Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_07_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 29, 1998, IN THE COURT ROOM, 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. Rene Simon Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Katie Cullen, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes &Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther advised the applicants that one of the Board members, Mr. Simon,is not in attendance. Since there are only four out of the five members present, the Board will be happy to proceed with the application. There are enough members present to be able to vote. If the applicant decides not to proceed, the matter would be postponed to the next meeting without prejudice. Ms. Gallent advised the Board that Kim Arestad, an intern in her office, is also present this evening. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2313 (adjourned 5/27/98; 6/17/98) Application of Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition to an existing one-story building. The two-story addition as proposed would have a total building coverage of 43% where 25% is required pursuant to Section 240-46A;a 75.0 ft. width at the front lot line where 100.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-46A; and further, parking is proposed in the front of the building within 75.0 ft. of the front lot line where parking is not permitted pursuant to Section 240-46B for a building in a Service Business District on the premises located at 24 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Lot 36. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant is present. Because the applicant was not present, Mr. Gunther adjourned the matter to be heard later in the evening, in case the applicant is late. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant for case No. 2, Vanessa Paminger, is present. The applicant, Ms. Paminger, was present, but she indicated that her architect is not. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant wanted to proceed. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 2 Ms. Paminger said the architect has all the papers. Mr. Gunther adjourned the matter to be heard later in the evening, when the architect arrives. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicants for case No. 3, Mr. &Mrs. Joseph Swift, are present. The applicants are not present. Mr. Gunther adjourned the matter to be heard later in the evening. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2320 Application of Barry and Emily Wohl requesting a variance to construct a front porch. The new front porch as proposed has a front yard of 12.65 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 245 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 89. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicants are present. Emily Wohl of 245 Rockingstone Avenue, Larchmont, appeared. Ms. Wohl stated a variance is requested based upon practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship to restore the residence to its original condition when it was built. The residence had a front porch, but in 1940 the owner of the house at that time demolished the front porch, added the stone and vestibule, which detracts from the value of the house, which the neighbors concur with. Ms. Wohl then referred to and commented on the photos submitted with the application, referring to a line showing on the front of the house below the windows on the second floor. Ms. Wohl said the house is a Dutch Colonial and is supposed to have a front porch. Ms. Wohl said she has provided the Board with letters from the neighbors in support of the application, who saw the drawings of the proposed front porch. Ms. Wohl said the front setbacks of the homes in that area are small. Mr. Gunther asked if the tax map has a location that shows the position of the house in comparison to all the others on the block. Mr. Gunther stated page 3084 of the tax map shows the house, as built, with a front porch projection. Mr. Wexler asked Ms. Wohl to describe the topography around her house. Ms. Wohl said the back yard is level for a portion then slopes, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. Wexler asked Ms. Wohl the intended use for the porch, as the effect can be achieved without coming out that far in the front. Ms..Wohl intends to be able to use the porch and have chairs to be able to sit on the porch. Ms. Wohl does not feel it will be much closer to the street than the other houses in the area, and thinks it predates the ordinance. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Carpaneto what the are setbacks. Mr. Carpaneto said the setbacks are about 20 ft. Ms. Wohl reiterated that the neighbors are in favor of the proposed request. Mr. Gunther stated the record should show letters have been received from Forenza at 246 Rockingstone, Ziluca at 247 Rockingstone, Kelly at 241 Rockingstone, DeVito at 237 Rockingstone, Klein at 256 Rockingstone, Maloney at 242 Rockingstone, Asch 240 at Rockingstone, Willey 3 at Glenn Road, and Lorberfeld at 7 Glenn Road. Mr. Gunther read the letter received into the record. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Kelleher asked how long the applicants have resided at this location. Ms. Wohl said about ten (10) years. Ms. Martin asked if there was a previous application, as reference was made to a variance previously granted April 6, 1988. Ms.Wohl said when the house was purchased a variance had never been received for the vestibule in front. A variance was granted to legalize the vestibule in front. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked if Ms. Wohl is aware of the ramifications of taking away a vestibule, i.e. the weather. Ms. Wohl she is aware of the ramifications. A discussion then ensued regarding the right-of-way from Ms. Wohl's property line to the property line across the street. Ms.Wohl said from appearance point of view, the porch will appear less close because the vestibule sticks out and is not aligned with any of the houses or styles of the houses on the street. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public on this application. Dr. Martin Scher of 5 Highwood Way, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Scher stated Ms. Wohl was aware of the curb appeal when the house was purchased. Ms. Wohl said when the house was purchased she bought what she could afford. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from 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 Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED 3-1, Mr. Wexler was opposed: WHEREAS, Barry and Emily Wohl have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front porch. The new front porch as proposed has a front yard of 12.65 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 245 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 89; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(1); and WHEREAS, Barry and Emily Wohl submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 4 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The change will not have an undesirable effect on the neighborhood in general, nor present a detriment to the nearby properties. It is in keeping with the architecture prevalent on this old street. Moreover, the application is simply to restore the existing architecture. Evidence was received in the form of nine(9) letters indicating support for the application,negating any negative impact on the neighborhood or adjoining properties. The supportive letters are a part of the record, which indicate the neighbors do not see the request as a detriment; B. The goal of the applicant, to enhance the curb appeal of the house and create a useable front porch, is reasonable, and there is no alternative to achieve the goal requested; C. The variance is not substantial, in view of the potpourri of architecture in the immediate neighborhood; D. It will not create an adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. It is not a self-created difficulty, as the house was purchased with a vestibule, the applicant wants to improve the house, which is a reasonable request; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 5 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. Ms. Wohl asked when the permit can be obtained. Mr. Carpaneto informed Ms. Wohl to call the Building Department. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant for application No. 1, Beechmont Bus Service, is now present. Mr. Meltzer, the representative for Beechmont Bus Service, is present. Mr. Gunther stated the application has already been read for the public. If Mr. Meltzer wants the application read again it will be done, or he can proceed. Mr. Meltzer of AIM Services Inc. of 273 Central Avenue, White Plains, New York, the architect for the project representing Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. said it need not be read again. Mr. Meltzer said he was before the Board at the last meeting, at which time he was asked to go before the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC). He met with the CZMC, it was recommended that Mr. Meltzer hire an engineer, which was done. A new set of drawings was submitted to the CZMC and Pre-engineering and Environmental Review Board (PEER). Mr. Meltzer assumes the Zoning Board also received a copy, which was verified. Mr. Meltzer met with the CZMC yesterday, received a copy of the CZMC review, and assumes the Zoning Board also received a copy of same, which was verified. Mr. Meltzer said he has an understanding of what the CZMC is requesting, even though there were differences of opinion on how to achieve the results requested, and will conform to the concepts of the Town Engineer. Ms. Gallent asked if Mr. Meltzer agrees to the conditions stipulated in the CZMC letter dated July 28, 1998. Mr. Meltzer said he agrees to the conditions stipulated in the CZMC letter dated July 28, 1998. Ms. Gallent asked if the Board had plans indicating the measures recommended by the CZMC. Mr. Meltzer said the Board does have plans showing the recommendations made by the CZMC. Ms. Gallent said the reason for asking if the Board has plans showing the recommended changes, is when the Board approves plans, the certification stipulates "as shown on the plans presented and no other". Mr. Meltzer said the letter indicates that the CZMC wants some changes made to the plans, if both engineers can agree on them. Mr. Meltzer said he did agree to resubmit. Mr. Kelleher said counsel is asking if the plans before the Board this evening represent what is being discussed by Mr. Meltzer's engineer and their consultant. Mr. Meltzer said yes. Mr. Meltzer said that Marc Godick, the representative from the CZMC, requested two (2) oil separators, which Mr. Meltzer agreed to. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Wexler informed the applicant of the building permit process and said the applicant cannot get a building permit without having the engineering resolved. A condition can be made that the recommendations of the CZMC committee be implemented, that there will be a revision to the drawing. Mr. Wexler stated when Mr. Carpaneto sees the revision implemented, a building permit will be issued. Mr. Carpaneto stated he has seen the plan with the two (2) oil separators and will approve that, but the Board has not seen that plan. Mr. Meltzer said he finalized the meeting with the CZMC and their recommendations, and is before the Zoning Board asking for approval of the variances requested. Mr. Gunther read a letter received from the New York State Thruway Authority stating it has no objections to the proposal provided, which was read into the record and made a part thereof. Mr. Meltzer stated the applicant is not on the New York State Thruway property and that all the roof storm water will be drained away from the Thruway property. Mr. Gunther clarified for the Board that Mr. Meltzer and his clients agreed to the recommendations of the CZMC in its letter of July 28, 1998. Mr. Meltzer stated that the front has been used for parking for the past 25 years, the width of the property is existing and the cars require four (4) indoor bays which is a State requirement. Mr. Meltzer stated he is taking area that cars currently park on and is enclosing that space, which is an improvement of the site. Mr. Gunther stated that the Board mentioned the visual appearance of the property from the surrounding neighbors at a prior meeting, and asked if Mr. Meltzer's client added something into the plan to provide plantings in front. Mr. Meltzer said his client will be installing evergreens in the front of the property, which is included in the plans. Mr. Wexler asked what kind of evergreens and the proposed height of same. Mr. Meltzer said the evergreens will be 5 ft. in diameter and approximately 8 ft. high. Mr. Wexler asked if the fence will be a sliding gate fence, which Mr. Meltzer verified. Mr. Meltzer stated the entire property will be repaved and cleaned up. Presently all the water is distributed onto the street. All the water will be collected on the site with trench drains, will be filtered and brought out to the storm sewer. It is a tremendous upgrade. Mr. Gunther said that the proposed work is commendable, and will eliminate the oil escaping onto the street. Mr. Meltzer said the existing diesel fuel tanks have been removed and new ones installed. Mr. Gunther asked how the water on site will be treated before it goes into the storm drain. Mr. Meltzer said the oil will be separated. Mr. Gunther asked about the roof runoff. Mr. Meltzer said the roof runoff will go separately into the storm water system. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Gunther asked the building inspector if additional impervious surface rain water runoff from commercial buildings can go into the storm drains. Mr. Carpaneto said the roof leaders will be independent of the oil separator. The trench drain in the front goes back to the oil separator. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the engineer felt the plan was adequate, as the impervious surface at the site already existed and there is no change. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Carpaneto if in this zone the coverage of the lot can be 100%, which Mr. Carpaneto verified. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked about the comments from the Board of Architectural (BAR). Mr. Carpaneto informed the Board that the BAR was supposed to meet on July 16, 1998, but there was a conflict due to vacation schedules and the meeting was adjourned to August. Mr. Meltzer said he was present for that BAR meeting, but it was cancelled. He stated the same material is being presented to the Zoning Board this evening that would have been presented to the BAR. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public on this application. There being none, Mr. Gunther read into the record the following Negative Declaration which was unanimously ADOPTED: Beechmont Bus Service Co.,Inc.has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck for an area variance to permit the construction of a two-story addition to an existing one- story building located at 24 Valley Place (Block 131, Lot 36) (the "Property") (the "Proposed Action"). The two-story addition as proposed would have (1) a total lot coverage of 43% where 25% is required pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code § 240-46A; (2) a front lot line 75 feet in width where 100 feet is required pursuant to § 240-46A;and(3)parking in front of the building within 75 feet of the front lot line where parking is not permitted pursuant to § 240-46B for a building in a Service Business District. The Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 617.4 and 617.5; Town of Mamaroneck Code §§ 92-7(A) and 92-7(B). The Long Form EAF submitted by the applicant reveals that the only area of potential impact is storm water runoff and drainage. However, no significant impacts on drainage are anticipated because, as shown on the drainage and erosion control plan submitted to the Board, dated July 22, 1998, the Proposed Action includes a variety of measures that will control runoff from the site and insure that it has no negative impact on the surrounding area. Specifically, all interior shop waste water from the Proposed Action as well as existing facilities will be directed to a coalescing type oil/water separator; the existing undercarriage washing pit will either be plugged or connected to the coalescing oil/water separator; roof drainage will be introduced directly into the storm sewer without being tied into any oil/water separators; the storm water collection system within all paved areas of the facility will be connected to a new box-type oil/water separator as shown on the drainage and erosion control plan, dated July 21, 1998; no soaps, surfactants or any hazardous materials will be discharged to any drain and will be disposed of properly; and proper maintenance of the separators will ensure their functioning and compliance with design specifications and accumulated waste will be removed quarterly and disposed of properly. Moreover, the Proposed Action will not result in the addition of any impervious area to the site, because the construction will take place on a portion of the lot that is already paved. Accordingly, the Proposed Action will not result in any significant impacts on drainage or storm water runoff in the area. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 8 By letter dated, July 28, 1998, the Coastal Zone Management Commission indicated that the Proposed Action, as presented to the Board with the measures described above, is consistent with the policies of the Local Waterfront Management Plan. The Proposed Action will be located in an area of the Town that is already used for businesses similar to the proposed Action. Accordingly, there will be no negative impact on the character of the area, which is a Service Business District. This application was referred to the New York State Thruway Authority,which indicated that it has no objection to the Proposed Action as long as drainage improvements direct runoff away from its adjacent property. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck has concluded that the Proposed Action will not result in any large and/or important impacts. Accordingly, the Zoning Board hereby finds that the Proposed Action would have no significant environmental effect. This negative declaration has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action and based upon review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form(EAF), the Board concludes that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact pursuant to SEQRA; and, therefore adopts a Negative Declaration which is on file with the Board. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story addition to an existing one-story building. The two-story addition as proposed would have a total building coverage of 43% where 25% is required pursuant to Section 240-46A; a 75.0 ft. width at the front lot line where 100.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 46A;and further, parking is proposed in the front of the building within 75.0 ft. of the front lot line where parking is not permitted pursuant to Section 240-46B for a building in a Service Business District on the premises located at 24 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Lot 36; 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 240-46A, Section 240-46A, Section 240-46B; and WHEREAS, Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. submitted an application for variances to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 9 A. There will not be an undesirable change in the area. To the contrary, the requested change will enhance the area immensely. Specifically, the application includes a proposal to blacktop the site, removing preexisting non-uniform surfacing; a newly constructed, attractive building will be added to the site; the applicant is building a substantial building of reasonable appearance and will screen the front of the property with plantings which will enhance the area greatly. This proposed application will have a positive impact on the neighborhood; B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via an alternative method, as his needs require an indoor space in which to service buses; having a good portion of the buses within the building will enhance the area; C. The variance is not substantial, given the area of the Town in which the application is proposed; D. This is not a self-created condition, but an outgrowth of the business; it is an adjoining property and the new construction will enhance both properties; 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. 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 implement all of the recommendations of the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC) as set forth in the letter dated July 28, 1998 from the CZMC to the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board. 2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. 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. 5. 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 asked Mr. Meltzer to thank his client for being very cooperative. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 10 The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2318 Application of Vanessa Paminger requesting a variance to construct a roof over an existing front porch and a two-story addition to the right side of the house. The covered porch roof as proposed has a front yard setback of 27.1 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1), the proposed two-story addition to the right side of the house has a front yard setback of 37.5 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1),a proposed side yard setback of 7.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Devon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 92. Michael Csenge, of 26 Devonshire Road, New Rochelle, the architect for the project, appeared. Mr. Csenge apologized for arriving late this evening. Mr. Csenge stated the proposal is for two items; 1) the small roof covering over the front entry; there is currently an uncovered stoop; it is not being changed, just covered; the existing stoop is nonconforming; the proposal is just for covering for protection from the elements; 2)a two-story addition on the right side to increase the foot space of the bedroom on the second floor and relocate a garage; there will be no change to the footprint. Mr. Csenge submitted to the Board and explained photographs submitted as exhibit 1, and said the requested proposed construction will be like the existing architecture. Mr. Csenge explained that the residence is in an R-15 Zone District and the neighboring adjacent property zone is in an R-6 Zone District in the Town of Mamaroneck. Directly across the street is the Village of Larchmont which is an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr. Csenge said if the applicant was in either one of those zones, the applicant would comply with all zoning regulations. Mr. Csenge said the applicant's house is one of the last houses in an R-15 Zone District. The foundation of the house behind the applicant's house is probably higher than the roof of the applicant's house. Those houses are at a much higher elevation. Mr. Csenge is trying not to use the back yard, because it is fairly wooded and slopes uphill. Mr. Wexler asked about the parcel of land running parallel to the side property line. Mr. Csenge said he did not recall what was noted on the survey, an easement or right-of-way, but does not know what the right-of-way is for. It is not a part of this parcel, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. Kelleher asked what year the present structure was constructed. Mr. Csenge said it was constructed in the '50's sometime. Mr. Kelleher asked what year the Zoning Ordinance for an R-15 was established. Mr. Carpaneto stated in '59. Mr. Gunther and the Board referred to the tax map, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. Wexler said the parcel is shown as a right-of-way. It may have been part of the Howell Park subdivision,but is not in the meets and bounds of the Deed. Mr. Csenge said he is aware it is not in the meets and bounds of the Deed. Mr. Gunther stated that Mr. Csenge is referring Block 404, Howell Avenue and Carleon Avenue housing area on the tax map, at which time a discussion continued regarding this parcel of land running parallel to the side property line. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Csenge said if this piece of property belonged to the applicant's piece of property, he would not need a side yard variance. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Kelleher asked if the applicant is presently living in the house. Ms. Paminger said she is not presently residing in the house but will. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. 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. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Vanessa Paminger has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a roof over an existing front porch and a two-story addition to the right side of the house. The covered porch roof as proposed has a front yard setback of 27.1 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1), the proposed two-story addition to the right side of the house has a front yard setback of 37.5 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1), a proposed side yard setback of 7.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Devon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 92; 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(1), Section 240-36B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Vanessa Paminger 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 from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor any detriment to nearby properties created by the proposed construction; B. The applicant cannot achieve her goals of creating an additional bedroom and bathroom and provide protection for the entryway to the house without the necessity of an area variance. The back yard is significantly sloped. Accordingly, it would be difficult to place the addition to the rear of the house. In addition, such a rear yard addition would create additional coverage with Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 12 greater driveway coverage. It would not be practical to construct an addition in another location on the property; C. The variance is not substantial, given the hardship of the property and the zoning requirements within the district it is located; the drawings indicate what is provided is an 8% lot coverage where 35% is permitted; the property in question is surrounded by other zones with different regulations; the area in violation of the side setback is a triangular piece of the building,approximately ' %; the topography of the lot and the location of the addition as it relates to being a side as opposed to a rear yard; D. The proposed addition will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; E. It is not a 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 *110 deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 13 ® APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2319 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Swift requesting a variance to legalize an existing wood deck. The existing deck has a side yard setback of 9.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(a); and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 97 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 562. Michael Csenge, of 26 Devonshire Road, New Rochelle, the architect for the project, appeared. Mr. Csenge said the deck was built some years ago by Mr. & Mrs. Swift, who asked Mr. Csenge to help legalize the existing structure. Mr. Csenge proceeded to explain the pictures presented to the Board, marked exhibit 1, which are a part of the record. Mr. Csenge stated that Mr. &Mrs. Swift built the deck, aligned it with the edge of the house and were not aware of the zoning regulations at that time. The deck is 6 in. over the side yard setback. Mr. Gunther asked when the deck was built. Mr. Csenge said the deck was built in the '60's, has been maintained and repaired as necessary. It is sturdy and in good shape. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. Ms. Martin asked if this application is in connection with the sale of the house. Q Mr. Csenge said this application is not in connection with the sale of the house. The applicants were advised to legalize the deck and put matters in the proper order. Mr. Wexler said it appears in the drawing that the deck itself is further from the property line than the house itself. Mr. Csenge said the deck is within 6 in. from the edge of the house, and does not go past the side of the house. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, 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. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Joseph Swift have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing wood deck. The existing deck has a side yard setback of 9.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 97 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 562; 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(2)(a); Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Joseph Swift submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 14 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. There will be no impact on the surrounding properties, because the deck has been in existence for thirty(30)years. The application is simply to legalize an existing condition; B. The application is deminimis in nature; C. The application is not substantial in nature; 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. 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. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther stated that the Board has one other piece of business on the agenda. Zoning Board July 29, 1998 Page 15 OLD BUSINESS CASE 2215 Application of Michele and Paul Hoffmann for a variance for the premises located at 69 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 613. Mr. Gunther stated no variance needed to be issued, but there was an order from the Supreme Court of the State of New York which directs the Building Department to issue a building permit, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board members. Ms. Gallent said the Town appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals declined to take the appeal. The litigation is over. What is significant is that the court held that the 1979 variance was not clear. A discussion ensued regarding same. Mr. Gunther said the Board has already begun inserting language in all new variances which states roughly, "this variance is specifically for the application presented and any further construction requires additional approval." NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on August 26, 1998. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the Minutes of June 17, 1998 were unanimously approved, 4-0. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 7.)-7 ar Margu ' e Roma, Recording Secretary