Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_12_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes © MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 18, 1996, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin J. Rend Simon 0111144 Arthur Wexler "S9' Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel 'erRECEIVED William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector MAR 1 997 Julie Cleary, Public Stenographer TOWNq�R Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. MAMARO,E0( 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 / L <6 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther informed the Board that the Minutes of the November 20, 1996 meeting will be reviewed at the end of this evening's session and that there will also be an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2245 (adjourned 10/23/96; 11/20/96) Application of Stephen and Rima Garrow requesting a variance to construct a 2 story addition and deck; the 2 story addition would have a rear yard of 20.25 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(3);the rear deck stair platform would have a rear yard of 16.75 ft.where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and the addition would increase the extent by which the premises is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 410. Mr. Gunther stated this matter was adjourned on October 23, 1996 and November 20, 1996, that the public hearing was closed on this matter at the previous meeting, but the record is open as the Board is waiting for one piece of information for the Board to review prior to making a motion. Mr. Gunther said the updated plans, dated December 9, 1996, were received which indicate existing plantings to be removed, proposed to be added (4 ft. to 6 ft. arborvitae spaced at 24 in. on center, set with root ball at half depth and mounded fill above) and the removal of the stair from the rear to the side with a rear yard of 20.25 ft. as opposed to 16.75 ft. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. After some discussion, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 2 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 Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Stephen and Rima Garrow have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 2 story addition and deck; the 2 story addition would have a rear yard of 20.25 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); the rear deck stair platform would have a rear yard of 16.75 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); and the addition would increase the extent by which the premises is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 410; 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(3) and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Stephen and Rima Garrow submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, the Board has examined the plans, inspected the site and reviewed the application after public notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck heard evidence from the applicant and neighbors of the applicant regarding the impact of the proposed addition as reflected in the minutes of the Board's October 23, 1996 and November 20, 1996 meetings; WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required pursuant to New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted will far outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood,including the neighbors who testified in opposition to the application. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: a. The proposed addition will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because the proposed addition will be confined primarily to the applicant's rear yard and will not be visible from the street. The applicant's architect testified that none of the neighbors contacted by the applicant objected to the proposed addition,with the exception of the Braumans, who reside at 13 Dante Street, and are the applicant's neighbor to the rear. The plans submitted and site visit demonstrated that the addition will not be a substantial detriment to nearby properties because the applicant has agreed to plant vegetative screening between the subject property and the adjacent property to the rear owned by the Braumans, who indicated that such screening would eliminate their opposition to the variance request. In addition,the applicant has agreed to relocate to the side of the house the proposed stair leading from the deck from its initial proposed location in the rear yard. b. There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed addition that would not require a variance because the as-of-right solution has unacceptable negative impacts on the character of the community. As the applicant's architect illustrated in drawings submitted to the Board, dated November 5, 1996, the as-of-right solution would greatly reduce the amount of open space between the applicant's house and the adjacent houses on either side thereof. The reduction in side Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 3 yards resulting from the as-of-right addition negatively affects the character of the community by increasing the feeling of congestion in a neighborhood that is already lacking in open space. Indeed, the applicant's side yards are some of the largest open spaces in the immediate vicinity and are important to maintaining any sense of open space. These side yards are also beneficial to the Braumans, the adjacent neighbors to the rear, who would lose their view of Maple Hill Drive and all of the southern exposure and light that the house at 13 Dante Street presently receives. In addition,the as-of-right addition could have a larger deck, which would also increase its impact. Accordingly, the Board rejects the suggestion of the Brauman's architect, Robert Stanziale, that an addition to the left of the applicant's house is a feasible alternative. c. The variance requested is not substantial. The proposed deck encroachment in the rear yard is only 65-70 square feet in a 2,000 square foot backyard. d. The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the area. Indeed, as described above, it is superior to the as-of-right solution in that it preserves neighborhood open space. e. The difficulty alleged is not self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the variance requested is APPROVED 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. The applicant will plant 4 to 6 feet arborvitae spaced at 24 inches on center, set with root ball at half depth and mounded fill above, and be maintained. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the revised plans submitted to the Board, dated December 9, 1996 in connection with this application. 