Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_06_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 26, 1996 IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Nina Recio Arthur Wexler I{ Absent: J. Rene Simon Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector Angela Papalia, Public Stenographer Mnuoicm j��'`pY Carbone & Associates, Ltd. "V 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed the applicants that one of the Board members, Mr. Rene Simon, is not present this evening. As a result, there are only four members present out of the five members to hear each application, then proceed and vote on the application. If the applicant does not want to present their application this evening, because three members must vote in favor or against a particular motion for an action to occur, the Board will hold the application over until next month. He then stated when an application is called, the applicant should inform the Board if they would like to proceed. Mr. Gunther said Councilwoman Valerie O'Keeffe is present and would like to make a statement. Ms. O'Keeffe thanked Mr. Gunther and said the Town Board has been working for several years on the Recodification of the Laws and Ordinances of the Town of Mamaroneck. After many revisions, the Town Board finally has a copy from the publisher. The changes are referred, by law, to the Planning Board and the CZMC, but would also like to present it to the other boards and commissions. Ms. O'Keeffe handed out copies to the Board stating there are changes on which there will be a Public Hearing at the Town Board meeting on July 17, 1996. If the Board has any comments, submit them to the Town Board before that date or speak to Steve Altieri. Mr. Gunther stated that as a note of information for the public, the Public Hearing for the Town Recodification of Laws and Codes, including zoning,will occur on July 17, 1996 in the Court Room. Mr. Gunther said anyone from the Town is welcomed to attend and participate to have their voice heard, and that copies of the changes are available at the Town Clerk's Office during business hours. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2228 (adjourned 5/22/96) err Application of Frank and Antoinette Auricchio requesting a variance to operate a vehicle storage yard as the use of the outdoor parking area as a vehicle storage area is prohibited pursuant to Section 89-28.1A(8) Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 2 which requires storage businesses to be conducted within enclosed buildings in a Service Business (SB) Zone District. Further, the need for parking spaces required pursuant to Section 89-66A for the other business uses has not been addressed, and the use for storage of vehicles may reduce the available parking to require variances for the vacant spaces on the premises located at 5 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 609. Mr. William J.Maker, attorney, appeared stating Mr. Stanziale, the architect, will not be able to attend the meeting this evening due to other commitments. Mr. Maker said he was informed by Mr. Stanziale that at the last meeting the issue arose about certain criteria that must be proven in order to obtain a use variance. In a capsulized form that is called an unnecessary hardship. It is an economic demonstration that without the variance being granted, a person cannot make a reasonable return on his property. In addition to that, one must demonstrate the proposal will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Maker presented to the Board a list of the rental income records on the property for the last two and one- half years, 1994, 1995 and the first half of 1996 which showed the expenses that are directly attributable to the property in the form of liability insurance, mortgage payments, taxes, utilities and certain directly related expenses such as legal and professional fees for presentations, advertising the lot for rental or sale. There is a real estate commission noted, because of the fact that one listing has succeeded. Over the past two and one-half years there have been losses each year, which indicates the property as it currently stands is not producing a reasonable return. As a result a hardship is demonstrated, which is required to be proven for the issuance of a use variance. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Maker if he is familiar with all of the rules under the zoning code for approval for a use variance. Mr. Maker said he thought he capsulized it. Mr. Gunther then asked counsel to go through the rules for the Board and the applicants' edification once again. Mr. Kirkpatrick said the applicants' counsel has capsulated them quite well,but the particular language has been interpreted many times over the years and it is necessary for the Board to consider each carefully. He said Section 267-b of the Town Law states that in order to prove unnecessary hardship the applicant has to demonstrate to the Board of Appeals that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, (1) that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; (2) that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; (3)that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;(4)that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. Mr. Kirkpatrick said the last one differs from an area variance in that if you found that an area variance problem was self-created, you would simply take that into account as it is not dispositive. With a use variance it is absolute if it is dispositive and cannot be self-created. Regarding the first issue, for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the district the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, the lack of return has to be substantial and demonstrated by competent financial evidence. Mr. Kirkpatrick said he would expect to receive a review of the various uses and some demonstration that those uses would not produce that return, or it has not been possible through some history to obtain any of