Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_07_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 29, 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 Arthur Wexler Absent: J. Rend Simon \12 Y l 44 1%, Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel p RECEIVED William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector SEP 23 1991 • A A.aC10Gd0 Michele Nizto, Public Stenographer TOWN CLERK Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. M:+MARONECK 49 Eighth Street N.Y New Rochelle, New York 108017-211 —TO Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed the individuals present that Mr. Simon, one of the Board members, will not be attending the meeting due to medical reasons. Presently there are only the four board members present to vote, and a majority vote of three will be needed to approve an application. Applicants have the option to postpone the vote on their case until the next meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2271 (adjourned 7/2/97) Application of John W. Risner requesting a variance to maintain a 6 ft. fence above two retaining walls. The 4.05 ft. fence is located on top of a 2.5 ft. retaining wall that exceeds the 5.0 ft. maximum height allowed for a fence/retaining wall pursuant to Section 240-52A, and the total height of the fence/wall including an existing retaining wall is 10.8 ft. where a maximum height of 5.0 ft. is allowed as the fence/wall is 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. Ms. Gallent said case#2271 was presented but no vote was taken at the previous meeting because it needed to be renoticed due to an error in the public notice. The original application said to "construct" rather than "maintain". The matter has been renoticed. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any other discussion from the Board members on the application. There being none, he asked if there was any other comments or questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED, 3-0. Mr. Gunther abstained. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 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. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John W. Risner has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed co comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-52A and Section 240-52B; and WHEREAS, John W. Risner 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 fords 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 will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created, since the relationship of this property and the property in the rear is consistent for a good portion of the stretch of land that runs along the back of the property. B. The property adjoining to the left(to the east side of the property)is of the same nature. C. It is the only alternative for the applicant to achieve the goals he is seeking. D. The variance is not substantial, given the character of the terrain of the land. E. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. F. It is not a self-created difficulty. The property in the rear is approximately 22 ft. from the back of the house to the rear property line. There is an existing retaining wall that presents an unsafe condition for the family. By establishing the fence along the top of the retaining wall, it will relieve the danger that exists. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 3 G. Four letters were presented to the Board from adjoining property owners in favor of the application. H. 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. I. 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. J. 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. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2272 (adjourned 7/2/97) Application of Padraic 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. Padraic and Beth Boyle of 52 Fernwood Road, Larchmont and Andy Letkovsky, 5 Lilan Court, East Northport, appeared. Mr. Gunther noted for the public that case #2272 is a continuation of the application first heard at the last meeting, July 2, 1997. Mr. Gunther said that Mr. Letkovsky sent the Board a letter addressing the concerns and suggestions made by the Board at the July 2, 1997 meeting, which was read into the record. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Letkovsky stated per the comments of the Board regarding the overall massing and bulk of the proposed house, the number of requested variances has been reduced from the original nine (9) to three (3) and discussed the specific design changes. As proposed there will still be three (3) bedrooms on the second floor, a front porch addition, a dormerized second floor and two-story rear addition. The rear addition that previously fell short with the overall side yard, now is marginally in compliance at 25.6 ft. In addition, the second story has been shrunken an additional 1 ft. on the entire perimeter for architectural effect. The addition as proposed as measured to the existing construction, not the existing wall, has an 18 ft. side yard setback. The new work as proposed will be set back 7.47 ft., where previously the applicant was going to maintain an existing wall at 6.47 ft. The overall side yard for the middle section is 25.47 ft. No changes have been proposed for the front porch addition. The applicant is still proposing a 24.6 ft. front yard setback and 6.1 ft. side yard setback to accommodate an area for furniture. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Letkovsky to enumerate the three variances that are now being submitted. Mr. Letkovsky said a front yard variance is needed, a 6.1 ft. side yard variance is the second variance to keep the porch in line with the house, and in order to dormerize the second floor a 10 ft. side yard setback cannot be maintained if the three bedrooms are to be achieved, which is the third variance. The applicant will need two variances for the porch and one for the dormerized second floor. Mr. Letkovsky then explained the new proposed front elevations, stating the existing garage proposed no changes. The fundamental difference in the design is the existing roof structure will remain in tact. Proposed is a reverse gable dormer requiring a modest 3.6 ft. height adjustment of the ridge which keeps the overall height at 29 ft. The proposed work has been shifted 1 ft. from the existing line. Mr. Letkovsky then explained the elevation facing the lower end of the house, stating the existing elevation will remain. The existing roof line will remain, and the rear addition is in compliance. Mr. Letkovsky explained the reverse gable roof. The proposed work in the rear elevation is completely within the existing building line. The proposed 2- story addition is in compliance with the whole site, side yard setbacks and the height. The elevation facing house#50 reflects the advantage of not taking off the entire roof of the existing house, but maintaining the existing roof whereby the elevation silhouette is unchanged. Mr. Letkovsky explained the plane of the new roof, the proposed rear addition and the triangular planes of non-conformity the applicant wishes to construct 7.47 ft. set back from the property line. The porch extends 4 ft. beyond the garage line. Mr. Letkovsky then referred to the drawings of the first floor plans, the existing and proposed porch, and the rear family room addition on the first floor. On the second floor plan, Mr. Letkovsky referred to an existing space under an attic currently being used as a bedroom and explained the other bedroom space. The applicant will maintain the bedroom and maintain the wall by pulling the walls in 12 in. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr. Wexler commented that Mr. Letkovsky did a very nice job on the redesigns, in responding to the Board's criticism. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments or questions from the public on this application. Scott Sennett of 50 Fernwood Road, Larchmont, the neighbor of the applicant, appeared. Mr. Sennett said he appeared at the last meeting and raised a primary objection to the overall mass of the proposed second story that would substantially alter the prospective from his second story. Mr. Sennett does not understand how a height reduction of 1 ft. changes the proposed addition, given the overall increase from the current height. The overall height reduction of 2 ft. from the previous height is not substantial. Mr. Sennett asked for clarification of the reduction. Mr. Letkovsky said many hours were spent trying to address Mr. Sennett's concerns, and as much of the house was left in tact as possible to diminish the scope and massing of the project. Mr. Sennett said his concern is the issue of the overall height of the addition in the front of the house. From either of the second floor windows facing that direction, the Sennett's now view roof tile and not the trees of the neighborhood. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 5 A discussion ensued between Mr. Sennett and Mr. Boyle regarding the concerns about Mr. Sennett's views, with Mr. Gunther suggesting the individuals address their concerns to the Board to avoid confrontations. Mr. Gunther said there is a substantial difference in design. One of the concerns of the Board at the last meeting was that the proposed structure looked, on Mr. Sennett's side, like it was going straight up. Under the new proposal, the net result is that the amount of massing and impact it has on the adjoining property, on both sides, has been diminished greatly. The difference between the existing roof line and the ridge that now is proposed is 31/2 ft. Mr. Wexler said in reviewing the drawings, the massing has been reduced dramatically. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the dramatic reduction in the massiveness and the softening that is provided with the new proposal. Mr. Sennett said he has no problem with the concept, nor the addition in living space. The issue is the pitch of the roof relative to the second story of Mr. Sennett's house. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the proposed addition and the area where the structures meet, with the Board referring to the tax map in regard to same. The height was reduced from 9 ft. to 5' ft., then slanted, creating a dramatic reduction in the volume of the interior. Mr. Jakubowski said that the proposal does not require a variance for height. The average height in the applicable zone is 35 ft. as-of-right. It could go higher. All that is involved in the variance is a small triangular portion to a specific line. Everything massed behind that line is 10 ft. away from the property line, and is not part of the variance application. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, Mr. Gunther said the Board received a letter in support of the application from Barbara and Christopher Wentz of 54 Fernwood Road which was read into the record. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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 Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Padraic and Beth Boyle have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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 7.47 ft. where a yard is required to be a minimum of 10.0 ft. pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); 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; 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 240-37B-(2)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and • Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 6 WHEREAS, Padraic and Beth Boyle 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. The initial application which came before the Board at the July 2, 1997 Zoning Board meeting stirred some concerns on the part of the Board members, as well as some of the attendees in the public. These concerns were taken under advisement by the applicant's architect and addressed, with the resulting changes and modifications diminishing the original scope and size of the variance that the applicant originally applied for in an effort to respond to the concerns raised. The consensus of the Board is that effective changes were made. The applicant still desire to move ahead, even though the original scope is diminished. The changes that will be produced in the revised application will not negatively change the character of the neighborhood, but will blend in well with it. B. The revised application represents the reasonable minimum and the only reasonable alternative to what the applicant is seeking to accommodate a growing family. C. The variance is in keeping with the neighborhood and not of a substantial nature, as most of the requirements for the variances are small in dimension. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. This solution maintains a rather generous back yard that is a betterment to the homes adjoining the property. Even though front yard variances are rarely given, in this instance it is a welcomed front yard variance to bring more life and liveable light from the street. 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 Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 7 RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The granting of the variance will be as submitted in the revised plans that were presented to the Board and not as originally requested with the multiple variances. 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. Ms. Gallent said that Mr. Jakubowski will go through the notices and reduce the described variances to those necessary for the revised application. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2276 Application of Nicholas DeGiacomo for Ray Catena/Lexus requesting a variance to enlarge an existing sign. The total signage of new and existing signs would be 199.75 sq. ft. where 100.0 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 175-11-B, and the additional signage as proposed to be erected on the side wall is prohibited pursuant to Section 175-11-B, all for a business in a Business B Zone District on the premises located at 1435 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411 Lot 249. Nicholas DeGiacomo, the sign contractor, appeared. Mr. DeGiacomo presented some photographs to the Board marked as exhibits 1-5. Mr. Wexler said the application does not show where the signs will be placed. Mr. DeGiacomo said the photographs will show where the signs will be placed. Mr. Gunther asked if the Board members had a chance to read the memorandum from the Board of Architectural Review (BAR), which the Board said they did. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. DeGiacomo if he had appeared before the BAR. Mr. DeGiacomo said he had not appeared before the BAR, because when the application was filed it was denied because of variances that were needed. Because of that, he never appeared before the BAR. A discussion ensued regarding placement of the sign on the south elevation, moving the current signage, "Lexus", over and adding the name Ray Catena. It is a Ray Catena/Lexus dealership and nowhere on the site is the name, Ray Catena, displayed. The dealership is well-known in the New Jersey area for its quality service and customer relations, and does not have that benefit in this area. Mr. DeGiacomo said the variance is about the footage; i.e. the two sets of existing Lexus letters which comes to 56 sq. ft.; the proposed additional letters for Ray Catena would be 47.66 sq. ft. which would be a total of 103.66 sq. ft. The remaining footage comes from the L's that are set into the masonry at five different spots on the building, which is a decorative feature. The L's are not illuminated, but sunk into the masonry. Ms. Martin asked about another sign, and asked if was illuminated. • Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 8 Mr. DeGiacomo said the sign is illuminated at night, a bronze tone during the day and a soft, soft white when lighted at night. The signs would be the same letter style. The second variance is for the side sign, the side which is used as the main entrance that faces the parking lot. The adjoining neighbor would be Mayer Volvo, and the impact of the lights or sign would only face another dealership through the lighted parking lot. The lights of the signs will not really impact with the residents across the street in the apartment houses. The side sign had been granted a permit, this being an addition to that sign; i.e. Ray Catena. Mr. Kelleher asked Mr. Jakubowski if in the calculation of the 199.75 sq. ft. of new and existing signs, the frescos (L's) are counted in that calculated figure, which Mr. Jakubowski confirmed. A discussion ensued regarding a rough approximation of the aggregate square footage of the frescos. Mr. DeGiacomo said the frescos represent approximately 60 sq. ft., and the two sets of the existing Lexus letters is 56 sq. ft. Mr. Wexler said that he has a problem with large back lit channel-lettered signs. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. DeGiacomo to clarify the proposed signage issue in reference to the two sets of signs that exist on the building. Mr.DeGiacomo said the Boston Post Road sign will remain the way it is, there will be no change. On the parking lot side there is a Lexus sign with a large circled L in the masonry. The applicant is planning to move the Lexus sign to the right and proposes adding the wording Ray Catena, so the sign will read Ray Catena Lexus. Mr. Wexler said the sign will be almost 21/2 to 3 times the length than what currently exists. A discussion ensued regarding the length of the wall, which is 50 ft. long, and the individual lighted up letters. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. John Quinley of 16 Birch Lane appeared. Mr. Quinley said that although the sign is not visible during the day in the summer because of the foliage between the back of the Lexus dealer and Birch Lane, it is visible during the wintertime. Any increase in size of a business sign decreases the residential character of the street. Mr. Quinley cannot see the sign on the Boston Post Road from Birch Lane, but can only see the sign on the side. The expansion that is proposed is on the side, and Mr. Quinley is opposed to the proposed application because of the impact on the residential neighborhood. Mr. DeGiacomo said that the proposed added lighted sign to the facade has to pass through a lighted parking lot, so the parking lot lights wash out the proposed sign. It will not be a glaring light. Eleanor Davidson of 2 Locust Avenue appeared claiming to represent a fairly large number of people in the Flint Park Neighborhood Association. Ms. Davidson submitted petitions responding to the commercial encroachment, specifically Lexus, on the residential neighborhood just behind the car lot, exhibit 1, which Mr. Gunther read into the record. Ms. Davidson then submitted pictures taken standing off of Birch Lane approximately two years ago, exhibit 2, in regard to the situation. Ms. Davidson referred to a letter in her possession from a former Coastal Zone Management Commission member, Wallace Irwin, who referred to East Creek as a future source of outdoor recreation. Ms. Davidson said some individuals strongly opposed to the application could not attend the meeting, the Mangrames and George Phelps. Ms. Davidson wants Mr. Catena to continue the successful dealership, but the residents see no reason why the dealership cannot work within the codes to advertise. Ms. Davidson then read a letter from Ken Resen of Page Bitrio and Resen Ltd. regarding the signage and lighting, stating she will make a copy of the letter and submit it to the Board at another time. Ms. Davidson said in defense of all the people in the community who are Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 9 strongly opposed to seeing the Lexus sign at any time of the year, Chapter 175-9 of the current Sign Code says that signs existing as of the effective date of this chapter, revised in 1994, which do not conform to the provisions hereof, shall be permitted to remain for the duration of their useful life but in no event longer than two years and shall not be replaced. Ms. Davidson said this community feels that Mr. Catena, with his enormous financial, graphic and people resources, should be able to find a way to remove all the trees that obscure the front sign to make it more visible. The community would like to see the side sign removed. The entrance which is currently on the side can be moved, the sign can be removed and Mr. Catena can advertise in any number of papers and has other options available to make his name known. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from the public. Jane Slater of 7 Birch Lane appeared, stating she has resided at that address for 31 years and has watched the encroachment of commercial entities from Birch Lane grow. Ms. Slater has been to many Board meetings in reference to Lexus applying for various variances. Ms. Slater objects to the enlargement of signage and said there should be no side signs. Ms. Slater feels the Board and the Town need to address commercialization of the Boston Post Road. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments. Ms. Gallent said this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board. Ms. Gallent was informed by James Mast of the Westchester County Planning Board, that they have no comment. Ms. Gallent said because this is an unlisted action under SEQRA, it has to be referred to the CZMC and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Mr. Gunther read into the record a memorandum received from the chairman of the BAR. After the doing so, Mr. Gunther said the Board has no alternative but to adjourn the application to the next meeting until the other Board meets and reflects on it. Mr. DeGiacomo said he never made an application to the BAR. Mr. Jakubowski stated for the record that an application is filed and read into the record the Notice of Disapproval. Mr. DeGiacomo said he thought it was denied, and felt there was no need to go before the BAR. Mr. Wexler asked why an application such as the sign on the Boston Post Road that has a far greater impact on the community is presented by a sign company and not the applicant. The comments that come from the Board and the general public are made to the sign company and not the person who makes the decision that can make decisions and changes if need be. Mr. DeGiacomo said he will ask for a representative from Ray Catena/Lexus to be present at the next meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the date of the next meeting, which was scheduled for Thursday, September 4, 1997. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2272 be, and hereby is,adjourned to the September 4, 1997 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Ms. Davidson asked why the Board cannot reject the expansion of the sign because it violates the code, and asked what the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) has to do with the side sign. • Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 10 Ms. Gallent said the Local Consistency Law requires that the CZMC review everything that is unlisted under SEQRA. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2277 Application of Mr. & Mrs. K. Doyle requesting a variance to maintain a rear deck and storage rooms finished in the cellar. The use of the premises as a legal nonconforming two family residence prohibits the enlargement or extension of the structure pursuant to Section 240-68A; therefore, the issuance of a permit for an existing deck is prohibited; further, the alteration of the cellar for separate storage rooms is an extension of the nonconforming use into parts of the building by alteration which is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-68B all for a two family residence in a one family residence R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 15-17 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 74. Rhett Mitchell of Merritt Associates appeared representing the applicant. Mr. Mitchell said the premises are a non-conforming 2-family house with extensions made dating back to the '40's, '50's and '60's. The deck was built in '62 and has been rebuilt twice since that time. The applicants moved into the residence in 1962. Mr. Mitchell submitted pictures, marked exhibit 1. Mr. Wexler asked if there are rooms in the attic. Mr. Mitchell said there are no rooms in the attic. A discussion ensued regarding a storage room, bathroom and closets in the cellar. Ms. Gallent asked what the cellar was used for. Mr. Mitchell said storage and possibly one of the children resided in that area, as there is only 1,000 sq. ft. of living area. Mr. Wexler asked why a variance is being sought for storage. Ms. Gallent referred the Board to the law, Section 240-68A, the provision that relates to the deck,and 240- 68B, the provision that relates to storage. Ms. Gallent said the applicant needs a use variance. If the applicant can prove the cellar was used for storage at the time the code was changed to make the two- family house non-conforming, then the cellar may be used for storage. A variance is not required, but a showing. The building inspector issued a Notice of Disapproval because he did not think the showing had been made and wanted the Board to decide if that showing had been made. A discussion ensued regarding whether the area is a basement or cellar. Mr. Jakubowski said the basement in its original configuration did not include separate rooms, now it does. Mr. Kelleher said if the use of the structure was a one-family, neither would apply. Mr. Jakubowski said that is correct. After some discussion, Ms. Gallent explained that the deck requires a use variance. Returning to the storage issue, Mr. Jakubowski said what was presented was too vague for him to react to under 240-68B. If the applicant can prove the reconfiguration of the space is not for anything other than what was there, it can be granted. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Wexler said the New York State Building Code states you cannot have a habitable space in the cellar, it has to be either storage or a mechanical room by definition. Mr. Wexler said he does not understand why what the Board has to say would have any bearing on the building code. Ms. Gallent said the Board is just passing on what the space is being used for. It is the applicant's job to prove to the Board that the space was storage and will continue to be used as storage. Ms. Martin asked if the partitions will have to be taken down if the applicant does not prove his case. Mr. Jakubowski said the partitions will have to come down in that event. Mr. Gunther asked if the house is under contract for sale. Mr. Mitchell said the house is not under contract for sale, but it is listed on the market. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Mitchell how he intends to prove the area has been used for storage and will continue to be used for storage. Mr. Mitchell said he does not know, he never lived in the house and the owners are deceased. His dealings are with the children of the deceased. Mr. Wexler said his assumption is that none of the partitions are bearing. Mr. Jakubowski said he cannot agree with that statement. Ms. Gallent said there are two separate requests. The other request is for a deck which needs a use variance, which is different from an area variance that the Board typically grants. Ms. Gallent provided the Board members with a copy of the Town Law relating to use variances. Mr. Gunther said there are significantly greater requirements on the part of the applicant for a use variance, and asked Mr. Mitchell if he is familiar with requirements. Mr. Mitchell said he is not familiar with the requirements of a use variance, and was provided a copy of the law. Mr. Gunther read the four basic elements into the record. Mr. Mitchell feels the applicant can comply with all the elements. Mr. Gunther said the Board will need specific evidence with regard to the fact that the applicant will not realize a reasonable return on the property. Mr. Gunther said for the Board to move forward with the application as a use variance, representations will have to be made with regard to the four elements stated. It must not be hearsay evidence, but specific fmancial reports, central records, etc. Mr. Wexler asked who uses the deck. Mr. Mitchell said the deck is off the living area, and both tenants use the deck. A discussion ensued regarding the use of the deck and the criteria. Ms. Gallent said the whole house is a non-conforming use, and deck is an illegal extension of a non- conforming use. If it were a one-family use, no variance would be necessary. • Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Mitchell said the deck has been in existence for over fifty years. It has not negatively impacted the neighborhood. Mr. Kelleher suggested that the chairman recommend to the applicant's representative that the matter be adjourned, so that he may return prepared to persuade the Board to grant a use variance. Mr. Mitchell asked what the Board would want. Mr. Gunther said the paragraph that reads, "the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence." One alternative is, if the house was turned into a single family, changing its use and the financial difference. There has to be competent financial evidence presented; (1)a financial statement, an appraisal, the difference between the two; (2) the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; the other houses in the neighborhood are not under the same conditions as this house; (3) the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (4) the alleged hardship has not been self-created. Mr. Mitchell said the way the house was constructed it would be difficult and expensive to convert it to a one-family house. Mr. Jakubowski said it is a duplex, with the entrances side by side. Mr. Gunther said in the absence of the required proof, the Board cannot act on the application. The matter can be adjourned to the next meeting, September 4, 1997. Ms. Martin said the deck issue was discussed, but was not sure if the Board had finished discussing the area of storage. Mr. Gunther said what was requested was an application for permit to maintain the rear deck and storage rooms finished in the cellar. The Board is requesting information for both. Ms. Gallent said if the previous owner of the house was available to establish the use of the basement "storage" area, it would be beneficial. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2271 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the September 4, 1997 Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2278 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Melvin J. Berning requesting a variance to construct a two story addition/alteration.The two story addition/alteration as proposed would have a side yard of 10.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(a); a front yard setback of 28.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1);and further, the addition/alteration increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313 Lot 272. Paul Noto, Esq., of 1600 Harrison Avenue, Mamaroneck and Justin Minieri, the architect for the project appeared, representing Melvin and Mary Dell Berning of 1 Boulder Brae Lane. • Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Noto will give a brief overview and Mr. Minieri will cover the architectural details of the application. Mr. Noto said the application is for a 7 ft. side yard variance. The front yard is not being touched, even though the agenda reads 28.0 ft. instead of 50.0 ft., as it is an existing situation. The applicant wishes to renovate a sun room in a state of disrepair and construct a two-story addition requiring a 7 ft. variance. It is a preexisting non-conforming use, a variance is needed and will exacerbate the existing condition. If a variance is granted it will be a 10 ft. setback, instead of the existing 17 ft. setback. The existing porch is in a state of disrepair, painting was attempted to alleviate the condition which did not work; i.e. it has peeled and chipped. It devalues not only their property but the neighboring properties as well. Due to that condition and the fact that additional space is needed for a growing family, the applicants met with an architect to establish the most economic and efficient way to accommodate the space needs, the aesthetics and the design of the porch to make it accommodating with the neighboring property, hence the proposed plan. Mr. Noto said they believe strongly that this will not be an undesirable change, but will be a substantial improvement. The applicant does not believe the proposed can be accommodated in another way. There will be no adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Noto presented letters from the neighbors, exhibit A, and a letter from Dempsey McEvily Appraisal Co., Inc. of Larchmont, describing their assessment of the impact both on the value and marketability of 1 Boulder Brae Lane, and 3 Boulder Brae Lane, the property immediately adjacent to the side yard setback variance request, exhibit B, Mr. Noto's client. The difficulty is not self-created, as the applicant's purchased the house in this condition. Most of the homes in that area are non-conforming. Mr. Gunther asked when the house was purchased. Mr. Noto said the house was purchased in May of 1990. Mr. Noto said the Bernings have indicated a willingness to be flexible in terms of any conditions that might be imposed in terms of buffering or landscaping. There currently is existing shrubbery, and additional buffering will be provided if suggested by the Board. Mr. Noto then introduced Mr. Minieri, the architect, to explain the architectural design and answer any questions the Board may have about it. Mr. Minieri said it probably can be handled differently,but probably would not meet the Beming's criteria. Mr. Minieri cited several reasons why it would not meet the Beming's criteria. The existing sun room is a seasonal room, not a heated space. The use of this space prompted the pursuit of renovation. The existing dimension of the space is only 10.7 ft. wide with a chimney that encroaches in that space. After deducting the thickness of the wall, there is only a space of approximately 7 ft. To make the room year- round and to comply with the energy codes, the expense dictated the proposed submission 14 ft. so it can be used for their growing family and become a family room. Due to the cost of the foundation and the increase of the beautification of that space, there was a compelling reason to add a second floor. The Beming's master bedroom located in the front corner needed additional storage space, due to the lack of closet space as found in older homes. Mr. Minieri spanned outward over the proposed renovated sun room which will be a family room, to accommodate the storage space. Mr. Minieri tried to be sensitive to the architecture of the house and not create a looming oversized two-story addition, and kept the addition smaller and subordinate to the main house. Mr. Minieri addressed finding space elsewhere, stating due to the fact it is a corner lot the garage and driveway area had to be excluded. Mr. Minieri did not want to extend any further into front yard, because he wanted to maintain the street line in the front yard. The two spaces that were left is the side elevation and the rear yard, which drops off the same as other neighboring properties, hence the non-conformity. In order to pursue and expand in the rear, no variance would be needed but it would reduce the useable rear yard. The trees in the rear yard would have to be altered, the existing children's play area would be substantially reduced and the storage area to the master bedroom above could not be addressed. Mr. Minieri said that is why the side yard was pursued. Ms. Martin asked for clarification on the dimensions, which was provided. Mr. Minieri said the Bernings have a growing family and are trying to find the needed extra space without altering the character of the house or forcing the Bernings to move into a larger home. No windows were introduced on the second floor, to protect the privacy of the neighbors. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Gunther said Mr. Noto provided the Board with three different letters, one from Frank Pia and one from Daniel Greenbaum and asked who the third letter was from. Ms. Berning said the third letter is from Amber Manno, a neighbor on the left side of the Beming's house. Mr. Gunther made reference to the concerns of Judy Cohen and Steve Rosen of 2 Boulder Brae Lane as stated in the letter from Frank Pia of 3 Boulder Brae Lane and asked if Mr. Noto wanted to address the concerns stated. Mr. Minieri said the immediate adjacent neighbor may have some concerns and may object to the application, but Mr.Minieri is aware that the Board can establish conditions. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Judith Cohen and her husband, Steve Rosen, of 2 Boulder Brae Lane appeared, having resided at that address for thirteen years with their two children. Ms. Cohen said their house is adjacent to the Bemings on the side of the proposed addition, the neighbors referred to in Mr. Pia's letter. Ms. Cohen is concerned about the proposed addition; i.e. the height, mass, bulk of the proposed addition, the loss of space and the impact on privacy. As proposed, the house will move further out into the side yard, 4 ft., and go directly up with a whole new second story. The area of the existing porch would increase by approximately 50%, and the volume of the whole new area, the porch and the new second story, will nearly be tripled. The whole structure will be extended out another 3 ft. going upward 21/2 stories with a second chimney on the house directly opposite their children's windows. The elevation of the neighbor's property along the common property line is approximately 2 ft. above the Cohen property and the proposed addition will loom over their property creating an alley-like effect. Landscaping, as suggested, might enhance the area rather than fix it. The Cohen/Rosen side yard and the Beming's side yard are non-conforming. The houses are approximately 31 ft. apart. If a variance is granted, the houses will be approximately 24 ft. apart. Ms. Cohen spoke to a local realtor, who thought there might be an adverse impact and suggested the Cohen/Rosen's consult an expert. They then spoke to Lane Appraisal about the impact of the proposed addition,and Edward Ferrarone, the President, concluded that the proposed addition with the height,bulk, the massive chimney and the reduction in the required side yard will reduce the marketability and the value perhaps in the neighborhood of a 5% to 7% reduction which could translate into approximately$30,000.00 to $40,000.00 based on market value. Ms. Cohen provided copies of Mr. Ferrarone's report for the Board. The situation that exists at 1 Boulder Brae is not unique or peculiar to this property. Many of the older homes in the neighborhood have non-conforming side yards, and if the variance is granted it may set an undesirable precedent. In looking at the five factors the Zoning Board must consider in granting a variance, the variance as requested is not justified. The Cohen/Rosen's believe it will create a detriment to their property, an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood in loss of presently existing open space and believe the Berning's should be able to achieve their goals by other feasible methods which will not require an area variance. As-of-right the Berning's can obtain their family room and obtain the second floor closet or whatever is contemplated for the second floor. The denial of a variance will not preclude an addition, it will only mean that the addition would be of a smaller magnitude. As-of-right the Bernings can rebuild their existing porch into a family room. Within the existing footprint, the room will be approximately 23 ft. by 10.8 ft. The chimney is only in the middle of the wall facing the living room. As-of-right the Bernings will be able to build a second story addition,without seeking any variance and should have a total space of approximately 23 ft. by 7.7 ft. which can be divided into spaces as needed. If a fireplace is a desired in the family room, it might be constructed on the other side of the existing fireplace in the living room and the existing chimney can serve both, alleviating the need for the second very large chimney. Finally, from a visual examination it would appear a new family room might be constructed off the back, the rear patio is flat and there would not be any impact on any neighbor because the rear yard goes down Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 15 to Fenimore Road and there is no neighbor to the rear that will be affected the addition/alteration. The Cohen/Rosen's believe the variance requested is quite substantial and will increase the extent by which the building is non-conforming. There was a mention of a laundry room facing the proposed addition, but immediately on top of the laundry room are the children's bedrooms. It is difficult to visualize whether looking out the bedroom windows they will be seeing a substantial wall as opposed to the trees as currently seen. The side yard which should be a minimum of 20 ft., which is now 17 ft., will become 10 ft. or a 50% deviation from the requirement. Any variance which might be considered should be the minimum necessary. The requested variance goes beyond what might be necessary to accommodate both the Berning's personal objectives and the Cohen/Rosen's concerns. Of the five factors considered, three of those factors support the denial of a variance. Ms. Cohen submitted into evidence, marked exhibit 1, enlarged photographs which have an overlay as prepared by their architect, Mr. Stanziale, and enlarged site plan, marked exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is Lane Appraisal's report. Ms. Cohen provided a copy of the report for each Board member. Exhibit 4 are site plans which will show the separation as currently exists on all of the houses on the block as well as it exists between number 1, number 2 and as will exist with the proposed addition. Ms. Cohen explained the pictures; i.e. the front view of 1 Boulder Brae, 2 Boulder Brae and the other two house on the block, #3 and #4; a view of the driveway at Ms. Cohen's house, directly bordering on the side yard of#1; a rear view looking up the back of the driveway toward Boulder Brae Lane; a side view which shows the existing porch; the front view of the site of the proposed addition. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. Ms. Martin asked if opening the existing fireplace on the other side had been explored architecturally . Mr. Minieri said it had been initially discussed, but the whole fire box would have to abe reconstructed. Mr. Wexler said reconstruction was not necessary and provided an example. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the fire box issue. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Minieri or Mr. Noto would like to respond to the comments that were made. Mr. Minieri said the massing as presented on the exhibits is not truly representative, as it is superimposed on a photograph. Mr. Minieri said that the drawings he submitted to the Board are to scale. The silhouette of the addition is within the silhouette of the existing house. Mr. Minieri pointed out the differences to the Board on the site plan submitted, stating it is deceptive of what is proposed; i.e. the knee wall, chimney, rear one-story with a dormer, the front. Mr. Minieri said they are sensitive to the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Cohen said Mr. Stanziale, her architect, could not be present this evening. Mr. Minieri then discussed the positioning of the rear plane of the house, and said the addition will not effect the tree line. What is being proposed will have less impact, is heavily landscaped and is more sensitive to the neighbors based on the positioning. Mr. Gunther said the neighbors indicated a number of concerns and asked Mr. Minieri and/or Mr. Noto if there were other elements they wish to address, as the Board does review the five basic elements to substantiate the granting of an area variance. Mr. Noto said when open space and privacy were mentioned, it is preposterous and out of scale to what is being proposed. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Noto to look at the two plot plans, notice the amount of space available and address comments from that prospective. • Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Noto said what the Cohen/Rosen's children are now viewing from their rooms is a second floor with a chimney and a sun room. When the addition is built the children will be looking out at the exact same thing. There is no loss of open space or privacy and it is all heavily landscaped. It would be impossible and more detrimental if the addition is moved back, as the area drops down precipitously. The Bernings have really bent over backwards and invested a great deal of money to make sure whatever is done would not impact on the Rosens, and spent a fair amount of time discussing same with the Rosens prior to this evening's meeting. The plans submitted were made to scale, the applicant is looking for 7 ft. within the same frame of the house to cover-up the top and add a chimney. There is nothing more detrimental to the value of a house than to live next to a house that is in a state of disrepair. Mr. Gunther said he does not feel there is an objection to making improvement to the property, but what was suggested are some alternatives to reduce the impact of building in the closest space that currently exists between the two residences as there may be other space available. Mr. Gunther said the zoning requirements for the Board are to basically look for the least intrusive options available. Mr. Wexler said to locate the proposed addition on another portion of the site would be detrimental to the house and to the neighbor(Cohen/Rosen)from the bulk that will be seen which will be much greater in terms of the breadth of house. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the movement of the proposed addition,making the addition smaller and the fact there is no other place for the addition economically and architecturally. Mr. Kelleher asked, notwithstanding the slope in the back, if hypothetically Mr. Minieri could design the addition in an upward direction toward the open space in the back of the house as-of-right. Mr. Minieri said the applicant could build as-of-right in that direction. Mr. Wexler said the need to gain any additional space off the master bedroom cannot be attained off the back of the house. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding an as-of-right addition. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther suggested an adjournment of the application to allow Board members an opportunity to visit the site again and allow the applicant time to consider any of alternatives. Mr. Wexler said to have five members on the Board might be beneficial for the applicant. Mr. Kelleher said he feels something can be worked out along the lines of utilizing the existing chimney in keeping with the design presently envisioned and lessen the perception of the impact. Mr. Wexler said it is a very handsome addition and it should be kept in mind that too much should not be destroyed. It is not an easy solution to alter some things, but the chimney can be addressed, as it will not affect the architecture of the addition. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2278 be, and hereby is,adjourned to the September 4, 1997 Zoning Board meeting. The Board recessed for a few minutes. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 17 APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2279 Application of John and Victoria Ruggiero requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck. The deck as proposed would have a rear yard of 9.72 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(3) for a residence in an R-2F Zone District on the premises located at 15 Garit Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402 Lot 156. John Ruggiero of 15 Garit Lane, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Gunther asked why the proposed deck is so big. Mr. Ruggiero said the area in the back of the house is unusable. There is a retaining wall, behind the retaining wall there is a steep hill and then the Metro North Railroad. There is no leisure area, as both side yards are small. Mr. Wexler asked the height of the deck. Mr. Ruggiero said the deck at its highest point is approximately 3 ft., as the ground slopes from the retaining wall to the house. The area in the back of the house does not get very much sunlight and the ground is damp all the time. The addition of a wood deck will alleviate some of the dampness. Ms. Ruggiero said the deck would be in lieu of a back yard. Ms. Martin asked if there were other decks adjacent. Mr. Ruggiero said the house next door has a deck that extends to the retaining wall. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Ruggiero is planning on installing a railing on the deck. Mr. Ruggiero said a railing will be installed for aesthetics and the fact that they also have an eight month old child. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Ruggiero indicated the value of the proposed work on the application. Mr. Ruggiero said the value of the work is an estimate for the cost of the materials. It is probably more. Mr. Ruggiero said he will be doing the work himself. Mr. Jakubowski said the value will be about $6,000.00. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to Westchester County and they did not have any comment. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John and Victoria Ruggiero have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear wood deck. The deck as proposed would have a rear yard of 9.72 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(3) for a residence in an R-2F Zone District on Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 18 the premises located at 15 Garit Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402 Lot 156; 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 240-40B(3); and WHEREAS, John and Victoria Ruggiero 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 that will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or detriment to nearby properties created. Other properties adjacent to the applicant's property have similar decks. B. It will be a much more attractive alternative than what is currently existing on the property, an uneven ground, damp and dark space. There is no other alternative feasible to pursue in terms of creating space for the applicant to enjoy the back yard and for their child to play in the back yard. C. Although the variance is substantial, the circumstances of the property permit no alternative. D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. It is not a self-created problem, given physical location of the property 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: Zoning Board • July 29, 1997 Page 19 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. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2280 Application of Sara Abramson requesting a variance to construct a 1 story front entry vestibule. The front entry vestibule as proposed would have a front setback of 24.