5. The rear yard variance shall be restricted to 20.25 ft. eliminating the need for the 16.75 ft. rear yard as indicated on the application. 6. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-b of the New York State Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2249 Application of Janine and Fred Arnold requesting a variance to construct a front entry canopy with a front setback of 37.5 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35-B for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 3 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 227 Lot 42. Clark Neuringer, the architect, of 622 Styles Avenue, Mamaroneck, appeared representing the applicants. Mr. Neuringer said they are in the process of completing a substantial modification and alteration to the property at 3 York Road, formerly a 11/2 story residence now a 2 story residence. The existing zoning Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 4 allows a 40 ft. front yard setback. The existing house is setback 41.8 ft.,permitting the applicant to create a 1.8 ft. front entry canopy. Due to time constraints, the applicants did not originally apply for a variance for the entry. Mr. Neuringer said the applicants are now applying for a variance to permit the construction of a canopy over the front entrance that would be 4 ft. instead of the permitted 1.8 ft. off the face of the building, which the applicant feels is inadequate in terms of coverage and protection at the front entry. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board members. Mr. Kelleher asked for clarification of Mr. Neuringer's statement that the applicants did not include the canopy as part of the original plans which were approved due to time constraints, because it would have needed a variance. Mr. Neuringer said the applicants resided in a particular location which had a deadline for them to vacate, the applicants purchased the property and did not want to live in the house during reconstruction due to the significant nature of the reconstruction. The original building permit application did indicate a front entrance canopy at 1.8 ft., but the applicants felt at some point they would apply for a variance to make it a full 4 ft. canopy. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. Bernard Sherak of 5 York Road, next door to the property at 3 York Road, appeared on behalf of the Amolds. Mr. Sherak said the canopy would enhance the property and hopes the request is approved. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, 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 Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Janine and Fred Arnold have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front entry canopy with a front setback of 37.5 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35-B for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 3 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 227 Lot 42; 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 240-35-B; and WHEREAS, Janine and Fred Arnold 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 pursuant to New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 5 a. It will be a desirable change and not a detriment to the neighborhood. Next door neighbors spoke in favor of the application and said it would enhance the property and would not detract from his living situation. b. The applicants do not have a reasonable alternative to the construction as proposed. c. It is not a significant variance, but rather it is deminimis in nature, 2.25 ft.,and will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental impact in the neighborhood. d. 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. e. 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. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if the next applicant was present. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2250 Application of Ian Ira Fisher requesting a variance to construct a two(2)story one(1)family dwelling with a detached one(1)car garage with a front setback of 25.0 ft.where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(1); the front porch has a setback of 20.5 ft. where 22.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 51-A; the rear yard has a setback of 19.0 ft. at its closest point where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(3)(a); and the bay window has a setback of 19.0 ft. where 23.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-51-A all for a residence 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. Donald Mazin, Esq. appeared and said his client, GMSF Holding Limited, purchased the property from Mr. Fisher. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Mazin if he is proposing to proceed with the application. Mr. Mazin said he is representing the Fisher application with the new owner. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Mazin would object to having his case heard after hearing the 4th matter on the agenda, as there is a sense that his matter will take a few minutes longer than the next case, which should be relatively quick. Mr. Mazin said he had no objection. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2251 Application of Mark Mustacato/R.M.G. Associates requesting a variance to maintain a side deck as constructed with a side yard of 4.6 Ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) and a total of 10.8 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b);further, the deck increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 82 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Lot 72. Daniel J. Cioffoletti,the previous owner's son, appeared and said he will present the case. Mr. Cioffoletti said his father was Lewis Cioffoletti,who is deceased, and his mother is Frances, who was the owner at the time of sale. The home has been sold recently, and the lending institution is requesting clarification of a possible violation of the porch. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Cioffoletti is representing the estate. Mr. Cioffoletti said he is not representing the estate, but is representing his mother who is 84 years old. The property has an approximate 30 degree slope from the front to the rear, where rock had been blasted. Mr. Cioffoletti and his father built the home and moved into it in 1950. The side door where the porch is being questioned is approximately 12 ft. to 14 ft. from the corner of the house. Mr. Cioffoletti referred to the door shown on the right side elevation of the house, which is the original door and original entrance. The saddle of the door is 6 ft. to 7 ft. above grade and has been since the house was built. A discussion followed regarding the foundation plan, the 4 x 4 posts and the entrance into the house. Mr. Kelleher asked Mr. Cioffoletti if the porch was shown on the original plans that were submitted for the building permit regarding construction of the house. Mr. Cioffoletti said the porch was not shown, as the Building Department required only a foundation plan and the porch for which the variance is being applied for had no foundation at all. Mr. Kelleher said then the porch was built in 1950 in conjunction with the construction of the house that did have a set of plans. Mr. Cioffoletti said that was correct. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther asked about the rear entry roof, enclosed second floor room. Mr. Cioffoletti said the porch was part of the plan, which contained 4 x 4 posts. In the winter months, the heavy accumulations of ice and snow caused the deck to rot. Canvas was applied to try to save the deck, which did not alleviate the problem so storm windows were installed. There is no heat, no sleeping quarters, no access from the outside to reach the area, and the area was used simply as an outside porch. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gerety to verify the application. Mr. Gerety said the application was for both the rear enclosed porch and the side deck, which requires the variance. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Martin said it states the deck was built as part of the original house and was later rebuilt. Mr. Cioffoletti said that is misleading, keeping in mind that it was a simple wooden deck built 47 years ago, the wood rotted and had to be replaced. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. After review, 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. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mark Mustacato of R.M.G. Associates has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain a side deck as constructed with a side yard of 4.6 Ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)and a total of 10.8 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b); further, the deck increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 82 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Lot 72; 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)(a), Section 240-38B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mark Mustacato of R.M.G. Associates 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 pursuant to New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted will far outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: a. The applicant has represented that the deck in question, requiring the variance, was built in 1950 and has remained, other than repair in kind, for forty-seven (47) years. b. The variance is the minimum necessary to relieve the applicant of a potential hardship, which would require the removal of the deck and then reconstruction necessitating a variance. c. The house has limited access, and there is a need for some kind of proper exit for that particular doorway. d. 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 December 18, 1996 Page 8 e. There are no alternatives available which would alleviate the necessity of a variance 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. f. 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. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to have the attorney contact the Building Department during business hours to obtain permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2250 Application of Ian Ira Fisher requesting a variance to construct a two(2)story one(1)family dwelling with a detached one(1)car garage with a front setback of 25.0 ft.where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(1); the front porch has a setback of 20.5 ft. where 22.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 51-A; the rear yard has a setback of 19.0 ft. at its closest point where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(3)(a); and the bay window has a setback of 19.0 ft. where 23.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-51-A all for a residence 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. Gunther asked Mr. Mazin, the attorney representing the new applicant, to explain to the Board his presence in this matter and asked about the difference, if Mr. Mazin is aware, of this application versus the application that Ian Ira Fisher previously presented to the Board for the same parcel of land. Mr. Mazin stated his name, Donald S. Mazin, of 1415 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, NY, and said he is representing GMSF Holding Corp. who purchased the premises, 71 Colonial Avenue, Mamaroneck, NY from Ira Fisher on December 10, 1996. Mr. Mazin said Mr. Fisher assigned the application to the new owner and presented two exhibits to the Board to establish the fact; i.e. a copy of the deed and a copy of the assignment. Mr. Mazin said he was retained two days ago and did not know of a prior application. Mr. Mazin was assigned the application, went to the Building Department and then discovered there was a prior application. Mr. Mazin said what was requested previously was a greater front yard variance and different questions were involved. The assigned application appears to be a new application, shortening the front yard and shortening some of the other setbacks. Mr. Mazin then proceeded to explain the proposal, and said upon review of the application the variances that are requested, based upon the application submitted, were set forth in the Notice of Disapproval and Notice of Hearing. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Mazin proceeded to review a drawing presented to the Board this evening in detail. Mr. Mazin stated the following; there are only two premises on the portion of the street that the applicant is in; there are drain sewers/storm drains in the area and some of the houses have storm leaders going into the street; presented a diagram taken from the Town Drainage Map showing the seven (7) storm drains in that particular area, and proceeded to point out the various drains on the diagram. Mr. Mazin then presented photographs and various documents numbered 1 through 22 and explained them in detail; (1) Deed; (2) Assignment; (3)Assessment Map; (4)Town Drainage Map; (5)Sewers already in place; (6) Storm Drain abutting foot of property, corner of Daymon and Colonial; (7) Drain from across street showing the property; (8)Shows drain and closeness of house that fronts on Murray, which is closer to the street than the proposed; applicant is only house that fronts on Colonial; (9) Storm drain directly across from the subject property; (10) Drain on same side of street, near the house that fronts Murray; (11) Drain across from drain on#10; (12)Storm