Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_04_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 23, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Acting Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher J. Rend Simon iO Absent: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman 4 4 Nina Recio NRECEIVED 2 Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel 23no7 William Gerety, Assistant Building InspectorIlligre Erica Rizzi, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, Ltd. 111 N. Central Park Avenue •�.' Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by acting chairman Wexler at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Wexler informed the applicants that with only three members of the Board present a unanimous decision would be required to grant or deny a variance. The applicant can be heard this evening, or withdraw the case and be heard at the next meeting without prejudice. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2219 Application of Mr. &Mrs. Martin requesting a variance to construct a new 2nd floor addition with a total side yard of 19.5 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b)and, further; the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 70 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 289. John Vermich and architect with Lothrop Associates, from Valhalla,New York appeared for the applicant and presented documents signed by eight (8) of the neighbors accepting the proposed addition. He then stated there was an error in the Notice of Disapproval that states a total side yard of 19.5 ft. which should read 19.3 ft. The project stems from the owners wanting a larger bathroom and closet area. The decision was made to extend over the sun room on the property making a larger bathroom, shower area, bathtub area and a closet. The existing footprint of the house is not being increased. The addition is an addition going on top of a sun room. The existing side yard on that side of the property is being maintained. The 10 ft. requirement is now 19.7 ft. which is existing. Mr. Wexler asked if the 20 ft. side yard requirement is the combination of both side yards? Mr. Vermich said that was correct. Zoning Board April 23, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Wexler asked about the side yard property requirement where the proposed addition will be constructed. Mr. Vermich said the side yard is 10.92 ft. which is existing, and that number is not changed. Mr. Wexler said that is greater than the minimum required on that side. Mr. Vermich then presented photographs illustrating the sun room and explained the construction process, stating he had additional plans and constructions documents if the Board would like to review them. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Martin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a new 2nd floor addition with a total side yard of 19.3 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b)and, further; the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 70 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 289; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-34B(2)(b)and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Martin 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. Several of the neighbors in the area are supportive of the request for this variance. 2. The addition as presented has the same footprint as presently exists, and the side yard on the side of the house where this addition is being proposed meets the minimum requirements of the side yard setback. 3. 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 April 23, 1996 Page 3 4. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. 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 (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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2220 Application of Mr. &Mrs. Edwin Scanlon requesting a variance to construct a two(2)story addition with a front yard setback of 27.75 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B (1) and, further; the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 12 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 359. Chris Powell, architect for the applicant appeared, and stated the applicant is adding a family room and expanding the master bedroom. There is an existing enclosed porch 7.6 ft. wide which does not serve as a family room very well. The applicant has three (3) children, there are four(4) bedrooms and only one (1)bath upstairs. The applicant proposes to add a new master bath, walk-in closet and dressing area off the master bedroom, over the top of the family room . Mr. Wexler asked what presently exists on top of that area now. Mr. Powell said the area where the addition is occurring is the narrow enclosed porch which currently has a second floor roofed terrace on top of it. The premise of the design is to expand the rooms in such a way that it doesn't disturb the main volume of the house. In order to do that the second floor portion of the extension has been setback and also the entire first floor addition set in 4 in. from either side. Mr. Wexler mentioned that the applicant is proposing to add 5.6 ft. to the existing footprint. Mr. Powell agreed. In doing so, it brings the applicant one(1)foot closer to the front property line,which is already 1.3 ft. beyond what it is supposed to be. The site map will show the actual area that exceeds is a triangular section on the front of the house 1.6 ft. or 2 ft. wide by approximately 5 ft. It is a corner that is going beyond where it should be, due to the fact that the front property line swings around at a curve. • Zoning Board April 23, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions from the audience. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Simon,seconded by Mr:Wexler, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Edwin Scanlon have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a two(2)story addition with a front yard setback of 27.75 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B (1)and, further; the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 12 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 359; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-34B (1) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Edwin Scanlon 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The proposal will not change the aspect of the house, and the design is conforming with the existing building. 2. This is an irregularly shaped lot and due to the front property line which is on a radius curve it is difficult to maintain this required front setback. 3. The area that invades the front setback is small by nature, compared to the size of the building and size of the property. 4. 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. 5. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. 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. Zoning Board April 23, 1996 Page 5 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 (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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2221 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Donald Kitchen requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear kitchen addition with a rear yard of 21.