HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_10_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
OCTOBER 27, 1999, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Jillian A. Martin
J. Rene Simon
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 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Gunther informed those present that the Approval of Minutes and setting the calendar for the next
meeting date will be done at the end of the meeting.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2352 (adjourned 3/17/99;4/28/99;5/26/99;6/23/99;7/21/99;8/18/99;9/23/99)
Application of Eugene Pressman requesting a variance to legalize an existing pillar. The pillar as
constructed has a height of 7 ft. 3.5 in. where 6 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52B for a pillar
in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417 Lot 107.
Mr. &Mrs. Austin Hearst, the new owners of 209 Road Hommocks Road, appeared to address the Board.
Mr. Gunther asked if they are familiar with the application, as it has been on the calendar for quite some
time. He also asked if they had gone through the file.
Mr. Hearst said they had a chance to review the file. He said the home was purchased from the
Pressman, along with the request for a variance application for the 2 pillars which is confusing and has
taken a long time to resolve. They are resolved to do whatever the Board requests. He asked that time
be given to rectify the situation, possibly in the spring rather than immediately.
Mr. Gunther informed the Hearsts that what is existing today is a pillar for which the Building Department
issued a Notice of Violation. It is the result of construction on the property,about which there is a lengthy
record of the proceedings. He stated that Mr. Pressman requested that the Board review the pillar and
make a determination of whether or not the Board will grant a variance for the pillar to remain. He
informed the Hearsts that the application either can be withdrawn or it can be continued. The Board will
then review any new information that is presented and make a resolution on the matter.
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 2
Ms. Hearst said that the only new information is that they are the new owners. The pillar doesn't even
appear to be 7 ft. 3 in., the issue at this point. They believe, aesthetically, there is a slope, the pillars
seem the same height and they would like that to remain. Ms. Hearst said that the Board is more familiar
with the background of this issue. They will comply with whatever the Board decides. They came this
evening to voice their view, would like to apply for the variance, but will accept the Board's resolution.
Mr. Gunther asked if there are any questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there
were any other comments from the public on this application.
William Maker, Jr., the attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Miralia, the neighbors across the way, appeared. He
said nothing has changed, except ownership. The zoning issue remains the same. The other neighbors
remain adamant that the variance should not be granted.
Mr. Gunther asked if anyone else from the public would like to make comment on this application. No
one else commented. Mr. Gunther read the draft resolution prepared by counsel.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED, 3 in favor, 2 opposed.
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. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Eugene Pressman has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together
with plans to legalize an existing pillar. The pillar as constructed has a height of 7 ft. 3.5 in. where a
maximum of 6 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52B for a pillar in an R-50 Zone District, on the
premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 417, Lot 107; 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 240-52B; and
WHEREAS, Eugene Pressman 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:
The history of this matter is well-known to the members of this Board. This most recent
application for a variance to legalize an existing pillar located on the "Reserve Strip" on the side of the
property located at 209 Hommocks road, follows the Board's determination on October 28, 1998, that that
pillar, located on the right as one looks at the house from the Reserve Strip, does not comply with the 72-
inch height limitation contained in Town of Mamaroneck Code § 240-52(B). The Director of Buildings
has determined that the pillar in question measures 87.5 inches in height.
In considering the application for a variance to permit the pillar to exceed the maximum
height permitted in the district, the Board must take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the
variance is granted,as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 3
by such grant. New York State Town Law ("Town Law") § 267-b(3)(b). In making its determination,
the Board must consider the following:
(1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created;
(2) whether'the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
(3) whether the requested area variance is substantial:
(4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
(5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Town Law § 267-b(3)(b)(1-5).
Taking into consideration each of these factors, for the reasons set forth below, the Board
DENIES the variance.
Undesirable Change
The Board heard testimony from Mr. and Mrs. Lauren Miralia, who reside across the
street at 210 Hommocks Road, and received letters from residents of 205, 212 and 220 Hommocks Road,
indicating that they object to the appearance of the oversized pillar on the Reserve Strip in contrast to its
companion pillar, the height of which, the Board found in its October 28, 1998 decision, complies with
OR the relevant height limitations. Moreover, in its setting -- the pillar is part of a wall, which, at the point
where the wall meets the pillar, is only two feet in height- the height of the pilar is disproportionate. The
Board finds that to permit an oversized pillar of the dimensions requested in this application in this context
would very visibly frustrate the intent of the Town Board in adopting the six foot height limitation on
columns, pillars, piers and posts.
Existence of A Feasible Alternative
The Board is particularly influenced in its analysis of the requested variance by the fact
that the applicant can achieve his desired goal of having an "architecturally aesthetic look"without the need
for a variance. The applicant has indicated through counsel that he desires to have the two columns on the
Reserve Strip of equal height. Indeed, the Board agrees that it is desirable for the two pillars to appear
to be of equal height. This goal can be achieved, however, by lowering both pillars so that no variances
are required.
Substantial Nature of the Variance
The applicant requests a variance that is approximately 21% of the permissible height -
or 13.5 inches. The Board acknowledges that this is not very substantial in quantitative terms. However,
qualitatively, the pillar has been described by its neighbors as "offensive" and "massive" and would have
a negative impact on the surrounding areas as described above.
Effect on Physical or Environmental Conditions
The grant of the requested variance would have no impact on physical or environmental
conditions in the area.
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 4
Self-Created Hardship
It is this factor that weighs most heavily in the Board's analysis. The Board finds that
the difficulty experienced by the applicant that has resulted in the request for a variance is most definitely
self-created. The applicant contends that the pillar was constructed pursuant to a building permit.
However, what the applicant fails to acknowledge is that prior to construction, that permit was challenged
in a proceeding before this Board and the Board indicated its intention to revoke the permit. At its
September 25, 1995 meeting, the Board announced its intention to revoke the permit as erroneously granted
and directed its counsel to prepare a resolution reflecting that consensus. Despite this clear notice that the
permit would be revoked, the applicant proceeded to construct the subject pillar in the month between the
Board's September 25 indication that the permit would be revoked and its October 25, 1998 adoption of
the resolution revoking the permit.
In light of these facts, there can be no doubt that the difficulty alleged was indeed self-
created. The Board is concerned that to grant the variance requested under these circumstances would
create a very dangerous precedent that would encourage people to disregard this Board's determinations
and legalize the resulting construction later.
The Board believes that, taking into consideration all of the factors discussed above, on
balance, the detriment resulting from the granting of the variance requested would outweigh the benefit to
the applicant. Accordingly, the variance is DENIED.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther suggested the applicant speak to the Building Department, Mr. Carpaneto, during regular
business hours to schedule an appointment in the future for correction.
Ms. Martin asked if there is a time frame for this to occur.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carpaneto for the appropriate time.
Mr. Miralia said as a point of clarification it wasn't mentioned this evening, but had been mentioned at
earlier readings, that the Board wished that all the mounding around the post be removed.
Mr. Gunther said what was requested in the variance was that the pillars be made to the appropriate height.
With regard to how that is accomplished is more of an enforcement matter for the Building Department.
Mr. Gunther read a letter from William S. Null, Esq., requesting an adjournment to the next meeting of
the following case:
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2357 (adjourned 6/23/99;8/19/99 to 9/99;9/23/99)
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 the following matter was adjourned at the prior meeting.
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2365 (adjourned 9/23/99)
Application of Gibbs and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize the erection of an existing
air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard
of 7.64 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 5
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 said there will not be a discussion at this meeting on that matter. The Town has made an
arrangement with Acoustic Dimensions, Inc., Mr. David Greenberg, who is also a resident of the Town,
and will appear before the Board at the next meeting to provide the Board with background information
in assisting with the decision making process for that application.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2370
Application of Malcolm and Jessica Plett requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition and deck,
and replace an existing porch roof. The porch roof to be replaced has a side yard of 2.15 ft. where 8.0
ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);the one story addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.25
ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); the proposed addition would create a lot
coverage of 37.7% where a maximum of 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further, the
additions would increase the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 52 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 482.
Jessica Plett, the owner, and Rosamund Young, the architect, appeared.
A discussion ensued regarding the description as printed in the notice as a side yard of 7.25 ft. where 10
ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a), which should be 8 ft., a lessor variance.
Ms. Young said they are proposing to enlarge the kitchen by building a 10.6 ft. by 12.6 ft. single-story
addition which will extend into the rear yard. They are also proposing to replace an existing structure in
the side yard, a simple entry portico which is deteriorated, replacing the columns and put on a new roof.
Mr. Wexler asked if Ms. Young is asking for a side yard variance of 8.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required.
Ms. Young said they are asking for a side yard variance of 7.25 ft. where 8 ft. is required. The reason
being that the existing corner of the house is at 7.25 ft. and they would like to continue on that line for the
construction.
A discussion ensued with counsel regarding the footage for a side yard variance.
Mr. Gunther said the side lot line will not change from what currently exists for the addition and the roof,
with which the architect agreed.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked
if there were any comments from the public. There being none, On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by
Mr. Simon, 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, Malcolm and Jessica Plett have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a one-story addition and deck, and replace an existing porch roof. The
porch roof to be replaced has a side yard of 2.15 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-
39B(2)(a); the one story addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.25 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required pursuant
to Section 240-39B(2)(a); the proposed addition would create a lot coverage of 37.7% where 35% is
required pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further, the additions would increase the extent by which the
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 6
building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the
premises located at 52 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 217, Lot 482; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240-39F, Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Malcolm and Jessica Plett 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 inspection of the property as well as the plan, there will be no
undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a
detriment to nearby properties created. On both sides of this property, the
houses extends back in one case about the same depth and the other quite farther
than this extension would extend. It is in keeping with the surrounding
properties. It is self-evident that it is occurring in a well-screened back yard and
will not have an adverse impact on the character in the neighborhood or district.
As far as the west side neighbor is concerned, this addition extending into the
back yard stops short of the habitable and used portion of the west side
neighbor's back yard. The porch of the house that faces it has very few
windows. On the east side across the driveway and a considerable distance, the
impact is softened by the fact that the kitchen portion of the addition is being
located all the way to the west and the deck, which obviously is an open space,
closer to the east side neighbor;
B. Given the fact that the house is currently nonconforming, the applicant cannot
achieve their goals via a reasonable alterative which does not involve the
necessity of an area variance, except perhaps by the odd construction of sticking
a box directly on the center of the back of the house which makes very little
sense;
C. Given the fact that an 8 ft. setback is required and the requested setback is 7.25
ft., the variance is insubstantial.
D. There will be no impact on the physical or environmental condition.
E. There is no self-created difficulty. Obviously,the lot is nonconforming and has
been nonconforming probably since the passage of the Ordinance.
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.
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 7
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
Chairman Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2371
Application of Joy and Robert Greenberg requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition and deck.
The plans submitted are not in compliance with plans approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in its
February 24, 1999 variance 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.
Mr. Gunther said that the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and asked
if a response was received.
Ms. Gallent said the Westchester County Department of Planning said it was nonjurisdictional.
Ken Kurtz of Stephen Tilly Architects appeared representing the applicants. He said they are asking for
changes and amendments to the variance granted the end of February of this year. No change will be made
in the footprint, but will be made to the bulk of the building. He stated that during the course of
construction and after the building permit was obtained, the owners, contractor and himself made some
decisions to replace the boiler and hot water heater. There is an existing masonry chimney on the east side
of the building, as shown on the drawings presented to the Board in February. During the course of
demolition it became apparent that that chimney was not necessary, as the wall it was tied into was being
demolished. For structural reasons it was determined that the entire chimney be demolished. Once the
chimney was demolished, some of the decisions about the interior of the house were reevaluated. As a
result of that, instead of building an additional bedroom going from a three bedroom to a four bedroom
house with a den it was decided to stay with a three bedroom house and things were moved around on the
inside of the house. There is no change in the footprint, but there are several changes to the design. One
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 8
change is the roof line as seen along Leatherstocking Trail. There are two dormers and the roof drops
down in between that. It was decided to combine the two rooms into one room and continue the roof line.
What is being proposed that was not proposed originally is to connect the two dormers with a flat roof
as shown in exhibit#1. In addition, along the east, exhibit#2, shows a new fireplace. Instead of having
a large window and the chimney further away, it is proposed to have a chimney up against the wall and
no window with a much smaller chimney than the previous one had been. In addition to that where
previously there had been a wall adjacent to the garage and family room, they would like to add a door.
At the previous hearing, one of the concerns voiced by the neighbors was about a large window that was
proposed. As a condition of that variance, the size of that window was reduced and the pitch of the roof
was modified. Now they are proposing to eliminate the entire window for privacy. Exhibit #3 are
construction photos of the house. Exhibit#4 shows the house under construction showing the roof cut off
and the large window. Exhibit#5 shows the current house. He again reiterated there will be no change
in the footprint, and there will be no impact on the Leatherstocking Trail elevation.
Mr. Gunther asked if he or his firm is supervising the construction.
Mr. Kurtz said yes.
Mr. Gunther asked if he had an opportunity to read what was originally drafted in the first place, and read
item #1 that states this variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented an no other,
which generally means you build according to the plans and no other. He asked Mr. Kurtz if construction
had begun on these other items.
Mr. Kurtz said construction on these items are as follows; it has been framed and sheathed at this point.
He contacted the Building Inspector prior to beginning to get a ruling on it. He directed them to apply for
a variance which he did. He said this was done in the interest of closing up the house and getting the roof
on.
Mr. Gunther asked about the other side of the project.
Mr. Kurtz said the other side is built as drawn.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Kurtz what variances he is looking for.
Mr. Kurtz said they are looking for a side yard variance to build a two-story addition along the
Leatherstocking Trail on the north. The rear yard variance is for a deck. The side yard variance is for
the entire area to be built.
Mr. Wexler said the change in the area as presented, includes a change to that area.
Mr. Kurtz said it includes a change to the roof, in addition to a door and a proposed chimney in the area
of the side yard variance. Mr. Kurtz said the two dormers along the Leatherstocking Trail wall were
approved. What was not approved, at that time, was to build the wall.
Mr. Wexler asked how the roof line change is reflected in the side elevation.
Mr. Kurtz said it is not reflected in the side elevation, because it is not visible at that elevation.
Ms. Martin asked for clarification of the process in which it was determined that the chimneys as originally
constructed would be eliminated to make one bedroom, when two separate bedrooms had originally been
requested. She asked for some structural background behind that.
Mr. Kurtz said that the chimney was 4 ft. wide above the roof, about 2' ft. deep, 31/2 ft. above the ridge.
He then talked about the three flues, and said they decided to replace the boiler with a high efficiency gas
boiler and replace the hot water heater relocating them to a different location. The two large flues in the
chimney were then gone. They were left with the 8 ft. by 8 ft. flue, which was lower than the other ones.
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 9
The third flue,not shown on the picture, was for the fireplace. Demolition was planned from the start for
most of the walls as demonstrated and there was no way to stabilize the construction that was being done.
Mr. Winick asked if the chimney is going to be supported by a wall in one of those two rooms in the
original proposal.
Mr. Kurtz said no, it will be tied into the masonry wall of the house up to the level of the first floor. They
had plans to tie it into the foundation wall. In the end, the walls in the basement needed to be demolished
as well.
Mr. Winick asked if it was not supported prior to the addition.
Mr. Kurtz said before the new addition it was built into the wall.
Ms. Martin asked about the need as previously stated for the fourth bedroom.
Mr. Kurtz said the owners decided it would he better for the family to have three generous bedrooms rather
than two large and two small bedrooms.
Mr. Greenberg said they had considered having a third child and wanted another bedroom. In the event
it happens, two can share a room.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.
Ms. Gallent asked if Mr. Kurtz is appealing the Building Department's determination that the construction
as proposed this evening is not in compliance with what was originally granted.
Mr. Kurtz said he is asking for an additional variance.
After some discussion, Ms. Gallent said it has been noticed as an appeal.
A discussion ensued regarding what procedure to follow.
Ms. Gallent said the Board grants variances by looking at particular plans. The Board is looking at a
different plan than it looked at in February when the variance was granted and must look at the new plans
with respect to what is required by the Town Law. As noticed, it can be an appeal. If the Board decides
that the plans are not in compliance, then it is a request for a new variance, and that request must be
appropriately noticed.
Mr. Wexler said there has got to be some mechanism that a minor change in the plans does not affect the
variance granted.
Ms. Gallent said that would have to be taken care of in the language of the variance itself.
Further discussion continued regarding substantial compliance.
A five minute break was taken at this time.
Mr. Gunther recalled the meeting to order. He asked if Mr. Kurtz had anything else he wanted to add.
Mr. Kurtz said they had a survey done to verify they are in conformance with the code that shows the
setbacks, submitted as exhibit#6.
Mr. Gunther read a letter into the record that was received from Dr. &Mrs. Arthur Ship, which is a part
of the record, stating if the variance is granted it would diminish the validity of the Board.
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 10
Mr. Gunther asked if the applicants had received a copy of the letter. They had not received a copy and
were given a copy of the letter at this time.
Mr. Gunther then summarized this case, stating the Board understands what was built and where they want
to go. What was noticed was insufficient to grant an additional variance. What was certified and
authorized in paragraph #1 on the bottom in the original variance granted in February of this year
specifically states "this variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other".
For the Board to move forward, the public must be given due notice that an additional variance is being
requested to change the plan.
Mr. Kurtz said it was his understanding to come before the Board this evening and that that was the plan
to be followed.
Mr. Wexler asked Ms. Gallent if that was direction that had to be taken.
Ms. Gallent said that the Board can vote on the appeal tonight.
Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Greenberg had anything else to say.
Mr. Greenberg said the decision on how to proceed is rather complicated for them. They tried to proceed
in a way that respected the laws of the Town and kept an active line of communication with Mr.
Carpaneto. Mr. Carpaneto has given them good advice along the way. Their concern is that they are
living in a house under construction with their two children, seven and three years old. They would like
to close the house, complete the construction, move out of the two bedrooms they are living in and also
get the house functioning properly. The possibility of resolving this matter this evening would benefit them
both in terms of the cost of being able to close sooner rather than later, allow them to resume their normal
life more quickly and protect their home from the element.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public on this application.
Rochelle Stacsa, of 11 West Drive, addressed the Board. She said her house faces that wall. She read
from prepared notes against the requested variance, marked exhibit#7,which is a part of the record. Ms.
Stassa implored the Board to give this careful consideration, because it makes a very strong statement for
their entire neighborhood. She also submitted letters from neighbors to the Board.
Mr. Gunther said that he already read the letter from Dr. & Mrs. Arthur Ship of 9 West Drive, and
proceeded to read the additional letters in opposition from the following individuals,which are also a part
of the record: Susan and Bill Vieser of 20 West Drive, Mr. & Mrs. George L. Levinson of 16 West
Drive, Patricia Foley and Pat Foley of 14 West Drive.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carpaneto to circle on the tax map where those houses are located, which he did.
He then showed the location of the houses to those present.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions.
Dan Volpano, of 17 West Drive, addressed the Board. He informed the Board and those present that the
three houses share a driveway, #19 West, #11 West and#17 West Drive. The three houses are in a small
cul-de-sac. The improvements that the Greenbergs are making to their home are substantial and significant.
He is delighted that they are making these improvements, as it will improve the value of his property and
will do the same thing for the property of the residents of 11 West Drive. The other letters that were
presented to the Board lay out the fact that the improvements being made are detrimental to the
neighborhood and it is just the opposite. What is being done and the improvements being made will do
a lot to enhance the area. He believes the decision that the Board is attempting to make is whether the
changes to the variance and the changes to the plan in the three areas, the dormer, the chimney, and the
front door are substantial changes to the original variance, and whether those three changes will in fact
cause harm to the value of the neighborhood and are undesirable improvements. The fireplace is on one
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 11
side of the house, unfortunately faces the residents of 11 West Drive and impacts them more than it impacts
him. The other two changes, the garage door and the dormer, faces the back of the Leatherstocking Trail
and has no impact on whether they build the two dormers visually. He would encourage the Board to make
a decision this evening about what is significant and substantial in the way of modification and make a
decision about those three items and not get bogged down with whether or not the overall improvement of
the original variance is good or bad for the neighborhood, because it is good for the neighborhood in light
of what they are planning for the-house.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public.
George Stassa, of 11 West Drive, addressed the Board. Mr. Stassa distributed a comparison of the original
plans and the new proposed plan, marked exhibit#8, so the Board can follow his line of reasoning. Mr.
Stassa asked if the new application was put in before or after the Building Inspector went to the site.
Mr. Carpaneto said he went to the site after.
Mr. Stassa said he gathers that when Mr. Carpaneto went to the site, he found that it was not proceeding
according to the plan, with which Mr. Carpaneto agreed.
Mr. Carpaneto said he preformed an inspection, the work on the dormer in the back had been started, and
that everything else was pretty much the same.
Mr. Stassa asked about the chimney.
Mr. Carpaneto said that the chimney was down, but he did not do an inspection.
Mr. Stassa said he wanted to develop the progress, which is important. He thanked the Board for the
opportunity to address the Board. He has a few points regarding the comparison of the submitted plans,
the approved plans and would like to review the discussion that lead to granting the original variance. In
plan A, the smaller one, passed by the Board, there were four bedrooms because the applicant said he
needed four bedrooms. Now looking at plan B, there are three bedrooms. In the original plan, the room
over the garage, the lower end of the plan, was an existing bedroom and bath that was to provide closets
for a room with access to the den. Now that space, although labeled bedroom, provides a toilet, sink, tub
and shower. This is the new master bathroom with connection to the master bedroom and no access to the
hall. The den in plan B is gone and so is the fireplace and chimney. This space has been incorporated
into a large master bedroom suite that includes the space over the garage as well. The destruction of the
fireplace and chimney are major indications of the applicants intention to convert the plan. If they were
willing to remove the fireplace and chimney in the den, there could have been a reconfiguration for space
for three bedrooms without an extension. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wexler had questioned use of the den
space for the possible fourth bedroom. He then referred to the proceedings leading to the granting of the
original variance, as well as the compromise suggested by the Board to make it possible. He then read
from prepared text sections of the Minutes, which is a part of the record marked exhibit#10, pertaining
to this matter. He also distributed copies of the Minutes to the Board pertaining to this matter, marked
exhibit#11.
A five minute break was taken at this time.
Mr. Gunther recalled the meeting to order.
Tasos Kokoris, an architect, appeared to address the Board. He stated he was asked by Dr. &Mrs. Stassa
to take a look at the information that was before them. Mr. Kokoris said he had submitted a letter to the
Board regarding this matter. Just to review it briefly, as far as the point of this application having to do
with regard to the architecture with the east elevation and that front gable that was there and approved, the
approved elevation showed the front faced gable with a chimney and a small window. The new application
shows no window and a chimney which has been brought to the line of that wall and extends 2 ft. above
the addition roof line in the front. Architecturally, in assessing that, there is no question in Mr. Kokoris'
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 12
mind that a chimney which extends above the roof line seems more imposing when one is standing next
to it, than a roof that does not have a chimney. In addition to that, on any wall the presence of a window
is a neighborly gesture and a more friendly looking wall. Once the window goes away, it becomes a very
imposing, grueling presence that Mr. Kokoris finds objectionable, which has to do with the architecture.
The other comments which the Stassas have elaborated very much on, have to do with bedroom counting.
By utilizing, in a very strong way, the need for that bedroom as a way of achieving a variance, it is no
longer a detail. It might have Been a detail if it wasn't repeatedly discussed and stated in the final
determination. Being it was discussed, was detailed and mentioned, it becomes a very critical point which
calls the entire application to be questioned.
Mr. Gunther read the letter Mr. Kokoris provided, addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is
a part of the record.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public on this application.
Randal Netley, an interior designer and friend of the Greenbergs, said he would like to comment on some
language that has been used thus far; words like misrepresentation, sham, premeditation, ploy, integrity
and questionable intent. He said he has been working with the Greenbergs for some time on this project.
When contacted, they proceeded forward with the original plan; a small den and an even smaller bedroom
added onto the house with a family room above the garage. At considerable expense to the Greenbergs
and Mr. Netley's time, the plans changed when they found out what the space could become without that
fireplace. Mr. Netley said he was contacted by the Greenbergs, who wanted to make changes. He said
he was with the Greenbergs just days before when they discussed the project. There was never an attempt
to take away the fireplace, it was never premeditated, misrepresented, never a ploy and it is not a question
of integrity or questionable intent. The opportunity arose to improve the property. He admitted that when
the Greenbergs first discussed it with him, he also questioned bringing down the number of bedrooms.
But considering a neighborhood as such and looking at the improvement of the bedroom and bathroom,
he thinks in any community there are buyers interested in improving the house. The house is almost 80
years old and nothing substantial has been done to it. This was not planned in advance, it was never their
intent to deceive anyone, not the neighbors nor the Board. It was just something that came about.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public.
John Coats, of Coatall Contracting, the contractor working for the Greenbergs appeared. He added to Mr.
Netley's comments that taking down the chimney was a structural issue to begin with,once the surrounding
walls were taken down. Once that was done, that is when the design changes were made.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public.
Joy Greenberg, the owner of the house, addressed the Board. She said she never came to the meeting
seeking a master bedroom and master bath. She said she was going to stay in the old master bedroom and
have a very small bathroom that two people cannot be in at the same time. She is excited to improve the
property, but the house if 75 years old, needs a lot of help and there is no central air. There are a lot of
things that need to be done. When it was realized that the chimney had to be taken down, she and her
husband realized what could be done; it could be a great master bedroom and two children could have two
twin beds in the existing master bedroom. By doing that, there could be a bathroom over the garage
nearby, that both can use at the same time, the children can have their bedroom which will allow them to
stay at that residence for 20 years and they will not have to move from the house and move up. When the
house was purchased nothing had been done for 75 years. They have done so much to the house, will
continue to do so, are improving the value for her neighbors and it is very expensive. She has the change
orders to prove her point. She is a good neighbor and is confused at people making a play on her integrity.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments.
Mr. Kokorus, the architect, said he also realizes being in construction that things happen during
construction that are unforeseen. He is not clear as to why that chimney needed to be taken down. A
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 13
chimney only needs to be taken down if you remove the flue. The size of the bedroom that currently exists
seems to be very, very generous by any standards. If the object is simply to have a comfortable master
bedroom suite,he asked if there is really a need for all that volume on the easterly side of the second floor
and feels the Board should discuss this to determine whether the application can be allowed with some
modification to address the issue of the eastern elevation.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments. There being none, he said the Board has to address
what has been requested that being, are the plans submitted, referring to the Notice of Disapproval, in
compliance with the plans that were approved at the prior Board meeting, 2/24/99. That is, what is being
built, is that substantially in compliance with what was granted in the original variance, which is the
question before the Board members.
On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined
by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA.
Mr. Paul Winick proceeded to make a motion,stating that the work that has been done is not in substantial
compliance with the plan. He said he comes at this from a different way of a design professional. He is
a construction litigator and he litigates the question of substantiality frequently. He thinks that the issue
that is presented, the ability of the person to make changes within an existing variance, is a very sensitive
one. Substantiality is essentially the guide the Board has as to whether or not that additional change can
be added on. Obviously,as one can see this evening, this is something about which reasonable people can
differ. He doesn't believe that a change in construction that turns two rooms into one, adds a chimney,
moves a chimney, essentially changes the roof line, even though no one seems to be concerned about that,
and adds a bathroom upstairs can possibly be insubstantial in a legal sense. He makes a motion that it be
denied, because the Board finds that there is a substantial change and deal with the matter as a variance.
After some discussion on the form of motion to be made with counsel, Mr. Winick said that the motion
would be that the Board denies the appeal.
Mr. Wexler said, at this point in time, the Greenbergs have an alternative. The two children are in a room
together and the Greenbergs want separate rooms. There is latitude in the plan to achieve the goals for
the two bedrooms originally asked for, without much change. He has objections to the chimneys as it is
presented on the edge of the building as opposed to interior. He also objects to the fact that he eliminated
that window, as the architect said it is a more friendly face of the building. Mr. Wexler feels those can
be achieved by eliminating the chimney, eliminating the fireplace,putting the window back and not building
two bedrooms at this time. Without that chimney in that location, there is a window and no substantial
change to the plans. The way it is presented now, there is a reasonable substantial change. That change
is not a handsome structure. As the facade does face a front elevation, it is a detriment to the house and
not an improvement. He said he is inclined to agree it is substantial with those elements. If they were not
there, it would not be a substantial change.
Mr. Gunther said he has no doubt the applicant came to this point from an honest prospective. At the same
time, the basis of the original variance and the reason for the granting
of the variance is based upon facts presented, which goes away with the changes in the plans. The Board
then has to relook at what is there. From a legal prospective, are the plans submitted in compliance with
what was originally approved? Obviously it is not.
Mr. Wexler made the following proposal; is the applicant willing to restore the elevation to the way it was,
eliminate the chimney and proceed with the construction? Mr. Wexler said is it a substantial change or
not, keeping the variance in tact?
A discussion ensued regarding this issue with counsel and Board members, with Ms. Greenberg stating that
the window was there before construction began.
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 14
The Board reviewed and discussed pictures submitted.
Mr. Wexler said the only change that has been made is the enlarged dormer.
Ms. Gallent said the Board neFA1s another plan.
After further discussion, Ms. Gallent said the Board must vote on what is before it and that the matter can
be adjourned.
Ms. Stassa asked if the Greenbergs came to the Board and asked for a three bedroom house on the second
floor and wanted to change the master bedroom, would the Board have granted the variance when she had
pointed out that huge space in the front of the house that would have not bothered anybody and would not
have been an eyesore. If the Board allows this whole intrusive wall, when the structure is up it will be
in her face, the front of her house. Ms. Stassa wants the Board to consider the original variance and why
it was given.
Mr. Gunther said that matter is not before the Board. What is before the Board is whether what is being
presented and being built is substantially the same as what was approved.
Mr. Winick said that the Board can only deal with things that are legally noticed and properly before the
Board.
Mr. Gunther said there is a motion on the floor and asked if there is a second. He said the motion on the
floor is from Mr. Winick to deny the appeal from the Building Department's determination that this is a
substantial change.
After further discussion, Mr. Gunther read the Notice of Disapproval, at which time he said that Mr.
Simon seconded the motion and asked if those present were in favor of the motion.
Mr. Wexler asked what the applicants' options are.
Ms. Gallent said there are two options. The applicant can apply for a variance so he can use those plans,
or he can submit other plans that either are or are not in substantial compliance. Ms. Gallent said that the
Board has said the plans submitted are not in substantial compliance. She said the plans can be changed
and submitted to the Building Department, at which time a decision will be made as to whether they build
the plans that were presented tonight, are in substantial compliance or not. Depending on that
determination, an appeal can be made by the applicant or someone else.
Chairman Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2372
Application of Joel Brill and Amy Goldman requesting a variance to construct a rear deck. The rear deck
as proposed has a rear yard of 9.75 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2); and
further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 64 Maple Hill Drive and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 119, Lot 89.
Gail Ascher, the architect for the applicants, appeared. She said that the request is for a variance for a
rear yard setback for a deck and proceeded to review the plan submitted. Only a portion is required, as
the site itself steps back. Due to the configuration of the interior, they are trying to enlarge the kitchen
and are taking out a bathroom. In doing that they are forced to extend a little into the rear setback,
requiring the variance. The applicants would like to be able to cook and use the outside, which currently
they cannot do. The only access to their yard is from the front. They cannot use the back yard. They
feel an extension of the deck would not only allow them to cook outside, but extend the inside into the
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 15
outside. It is the only place that a deck can go. There are existing Hemlock trees that line the back. The
neighbor is about 60 ft. from the rear of the deck. It is completely screened.
Ms. Martin said that the variance is for a rear deck, and asked if they are extending the kitchen also.
Ms. Ascher explained how the kitchen is being extended.
Ms. Martin said that the variance before the Board does not discuss any extension of the kitchen.
Mr. Carpaneto said that the deck is the closest part of the construction,as the end of the deck is the closest
thing to the property line.
Ms. Ascher said basically there are interior alterations.
Mr. Wexler suggested that in the future it should be noticed that there is a two-part variance; a deck and
an addition within that same area. It gives the Board an opportunity to grant a portion if necessary.
After some discussion pertaining to this issue, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from
Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any other questions from the public on this
application.
Mr. Brill said he had letters from neighbors in support of the application.
Mr. Gunther said that the Board had copies of those letters from 6 Orsini Drive, 60 Maple Hill Drive, 8
Orsini Drive, 100 Murray Avenue and 62 Maple Hill and read them into the record.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, 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,Joel Brill and Amy Goldman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a rear deck. The rear deck as proposed has a rear yard of 9.75 ft. where
25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2); and further, the deck increases the extent by which the
building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the
premises located at 64 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 119, Lot 89; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(2), Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Joel Brill and Amy Goldman 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:
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 16
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the pp granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. Based on personal observation of the property and review of the record as
submitted there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the
neighborhood,or a detriment to nearby properties created, as deck structures are
very common in the neighborhood. The location of the property is a distance
from the neighbor so it will not have a negative impact on them, as screening
exists as well that will shield any activity on the deck from the neighbors;
B. There is no reasonable alternative. The property is extremely narrow and has
an unusual pitch to it. The fact that it has an odd "L" in the back creates the
short rear yard setback situation;
C. It is not substantial quantitatively given the reality of the layout of the property
and is not an overwhelming problem;
D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district. It will enhance it. On the west side of the
property there is a free-standing garage very close to the property line that will
prevent the house from viewing and there will be no impact at all;
E. There is no self-created difficulty;
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 17
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
Chairman Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2373
Application of Ira and Carrie Braunstein requesting a variance to construct a second floor bathroom
addition and a first floor entryway structure. The second floor bath addition as proposed has a side yard
of 5.6 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); the front entryway structure as
proposed has a front yard of 16.02 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); a lot
coverage of 38% where a maximum of 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further, the
additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a
residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 62 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123, Lot 418.
Joseph Petruccione, the builder for the project, appeared to represent the applicants. He said he is a
former member of the Pleasantville Architectural Review Board and appreciates the Board's time. Mr.
Petruccione said he is trying to give a growing family additional room. They all live on the second floor
that has one bathroom. They are trying to achieve an additional bathroom by using what is currently a
closet. He said they are sensitive to increasing the house and making it look like a box by actually setting
it back and achieving a smaller elevation. The other part of the submission is the entrance. Currently,
the porch that extends out is covered and is basically the same projection as the porch proposedly closed.
When one opens the door, it goes into the living room. They are achieving a sense of space that the
applicants can enter to keep the weather out. In achieving that space, they are encroaching on the front
setback. Basic homes in that area are all in noncompliance, at least 70%.
Mr. Wexler said that the 16 ft. the applicant is asking for in the front yard is to a set of steps, not the
actual structure, with which Mr. Petruccione agreed.
Mr. Simon asked how wide the steps are.
Mr. Petruccione said the steps are 4 ft.
Mr. Wexler pointed out that the plan presented to the Board has no measurements on it, other than the site
plan.
Ms. Gallent said she understands and it will be discussed at a future time.
Mr. Carpaneto said there is no construction going on.
Ms. Gallent said that the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and it had no
comment.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from anyone on this application. There being none,
on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Ira and Carrie Braunstein have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a second floor bathroom addition and a first floor entryway structure. The
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 18
second floor bath addition as proposed has a side yard of 5.6 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section
240-39B(2)(a); the front entryway structure as proposed has a front yard of 16.02 ft. where 30.0 ft. is
required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);a lot coverage of 38% where 35% is required pursuant to Section
240-39F; and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant
to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 62 Hillcrest Avenue
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123, Lot 418; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240-39B(1), Section 240-39F, Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Ira and Carrie Braunstein 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 inspection of the property and examination of the property from the
neighboring property that was inspected for the side yard encroachment, no
undesirable change will be produced in the character or the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties created. What has been done by stepping down
the addition really breaks the mass in a way that it will not have a considerable
impact on the neighbors. There is a decent amount of screening and it is far
enough away from the used portions of the neighbor's yard that it will not have
an impact on that property. Based on its siting, the addition cannot possibly
affect any other property.
B. Given the tightness of the site, the applicants cannot achieve their goals via any
alternative which does not involve an area variance. One would have to come
out somewhere into the side yard in order to get this additional bathroom on the
second floor.
C. The variance is substantial, in the sense that it is a large encroachment into the
side yard. Given the fact that there is no reasonable alternative, that is not
determinative.
D. For the reasons previously discussed, the variance will not have an adverse
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district;
E. There has not been any self-created difficulty. The need for the variance is
purely a function of lot size and the need to improve the house. What they are
trying to achieve is quite modest and in line with modern expectations. To
tighten up the plans, the front addition shall be no less than 20.02 ft. from the
front property line to the structure and that structure be 8 ft. 6 in. wide parallel
to Hillcrest Avenue and be 6 ft. 0 in. deep. The side structure, the second floor
Zoning Board
October 27, 1999
Page 19
addition as shown on the plan, be no greater than 8 ft. 6 in. projection from the
side of the house and be 12 ft. 6 in. in length.
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
Mr. Gunther said a letter was submitted and signed by neighbors in support of the application was a part
of the file.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, and seconded, the Minutes of the September 23, 1999 Zoning Board
meeting were unanimously approved, 5-0.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Margu ' e Roma, Recording Secretary