leader drains coming from house across the street which goes directly into the street. Across the street it appears the municipality must have the right to the property in front of those houses because there are two fences on two properties across the street which are both set back substantially; (13) Fence; (14)Fence; (15) Alignment; (16) Garage that abuts the property; located in the rear yard in back of 190 Murray Avenue; (17) 190 Murray Avenue indicating does not have 25 ft. rear yard setback; (18) 186 Murray Avenue, corner house, indicating does not have 25 ft. rear yard; (19)Tool Shed in back of one of the houses with roof that overhangs onto the subject property; (20) Property on corner of Murray Avenue, the sole other property, close to Colonial, looking at the back of 195 Murray Avenue; (21) Subject property; (22) Lieberman engineering report. Mr. Mazin said in reviewing the file on Mr. Fisher's previous application, he discovered a report from Howard Lieberman furnished to the Board, which indicated there would be no problem with run-off and suggested a dry well in the back. Mr. Mazin was going to have Mr. Lieberman appear this evening, but due to illness he was unable to attend. Mr. Mazin said Mr. Lieberman will respond in writing to any questions the Board may have. Mr. Mazin said if the run-off were put directly into the storm drain, all the water would run directly into the storm drain as well as storm leaders taken off the roof. If a dry well were installed, it would also help the neighbors, as the dry well would take away some of the water entering the property from the neighbor's property. The property is not in the flood plain. The proposed house will not add to the flooding problem in the area. Mr. Mazin informed the Board that the owner of the land had moved to Florida, had not paid taxes on the property and Mr. Ventimelia purchased the taxes. There was a tax foreclosure action that was commenced. The property has been setup by the municipality as a buildable lot. Mr. Mazin's clients would like to build a colonial house in keeping with the area, there would be no change in circumstances or neighborhood,as basically almost every house does not comply with the zoning ordinance with setbacks. Mr. Mazin explained the triangular pieces of property in the area. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Mazin to give a description of what his client is proposing. Mr. Mazin referred to a survey and said that is the footprint of the house his client is proposing. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Mazin if he was before the Board for specific requests for variances which is tailored to a plan that is presented, and asked if it were his intention to build what is presented. Tony Branca, the secretary of the corporation that purchased the property, said he was surprised at the opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Branca said he is proposing a two story colonial; three bedrooms, approximately 2,000 sq. ft.; outside will be clapboard with aluminum Anderson windows. Mr. Wexler said the Board would like to know what Mr. Branca is proposing,where the variances occur in that proposal and what are the substances of the variance. Mr. Branca said he tried to optimize the space available on the lot, minimize the setback variances that are required within that, make sure the house built is in keeping with the neighborhood and landscape with mature trees. A significant item is the variance in the front,pushing the house out 5 ft. into the front yard which gives a 25 ft. setback instead of a 30 ft. setback. Mr. Branca said, as seen on the plans, there is Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 10 a 17 ft. Town right-of-way. From the road looking at the house, there is the 25 ft. plus the 17 ft. giving 42 ft., which is further back than any of the other houses. Mr. Branca then discussed the 4 ft. peak. Mr. Branca said the original house proposed by Mr. Fisher was more significant in size, 2,400 sq. ft. house. The proposed is a 2,000 sq. ft. house, and pointed out the 5 ft. variance outside of the building envelope and discussed the footage from the property line. The remainder of the house, to the side where there are neighbors, is within the building envelope and no variance is sought on that side. On the right-hand side there is a tiny triangular piece which is 6 x 6 corner which protrudes outside of the triangular building envelope. Mr. Branca said he tried to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Wexler said the applicant is also planning a detached garage, and asked if a variance is needed for the detached garage. Mr. Branca said he is planning a detached garage which adds to the old-fashioned look of the property, and that a variance is not needed for the garage. A discussion ensued. Mr. Mazin said Mr. Fisher gave him a letter from the Building Department indicating the garage is allowed. Mr. Branca said the items in question were the triangular piece, the front, a stoop protruding outside the allowable area with a cover on it. Mr. Mazin said the proposed plan as submitted by Mr. Fisher has a roof on it. Permitted use is 8 ft. into the front yard with the steps, but if there is a roof on the projection there is a problem. The applicant is prepared to make it an architectural feature, put a 2 ft. overhang on it and remove the roof, which takes away the need for that particular variance. Mr. Branca said there was also a variance for one of the bay windows, the one on the triangular piece, which was outside of the code and building envelope that can be eliminated from the house. Mr. Mazin said if the rear yard variance is granted, there will not be a problem. Mr. Branca said his company builds 3,500 sq. ft. houses in Greenwich, CT on smaller lots, the impact of which is minimized on the neighborhood by the landscaping; i.e. evergreen plantings, arborvitae, but no fencing. Mr. Mazin said there is one other alternative; i.e. if the house is moved down farther into the property only one (1)variance will be required for the front yard. Mr. Branca said his architect drew up plans inside the building envelope, and can build an 1,850 sq. ft. modern style house as-of-right, which would not be in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Branca to comment on the potential loss of trees. Mr. Branca said a landscaper reviewed the property and discussed what trees would be worth saving, stating all the trees will be saved in the front yard if possible. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther stated that the garage on Murray, on his survey, is 2.4 ft. from the property line. Mr. Mazin said that was correct. Mr. Mazin said Mr. Fisher went to the Building Department, looked at all the surveys and found all of the other lots in the area (submitted as exhibit 23)which do not comply with the setback requirements. Mr. Gunther said there are 29 such properties on Senate, Hillcrest, Edgewood, Myrtle, Cabot, Baldwin, Harmon, Orsini, Dimitri with setbacks less than the requirement. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Gunther said that Mr. Mazin made mention of Mr. Lieberman's report, and asked Mr. Mazin to go through the report in more detail since the Board has not had an opportunity to read it and he is referring to it. A discussion ensued. Mr. Mazin called upon Mr. Yuly Aronson,president of the company who has a background in engineering, to comment on Mr. Lieberman's letter. Yuly Aronson of 174 Plainhill Road, Stamford, CT, a professional engineer registered in the State of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey appeared. Mr. Aronson said Mr. Lieberman wrote a report analyzing two (2) schemes; scheme A, which fully complies with the Zoning Ordinance and will have a run-off of 4,522 gallons of water during a 100-year storm; the other scheme is a proposed scheme that will generate 431 gallons more than scheme A based on the 100-year storm which is approximately 81/2%o greater than scheme A. Mr. Aronson indicated that he was reading from the written report of Mr. Lieberman, which is part of the record. A discussion ensued regarding Mr. Lieberman's written report and the calculations in the report. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gerety what the Town rule is on new construction and water run-off. Mr. Gerety said if there is more than 100 sq. ft. of new impervious surface, the applicant will need to file with the Town consulting engineer a run-off control plan that has a run-off or storage facility to handle the water run-off from the lot in excess of 100 sq. ft. Mr. Gunther said anything above the 100 sq. ft. has to be taken care of on the property and not run into the street. Mr. Gerety said there have been precedents where dry well overflow can be connected to the storm drain system, so when the dry well gets charged fully and overflows, it doesn't overflow onto the property but can be connected to the storm drain system. A curb cut must be obtained from the Highway Department. A discussion ensued regarding the installation of a dry well, the run-off into the system and the occurrence of storms. Mr.Mazin continued his presentation and said based upon the photographs,the tax lots,the other triangular pieces of property, the questions of the setbacks that exist, there is no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and the requested variance is not unreasonable. The variance will not have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and district, the sewer lines are installed, there are approximately seven (7) storm drains in the area and Mr. Mazin would like the Board to grant the application. Mr. Gunther said there are a few additions the Board would find useful and helpful to allow them to better evaluate what is being presented; i.e. a landscape plan, an as-of-right plan; indicate which trees will be removed; if there is going to be a mitigating plan such as storm overflow being handled on the property, it should also be indicated on the plan. Mr. Gunther said this particular intersection, Colonial and Murray, on one of the maps indicates the underground stream that runs through that area. As a result of that underground stream every time it rains there is a tremendous amount of water, which may be the reason there is such opposition to the proposal. If the Town requires the applicant to handle all rain run-off on the property, it will create a greater understanding by the neighbors and the Board, as the elements the Board weighs is not only the significance, but the environmental impact of the variance. Mr. Wexler asked during the proposed construction how the applicant intends to protect the site construction from the children of the Murray Avenue School. Mr. Branca said the site will be protected with silt fencing, as done at commercial sites. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Gunther said that Mr. Branca should think about the protection and provide an adequate plan,as many children traverse the area daily. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Mazin if he had anything further, as he would like to open the meeting to the public to ask questions they may have. Mr. Mazin said basically the applicant has only had about three days to investigate the project, as the project was just purchased. Mr. Branca asked Mr. Gunther for a list of the items the Board requests. Mr. Gunther said the items requested are: (1) a landscape plan, (2) an as-of-right plan, (3) tree removal indication and type, (4) environmental impact or a mitigating plan to alleviate the water condition on the property, and (5) a construction plan to protect the children. Mr. Branca said with all the rain of the last few days, after walking the property the other day he did not see much water. Mr. Wexler suggested that Mr. Branca see the Town engineer to investigate what has been transpiring on the particular piece of property. Mr. Gunther said as a point of information, the house next to the proposed house had to close their driveway going down to their garage under the house because every time it rained there would be 5 ft. to 6 ft. of water in that area. Mr. Kelleher said he was surprised at the applicant's surprise to see the turnout at the meeting this evening, and asked if there is any association or connection between Mr. Fisher and EMSF. Mr. Branca said there is no association or connection. Mr. Mazin said his,client found out about the property through an add in the newspaper. Mr. Kelleher asked if the applicant had any discussions regarding Mr. Fisher's previous appearance and application. Mr. Mazin said he found out about the prior application when he looked at the file when he went to the Building Department. A discussion ensued. Mr. Kelleher said the variance the applicant is seeking is in response to Mr. Jakubowski's notice of disapproval, and counsel's opening statements were on drainage rather than the variances requested and doesn't understand the reasons behind those statements. Mr. Mazin said when the client engaged his services, he went to the Building Department, read the Minutes, the prior proceedings and basically the questions that needed to be satisfied was the one of drainage. Mr. Kelleher asked Mr. Mazin to reiterate the previous statements of ownership, which Mr. Mazin again reiterated. Mr. Kelleher asked Mr. Aronson why there is such a concentration of storm drains as counsel has sketched out. Mr. Aronson said the report of the subject property does not deal with underground streams, the entire neighborhood or anyone else's problems. It simply calculated the amount of run-off on the property and size of the dry well. It does not lead into any major impact statements or any design features. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Aronson if the site acts as a catchment area for water in the community. Mr. Aronson said he did not]ink so. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 13 Ms. Gallent said that the Board can request an opinion from the Town engineer, if the Board so desires. A discussion ensued regarding the pervious area, adding impervious area and the water run-off. Mr. Kelleher asked if Mr. Wexler, with his knowledge from previous discussions about the area, would be comfortable making a motion that this is a Type II action having no negative environmental impact. Mr. Wexler said from his understanding, any single family residential house is automatically a Type II action. Mr. Gallent said by definition, granting area variances for single family, two family or three family residences is a Type II action under SEQRA and no further environmental review is requested. Mr. Kelleher said then strictly addressing the four (4) setback problems, subject to a variance, that the water problem in that area is not the Board's concern, but the Building Department's concern. Mr. Gallent said one of the factors the Board is required to consider in making its findings, is whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. However, it is a Type II action under SEQRA. Nonetheless, the Board can look at the as-of-right plan and its impact and the proposed plan and compare the two in making your determination. Mr. Aronson said the engineering report before the Board specifically deals with the water, as-of-right scheme A and proposed scheme B. Mr. Aronson said the Board also asked for an as-of-right building plan, which Mr. Branca has. The trees and fence have been discussed, and Mr. Aronson does not understand why this information is needed again. Ms. Gallent said the engineering report was presented to the Board this evening, no one has read it, and the Board must carefully consider all the information presented. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public. Elisa Follis of 190 Murray Avenue appeared, asked if anyone had a copy of the Zoning Laws and when the laws were enacted. Mr. Gunther said the laws were recodified June 25, 1996. Ms. Follis said the majority of the houses in the area were built between 1925 and 1930,before the zoning laws were in effect. That is the reason why many of the area houses did not comply with the setback requirement of the zoning laws. The purpose of the proposed project is purely for financial gain, as the applicant is not going to reside on the premises. The building of the proposed house will absolutely change the neighborhood, there has been nothing on that piece of property for umteem years because of the water problem and the fact that it is not a suitable piece of property for a house. Ms. Follis lives at 190 Murray Avenue, directly behind the piece of property, has a major water problem, the applicant's property slopes to her property, the house built on that piece of property and the run-off going to Murray Avenue will cause a greater water problem for herself, the neighbor on both sides and the house on the corner. Mr. Gunther said he wants to understand Ms. Follis' last point, by building on the property it will exacerbate the water problem. Ms. Follis said when the house is built, there will be more run-off of water. When it rains there is run-off from that property and the neighbors on both sides of Ms. Follis' home have the same water problem. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant's property higher or lower than Ms. Follis' property. Ms. Follis said the applicant.Ls property is higher. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 14 Mr. Gunther said if a dry well is installed when the proposed house is built so more water that lands on the property is contained on the property would help Ms. Follis' situation. Ms. Follis said it will help, but there will not be enough room to install a dry well of the required size on that piece of property. Mr. Mazin said the area for the dry well is a 6 ft. diameter. A discussion ensued regarding the run-off containment on the property. Bill Follis appeared and said is it possible with a stream running through the area, that a 6 ft. dry well may not have any effect, as the water has no place to go. Mr. Wexler said the applicant will have to test the soil, and decide on the diameter of the dry well. Mr. Gunther said it also has to be done to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, and proceeded to discuss the underground streams on the map. David Wrobel of 28 Colonial Avenue appeared and said he is one of many people at this evening's meeting who know the neighborhood and are opposed to the variance. There are a couple of red herrings; i.e. the applicant is ill-prepared for this evening's meeting and referred to a list found in the file; there is an engineer's report that another engineer is reviewing; it may be worthwhile for the neighbors to engage their own engineer to review the project; and, whether the property is a catchment. Mr. Wexler said the Building Inspector will verify the list. Mr. Mazin said the list was presented to the applicant by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Wrobel said none of the houses on Mr. Fisher's list are on Colonial Avenue or Daymon Terrace, and whatever the setbacks are has nothing to do with what the setbacks on the proposed property. Mr. Wrobel said another red herring was the eleven minute presentation about storm drains and the twenty-one (21) marked photographs looking at the storm drains at various angles should be taken with a grain of salt. Mr. Wrobel referred to applicant's counsel's statement that the lot should be built upon,which is an assumption being made by the applicant. The neighbors never assumed the property should be built upon, anyone who has seen the property assumes it should not be built upon, it's a lovely piece of greenery, and adds to the rural character of the neighborhood. The applicant does not have a hardship, and purchased the property with the facts known. The house will have a drastic change in the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther said in regard to Mr. Wrobel's presentation comment that the lot should not be built on, the owner of the lot has a right by law to build on the lot. It is not a determination the Board makes. The Board looks at the variance before the Board to be issued. Also, the fact mentioned that someone will be making a profit on the piece of property, has no bearing on the granting of the variance. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gallent said that hardship is not an element of an area variance. The law was amended several years ago and proceeded to read the standards as stated in the law. David Liechtenstein of 87 Colonial Avenue appeared and stated he agreed with all the issues individuals previously have stated and also opposes the project. Mr. Liechtenstein said the way Daymon Terrace enters Colonial Avenue is not a 90 degree perfect, but is approximately 73 degrees. When cars drop children off and leave, the 5 ft. variance will further hinder any clear vision of the cars and the children will be endangered. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Liechtenstein to demonstrate on the drawings before the Board, which Mr. Liechtenstein did. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Liechtenstein also commented on the extra profit the applicant is trying to realize by proposing a larger house. Mr. Liechtenstein said two parties could not attend this evening's meeting who also opposed the variance, and submitted copies of their letters. Mr. Gunther said he will read the letters at the end of the presentation. Eric Dreyfus of 18 Colonial Avenue appeared, which is directly across from Daymon Terrace. Mr. Dreyfus said at the presentation initially it was pointed out there is only one other house on the block. There are six houses on the other side of Colonial Avenue, which is important when taking into consideration the effect the proposed project will have. Mr. Dreyfus said that Dr. Mason stated there is a 17 ft. right-of-way owned by the Town, and when taking that into consideration the setback is actually an additional number of feet. Mr. Dreyfus said it is not appropriate to take into account the property owned by the Town, because at some point the property may be used by Town. Mr. Dreyfus then spoke about the consideration for granting a variance as stated by counsel, the benefit to the applicant and the detriment to the neighborhood which cannot be determined because the neighbors do not know what the applicant can build as-of-right and what additional amount the applicant is seeking to build by seeking the variances. Mr. Dreyfus continued his presentation regarding the size of the lot, the setbacks of the surrounding homes and the character of the neighborhood. Mark Abrams of 1 Daymon Terrace appeared and said the area in question is very important to the children of the community. Mr. Abrams spoke about the use of the playground behind the subject property at the school, the sloping area of the property, the catchment, the proposed garage and the dangers imposed upon the children in the area. Louise Ludecke of 2 Bryson Street, who has lived in the area for twenty-one (21) years, appeared and proceeded to inform the Board of the flooding conditions at 206 Murray Avenue that abuts the school, vacancies created in some of the homes due to the flooding conditions and wet basements. Ms. Ludecke continued her presentation and stated she is concerned about having a wet basement problem if the proposed project is granted, as the current water has no place to go. Jonathan Morganstern of 188 Murray Avenue appeared and stated his house has sunk 2 ft. in one corner, and he has raised his house 2 ft. to make it liveable. He has a water problem in the basement, and every time there is a storm he gets 1 ft. to 2 ft. of water in the basement despite work performed in the basement to try to alleviate the problem. The discussion regarding the installation of dry wells makes sense from a structural point of view, but Mr. Morganstern is not convinced that the dry wells will handle the water problem. Mr. Morganstern's property is considerably lower than the applicant's,which would allow more water to flow in his direction. Daniel Allen of 20 Colonial Avenue appeared and said he has another water problem, and does not believe the property is a buildable lot. Mr. Allen continued his presentation stating it is a horrendous situation, and the Board has to understand what the neighbors are going through with the flooding conditions. Mr. Allen presented a letter in opposition from the Frommer family of 16 Colonial Avenue. Eric Dreyfus appeared and asked the Board if he was correct in assuming if the gentlemen who owns the property wished to build an as-of-right house on the property he would nevertheless have to go through the Building Department in terms of the water problem. Mr. Gunther said that assumption is correct, and asked if there were any other comments from the public. Elisa Follis asked if the neighbors could attend the meeting should the applicant submit an as-of-right. Ms. Gallent said if the applicant wishes to build as-of-right, the applicant files an application with the Building Department which Ms. Follis could request to see, but there is no public meeting. The Town engineer will review it, and Ms. Follis could call the Town engineer and submit comments as he is well aware of the flooding problems and deals with them frequently. The Board is entitled to ask the Town engineer's opinion on this matter. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Wrobel asked if the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) needs to be contacted. Ms. Gallent said because this is a Type II action under SEQRA, it is not referred to the CZMC. Mark Abrams asked if all the variances are granted, as there is no hardship on the part of the developer because he is not going to reside on the premises, will any of the information be given to the next owner of the property. Ms. Gallent said variances run with the land. If the house is built pursuant to variances, the next individual who purchases the property gets the variance also. The Minutes of the ZBA's meetings are on record for review. A discussion ensued regarding a new owner filing for new variances and what would occur. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Bill Follis asked if the applicant decided to build as-of-right, then the neighbors would not be notified. Mr. Gunther said that is correct. Mr. Gerety said because the proposed project is an undeveloped lot, even though it is less than the minimum required for a tree removal permit, the applicant will have to apply for a tree permit if trees are to be removed that are greater than 6 in. measured 4 ft. off the ground. Individuals are noticed within 250 ft. of each of the corners of the property. Mr. Gerety said erosion control will go to the Town Engineer who will review it. There will be a bond required in case an erosion control fails, which would not be returned until the problem is solved. The bond is returned one year after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Obviously with the questions on drainage, etc., the bond may be in any amount that the Town Engineer determines is necessary. Mr. Wexler said as a general statement, the applicant is trying to build something that is more in keeping with the community than a structure within the as-of-right area. The as-of-right area where he could build is a triangular area on the site defined by the setbacks to the property. The applicant needs a certain mass of area to build a structure that will be a saleable structure in terms of square footage. To do that he can construct a building two stories high within this triangle, which will be more of a presence on the street, closer to the neighbors, and the character of the house would not be the character of the community. The variance proposal is more in keeping with the character of the community. The water problem is going to happen in either one of the solutions. The coverage on the land is about the same, within approximately 2%. Mr. Wexler said the applicant is serious about building an as-of-right, but would rather build more in keeping with the community. A discussion ensued regarding the proposed house, the as-of-right house that can be built and the water concerns. Mr. Gunther read several letters in opposition from the following individuals: Andra J. Fertig/Richard S. Corenthal of 14 Colonial Avenue; Hoosain M. Dharamsey of 81 Colonial Avenue; Kathleen Clemens of 89 Colonial Avenue; Walter H. Frommer and Vivian S. Frommer of 16 Colonial Avenue. Mr. Mazin then addressed some of the comments; the property of his client is higher than the other properties and the water goes down; the 1,500 gallons of water would have to be retained on his client's property with a dry well;the as-of-right is the triangular piece; the requested variance is to build a colonial; bring down the frontage to handle the angles to build a colonial instead of a modern type house. Mr. Wexler said he scaled the front of that house and said it would have a face to the street of about 60 ft. wide; the as-of-right house the applicant is proposing is 42 ft., smaller frontage on the street facing the street. Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Mazin said the colonial type house would benefit the character of the community, the difference being 200 sq. ft.; the proposal has been reduced in size; the vacant land is in an area in Westchester where property is scarce; the water problem will be helped; the engineering department will see to it that the drainage facility will meet the code requirements. Mr. Mazin said his client is open to the Board's suggestions,his client has a right to build,and his client is trying to propose something that is saleable and meets the needs and character of the community. Mr. Mazin said with respect to the visibility, there is a 17 ft. setback which the Town has a right to, the setback for the proposed is after that 17 ft., there is still the same visibility over that 17 ft., which has no bearing on this application. Mr. Mazin said he will submit what the Board has required at the next meeting. Mr. Branca said he appreciates the Board's concerns about the water, and based his comments on the engineer's report that was in the file, which shows there will be more water taken off of the lot by building a house. Mr. Morganstem said that is the point the residents are skeptical about, the applicant's ability to contain the water on the property; i.e. flooded basements. Mr. Morganstem said the reports do not seem to consider what the residents know to be a reality; the reports are done with the best knowledge and intention of the individuals who prepare them, but the individuals who prepared the reports do not know certain things that the homeowners who have lived in the area know. Mr. Wexler said there is no question there is a problem with water, the question is will the proposed building increase the problem the residents have any more than the as-of-right house. Mr. Wexler said because it is more than 100 sq. ft., the applicant must contain their run-off on their property. Mr. Wexler said the run-off from the subject property is greater because it has a high elevation, is draining in other yards, rather than if it was a lower lot. If the applicant can contain 15% of the water run-off, it is better than what runs off now. David Wrobel said the Board is only concerned with the variance, not the water problem. Mr. Wexler said the applicant has to go through a building permit process, and the water will be a problem in any event. Mr. Aronson said when a hole is dug on property, the hole will naturally attract water which is the purpose for the proposed dry well. A discussion ensued regarding the workings of a dry well. Mr. Branca said the Town said the water may be able to go through the storm drains. Mr. Gunther said before the Board ends the public hearing on this matter, there are two other requests of the Town Building Department: the applicant should consult Gary Trachtman, the Consulting Engineer to the Town, and have him prepare a report for the Board on the impact of building a house on the property as it relates to water and drainage; and, for clarification purposes, the application should be renoticed under the current owner's name, as Ian Ira Fisher is no longer the applicant. Mr. Wexler said that the Town engineer's report should also address the differences between the as-of-right and the requested variance. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Mazin when making the presentation at the next meeting to make reference to the prior application of Mr. Fisher and how what is being presented is different from that application. Mr. Gunther said the next Board meeting will be on January 22, 1997, in the Senior Center. Richard Corenthal of 14 Colonial Avenue asked if were possible to see a drawing of the proposed house with the variance to visualize the colonial house. Mr. Mazin proceeded to show Mr. Corenthal the proposed colonial house. On a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously Zoning Board December 18, 1996 Page 18 RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2250 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 22, 1997 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Simon made a motion to approve the Minutes of November 20, 1996, which was seconded by Mr. Gunther and unanimously approved, 5-0. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther and seconded, the public meeting was adjourned and the Board went into the Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 22, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. % g Marg a Roma Recor in Secretary tar7 �,.