Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_06_17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 4, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 17, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the Minutes of May 27, 1998 were unanimously approved, 5-0. After some discussion, the next meeting date was set for July 29, 1998. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2308(b) Application of Mr. & Mrs. Alan Sutin requesting a variance to construct a deck addition. The deck addition as proposed would have a front yard setback of 23.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 819. John Cotugono, the architect for the project, and Alan Sutin, the owner, appeared. Mr. Cotugono said the proposed deck will be built in conjunction with the addition and garage that was approved at the last meeting. The deck is approximately 3 ft. off the ground above grade. The purpose is to connect an existing den to the new addition in the kitchen breakfast area. It does not go out any further than the den, which is also nonconforming. Three sides of the property face the road, there are three fronts and it is a hardship to have three sides without a front yard setback. No matter where the proposed deck is built, it would be encroaching. The house is nonconforming. The work will eliminate a big nonconformity with the detached garage, which is currently 6 in. from the property line. The deck is a continuation and will not detract from the area. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Gunther asked if the application is an extension of the application brought before the Board last month for the addition to the house. Mr. Cotugono responded that it is. Mr. Wexler asked about the trees that presently exist. Mr. Cotugono said there are presently three trees, which Mr. Wexler referred to, and there are shrubs along Kenmare. Mr. Wexler asked if there is any way to integrate the deck more fully into the house, as typically a deck is in the rear of the property. The proposed deck is very much exposed. After some discussion,Mr. Sutin said there are high hedges at the corner of the property along Alden Road and around the corner onto Kenmare which stop at the existing driveway. On the other side of the driveway there are several bushes. After the construction, high hedges will be extended almost to the corner of Kenmare. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impart"on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Alan Sutin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a deck addition. The deck addition as proposed would have a front yard setback of 23.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 819; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Alan Sutin 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. It will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. It is a desirable addition to the house and will enhance the liveability of the house; Zoning Board • June 17, 1998 Page 3 B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals any other way than that which was presented; C. The variance is not substantial, since the deck is 3 ft. above grade and the existing nonconforming den is at the same distance from the front setback as the proposed deck; D. The difficulty is not self-created; E. The property is a uniquely shaped piece of property burdened by having three (3) front yards. If the house was other than a corner house, the requested 23 ft. dimension would be adequate to solve the side yard requirement; 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 Ian4for 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. At this time, Mr. Wexler recused himself from the meeting. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2313 (adjourned 5/27/98) 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. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Gunther informed those present that a letter was received from the applicant for Application No. 2, Case 2313, Beechmont Bus Service, Inc., asking for an adjournment and read same into the record. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2314 Application of Christopher and Christine Hofstedt requesting a variance to construct a fence along cliff line 15 ft. in from the property line. The fence to be constructed in the front yard has a height of 5.0 ft. where 4.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 292 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 615. Christopher, Christine and daughter Margaret Hofstedt appeared before the Board. Mr. Hofstedt explained he is hoping to build a property line along the cliff line, as the property slopes up above the street grade, anywhere from 10 ft. to 15 ft. The previous owners had planted Taxus plants, which were overgrown into the yard creating a barrier to the cliff line. The applicant removed the Taxus back to the property line,which exposed the cliff. He would like to put a fence in that area to keep people and/or animals from falling off the cliff. Mr. Gunther asked the distance of the drop from the street to the property. Mr. Hofstedt said approximately 10 ft. to 15 ft., at which time a discussion ensued. Ms. Martin asked about the situation on the side and back of the property. Mr. Hofstedt said there is an undeveloped lot, a home and Weaver Street. Ms. Martin asked if there was the same kind of drop-off there. Mr. Hofstedt said there is not the same kind of drop-off,but a stone wall which is more of a property line. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the members of the Board. A discussion ensued regarding the style of the fence, with Mr. Hofstedt stating that it will be a 3 ft. fence post with lattice work. There will be no lattice along Weaver and Murray. Mr. Simon asked if there will be a gate in the front, which Mr. Hofstedt verified. Ms. Martin asked why the applicant is requesting a fence height of 5 ft. Mr. Hofstedt stated the request is to prevent someone from climbing over the fence and for privacy. A discussion ensued regarding the lattice work on the fence. Mr. Gunther asked the color of the fence. Mr. Hofstedt stated it is delivered unstained. He is hoping to paint it natural, white or off-white. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant is planning to install any type of shrubs in front of the fence. Mr. Hofstedt said there are some shrubs that will remain, and there is a row of cedar which are being maintained. Ms. Martin asked if the plantings were to be outside or inside the fence. Zoning Board + June 17, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Hofstedt said some of the cedars will remain. There are also telephone wires as shown in the pictures presented to the Board. The fence will be between the trees and the cliff. The Taxus has been removed. Mr. Gunther realizes Mr. Hofstedt's needs for protection for his daughter, but has some concern about having a 10 ft. to 15 ft. rock wall and then a 5 ft. fence on top of the wall. Mr. Gunther asked if it would be possible to provide some screening of the fence to soften the view of the fence. Mr. Hofstedt said the fence will be approximately 120 ft. He said there is a rock formation. Where it is shallow, the former owners built a retaining wall and put soil behind the retaining wall for lawn area. Christine Hofstedt stated there are trees in that area. Mr. Hofstedt said the trees that grow in that area are maintained. There are leaves in front of the wall. There is a possibility that something can be planted along the outside wall. A discussion continued regarding where the fence will be located, the current plantings in that area and anticipated new plantings. Mr. Hofstedt said he chose this type of fence because he is concerned about the appearance from the road, rather than proposing a chain link fence. Mr. Gunther said the Board is sensitive to the appearance the fence gives to the community as well. When the Board previously approved a larger than normally permitted front yard fence:; tirther up on Murray Avenue, a series of large evergreens were planted in front of the fence. Mr. Simon said he would like to see some plantings in front, to minimize the height of the fence. Mr. Hofstedt said the property is very much above the street level, and individuals passing do not see or hear anything. Mr. Kelleher said that Mr. Hofstedt stated nothing has ever grown between the wall and where the fence is proposed, and asked if anyone has seriously attempted to plant anything, such as Hosta. Ms. Hofstedt said the ground has a lot of ivy and asked about using that. Mr. Hofstedt said the ivy would destroy the wood fence. A discussion continued regarding the plantings to be considered and the color of the fence. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, 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 Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Christopher & Christine Hofstedt have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a fence along cliff line 15 ft. in from the property line. The fence to be constructed in the front yard has a height of 5.0 ft.where 4.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 292 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 615; and Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 6 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 240-52; and WHEREAS, Christopher & Christine Hofstedt 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 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 fence will not present an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because of its elevation and the applicant's willingness to use a natural finish and install plantings that will soften the street-facing'pOrtion of the fence; B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals any other way, as the fence provides safety for children and animals; C. The requested 1 ft. in height variance for the fence is not substantial; D. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; E. The condition is not self-created, but rather a necessity caused by topography and a proper safeguard for use of the yard by a small child; 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. Appropriate planting be placed between the top of the wall and the fence to soften the effect of the 5 ft. fence; i.e. Hosta. A recommendation of plantings to be guided by a nursery's printed recommendation that allows for a three (3) year development. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 7 2. The fence that runs parallel to Murray Avenue have a natural finish. 3. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 5. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 6. 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 permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2315 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Andres Sadler requesting a variance to construct a WA. by 21 ft. rear deck addition. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 21.5 ft. where 25.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Crest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 Lot 264. Benedict Salanitro of 517 Linden Street, Mamaroneck, the consulting engineer representing the Sadlers, appeared. Mr. Salanitro said in the original application photographs were submitted. The owners' feeling is that the proposed deck expansion does not have a negative impact to the neighborhood. The higher elevated deck is existing to the back ground. Currently there is no access point from the current deck to the lower grade. The major portion of the rear yard is rock outcrop. The children coming off the deck going to the back yard have slipped on the rock. Since there is a set of stairs from the existing deck to the proposed new deck and a small set of steps going to the finished grade, the 16 ft. width for the deck is the minimum the applicants would like to realize. The useable back yard is currently limited, due to grade change. It will create a better circulation for the applicants to get from one side of the house to the rear of the house, as currently there is no access from the rear of the house onto the rear property. The applicant feels the 31 ft. setback variance is a minor request, given the substantial impact the applicants have with the existing terrain of the property. A discussion ensued regarding the fact that there is no access from the lower portion of the home to the rear of the property. Mr. Salanitro stated the applicant is before the Board this evening solely for the deck, as items numbered 2, 3 and 4 on the plan were previously approved and are already under permit. Mr. Gunther asked if any material will be used that will cover the view of the deck. Mr. Salanitro said lattice will be used. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 8 QRESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Andres Sadler have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 16 ft. by 21 ft. rear deck addition. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 21.5 ft. where 25.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3) for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Crest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 Lot 264; 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(3); and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Andres Sadler 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.,t llowing findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: Cl. 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. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor any detriment to nearby properties created; B. Given the nature and the topography of the applicant's property, there does not seem to be a reasonable alternative by which the applicant can achieve his goals of having more space and an easily accessible back yard area from the house; C. It is not a substantial variance, in view of the entire project and the difficulty of the topography of the property; D. It will not have any 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 deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the bottom of the proposed deck be screened by lattice matching the lattice underneath the existing deck. 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 informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours fOr a permit. ter ' The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2316 Application of Frieda and Victor Badner requesting a variance to expand second floor, master bath, study and enlarge master bedroom. The second floor expansion as proposed has a side yard of 6.10 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); has a total side yard of 17.6 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b); and further, the second story expansion increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 106 W. Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 830. Larry Weinberg, the architect for the project, appeared along with Dr. Badner, the applicant. Mr. Weinberg said the proposal is to increase the size of the second floor. The intention is to enlarge the existing bedroom, create a master bath, a small study area and closet space. The problem is with a growing family and one and one-half baths the situation is very difficult,the proposed expansion being the solution. Because of the side yard situation and that fact that the building is being expanded, essentially in the same line as the floor below, the applicant is still nonconforming as far as the total overall setback requirements. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Weinberg was building a dormer in the back. Mr. Weinberg said a dormer is being built in the back and the roof is being raised. Mr. Gunther asked the additional square footage involved. Mr. Weinberg said he did not recall exactly, but approximately 200 sq. ft. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Ms. Martin asked if this matter was discussed with the neighbors. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 10 Dr. Badner said the people across the street are very happy. Mr. Gunther stated the applicant is not expanding the footprint of the house,just building up and increasing the nonconformity, which Dr. Badner verified. Dr. Badner said the house will not be as high as the buildings on either, when done. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Frieda and Victor Badner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to expand second floor, master bath, study and enlarge master bedroom. The second floor expansion as proposed has a side yard of 6.10 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(a); has a total side yard of 17.6 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b); and further, the second story expansion increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises locathd at 106 W. Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck,g Block 217 Lot 830; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240-39B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Frieda and Victor Badner 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 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. The renovation of the house will enhance the neighborhood, does not change the existing footprint of the house, but is simply a result of an existing nonconformity of the house; B. There is not a reasonable alternative for the applicant, other than what has been presented; C. It is not a substantial variance but minimal, and only the result of the existing nonconformity; Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 11 D. There will be no 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 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 plansepesented 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 asked if Mr. Weinberg knew the size of the house in square feet in comparison to the minimum for the zone. Mr. Weinberg stated it is more than the minimum, but he did not know the exact size. Mr. Simon stated it is the best design for the lot. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2317 Application of Mitchell Cosiver requesting a variance to construct a front porch. The front porch as proposed has a front yard setback of 25.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39 B(1); and further, the porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240- 69 for a residence in a R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 81 Taylor Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 454. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 12 Rich Hatem of Diversified Building Consultants,the design engineers for the project,P.O. Box 1864,New Rochelle, NY 10801 appeared. Mr. Simon recused himself from this case and left the meeting. Mr. Hatem stated he has letters in support of the application from immediate neighbors. Mr. Gunther advised the applicant that only three members of the Board are present. One member left the meeting because he could not stay and another recused.himself. The Board will be happy to proceed with the application. The Board needs three members voting in favor for an action to occur. If he wants to wait until a later date when a fourth member of the Board is present, he may do so. Mr. Hatem said he would like to proceed. The application is simple and straight forward front porch addition of a partially enclosed front porch on an existing 2-family house. The new owner of the house is interested in creating a better separation at the access point from one apartment to the other to make the front of the house more charming. Mr. Gunther asked if anyone is currently living in the house, as there are windows boarded up on the first floor. Mr. Hatem said no one is currently living in the house. There is currently a permit for interior restoration work which is being done. Mr. Gunther asked if the residence is a multi-family dwelling, which Mr. Hatem verified. A discussion ensued regarding current access to the apartments. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant is leaving the other side as an open porch and the reason for the variance. Mr. Hatem said the other side is being left as an open porch, and the need for the variance is due to the setback requirements, at which time a discussion ensued regarding what will be included in that space. Mr. Hatem stated that the roof on the new porch will match the new roof already installed on the house. Mr. Kelleher asked if the applicant will still be a minimum of 25 ft. back from the property line, which , Mr. Hatem verified. Mr. Hatem said the neighbors to the left and right are angled off in different directions giving an illusion of much greater space than a front yard, making it less obtrusive. Mr. Gunther asked if there is a garage. Mr. Hatem said there is no garage. A discussion ensued regarding where the cars from this property will park. Mr. Hatem presented the two letters in support of this application from neighbors to counsel, marked as exhibit#1, which is a part of the record. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. 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. Zoning Board June 17, 1998 Page 13 On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mitchell Cosiver has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a front porch. The front porch as proposed has a front yard setback of 25.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39 B(1); and further, the porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 81 Taylor Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 454; 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 240-39 B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mitchell Cosiver 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: 4 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. No undesirable change will be created by the proposed construction; B. The variance requested is not substantial, given the size and shape of the property; C. The applicants do not appear to have any reasonable alternative; D. It is not a self-created difficulty; 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. Zoning Board • June 17, 1998 Page 14 © 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. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on July 29, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to an Executive Session for the Board to discuss pending litigation. Margu ri Roma, Recording Secretary O C