those uses for this particular premises. Mr. Wexler said it is a broad requirement for use variances, and the request presented is for a very small request. Can it be weighed? Mr. Kirkpatrick said the law is very specific. You have to show there is simply no way under the current zoning that you can find a use or a combination of uses that will grant a reasonable return. If the Board is satisfied that the figures presented this evening represent an inability to obtain any use that will return Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 3 a profit or loss any better than what was submitted, it is a good indication of not getting a reasonable return. Do these figures tell enough about the current tenants that are paying the rent, how long they have been there, and that of all the various uses that are allowed in this zone none are feasible for this property, none have been interested in this property or the property is not suited to those uses? Mr. Maker said the reality is as follows. The property has been on the market for rental or for sale for a number of years. There are simply no takers. The property is on Fifth Avenue. Ms. Recio said, before Mr. Maker continues, would the Building Department enumerate quickly what the allowable uses are, so the Board has a basis to reflect to. Mr. Gerety said it is a Service Business (SB) District, a new Local Law 2 - 1990 which states Principal Uses as follows: indoor recreation or amusement establishments; business or professional offices; sale or hire of new or used motor vehicles but no used car lot except as accessory to a new car dealer; undertaking and funeral homes; newspaper printing and publishing; nursery use; restaurants for the sale, service and consumption of food and drinks; no lunch wagons, hot dog stands; no outdoor table service; wholesale or storage businesses in enclosed buildings; municipal uses; public utility structures serving a local area. It also states Special Uses as follows: stores for sale of goods at retail, but no fabrication and/or manufacturing; gasoline filing stations and garages including facilities for servicing and repair; motels or hotels; radio, television or other electronic transmission structures; veterinary hospital,boarding and care of small pets; contractors establishments; automatic car washing facilities as an adjunct to existing gasoline filling stations and/or public garages. Ms. Recio said that description is not in the current code book, and asked what the current date of the law is. Mr. Gerety said it is Local Law 2 - dated 1990. Mr. Maker said for the Board to keep in mind that the property is on 5th Avenue, across the street from a gas station, discount pet food store, Collins Bros. Moving, etc. and the proposed fits into this type of a use, storage of automobiles. The reason for storage is that the tenant tows cars for the Town of Mamaroneck as well as other municipalities. The property has been on the market for years. Mr. Auricchio is anxious to find tenants for any of these permitted uses, specially or as-of-right and has engaged real estate brokers. There have been a number of occasions in which people who were interested in the site have gone to the Building Department to investigate the zoning, and none of deals have come to fruition. Presently there are two exceptions on the premises, i.e. a storage for mens'jeans and the other tenant is Collins Bros. The amount of revenue from this particular enterprise is very small, because it depends whether cars can be stored for months and not a lot of money is involved. The proposed is in the corner of the property, off to the side in the back where the property shapes like and L. It is not a useable area and not a visible area. The area is largely automotive. Under those circumstances the applicant has demonstrated nothing can be done that is permitted under the ordinance and what has been done does not generate a reasonable rate of return. Under the circumstances the applicant qualifies under the unnecessary hardship criteria. Mr. Wexler said the building is basically occupied, except for 1,200 sq. ft. In looking at the application it states space#1 which is 1,117 sq. ft. is vacant, space#2 is limousine parking, space#3 is Roseann Land Development, space #4 clothing storage, #5 auto storage for which they are applying for a variance, and #6 Collins Bros. proposed parking occupying one-third of the lot for their vehicles. Mr. Maker said he did not know the financial history for prior years, but in the last two and one-half years the property has been operating at a loss. Mr. Maker then asked Mr. Auricchio if the property ever generated a positive cash flow. Mr. Auricchio, 110 Echo Avenue, New Rochelle, said no. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Maker said it is a situation where one portion or the other is constantly losing a tenant. The report submitted was for only two and one-half years, and if necessary Mr. Auricchio could go back further if the Board would like to see all the information. Ms. Recio asked how the property is marketed, who the realtor is and where it is marketed. Mr. Auricchio said it is marketed in Westchester and New York and is advertised constantly. Ms. Recio asked who the broker is. Mr. Auricchio said it is multiple listed. Mr. Wexler asked what the marketing price is. Mr. Auricchio said the property is for rent. Ms. Recio asked if Mr. Auricchio had any of the records of the advertisements, contracts with the realtors showing the frequency of the advertisement or the proposed contracts, etc. Mr. Auricchio said the Building Department knows how many people have been inquiring,but they have been discouraged because of the intended uses. Mr. Maker said what Mr. Auricchio is trying to explain is that a few different people have been interested in the property for various uses, none of which fit within the pigeon holes. Some of the intended uses are clearly not applicable. The applicant is talking about automotive uses, as that is what is in the neighborhood, i.e. Giacomo across the street, a gas station, car washing, etc. The applicant has not been able to put together a deal, due to the fact that there are requirements within the ordinance that simply cannot be complied with by the potential tenants. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant had ever gone for certiorari to have the taxes reduced, as taxes on commercial property is based on income. Mr. Maker said Mr. Auricchio had not filed for certiorari, and it may very well be an excellent certiorari. Mr. Auricchio has to decide whether to pursue the certiorari and decrease his loss. Mr. Wexler said Mr. Auricchio has a loss of$42,000.00 against a total expense of$90,000.00, and does not know how this can come into a positive cash flow. Mr. Maker said there may come a time, through proper rentals and marketing, that it will happen. Mr. Wexler said Mr. Auricchio is asking $4.00 a square foot, which is low. Mr. Maker said $4.00 a square foot is low, but if Mr. Auricchio could make the area into a profitable enterprise he would. Now there is one small element of the property designed to make one use that is not permitted with storage outside instead of inside, for which the applicant is asking for a variance. Mr. Wexler asked if the variance would go with the land. Mr. Kirkpatrick said the variance would go with the land. Ms. Recio said there are things on the list that are possibilities. On the other hand, Mr. Maker is saying that most of these uses are inappropriate for the area, which leads to the suggestion that maybe the property is not properly zoned which is then a whole different Board. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Maker said if in fact it is not properly zoned, and there are listed uses that are not appropriate, that is the purpose of a variance. Ms. Recio said if it is improperly zoned you change the zoning, but you don't get a variance because it is a different form. Mr. Maker said rather than do that, the proposed is small, would generate $500.00 a month income and it is just as important to ask for a variance. Mr. Wexler said that is a stop gap the applicant is using to generate income until such time as the building will generate income. The proposed variance would grant the applicant outside storage forever. Mr. Maker said a condition could be imposed upon the variance, if granted, as conditions can always be attached that relate to the land. Mr. Kelleher asked counsel if granting a variance to park cars outside will solve the problem? Mr. Kirkpatrick said no, a variance to park cars outside will not solve the problem. Mr. Maker said it is not going to solve Mr. Auricchio's problem, but it is the one that happens to be before the Board this evening. Mr. Wexler said the he envisions the variance goes with the property, unless it can be conditioned. Mr. Kirkpatrick said he believes the applicant's counsel is saying a condition can be employed that states if the use the applicant is requesting a variance for is abandoned, then the variance would likewise cease. Mr. Gunther said he would like to clarify a few items. In the application presented there was a plan drawn by Robert Stanziale that indicates uses of the property, and asked if the uses indicated on the plan are correct. Mr. Maker said he did not know, because he has not seen that plan. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Maker if he would like to look at the plan. Mr. Maker agreed, and reviewing the plan asked Mr. Auricchio if the limousine company was still there. Mr. Auricchio said no, it never materialized, but the office of Roseanne Development is still there. Mr. Wexler said if the limousine space is vacant, then the rental income of$48,000.00 does not include any income from the limousine space. Mr. Auricchio said that is correct. Mr. Auricchio said a lease was drawn, but the limousine company never came, because the owner of the limousine company went to the Building Department which said it did not fit into any of the allowed uses. Ms. Recio said she thought the list said enclosed parking. Mr. Maker said what Mr. Auricchio meant was that the area was supposed to be used for a limousine company operation, not parking. Mr. Maker said the limousine company could have decided not to continue with the lease, or they drew the conclusion that they could not operate as-of-right under the ordinance. Mr. Maker does not know the answer to that, because he was not involved. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Wexler asked if there is a reason why the auto storage yard is not inside the building in the 5,000 ft. Mr. Auricchio said to tie up the space inside would be very costly. Mr. Maker said the explanation is that the interior space is too big, as the towing company only has a few cars depending upon which cars are being impounded. There may be months where there are no cars. A corner of the property, enclosed with a cyclone fence and key, would be sufficient for ingress and egress when needed. Mr. Maker said the wholesale clothing store is still there. Ms. Recio asked when Mr. Auricchio purchased the property. Mr. Auricchio said he purchased the property in 1982. A discussion followed regarding the income realized in 1995 when the fire department rented space, but Mr. Maker said at that time the wholesale clothing storage was not a tenant. The fire department which took over a lot of expenses did generate some income, but they have now returned to a new fire house. Now the wholesale storage is a tenant which generates some income. Mr. Wexler said Mr. Auricchio was only charging the fire department $6.00 a sq. ft. Mr. Auricchio agreed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There were none, at which point Mr. Gunther asked for a motion regarding the environmental impact. Mr. Wexler asked counsel if this is a Type I action. Mr. Kirkpatrick said it is an unlisted action, which means the Board has the opportunity to declare itself Lead Agency. The Board would have the option to treat the application as an