Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_07_02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 2, 1997, 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. Rene Simon 1.21 Arthur Wexler Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel '=°� 4 RECEIVED William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector sEP 23 1997 Julie Cleary, Public Stenographer PATRICIA A D(GpCgp by Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. TOWN CLERK ,/ N.^MN NECK 49 Eighth Street (� New Rochelle, New York 10801 ro Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mr. Wexler at 7:50 p.m. who stated that Mr. Gunther was caught in traffic and will arrive as soon as possible. Presently there are only four members and a majority vote of three will be needed to approve an application. Applicants have the option to postpone the vote on their cases until the next meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2270 (adjourned 5/28/97) Application of Mr. &Mrs. Renson requesting a variance to construct a rear deck which would have a rear yard of 18.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(3)(a). The side yard would be 10.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(2)(a); and further, the fence below the deck would have a height of 6 ft. 6 in. where 5.0 ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A; and finally, the deck, stairs and platform as proposed would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an RA Zone District on the premises located at 1088 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 1. Mr. Simon abstained from hearing the case, since he knows the applicant. Ms. Gallent said that now there are only three members to vote. Mr. Wexler said there were no new drawings or designs provided to the Board, and asked if revisions were made. Rick Hatem, of Diversified Building Consultants, Inc., the designers of the deck appeared. Mr. Hatem said based on the last meeting it was suggested the applicant return with revised plans, which he has prepared and has with him this evening. A review will reveal that the plans have been modified sufficiently to reduce the concerns discussed at the last meeting. The need has been reduced to two of the four variances originally applied for. The deck is considerably smaller, as suggested at the last meeting, and Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 2 is a traditional design commensurate with a deck on the adjacent property. Mr. Hatem passed out the revised plans to the Board members, marked as exhibit 1. Mr. Wexler said the Board would like a chance to review exhibit 1, as the Board normally receives case information a week before the meeting and visits the site to see how the new plans have been altered to fit into the environment. In the review process, Mr. Hatem said the proposed deck was pulled back 12 ft., which eliminates the need for a rear yard variance, which will now comply with the 25 ft. rear yard setback requirement. Ms. Martin asked if it was the same height off the ground, which Mr. Hatem verified. Mr. Hatem said there are no more tall railings, no more lattice work and the fence below the deck has been removed, which eliminates another variance. The deck is shown with a traditional 36 in. high railing. Mr. Hatem presented pictures to the Board, marked as exhibit 2, at which time a discussion ensued regarding the 10 ft. side yard setback of the intermediate platform of the stair, which has not changed, minimizing the concern for less bulk. Mr. Hatem said the landscaping growth on the house has been removed to the foundation line just below the brick line, as shown in photograph#6. Mr. Wexler asked why the deck was made wider. Mr. Hatem said the deck was made wider to maintain a fairly reasonable amount of footage to accommodate outdoor furniture. The proposed plan presented this evening is 70 ft. to 75 ft. smaller than the previous plan submitted. Mr. Wexler asked if plantings will be installed along the west elevation of the deck. Mr. Hatem said in all likelihood plantings will be installed along the west elevation of the deck. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. 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. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. &Mrs.Renson have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a rear deck; the side yard would be 10.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(2)(a); and further, the fence below the deck would have a height of 6 ft. 6 in. where 5.0 ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A; and finally, the deck, stairs and platform as proposed would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an RA Zone District on the premises located at 1088 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-42B(3)(a), Section 240-42B(2)(a), Section 240-52A, Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Renson submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 3 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the original plans submitted, the revised plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is GRANTED. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as similar decks have been built on nearby properties and many of the neighbors adjacent to the property have indicated by letter that they have no objection to the applicant's request for a variance. 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. B. There are no reasonable alternatives,as the proposed revised design as presented in the plans submitted to the Board this evening is significantly smaller than the originally proposed deck. C. The variance is not substantial given the parameters of the property, D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. The difficulty has not been self-created. F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is encouraged to continue gardening proclivities to help soften the impact of the deck in the neighborhood. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 4 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2271 Application of John W. Risner requesting a variance to construct a 6 ft. fence above two retaining walls. The 4.05 ft. fence as proposed to be placed on top of a new 2.5 ft. retaining wall exceeds the 5.0 ft. maximum height allowed for a fence/retaining wall pursuant to Section 240-52A, and the total height of the new fence/wall including an existing retaining wall would be 10.8 ft. where a maximum height of 5.0 ft. is allowed as the proposed fence/wall would be 1.6 ft. set back from the existing retaining wall where 4.