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(3); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 4 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 184. Charles Warren, architect, appeared and stated the drawings show an irregular pie-shaped lot. The applicant proposes to build an addition over an existing terrace which projects to the corner of the Town setbacks, and exceeds those set backs due to the geometry of the property. The side yard extension does not put the house into further noncompliance with the side yard setbacks. Mr. Wexler said the applicant did not indicate on the site plan where the infringement of setback occurs. Mr. Warren explained the setbacks were on the second page of the plans submitted. Mr. Wexler asked what dictated the placement of the kitchen. Mr. Warren said the applicant was trying not go further into the nonconformity. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions from the audience. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Donald Kitchen have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story rear kitchen addition with a rear yard of 21.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(3); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the Zoning Board April 23, 1996 ` Page 6 premises located at 4 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 184; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-34B(3)and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Donald Kitchen 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The plot of land is of an irregular shape thus constraining the options. 2. The area which is now going to be occupied by the expanded kitchen is presently occupied by a terrace. 3. The rear property line is a rather unique property line in that it comes into the property closer as it comes from the side property lines as opposed to being a property line that would be straight across the back of the property causing it to create this problem for the applicant. 4. 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. 5. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. 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 (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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: Zoning Board • April 23, 1996 Page 7 APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2222 Application of Mr. Ira Fisher requesting a variance to construct a new one family dwelling,two story,with detached one car garage with a front yard setback of 15.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35B(1)and the garage would have a 15.0 ft. setback where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89- 35B(3)(b) and further the accessory garage would not be in the rear one-third of the lot as required pursuant to Section 89-36B(3)(b) all for residence structures in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 71 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 16. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant was present. There was no response, but a member of the audience said there were a group of residents present to oppose the application. Mr. Wexler said the Board would adjourn the case for later in the evening, hear the other pending cases and see if the applicant does appear. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2223 Application of David Panno requesting a variance to construct a new garage replacing a demolished structure with a rear yard of 3.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required and a side yard of 0.5 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required, both pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(c) for an accessory structure in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Villa Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110 Lot 230. Robert Motzkin, architect, appeared along with the applicant. Mr. Motzkin said the project started as a repair to a deteriorated accessory garage structure which is in violation of side and rear yard setback requirements. The structure has existed since the 1860's, was modified over the years, but the footprint has existed since the 1860's. It is nestled in a group of large, mature trees in the rear corner of the site. The condition of the structure has been significantly impacted by this past winter's weather. The roof structure has failed, the front facade has failed as documented in the photographs presented to the Board, and there is a detachment from the front facade and the side facade. The owner called Mr. Motzkin to examine how the existing condition could be repaired. There were a number of structural problems evident. Several contractors were called in to determine the nature of the repairs involved. The four(4) contractors that were called in stated it would be cheaper and more efficient if the owner removed the structure and a new structure built to replace it. At that point, it became an issue as to whether or not the structure could be relocated and the size of the structure accommodated on the site within the setback requirements. Unfortunately the location of the trees on the site are such that any repositioning of the structure would entail affecting the tree root structure and adversely impact the mature trees. Additionally, the access to the garage bays would be impacted by a relocation as well. Mr. Motzkin said there are three (3) alternative siting locations identified in the application. Each one comes closer to the tree roots and tree trunks existing on the site. The applicant is proposing an identical footprint to what exists in the identical location. The applicant is proposing that the roof ridge elevation be exactly at the same elevation as the current roof ridge, and believes there is a minimum impact on the site and the neighborhood. There are no objections from the immediate neighbors. The concern is that there is so much structural work to be done to make it legal, it would be greater than 50% of the value of the structure. The Board questioned the 1860 existing date referred to, and Mr. Wexler said the walls seem to be concrete block. Mr. Motzkin said the concrete block was erected approximately ten (10) years ago. The front facade is wood frame which is original. Apparently, the rear and side facades deteriorated from drainage conditions around the rear and sides of the structure causing the deterioration that mandated replacement. The reconstruction would be wood frame with a cement stucco or latex stucco. The only change in Zoning Board April 23, 1996 Page 8 configuration would be a symmetrical gable end rather than an asymmetrical gable end. The proposed and current ridge elevation will be the same. Mr. Wexler asked if it was 4.8 ft. above the horizontal fascia, and asked if the applicant was proposing to lower the vertical wall. Mr. Motzkin said they have been taking it from grade, and in the rear the vertical wall would be raised slightly. The rear wall is currently quite low. David Altshuler, a