uncoordinated act, and it would be the Board's decision about SEQRA and any other agency could make its own decision. The resolution in this case would be; WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action, the Board does not wish to entertain a coordinated review and finds it does not have a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Wexler said does that mean no other agency can make any comment on it? Mr. Kirkpatrick said if this case came to the Planning Board for Site Plan review it might independently decide if it wanted an impact statement. Mr. Wexler asked if this case has gone to the Planning Board, and asked if they declared anything about Lead Agency and SEQR? Mr. Kirkpatrick said he believed it did go to the Planning Board, and he was not aware of anything. The Planning Board is awaiting the Zoning Board's decision, before they proceed with the Site Plan approval. Mr. Gunther said if the Planning Board had made any decision the Zoning Board would have been notified, and he is not aware of any notification from them. Mr. Kirkpatrick said he recommends in this case that the Board simply chose uncoordinated review and find no significant impact. Mr. Wexler said he would make the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Kelleher. At this point in time, Mr. Kelleher started to make a motion on the merits of the application stating the application as presented be granted as the applicant has demonstrated a financial hardship, the applicant is not making any money Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 7 at this property supported by figures represented to the Board in support of that position at least for the years presented to the Board. Mr. Kelleher said a condition should be attached to the granting of the requested variance that if another use should be found for the portion of the property which is the subject of the variance, that the granting of the variance be terminated at that point, i.e. the permission to park in the outside area does not go with the land as represented on the drawing as site#5. A discussion followed regarding the wording of the proposed variance. Mr. Gunther said that 50% of the property is vacant. Mr. Wexler said that the request is not out of line with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked if the Board wished to include a condition with regard to enclosure of the area, stating there is a 6 ft. cyclone fence with vinyl slating, and that the vinyl slating be maintained. Mr. Kirkpatrick said there are two other requirements of which the Board should make findings, as Mr. Kelleher has dealt with no reasonable return and the proposed use does not alter the character of the neighborhood, but there also needs to be a finding that the alleged hardship relating to the property is unique and the alleged hardship is not self-created. Mr. Kelleher said based upon the representation to the Board this evening, the hardship is not self-created because the applicant has represented that he has made substantial effort to alleviate his financial hardship. As far as the hardship being unique, Mr. Kelleher said he did not know how to address that issue. Mr. Kirkpatrick said "unique" means the condition is not likewise applicable to other properties next door and across the street, but just this particular property. Mr. Wexler asked if the Board had any representation regarding that issue. Mr. Gunther said there is no representation. At this point, Mr. Kirkpatrick said perhaps the Board should ask the applicant. Mr. Kelleher said the he can only make a presumption that the rest of the commercial activities in that area are profitable. Ms. Recio said that is precisely why she could not vote in favor of the motion, because she does not feel the evidence submitted is substantial enough. It's one thing to be tolerant of a certain level of evidence and it is another where the State has passed a law that sets forth a standard. In an effort to accommodate the needs of the applicant, the Board is almost ignoring that standard. Ms. Recio said when the legislator made a standard as definite as they did, they did it for a reason. Ms. Recio feels there is not enough evidence regarding the applicant's marketing and the uniqueness of the property to grant this variance. Mr. Wexler asked, even though the variance might be tied to a condition? Ms. Recio said she is not convinced that creates any incentive to have the applicant attempt to seek a compline or compatible use. She is not convinced the applicant has really made an effort to market the property and look at other uses. There is no evidence before the Board,just representations. Even that is vague. On a personal level, Mr. Recio does not think the standard the Board is supposed to uphold is one that she is satisfied with regarding this case. Mr. Wexler said if the applicant came back before the Board stating he wanted to put 40,000 sq. ft. use of space on the lot to relieve his problem, would Ms. Recio take a different approach? Mr. Recio said that has to be distinguished. The issue is, has the applicant provided proof necessary to meet the statutory standard. In this case, Ms. Recio would say no. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Kelleher said when he took the case in prospective, what is being asked for is what prompted Mr. Kelleher to make the motion that is on the floor. Certainly, if the applicant were before the Board asking for a use variance for other reasons not listed, he would ask for a lot more proof than what has been submitted. The applicant is asking for a relatively modest variance that can be tied to the use of a relatively small portion of the property to give him some relief. Mr. Kelleher thinks that is reasonable. Ms. Recio said she understands Mr. Kelleher's position, but Ms. Recio is still stymied by the fact that there is probably more evidence available that she has not seen. She is not comfortable granting a use variance which requires such a high standard, based on what is before the Board. