difficult for public officials to take positions when it comes to religious matters, however as a Jew Zoning Board November 23, 1999 OF Page 28 himself he finds it very loathsome that they would use such an excuse to try to utilize another kitchen. He then asked Susan Lurie to address the Board with respect to what a kosher kitchen is. Mr. Lurie called Susan Lurie who addressed the Board. A copy of her presentation was submitted and marked exhibit#8. J Mr. Wexler made a statement regarding kitchens, kosher kitchens and how they are used, with Ms. Lurie clarifying certain points. Mr. Lurie then called George Gold of 8 Leafy Lane who then addressed the Board. His presentation was submitted and marked exhibit#9. Mr. Winick asked Mr. Gold to describe the tenant individuals,so he can try to understand the basis of Mr. Lurie's knowledge regarding the tenants. Mr. Gold proceeded to do so and made reference to a letter that was circulated regarding those individuals. Mr. Lurie then gave some background information regarding the application submitted in September 1998, which he filed an appeal for, with no reference made to a kosher kitchen. After further presentation regarding the original plans submitted by Mr. Benjamin and approved, Mr. Lurie said that the second kitchen and the occupancy is illegal. He pointed out that there is no Certificate of Occupancy for the new structure which has been built and never approved. The Building Department records indicate that they repeatedly requested updated plans,which have yet to be submitted. In the mean time, the Benjamins have illegal tenants and are collecting money to the detriment of the people on the block. The people of Leafy Lane want something to be done quickly, not just directing the removal of a kitchen. He raised a point by asking Gary Mercado to step forward again to answer a few questions. Mr. Lurie asked Mr. Mercado if Andrea Assael showed him the apartment. Mr. Mercado said that is correct. Mr. Lurie asked if it was a separate apartment at the house at that time. Mr. Mercado said at the time there was only one wall that had to he put up to seal if off completely. Mr. Lurie asked if anything was said about that wall. Mr. Mercado said that Ms. Benjamin said she was going to put up a curtain for now and a wall as soon as possible. Mr. Lurie apologized for himself and the neighborhood for not appearing last year before the Board when there was a small front setback problem at the time the Board approved the building. His own personal feeling is that this is the first step of several that Mr. Benjamin intended to take to make a profit out of his house by increasing its occupancy. He pointed out at that time, the Board members were not happy with this proposal. He also pointed out that Mr. Wexler at that time even stated that in the future submissions not be done piecemeal and that is what is happening here. First they asked for an addition, then they asked for a second kitchen and the next thing they will ask for is a second apartment. He said to respond to Mr. Simon's question, "what's the difference whether you approve something now or later, it still has to be approved by the Building Department" eventually it is too late to go back. The issue before the Board today is that this situation has to be resolved and not let it go on for any length of time. He understands the Board wants further testimony in the future, but he asks that there be supervision that that testimony be sworn to avoid lies and/or misrepresentations either to the Town or the residents of the block. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public on this application. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 29 Thomas Haley, of 61 Edgewood Avenue, said the rear of his house backs up on the rear of Ms. Putnam's house and diagonally with Mr. Benjamin's house. He is present in support of his neighbors on Leafy Lane who are asking the Board to deny the variance to legalize the second kitchen and to the extent that this Board has the authority to do so to require that the second kitchen be removed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were Any other comments on this application from the public. Jean Putnam then quoted from a Jewish organization article regarding the number of kosher kitchens. Dr. Ladin of 2 Leafy Lane thanked the Board for serving the community. He stated for the record that he is against the proposal. He said if the couple is requested to bring witnesses, that a valid marriage certificate be requested. He missed the opportunity the first time the variance request was brought up for the addition before the Board. He wants to go on record as to why the Town does not have an Architectural Board of Review and had an opportunity to look at this addition. It is not in conformance to a Mediterranean style. He would like to see something done to control the Building Department. He said he is in sympathy with the Board, after looking at the original plans. A standard should be set so good judgment can be made. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments on this application. Mr. Lurie submitted photocopies of the parking situation with respect to 6 Leafy Lane and the fact that it is violating the requirement that there he off-street parking; 3 pictures submitted, marked exhibit#10. He said when the Board gets to a determination, that the determination not just be that the application for a kosher kitchen is disapproved. There are more things and issues that have been brought to the attention of the Town by the residents which they hope will be decided by this Board. Mr. Gunther asked if those items are building related items and have they been brought to the Building Department. Mr. Lurie said yes. Mr. Benjamin said he wants to stick to the law, referred the Board to Section 240-21C(2),and commented that he is abiding by that law and is in compliance with the code of the Town of Mamaroneck. He explained that they are there baby sitters and college students, two non-transients. Mr. Winick asked if Mr. Benjamin agreed that the non-transients are using the new kitchen. Ms. Benjamin explained the situation and said they use the kitchen to cook for the children. Mr. Wexler said you don't have to be Jewish to cook in a kosher kitchen. It has to do with using kosher utensils and food and maintain that degree of order. Mr. Benjamin asked if there is a parking violation. Mr. Carpaneto said the parking would be in violation, but he has not seen any violation. Ms. Gallent said that issue is not before the Board. Mr. Mercado of 11 Leafy Lane again spoke about the use of the new kitchen and the use of the old kosher kitchen. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions of the applicant, because he would like to allow the Board to absorb all the information. He said that the secretary will put a package together with new materials submitted. The applicant will have an opportunity to bring any other information they have to gather for the next meeting and will adjourn this application to the January 5, 1999 meeting. He requested that the two non-transients come to the next meeting, as the Board would like to hear from them also. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 30 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other requests from Board members. Mr. Wexler said he would like to see the plans of the house. Mr. Gunther asked if there are plans for the house as-built. J Mr. Benjamin said that they are not completed as yet. Mr. Gunther said that the Board members want to see what is currently existing. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Carpaneto has been inside the house. Mr. Carpaneto said no. Mr. Gunther said the Board would like to see plans that display what is built in the house. After some discussion, it was agreed that the December Zoning Board meeting will be held on January 5, 2000, due to the holiday season. Mr. Wexler said when the plans are presented, can he verify they are plans that exist. Mr. Carpaneto said yes, they will be verified. Mr. Benjamin said that as-built plans have been delayed because of problems with the architect and contractor. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant had plans that he built from, which Mr. Benjamin verified. He asked that Mr. Benjamin mark them up and Mr. Carpaneto will verify those are the correct locations and must represent what is there. Mr. Gunther directed the Board secretary to include a memorandum in the packets to Board members of materials that are anticipated;plans as-built,inspection report from the Building Department, also requested • that the two non-transients living in the house be present. Mr. Ladin asked how did they get a building permit without plans. Mr. Carpaneto said they have plans. Mr. Winick said later on as-built plans are submitted. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2380 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 5, 2000 Zoning Board meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther informed those present that the review of the October 27, 1999 Zoning Board Minutes will be held over to the next Zoning Board meeting. Zoning Board November 23, 1999 Page 31 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 5, 2000. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Margue{y e Roma, Recording Secretary