neighbor, from 63 Vine Road appeared and stated he resides behind the property, and the current request causes concern about the enjoyment and use of his property as well as its value. The proposed structure is prominent in their rear view and has been the most significant negative on his property since it was purchased eight (8) years.ago. They were unaware until a month ago that the structure did not conform to the Zoning Code. The structure is extremely large, 30.2 ft. x 18.8 ft. x 13 ft. high,not counting the new cupola as proposed. It is very close to their back door and closer to where they sit and eat on their deck. Mr. Altshuler presented pictures taken from his deck, which gives some indication of how the congestion already detracts from their enjoyment and the use of his property. He did not object when other neighbors asked for a variance last year that brought their kitchen addition very close to his side yard and driveway, but in that case because of the location of their addition the detriment to Mr. Altshuler seemed minor compared to the benefit to them for additional living space for which there was no easy alternative. In the case of the proposed structure, the garage encroaches on their living space considerably and asked for alternative solutions to this unusually large structure be stored on the applicant's own property. The setback requirements should not be compromised. Additionally,he asked whether the height, width and/or depth of planned structure might be modified. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Altshuler understood what variances the applicant was seeking, and what the applicant can build as-of-right? Mr. Altshuler said he understands the variances that are described. Mr. Wexler said the applicant can build as-of-right 5 ft. from the side property line, 5 ft. from the rear property line and have a height limitation of 1-1/2 stories 15 ft. Mr. Kelleher asked counsel if it were not a cost impact, a cost ineffective way of restoring the garage in good order and could be repaired economically, cost effective, there would not be a requirement for a variance to repair the garage. Mr. Kirkpatrick said that the need for the variance arises because it is necessary for the applicant to move the structure before they rebuild. Once removed, the applicant loses the right to keep it at its present location. Mr. Kelleher said basically it is an economic consideration on the part of the applicant that it could be repaired but would be expensive. The applicant is saying it will be cheaper if you take it down and build a new one. Mr. Wexler said that is based upon using the existing foundation. Mr. Kelleher said the foundation can be repaired, but it may cost a great deal of money. The indication by the contractors said it will be less expensive to take the garage down and replace it with a new structure. Mr. Wexler said a repair involving in excess of 50% of the structure, has to be brought into compliance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State Building Code. Mr. Kirkpatrick said this is not a nonconforming use, it is just a dimensional nonconformity. Zoning Board April 23, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Motzkin submitted a letter concerning the structural construction issues related to this garage, in response to a question raised last week concerning whether this structure is reasonable to reconstruct to remedy the problems in the structure. One of the conditions of concern is the foundations themselves. It is not clear whether there are in fact foundations that go down to frost level which is required by code. There are significant cracks in the concrete block wall at the rear of the structure and those cracks are either from racking resulting from the roof partial collapse or from failure in the footings. It is not clear at this time what that failure is caused by. Additionally the roof structure itself is framed in such a way that it is not per code. It would have to be entirely rebuilt. The framing is 5 ft. on center, where the maximum of only 2 ft. on center would be permitted structurally and the sheathing goes in the wrong direction, there is a considerable sag, the ridge that becomes detached from the rafters, the front facade is completely detached from the side walls. It is not a simple remedial action that is required in this case. Mr. Kelleher said the only point he was trying to get clear in his mind prompted by the neighbors objection to the granting of the variance is whether the applicant is entitled to repair the structure so that what would result would be of the same size, the same shape, the same appearance but he would be going about it in a very expensive way to avoid the requirement for a variance. Mr. Motzkin said the structure would be exactly the same. Mr. Wexler said that is not true, the applicant will have a flat wall that is higher, and Mr. Motzkin should be very sensitive to that, closer to his property line than he presently has. Mr. Motzkin said the neighbor has a fence approximately 6 ft. height, 3 ft. or 4 ft. from the rear wall of the garage. The fence is actually higher in elevation than the proposed rear wall of the garage. Mr. Wexler asked at what height the applicant proposed to build the rear wall. It appears to be 8 ft. 4 in. Mr. Motzkin agreed with that height. Mr. Wexler said the rear wall of the existing construction would be considerably higher than the rear wall of the existing structure. Mr. Motzkin said the neighbors yard is higher in elevation than the fence. There is a change in elevation at that point. The fence measured approximately 6 ft. high. Mr. Wexler said the photograph presented indicates the neighbors fence is approximately 2 ft. higher than the rear wall of the garage. The as-of-right would be the same views the neighbor now has. Mr. Altshuler said it is a very unattractive structure in his back yard. If removed to be in compliance with the zoning code, it would be less unattractive. If the height of the wall were maintained at the current height and the cupola was removed, it would be less unattractive. The house was purchased knowing the situation,but is not anxious for the situation to be maintained in violation of the zoning code. The purpose of the zoning code is to allow him to enjoy his property and the neighbors to enjoy theirs. He stated he is the only neighbor truly adversely affected. What is under discussion is not repairing the garage, but rebuilding it in its entirety. Mr. Kelleher stated that he doesn't believe there is an existing violation. It is a preexisting,nonconforming condition. Mr. Simon asked how far Mr. Altshuler's deck is from the rear property line. Mr. Altshuler did not know the distance, but said the previous owner came before the Board to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck. A discussion ensued regarding the deck and the obstruction. Zoning Board • April 23, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Simon said the garage is existing and has been there. The applicant can repair it and there could be no objection as it is nonconforming and is legal. Mr. Kelleher said that if the variance is not granted, an