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); the platform and steps would be 19.0 ft. setback where 22.0 ft. is allowed pursuant to Section 240-5IA for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 84 Iselin Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 490. Ted D'Amore, the architect, of 12 Scott Lane, Purchase, New York appeared. Mr. D'Amore said the application is for a very small addition one-story, 9 ft. by 10 ft., in front of the house. The site plan shows that the house is on a corner lot on the corner of Lundy Lane and Iselin Terrace. The addition, because of a diagonal cross hatch to it, is shown 9 ft. by 10 ft. wide. Because the house is skewed to the property line, not parallel, the setback line of 30 ft. cuts through the addition on a diagonal causing a 6 ft. encroachment into the required front yard setback on one end. There is only a 4 ft. encroachment on the other side, a minimal 20 % encroachment into the required front yard setback. In front of the addition there is a stoop. If the Board looks at the grading of the property as shown in the photographs, the property slopes off toward the southwest. The applicant could have complied with the zoning and not had a stoop that encroached even further into the required setback. But if the grade was raised to get rid of the requirement for a stoop, extensive regrading would have to be done destroying some mature shrubbery that exists. Mr. Wexler asked the height of the stoop. Mr. D'Amore said the stoop is 8 in. high. The extension is going into a front yard setback where it is the only house on a dead-end street. There will be no detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood caused by this addition. Mr. D'Amore proceeded to explain the drawings before the Board and the pictures previously submitted. Mr. Wexler asked why the entry vestibule is so big. Mr. D'Amore said anything smaller than requested would be too small to give the appearance of the entry foyer upon entering the house, and gave a brief summary of the decorative plans. Most of the new houses being built have a grand entrance, but the houses built in early periods did not have grand entrances. Mr. Wexler asked if there is an overhang. Mr. D'Amore said there is no overhang. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 20 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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 Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Sara Abramson has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 1 story front entry vestibule. The front entry vestibule as proposed would have a front setback of 24.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);the platform and steps would be 19.0 ft. setback where 22.0 ft. is allowed pursuant to Section 240-51A for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 84 Iselin Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 490; 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(1), Section 240-51A; and WHEREAS, Sara Abramson 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. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created, because the house is at the end of a dead-end, by itself. B. The proposed vestibule is a specific objective the applicant is trying to achieve, and there are no alternatives available. C. The variance is not substantial, as it is an appenditure to a house to create an entrance foyer. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 21 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 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. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2281 Application of Carl Mydans requesting a variance to construct an enclosed porch. The side yard of the enclosed porch would be 17.5 ft. where 35.0 ft. is the minimum required pursuant to Section 240-33B(2); and further, the porch would increase the extent to which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a single family residence in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 212 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416 Lot 75. Ray Iacobacci appeared for the applicant, Carl Mydans, along with Mrs. Mydans. Mr. Iacobacci said the applicant does not want to construct an enclosed porch, as there is an existing enclosed porch. The applicant wants to enclose the existing porch and make it liveable space. Mr. Iacobacci said the request is made because Mr. Mydans is 90 years old, currently still works and is one of the original Time/Life photographers. Mr. Mydans wife, Shelley, is 82 years old. Mr. Mydans has currently been working from the second floor of their home, but because of his age and health problems it is difficult to climb the stairs which is reducing his ability to continue to work. Mr. Mydans is currently writing his memoirs, and still actively goes into the city once or twice a week to work. The requested variance will be a means for Mr. Mydans to maintain his lifestyle by turning that space into his office. A discussion ensued regarding the work not being commercial work, with Mr. Iacobacci stating that Mr. Mydans is employed by Time/Life. Mr. Iacobacci said the footprint of the house will not be changed. The applicant simply wants to install 2 ft. by 6 ft. walls. Drawings were submitted. Mr. Kelleher asked for what the area is currently used. Mr. Iacobacci said it is basically an unused screened porch. Photographs in the file were viewed by the Board. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 22 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked what is underneath the porch. Mr. Iacobacci said a basement is underneath the porch. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Carl Mydans has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an enclosed porch. The side yard of the enclosed porch would be 17.5 ft. where 35.0 ft. is the minimum required pursuant to Section 240-33B(2); and further, the porch would increase the extent to which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a single family residence in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 212 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416 Lot 75; 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 240-33B(2), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Carl Mydans 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. No undesirable change will be created in the character of the neighborhood, or any detriment to nearby properties. The applicant is enclosing the original footprint of the house, and other properties are quite a distance away from the adjacent property. B. The applicant does not have a feasible alternative method for pursuing the goal of creating additional living and working space downstairs, due to his age. C. It is not a substantial variance, as it is simply enclosing an area that is already existing on the house. D. There will be no adverse impact on any of the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Zoning Board July 29, 1997 Page 23 E. The difficult is not a self-created difficulty. The applicant is simply seeking to enhance his current lifestyle given his advancing age. 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 one (1) year 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. A discussion ensued regarding the time frame for commencement of construction due to finances, at which time an extension was included in the above resolution. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 4, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Margu to Roma, Recording Secretary