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52A; and further, the posts exceed the 6 ft. maximum height allowed for posts pursuant to Section 240-52B, all for a fence/retaining wall in an R-6 Residential Zone District on the premises located at 38 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Lot 451. John Risner appeared. Ms. Martin said the fence has already been built, and asked if the application presented is to maintain what has already been built. A discussion ensued regarding same, with Mr. Gerety stating that the application submitted stated to "construct" a fence. Ms. Gallent said due to the fact that the notice does not state "maintain", the matter will have to be renoticed to be heard at the next meeting. The case may be presented this evening, but the Board cannot vote on the matter this evening. Mr. Risner said the property was purchased in 1991, at which time there was an existing stone retaining wall dropping down approximately 5 ft. to Edgewood Avenue. A 2'/ wall, constructed of railroad ties and concrete blocks, wa set in approximately 18 in. Along the back property line, 20 to 25 ft. Hemlock trees had been planted which had died. The wall was in disrepair, Mr. Risner had the Hemlock trees removed and the low wall was replaced for safety and privacy reasons. At that time, not being aware of the building code, a 4 ft. fence was constructed on top of the existing railroad ties. Mr. Risner's said his neighbor applied to the building department to follow suit and when Mr. Risner spoke in support of the application, Mr. Risner realized his property was in violation. Mr. Risner said the photographs submitted clearly shows what has been accomplished. Winter creepers, similar to what the neighbors planted, will be planted along the area to break up the wall, creating a continuous line of plants. Mr. Wexler said in perusing the photographs, it has been professionally done. Mr. Martin said Mr. Risner's backyard would be very dangerous without any protection. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public, and there were none. Ms. Gallent said, at this point in time, the case should be adjourned to the next meeting, at which time it will be properly renoticed. The applicant has made his presentation and does not have to be present at the next meeting. The public will be heard, at which time the Board will respond and then vote on the matter. Mr. Wexler adjourned case #2271 to the next meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 5 APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2272 Application of Padriac and Beth Boyle requesting a variance to construct a rear addition, front porch and second floor. The one story front porch, as proposed, would have a front setback of 24.6 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);the side yards for the porch would be 6.1 ft. and 7.2 ft. with a total side yard of 13.3 ft. where each yard is required to be a minimum of 10.0 ft. pursuant to Section 240-37B-(2)(a) and the total side yard required is 25.0 ft. pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); the second floor addition would have side yards of 5.8 ft. and 6.47 ft. with a total of 12.27 ft. where each yard is required to be a minimum of 10.0 ft. pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)and the total of the side yards is required to be 25.0 ft. pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); further, the two story rear addition would have a total side yard width of 24.67 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); and further, the additions as proposed increase the extent by which the dwelling is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence is an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 52 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Lot 457. Mr. Gunther arrived and apologized to the Board and other individuals for arriving late. Padriac Boyle of 52 Fernwood Road, Beth Boyle of 52 Fernwood Road and Andy Letkovsky, architect, of 5 Lilan Court, East Northport, New York appeared. Mr. Letkovsky gave a presentation by reading a letter into the record sent to Mr. Gunther and the Board, dated May 6, 1997, which will offer a brief synopsis of the importance of the project to his clients,and added that in driving through the neighborhood, the situation as proposed is typical to the majority of the houses which appear to be non-conforming. Mr. Letkovsky then reviewed the notice of disapproval and passed out a marked up drawing to illustrate same, marked exhibit 1. The one-story front porch as proposed would have a front setback of 24.6 ft. where 30 ft. is required, is the reason for the 8 ft. projection of the porch, which is reasonable and not excessive. Front porches are common occurrences on the existing houses in the neighborhood. The 24.6 ft. setback appears to be reasonably consistent with that of the vast majority of existing houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked for the tax map to review the applicant's property in relation to other properties on the block, which the Board perused. Mr. Gunther said in reviewing the tax map, block 218, it appears that 50 Fernwood Road is similar to 52 Fernwood Road, 54 Fernwood Road appears to be setback a little further and 60 Fernwood Road is similar as existing as opposed to what is being proposed for 52 Femwood Road. Mr. Letkovsky asked if the tax map being reviewed includes the latest information on additions approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Wexler said he does not remember approving anything for front yards. Mr. Boyle said the neighbor across the street from his residence has a stone porch with a wraparound deck. Mr. Wexler said it would be beneficial to have a xerox copy of the tax map of the area where the house, in each case, is located in relationship to the street included in the packet the Board receives. Mr. Letkovsky then addressed the side yards of the porch, 6.1 ft. and 7.2 ft., with a total side yard of 13.3 ft. Mr. Letkovsky agrees that the 6.1 ft. is what is proposed in the application, but sketched a view on the site plan, a 19.5 ft. dimension plus or minus, where the porch actually starts from which allows the applicant a total yard setback at 25.6 ft. The side yard setbacks are not a substantial item. Mr. Kelleher asked the building department to clarify what Mr. Letkovsky stated. Mr. Gerety said the building department would include the portion of the house that would become part of the side yard. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Letkovsky said the garage will be maintained, and a substantial effort was made to minimize the variances requested. The second floor addition would have a side yard setback of 8.5 ft. and 6.47 ft.,with a total setback of 12.27 ft. Mr. Letkovsky pointed to an area of the house that is existing, to which no changes are proposed, and then pointed to the referenced area that has a 5.8 ft. setback. Mr. Letkovsky then pointed out the original building wall of the house, which is visible from the outside, and has been raised to accommodate the new form. It is a vertical lifting of an existing wall in the neighborhood of 18.0 ft., as opposed to the 5.8 ft. which the surveyor had shown. A portion of the proposed second story will have a total side yard setback of 24.4 ft.,just shy of the 25.0 ft. setback. The rear of the house contains a proposed dining room, a family room and a master bedroom, which currently does not exist. Mr. Letkovsky said the proposed setbacks are correct. In summarizing the application, the new 2-story construction proposed is 24.6 ft. overall, the proposed front porch addition and roofed foyer is 25.6 ft. overall. In order to accommodate the three bedrooms on the second floor, the proposed would be built on top of the existing roof. Mr. Wexler asked what is presently on the second floor. Mr. Letkovsky said presently there is a furnished attic space, two small bedrooms, one of which is a study. Mr. Wexler asked about the existing bedroom on the second floor plan. Mr. Letkovsky said it is an enlargement vertically of the existing attic space, which is now being used as a legal habitable space. Mr. Letkovsky said he has original blueprints from the Town which the Board may review. It was suggested that the blueprints be displayed on the easel, so members of the public may view it as well. A discussion ensued regarding the size of the bedroom. Ms. Gallent asked if Mr. Letkovsky was questioning the building department's interpretation of the project. Mr. Letkovsky said he is proposing a question; if the side yards go to the existing building line if the proposed porch is set in 19.5 ft. does that take precedence over what was proposed. A discussion ensued regarding interpretation of setbacks before a house is built. Mr. Wexler asked if any solutions were reviewed; raising the existing roof of the house where the ridge line that runs parallel to the street would be dormered so the massing would be much softer to the environment. Mr. Letkovsky said articulated roof lines soften the impact and give character, which is proposed. Mr. Boyle said the upstairs attic space is needed for storage, as there is no basement. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the elevation of the structure, roof angles, houses with dormers for second stories in the community and the visual effect of same. Mr. Letkovsky said his clients are eager to have the project realized in some form and spent time accommodating, as close as possible, the zoning guidelines of the Town, the structural requirements of the building and the necessities needed. Mr. Letkovsky is open to suggestions the Board may have. Mr. Kelleher asked if either the applicant or architect understand and clearly know the five factors the Board must consider in either granting or not granting a variance. If not, the applicant may want to seek an adjournment. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Letkovsky said he has not been issued the five statements by the Town. Mr. Gunther asked counsel to comment. Ms. Gallent said that a copy of the law is part of the application,and read the relevant section of the Town Law, 267b. Mr. Letkovsky said he understands the issues. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked if the house will now be a five bedroom house. Mr. Letkovsky said four of the rooms will be used as bedrooms and one will become a study, as the applicant works out of the house. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. Hayden Smith of 40 Fernwood Road, on the corner of Fernwood Road and Clover Street, appeared. The Smiths have resided at 40 Fernwood Road for twenty-one years and have been residents of the Town of Mamaroneck since 1958. Mr. Smith has three concerns about the proposal; i.e. all the houses on Femwood Road are non-conforming under the existing Zoning Ordinance because they were built before the Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Wexler said there are homes on Fernwood Road that are conforming, but not many. Mr. Smith said his first concern is that whenever a variance is granted in the Town, that the degree of non- conformance not be increased unless there is a compelling reason. The second concern is that the lot where the Boyle's house is situated is fairly narrow, 50 ft., relatively small for a house this size. What is proposed to modify the existing structure will create a massive architectural structure which is too large for the lot on which it exists in terms of width. The third concern is about the height in the rear, because it directly impacts Mr. Smith's vision, as the back of Mr. Smith's house faces in that direction. At the present time it is open green area. Mr. Smith hopes these three issues are addressed in the modification of existing plans. Mr. Wexler said the addition in the rear appears to be as-of-right, which meets all the requirements of the yard setbacks, including the height. It is the addition to the main structure of the house that violates the Zoning Law. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Gerety if that is correct. Mr. Gerety said the total side yard for the rear addition is 24.67 ft. where 25 ft. is required. Mr. Wexler said the two-story addition in the rear, with a slight modification, would not impact the view from Mr. Smith's house and meets the requirements of the zone. It is the alterations to the main structure of the house that has the most impact on the zoning requirements. Scott Sennett appeared and said he resides next door, at 50 Fernwood, approximately 6 ft. from the property line of the applicant. Mr. Sennett said his primary concern of the proposed plan relates to the point Mr. Wexler made; the point at which the two roof peaks intersect is directly adjacent to the Sennett's house. The side of Mr. Sennett's house is 10 ft. away. The concern raised is the increase of the height in that particular section of the house. It substantially change the view from the second story of the Sennett house through any window and change the character of feeling, given the fact that it is so close in proximity to the Sennett house. Mr. Sennett said it seems reasonable to add to the house, but there must be a more modest plan that will give substantial additional living space without completely effecting the Sennett's house; i.e. the back yard and the side of the house. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Boyle said the size of the proposed house will make it the same height as the Sennett's house. There is only one window that will be obstructed in the 10 ft. span and referred to photographs before the Board. The Sennett house currently shades the Boyle house from mid-morning to late afternoon. The Boyle's are not gaining any sort of vision or sun enhancement. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Letkovsky wanted to add anything else. Mr. Letkovsky said the proposed second story is setback substantially from the side yard and the amount of massing was reduced on the second floor. Mr. Letkovsky addressed the existing roof peaks, the proposed gable which can be modified in some way, and said the goal was to have a second story with three bedrooms, a walk-in closet and bathroom which was not considered to be overly substantial or aggressive. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Letkovsky may have to make more modifications to the design, and will give his opinion and get a sense from the other Board members as well. Mr. Gunther prefaced his remarks by stating the Zoning Board does not design individual's applications. Firstly, the Board addresses whether the benefit to the applicant exceeds the detriment to the community. In listening to Mr. Boyle's neighbors and in looking at the sight and proposal, the amount of massing proposed is more, in Mr. Gunther's opinion, than should be on such a site. While there is a great deal of depth to the property, the width is severely limited and the amount of massing on the west side of the house tends to provide greater impact than should be on such a lot size. As it is currently proposed, Mr. Gunther could not support it. Mr. Kelleher said he has no objection or reservation to the desire that the applicant wants to expand the house, four bedrooms is fine, he has no problem with the front porch, but does have a problem with the manner in which the goal has been designed and shares the concerns that have been voiced by some of the attendees at this evening's meeting. At the present time, Mr. Kelleher cannot support the request. Mr. Simon agrees with the two other Board members that have spoken. Design wise, the proposal is overpowering. Mr. Simon would like the proposal to be redesigned. Mr. Wexler said there is too much mass. The roof structure, by keeping the plates on the second floor at 8 ft., forces the design to raise the whole structure. The structure can be enhanced if the plane is dropped and punctured with dormers, which would soften the whole roof and bring the whole house down. The plan would be exactly the same. The problem is that it is a narrow lot and the proposed addition is quite large. The design will have to be altered to address that problem. Ms. Martin said she cannot say anything that would add significantly to what has already been said. Ms. Martin envisioned, when visiting the site, the renovation as proposed gave a feeling claustrophobia and agrees that it is massive. Mr. Letkovsky said then the major point of contention is the close proximity to the property line of the neighbor. The Town requires a 10 ft. side yard setback. The applicant's hardship is if the wall is brought in, it would eliminate three bedrooms on the second floor. Mr. Wexler said the ridge line is 31 ft., if the ridge line is dropped down, eliminate the dormer on that side, possibly eliminating the dormers on the other side, puncture the horizontal line where the windows occur with dormers that are much smaller in scale, keep the 8 ft. ceiling, keep the square footage of the room so it is 6 ft. at the edge in some of the areas, the vertical presentation of the wall will be much smaller and more interesting. Ms. Martin asked about the impact of sunlight with respect to the neighboring properties. Mr. Boyle said the sun rises in the east and the neighbor's house shades the Boyle house. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Gunther proposed adjourning the application to the next meeting, so the applicant will have a period of time to make any alterations the applicant wishes to make. Mr. Simon said it is up to the architect to redesign the project, it is an interesting project and there are so many opportunities to make it less massive. Mr. Gunther requested when the revised plans are submitted to the Board that the applicant clearly indicate the changes made; i.e. existing, proposed. Mr. Wexler said when the applicant presents the proposed revised elevations, to start with the existing elevations. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2272 be, and hereby is,adjourned to Tuesday,July 29, 1997, the next Zoning Board meeting: Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to advise the Board if that date cannot be met. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2273 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Nick Radcliffe requesting a variance to construct an enclosed entry and wood framed open porch. The front entry would have a front setback of 15.0 ft. and the open porch would have a setback of 9.7 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the new construction would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 73 Chester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 302. Pam Bolton, also known as Pam Radcliffe, of 73 Chester Place and Nick Radcliffe appeared. Ms. Radcliffe said the applicants would like to add a vestibule on the existing porch, making the landing, and a wood framed porch, as that is the primary entrance that is used for the house. It is an unprotected northern exposure. The applicants would like to construct a small vestibule, to be able to have a coat closet and protection from the elements. Ms. Martin said this is considered a front yard, as there are two front yards. Ms. Radcliffe said there are two front yards. Mr. Gunther asked to view the tax map, in relation to the property in question. Ms. Radcliffe said what currently exists is not in good condition, and the non-functional window on the side of the house will be removed. What is proposed will look better. Mr. Radcliff explained the pictures before the Board, verifying Ms. Radcliffe's statement. Mr. Gunther asked if the window was on the north side of the house. Ms. Radcliff said the window referred to is not on the north side of the house, but that window will also be removed because the vestibule extends. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. • Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Wexler questioned the visibility. Ms. Radcliffe said there currently hedge along the perimeter of the property, and there are no visibility problems. Ms. Martin asked if there will be an impact on the tree. Mr. Radcliffe said the pilings that the stairs and porch will rest on will be set back so they will not impact the tree, a Chinese Maple. Mr. Wexler asked how far the platform and steps currently protrude. Mr. Radcliffe said they protrude as shown on the plan, maybe a little less. The stairs will now run sideways instead of out. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. Ms. Radcliffe presented three letters of support from the neighbors, marked as exhibit 1. Mr. Wexler asked what is the allowable intrusion into a front yard of a stoop. Mr. Gerety said the allowable intrusion into a required front yard is 8 ft. Mr. Gunther asked for clarification in regard to one particular letter. Mr. Radcliffe clarified the writer to be Richard Goldstone of 69 Chester Place. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Nick Radcliffe have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an enclosed entry and wood framed open porch. The front entry would have a front setback of 15.0 ft. and the open porch would have a setback of 9.7 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the new construction would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 73 Chester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 302; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Nick Radcliffe submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 11 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to the nearby properties will be created, as the nearby property owners have expressed their support for the application. B. There does not appear to be a reasonable alternative with respect to creating a vestibule area for entry into the kitchen, given the fact it has now become the primary entrance in the home. C. It is not a substantial variance in terms of the coverage, as the applicant has two front yards and is therefore subject to greater restrictions with respect to setbacks than they otherwise would be. D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The applicants desire to maintain the Chinese Maple in the yard that currently exists and enhances the beauty of the neighborhood. E. There has not been any self-created difficulty F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. .• Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 12 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 a building permit can be obtained from the building department during regular business hours, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2274 Application of Stephen and Ruth Hendel requesting a variance to construct a rear addition with terrace. The proposed terrace will have a rear yard of 21.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(3); and furthermore, the terrace increases the extent to which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Lot 445. Kathy Kling, the architect, of 37 West 20th Street, New York, New York 10011, appeared, stating they she is the second architect that has worked with the Hendels. The applicant's were granted a variance one and one-half to two years ago for a project that was much larger in scope than the proposed project. The applicants would like to have a two-car garage, rather than one that currently exists. Ms. Kling reviewed the plans before the Board. The rear lot line of the property is irregular because of rock outcrop, causing the corner of the terrace not have a rear setback. The building has a rear setback, as does the majority of the terrace. Presently, the parking area is being filled in, creating more level space to create a back yard. Mr. Gunther asked what variances had previously been approved. Ms. Kling said previously approved was a two-car garage, relocation of the driveway, a two-story addition on grade level, an office above and a guest room. Even though the variance was granted, the applicants felt it was too big for the neighborhood. The applicant's wanted an extra garage space and a larger kitchen. Mr. Wexler said the variance is minimal. Ms. Kling said if there was no boulder, there would be no problem. Ms. Martin asked if the tree is being removed. Ms. Kling said the applicant is trying to save the tree, but if removed another one will be planted. A discussion ensued regarding using gravel around the tree, and the required square footage needed for a tree removal permit. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Stephen and Ruth Hendel have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear addition with terrace. The proposed terrace will have a rear yard of 21.0 ft.where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3);and furthermore, the terrace increases Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 13 the extent to which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Lot 445; 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 240-36B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Stephen and Ruth Hendel submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, since the terrace is in conformity with the house and in conformity with the existing structures in the neighborhood. B. Their is no alternative that would not involve the necessity of an area variance given the irregularity of the rear property line, and it would be quite difficult for the applicant, in this instance, to achieve their goals without a variance. C. The variance is not substantial given the area of the site and the area of encroachment into the rear yard line,approximately 1/100th of the percent of the land area. D. The variance will not have any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the community or district, as the design is well presented and incorporated well within the landscape of the site and context of the house itself. E. This is not a self-created difficulty as there presently exists a large rock outcropping in the rear, the rear line is irregular, this condition was not created by the applicant. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 14 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the building department during regular business hours for a building permit. • Ms. Gallent reminded the Board to state the factor, "that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted" before stating, "an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood,since the terrace is in conformity with the house and in conformity with the existing structures in the neighborhood." The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2275 Application of Leonard P. Preuett requesting a variance to maintain an attached garage which has a side yard of 0.60 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); the total side yard is 18.45 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b); the lot coverage is 38.0% where 35.0% is required pursuant to Section 240-38F; and the garage increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 25 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 485. Mr. Gunther asked that the record reflect that Mr. Gunther is acquainted with the applicant, has no business dealings with him or any financial involvement with the property or any other property with Mr. Preuett and feels he can pass judgment on the application in an objective manner. Mr. Wexler also asked that the record reflect that Mr. Wexler is acquainted with the applicant, has no business dealings with him or any financial involvement with the property or any other property with Mr. Preuett and feels he can pass judgment on the application in an objective manner. Leonard Preuett, of 25 Valley Road, appeared. Mr. Preuett said he sold his house in March of this year. When the new owner asked for a Certificate of Occupancy, the building department was unable to provide same because a garage constructed approximately 52 years ago. Apparently, at that time, no plans were provided, nor a building permit obtained. In speaking with Mr. Gerety, the applicant was given instructions on how to proceed; i.e. plans were made, a new survey made and an electrical inspection occurred. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Preuett when the house was purchased. Mr. Preuett said the house was purchased in 1978. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Gunther asked if a Certificate of Occupancy was needed for the closing. Mr. Preuett said apparently it was not required at that time. Mr. Gunther asked if the closing is pending the outcome of this evening's meeting. Mr. Preuett said yes, the closing is pending the outcome of this evening's meeting. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. John Wilkinson, of 26 Valley Road, said the addition,garage, etc. has been on the house for the 26 years he has resided in his house. Mr. Wilkinson said there have been at least three other owners. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, 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, Leonard P. Preuett has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an attached garage which has a side yard of 0.60 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); the total side yard is 18.45 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b); the lot coverage is 38.0% where 35.0% is required pursuant to Section 240-38F; and the garage increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 25 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 485; 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 240-38F, Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Leonard P. Preuett submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. There is no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to nearby properties, as the structure has been in existence for fifty- two (52) years. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 16 B. There are no other reasonable alternatives because the structure is already built and has been in existence fifty-two(52) years. C. While the variance is not insubstantial, the condition has existed for fifty-two (52) years. E. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,as the condition has been in existence for fifty-two (52) years. F. There is no self-created difficulty,because the applicant purchased the lot with the non-complying condition, which has been in existence for fifty-two (52) years. G. 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. H. 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. I. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Minutes of the May 27, 1997 meeting, were approved, 5-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on July 29, 1997. Zoning Board July 2, 1997 Page 17 OTHER MATTER Mr. Gerety informed the Board that his resignation was accepted, effective July 2, 1997. Mr. Gerety will be the building and plumbing inspector for the Village of Rye Brook. Mr. Gerety also informed the Board that Mr. Jakubowski will be retiring. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. 7)1 6.(/1 Marguer Roma, Recording Secretary