expensive and unusual hardship could be fostered on the applicant if he did want to make the structure better, serviceable, safer etc. by expending a great deal of money to "prepare" it. It would not change Mr. Altshuler's perception because he would be viewing exactly what he is viewing now and when he purchased the house. There is a unique circumstance the applicant is involved in. Mr. Altshuler said he is seeking the support of the Board to suggest there is an alternative which is to build the garage smaller. Mr. Wexler said on the existing garage the measurement is 7.3 ft. off a grade line of 1.1 ft on the side that is the open space. The proposal is for a door coming from the finished floor. It seems there is something amiss. The structure is suddenly becoming bigger. Mr. Panno said the area behind the structure was used as a compost pile, with a stockade wall. Mr. Motzkin said the existing grade at the side of the garage is 1.1 ft. higher than at the front. The driveway slopes down toward the garage doors creating a drainage problem within the garage. The applicant is proposing to raise the front facing away from Mr. Altshuler's property to a higher elevation to make it consistent with the grade adjacent to the sides and the front. The overall height of the structure will not increase. The vertical walls at the front and rear will increase. Mr. Panno said the there is a substantial wall at the back of the deck. In addition, there is a 6 ft. stockade fence, and he spoke to Mr. Altshuler about placing plantings in that area to screen the decks. Mr. Motzkin said alternatives were submitted and reviewed to move the garage which had been submitted with part of the application, and he didn't know if Mr. Altshuler had reviewed same. Mr. Panno said the current structure is not very large, and if he moves it and potentially damage the root system on the trees and have them die, he would bring it in 5 ft. and rebuild it much larger. He presented a letter from Neil and Rima Grad in support of the project. The cupola will be taken off if necessary. Mr. Wexler said the architect can do something from Mr. Panno's view that will enhance the structure without causing any other burden on the rear neighbor. Mr. Kelleher said that when Mr. Panno was relating what might be done if the variance was not granted and used the term bringing it in, was Mr. Panno referring to bringing it into conformity to the building code and then build? Mr. Gerety had one comment on that and said if you increase the size of what is there by more than 100 sq. ft. then the erosion control law comes into effect. Mr. Panno said there is one additional burden and that is taking down mature trees. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Panno was proposing to reconstruct the garage basically the way it is. Mr. Motzkin said as-of-right, 5 ft. from the rear yard and 5 ft. from the side yard, it could be constructed larger. Mr. Panno proposes to remove the cupola as a gesture to Mr. Altshuler to reduce the impact of the proposed reconstruction in the same footprint. Mr. Wexler said the massing of the rear upper portion of the structure is moving closer to Mr. Altshuler's property. Zoning Board April 23, 1996 • Page 11 Mr. Motzkin said the roof configuration of the symmetrical gable end would be more acceptable because it moves the ridge further onto the Pannos' property and brings the rear wall down lower. Mr. Kelleher asked if there was room between the side of the garage closest to Mr. Altshuler and the stockade fence where some type of landscaping screening could be introduced. Mr. Panno said he would install some trees. Mr. Kelleher asked if a condition placed upon the applicant to introduce some type of evergreen type screening would make the situation more acceptable to Mr. Altshuler? Mr. Altshuler said when this was discussed with Mr. Panno, there seems to be a history of the trees dying due to lack of sunlight. If a screen could be maintained, it would be a relief but he does not intend to participate in the funding for the trees. Mr. Altshuler said the pictures presented to the Board were taken from the back door of his house, not the edge of the deck. • Mr. Wexler asked if there is a retaining wall behind the garage? Mr. Panno said no. Mr. Wexler said it is actually adjacent grade. The survey doesn't show it, the drawing shows it. Mr. Motzkin said there is a stone fence that separates the property. Mr. Wexler said then, the applicant has 3 ft. of earth from the back of the garage to the property line, not 2 ft. with a retaining wall, and a substantial ball of a 5 ft. tree there. Mr. Panno removed a large limb overhanging his property to preserve the group of three (3) trees and placing plants behind the shed. Mr. Wexler would be in favor of suggesting the applicant screen the back of the structure with at least 6 ft. high pines, 6 ft. on center. He then read a letter received from a neighbor, Robert Wassman and his wife, who are in favor of the application with the following conditions. That no trees will be removed, the structures will be painted a dark green and brown color, that the extended driveway and garage ramp be accurately pitched to avoid water runoff onto the adjacent properties, that a dumpster be located on the property and the construction equipment and materials not interfere with the adjacent driveways and traffic on a narrow, dead-end street. Mr. Panno asked Mr. Wexler to restate the screening proposal. Mr. Wexler said to screen the rear of this structure with appropriate screening, a minimum of 5 ft. to 6 ft. in height from the top of the ball, 6 ft. on center. A discussion ensued regarding placement and it was decided it should state 4 ft. on center. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER 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. Zoning Board • April 23, 1996 • Page 12 On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, David Panno has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a new garage replacing a demolished structure with a rear yard of 3.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required and a side yard of 0.5 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required, both pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(c) for an accessory structure in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Villa Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110 Lot 230; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-34B(2)(c); and WHEREAS, David Panno 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. New garage structure will be built on the footprint of a preexisting nonconforming out building structure. 2. 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. 3. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 4. 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. Along the rear wall of the garage closest to the property line an appropriate evergreen type screening planting must be installed. The plantings to be installed at a minimum height of between 5 ft. to 6 ft., measured top of the ball up, to be installed at a 4 ft. on center spacing. 2. The cupola be removed from the top. 3. The screening must be placed as close as possible to the property line adjoining, if not on the center of that, so that it gives the trees more space to grow. Zoning Board • April 23, 1996 Page 13 • 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 5. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit; 6. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Motzkin asked a question, stating it was said that erosion control does not apply in this instance? Mr. Gerety said it does not apply, as there is no increase in size therefore there is no erosion control required. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant will be using a double shingle. Mr. Motzkin said the intention is to match the existing structure. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2224 Application of Mr. &Mrs. William Follis requesting a Certificate of Occupancy to maintain a deck located 23.7 ft. from the rear property line where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35B(3)for a structure in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 190 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 258. Mrs. Follis, the owner, appeared and said the reason for the request for the Certificate of Occupancy is that the deck was not built by the contractor that was hired to build it in accordance with the plans that the architect drew. The Follis' applied for a permit for a deck from the Town, the permit was approved, an architect was hired to draw plans and the plans were submitted. Thereafter, a contractor was hired and constructions began. The Town inspected and gave approval for the footings. When the deck was completed, the Town informed the Follis' they needed a survey, at which time a survey was prepared and submitted. After review by the Town the Follis'were notified that the deck was illegal and were told to file an application for a variance. The setback requirement for a deck is 25 ft., and the way the Follis' deck was constructed the setback is 23.7 ft. Mrs. Follis said she did attempt to contact the contractor to fix the problem, but was unable to reach him. Mr. Wexler asked if Mrs. Follis received a building permit, and if the permit was issued on the drawings with specifications were submitted. Mrs. Follis said she did receive a permit and submitted plans with specifications. Mr. Wexler asked how high the deck was off the grade, three risers? Mrs. Follis said the deck is low in nature, about 2 ft. off the ground, with two long, wide steps. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any further questions from the Board or the audience. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is Zoning Board April 23, 1996 • Page 14 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. William Follis have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy to maintain a deck located 23.7 ft. from the rear property line where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35B(3) for a structure in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 190 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 258; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-35B(3); and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. William Follis 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The deck is close to the ground, approximately 21 in. off grade and is in conformity with what was submitted, other than an error made not on their part but by the contractor, for an amount of approximately 16 in. which is small in nature compared to the setback requirements. 2. 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. 3. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 4. 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 (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; • Zoning Board April 23, 1996 • Page 15 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Kirkpatrick how to proceed in reference to case #4, Fisher, that was adjourned earlier due to the fact that the applicant was not present. Mr. Kirkpatrick suggested that due to the fact that quite a few residents were present in opposition, that the hearing should be opened, to allow those present to make their comments, with the hearing then left open until the next meeting. The Secretary reread the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2222 Application of Mr. Ira Fisher requesting a variance to construct a new one family dwelling, two story,with detached one car garage with a front yard setback of 15.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35B(1)and the garage would have a 15.0 ft. setback where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89- 35B(3)(b) and further the accessory garage would not be in the rear one-third of the lot as required pursuant to Section 89-36B(3)(b) all for residence structures in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 71 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 16. Mr. Kirkpatrick said that no decision should be made without the applicant present, but comments from the audience can be made as they may not be able to attend the next meeting. Mr. Kirkpatrick thought that comments would be more useful after the applicant made his presentation, but anyone wishing to make their comments for the record can be heard this evening. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any comments from the audience. Eric Dryfus, 18 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said he resides diagonally across the street from the vacant lot on which Mr. Fisher wants to construct house. There are 14 to 15 other residents present this evening from the neighborhood, all prepared to speak in opposition to the application. Per his understanding, an area variance has to meet certain requirements, and he believes Mr. Fisher's application fails on all score. The applicant requests a setback of 15 ft. instead of 30 ft. It would affect the property values in the neighborhood, because it would put that house in everybody's face. It would move it closer to the street. It would have an adverse impact on the traffic situation, keeping in mind that Colonial Avenue is one of the ways to get to the Murray Avenue School. With children,parents and cars leaving the Murray Avenue School coming down Daymon Terrace, the house so close to the street will probably interfere with the sight distance and might pose a hazard to children, drivers and pedestrians. Mr. Dryfus does not believe Mr. Fisher purchased the property in ignorance of the existing zoning rules and regulations and probably purchased it on speculation. Mr. Dryfus doesn't think Mr. Fisher can claim a hardship, since the rules were in effect at the time of the purchase. Mr. Fisher urges the Board to deny the application. David Lichtenstein, 87 Colonial Avenue, appeared and stated he agrees with all the points covered by Mr. Dryfus. He delivered four or five other opposing letters to the Board this evening from neighbors who could not attend and said he can and will get ten or twenty more if it is meritorious to the Board. Mr. Lichtenstein said Mr. Fisher sent a letter to the neighbors explaining what he proposed and said if the neighbors support the project and cannot attend the meeting to sign the letter, send it back to him, and it will be delivered to the Board. Mr. Lichtenstein said if Mr. Fisher can do that for the variance, then he can do it against the variance. Mr. Kirkpatrick said everyone's opinion is very important and the Board wants to hear it. It is a question of the findings the Board has to make. Once the points have been made, it doesn't matter whether there are letters of opposition by fifty neighbors or twenty-five neighbors. It is not necessary to have a letter writing campaign. Zoning Board • April 23, 1996 Page 16 Mark Abrahms, 1 Daymon Terrace, lives on the southerly corner appeared and submitted a letter for the record and the Board's perusal that Mr. Fisher sent to the neighbors. The neighbors were really alarmed when they read the letter which stated, "Enclosed is a copy of a site plan that depicts the location and design of the house that I would be forced to build, if my application for a variance was not granted. As you can see, such a house would be basically triangular in shape. The distinct contemporary style of such a house is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would have obvious aesthetic limitations that would impact on me, as well as on other neighboring homeowners, including you." Mr. Abrahms first question was, was this an either/or scenario, the house he is suggesting he might have to build that looks so hideous versus the large expansive property that he is suggesting he could build if a radical variance were granted? The neighbors are hoping the Town will see clear to hear all the neighbors and consider the importance to the children who are dearly affected, go to elementary school, and are in a very informative part of their lives. Larchmont is a community that is known for its good sense and beauty, and the neighbors would not like to radically change any of that. The neighbors are hoping that if Mr. Fisher is in town living in the neighborhood, that he will be a good neighbor keeping in my their needs and hopefully work with the community, the Zoning Board and the future of the community which is our children to come up with a more sound proposition. If he is in fact a speculator, we are hoping he will speculate with the land and not the structure. David Robal, 28 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said he moved into the neighborhood one year ago. The neighbors present speak to the adverse affect this variance would have on the neighborhood. The tone of Mr. Fisher's letter was basically a threat and distortion to the neighborhood, i.e. "if you do not allow the variance I will build an ugly contemporary home which will adversely impact on your property." Mr. Fisher is obviously a speculator. The property has been unoccupied since the indians lived there, and obviously other builders have looked at the lot and come to the conclusion it is not a buildable lot for all practical purposes unless you get some outrageous variance. I don't think this panel would wisely grant such a variance, and we will be here if this is adjourned to another night. We hope that Mr. Fisher will withdraw his application or perhaps by not showing up tonight he thought his application spoke for itself. If it did, I think this panel has enough facts to oppose the variance tonight. Charles Dougherty, 12 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said he believes this problem of building on this particular lot has come up several times before and has been seriously spoken against. There are certain problems with the lot, it is filled in land and if it is disturbed you may end up with a pond in someone's cellar along Murray Avenue. It is not a wise move to try to build anything on the lot. The idea of constructing a house is quite difficult, because it is an odd shaped lot. I suspect some of the people along Murray Avenue have encroached on the lot and use parts of it along the border between their homes, and this unbuildable lot. Nathaniel Allan, 20 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said about 25, 26, 27 years ago they went through the same process regarding the lot, and nothing seems to work. At the same time, the fact that it is filled in land was brought up very strongly. Murray Avenue gets inundated with water, which was supposedly rectified with the installation of a pumping station. The shape of the lot is so difficult to work with and the options submitted cannot be the only options. If so, he would beg the Board to deny the application. Mr. Kelleher asked Mr. Allan if he was referring to a request for a variance or a request for a building permit? Mr. Allan said he was referring to a request for a variance. Mr. Kelleher said that is the only reason for this Board, to hear a request for a variance. None of the Board knows whether that lot in that zone has an entitlement to having a home built on it. Mr. Wexler said the lot is in an R-6 Zone. In its requirements there is one specific requirement, which is called floor area; the minimum first floor area in sq. ft. on a one story is 1,000 sq. ft.,and this proposal just makes it, a 1-1/2 story 800 sq. ft., on a 2-1/2 story 700 sq. ft. The applicant technically has enough • Zoning Board April 23, 1996 ' Page 17 square footage on the first floor providing he goes up at least 1-1/2 to 2 stories, if he wanted to build the triangular house, . Whether it is a marketable house is a whole different issue. Mr. Kelleher said the persons present should understand the owner, Mr. Fisher, has an entitlement to use his property if it conforms to the zoning code. If the applicant applies for a variance, then it would come before this Board. Mr. Allan said there is obviously a lot of emotion about the proposal,because there is considerable history and the couple of examples the neighbors have been given and the manner in which it was given was atrocious. Mr. Dharamsey of Colonial Avenue appeared and asked if a person can ask for a variance without owning the land and without having established whether a building permit is required or not? Is Mr. Fisher asking for a variance first, with an option to buy the land, and then purchase the land? Mr. Kirkpatrick said it can be a condition to the purchase. Mr. Wexler said the application before the Board says owner, Ira Fisher, 501 E. Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck. It doesn't say anything but owner. Mr. Kelleher said whether the applicant is or whether is not the owner would be an established record at the Town Hall. Mr. Dharamsey asked if the applicant does not own the property, would it be relevant or misrepresentation? Mr. Wexler said it was signed by a notary public that he was the owner. Jonathan Morganster said according to Town records the current record does not reflect Mr. Fisher as the owner of the property. If Mr. Fisher was not the owner and certified that he was, would that not be a valid application? Mr. Kirkpatrick said the Town records are sometimes behind, and that he would have to look at the forms to see whether it states Mr. Fisher is certified as the owner. His recollection is the form simply has a place on it for the owner to sign, and that the Town interprets it to be anyone who has the right to make the application. Mr. Wexler said the application states, "that he is the applicant named below; that he has read the foregoing application and knows the contents thereof to be true, except those which are stated on information and belief and as to those matters he believes to be true," it is signed and it is notarized. It appears Mr. Fisher has been notarized on the application as the owner. Mr. Dryfus said Mr. Fisher stated in his letter to the neighbors that he had recently purchased the property. Mr. Wexler said that from the application, Mr. Fisher certified that he is the owner. Vivian Frommer, 16 Colonial Avenue, appeared and stated she lives directly across from the property in question and agrees with all the statements made by the neighbors. She restates them and also has another concern. All of the residents at that end of Colonial Avenue have a lot of water problems in their basements, they have sump pumps and some years ago the County put in a larger storm drain. She wonders what the new building would do to their property. Will it increase the pressure of the water in their basements, because they will then have a foundation that will displace a certain amount of water? It may go into their basements. She is concerned and said it could definitely decrease their ability to live in their homes comfortably. 4 Zoning Board April 23, 1996 • Page 18 Richard Corinthal, 14 Colonial Avenue, appeared which is across from the property in question. He thanked the Board for giving the neighbors an opportunity to speak and note their opposition on the record to the proposed variance. He purchased his home last April and moved in in June. One of the attractions about the block is that all the houses conform to the setbacks, there is a consistency and it is a beautiful block. The proposed variance is a dramatic variance seeking approximately one-half of the setback requirements which would be an imposing house on the street. The square footage is 500 sq. ft. larger than the house which he states would meet the requirements. It would become the focus of attention on the block, and attention would be drawn to it because of its size. It would be disproportionate with the other houses and would have a negative impact and detriment on the block. Mr. Corinthal stated for the record that this variance application is totally self-created. If Mr. Fisher seeks to build a house within the requirements as it is noted, the neighbors do not have any position to object, but Mr. Fisher is not seeking to do that. Mr. Fisher is seeking to build a much larger house which the neighbors believe is for the purpose of speculation and resale. That is not a proper basis for a variance application. The whole purpose of setback requirements is that there be some uniformity in the community. If an individual can appeal to the Board for their own personal financial gain and build a much larger house ignoring the setback requirements, what is the purpose of the requirements? There must be some stated need, and the neighbors don't see any need. Mr. Corinthal thanked the Board for giving the neighbors an opportunity to speak this evening. Ms. Marmon, 32 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said she is in total agreement with everything that has been said this evening. She asked if there would be any prejudice against Mr. Fisher for not appearing this evening? Mr. Kelleher said it is not the first time an applicant, for one reason or another, is unable to attend. They are given the courtesy to appear at the next meeting. There have been some applicants that fail to appear two or three times in a row also. Mr. Wexler said even though the applicant is not present, the Board has given those present an opportunity to speak in opposition for the record. One of those present asked when the Board meets. Mr. Wexler said the Board meets once a month, usually the fourth Wednesday unless there is a conflict. Elise Follis appeared and said the lot in question is her backyard. If she is not present at the next meeting, she agrees with what everyone has said thus far and definitely would not want a house constructed. If the variance is granted and Mr. Fisher is allowed to build a house, she would like to go on record stating she wants a screening behind the house because the lot is close to the Follis property. One of those present said in the event the Board grants a variance, would that set a precedence and allow the individual to have a variance to build two house on his property. Mr. Wexler said it would not set a precedent. The law states in an area variance that the benefit to the applicant has to outweigh the detriment to the community. Mr. Fisher can claim hardship and practical difficulty, but the detriment to the community is greater in the Board's minds of weighing it, that is now the basis for area variances. Robert Frommer, 16 Colonial Avenue, appeared and agrees with what has been said. What has been implied, if not expressly stated quite often, it is quite a large possibility of adverse environmental concern. There are not a lot of engineers living on the block, but there has been questions of drainage, erosion, and trees that will have to be cleared. Also there is the issue of the standing of the applicant. If the applicant does not have standing, Mr. Frommer doesn't see how the Board can grant a variance. Mr. Wexler said the Board is only one step in the steps required to get a building permit. There is a process that takes place from the time a variance is granted to allow the permit process to proceed. This Zoning Board April 23, 1996 • Page 19 Town specifically has lot of safety catches setup for environment, drainage, etc., because the Town is a well-established older community. The Town gets problems from up-County development that the Town gets the results of, specifically water runoff. Over the past years, more and more commissions and laws have been passed to protect the residents from those environmental concerns. That applicant will have do a rather intensive review and present data to the Building Department to be able to get a building permit, even if he is applying as-of-right building permit before he can build. If he went the as-of-right route, he would not have to appear before the Board. The Board is just one step. Mr. Frommer asked if Mr. Fisher decides to build as-of-right, do the neighbors get notified? Mr. Wexler said Mr. Frommer should have someone who is responsible to call the Building Department so that person can notify the neighbors. The only thing that is brought to the Public Notice is the date of the meeting which has the actual notice. Beyond that it is up to the concerned individuals. Mr. Gerety said if the applicant withdraws the application for a variance and proceeds with an application for a building permit and meets all the criteria, he would then be granted a building permit once he met erosion control guidelines. There is no notification to neighbors, if it is legal. Mr. Kelleher said as an individual, Mr. Frommer can write to the Building Department sending in his views and concerns. Mr. Wexler said it is the right of an individual if a building permit is issued to challenge the building permit. Louise Luzcke, 10 Bryson Street, said Bryson Street is a small street. On Murray Avenue there is tremendous water drainage problem. Many houses on Murray Avenue have water in their basements. There is a stream that goes underground, and comes out in back of 186 Murray Avenue. The owners of 186 Murray Avenue had to have their basement filled and cemented over and it became unusable. All these people would definitely be subjected to a substantial tax reduction because of the devaluation of the property by a house that would obviously cause environmental impact to the area. Blacktop is not used, but crushed stone has been used in various grades to increase teacher parking to alleviate some of the traffic congestion on Murray Avenue in the mornings,at lunchtime and in the afternoon when the children are being picked up and dropped off. A house is not appropriate for that location,because of the drainage problems. A lot of the houses on Murray Avenue have a lot of structural problems because of the stream that runs underneath the houses along Murray Avenue and North Chatsworth. That is why they have such a deep setback. A member of the audience asked if the setback had anything to do with the drainage problem. Mr. Wexler said the setback has to do with open space, but it might have a result in drainage depending on how the drainage flows. Jonathan Morganstern, 188 Murray Avenue, appeared and said his property directly adjoins the property in question. What Mr. Fisher proposes to build, if the variance is granted, would directly affect the quality of his property and the value. His back yard property extends into what is now described as Mr. Fisher's property. That property has been used as a part of the house that he now owns. For many, many years prior to his purchasing the house five years ago, the property had been used. Right now it is just a yard. The property has been improved over many years by the owners of the property, himself and his wife, Tineck Kraneveld Morganstern. What Mr. Fisher is proposing to do is on the final piece of the property that is now a back yard with grass and a play set on it, is proposing to put a garage and driveway that would replace the back yard and the access to Colonial Avenue it presently exists. That would in fact lower the value of the property as it is now. Mr. Morganstern is in support of everything that was said before. His house is directly affected by water drainage problems and sewer problems as well. The house sunk in one corner due to the water table underneath the house and Mr. Morganstern chose to raise the house. Mr. Morganstern is also concerned about the manner in which Mr. Fisher is seeking the variance. Zoning Board April 23, 1996 • Page 20 Mr. Fisher notified the neighbors in a letter that a variance hearing was tomorrow, April 24, 1996. A neighbor of Mr. Morganstern had attended a meeting with Mr. Fisher and told him about a meeting that occurred on the 17th of this month. Mr. Fisher had shown him there is not a great difference in square footage between the proposed house if he is granted a variance and the house that he would have to build if a variance were not granted. He claimed a difference of 50 ft. The diagrams submitted to all of the neighborhood demonstrated a difference of 500 sq. ft., which is considerably a more sizeable difference. The house would be considerably larger than the one he would be forced to build. The neighbors feel that Mr. Fisher has come into the neighborhood unannounced, without any consideration for the neighbors. The direct neighbors of the property had suggested an attempt to purchase this land with a plan to perhaps sell it nonprofit to the various properties adjoining it and maintain the integrity of the landscaping as it exists. These are various reasons why Mr. Morganstern opposes this claim. Eleanor Dryfus, 18 Colonial Avenue, appeared and was wondering if the Board of Education had been notified, because it would be a direct impact on the school. Mr. Wexler said notices are sent to a 400 ft. radius, and that municipalities do not usually attend the Zoning Board meetings to voice an opinion. A member of the audience said if the lineation of the Fisher property is not clear in his mind, there may be an adverse possession claim that several neighbors have. There might be other setback problems that do not have to be addressed at this point, but there has been open and notorious use of the back end of Mr. Fisher's alleged property, Mr. Wexler said he didn't know if there is an adverse affect of the land if established by encroachment. Mr. Kirkpatrick said at this point the Board only has to rule on the questions being made. There might be problems with the building permit. A member of the audience said if it were established, Mr. Fisher may have other setback problems on another part of the property. Mr. Wexler said it is a unique piece of property because of its shape. Mr. Fisher has an opportunity to recreate his setbacks because it is a corner piece of property. He elected the rear lot line, and probably the reason he elected what he said is the rear lot line, is because it gave him more building area within the triangle. He could flip that, have a smaller area, and he would then avoid the adverse possessions. He then has another problem, i.e. the minimum amount of square footage on the property. Right now he just about makes it with 6,900 sq. ft., the minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. A member of the audience asked if there must be a minimum square footage. Mr. Wexler said the zone, depending what zone you are in, states you have to maintain a minimum square footage on the first floor; if it's a 1-story structure, it is 1,000 sq. ft.; a 1-1/2 story structure, it is 800 sq. ft.; 2-story structure, 700 sq. ft. The reason for that is the homes are more or less the same size. As the zone gets bigger, the square footage on the first floor gets larger as a minimum. A member of the audience asked if that square footage included a garage. Mr. Wexler said the garage can be an assessment structure, which means it can be 5 ft. from the property line. A member of the audience asked if a garage is required by the Zoning Law. Mr. Wexler said one enclosed parking space is required. Zoning Board • April 23, 1996 Page 21 A member of the audience said hopefully as they go forward there are a few questions; is this truly a buildable lot; is it a neighbor who plans on living in the area, a committed individual,or an individual here for the now and not the later; and hopefully there will be an opportunity again for the neighbors to speak should Mr. Fisher choose to attend. Mr. Wexler said in response to everybody getting an opportunity to speak, the neighbors will have another opportunity to speak provided the same issues are not stated. The other two members of the Board will be provided with Minutes of the meeting to review, and if other issues are brought up, the Board will entertain hearing the new issues at the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 22, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Marguer Roma, Recording Secretary 0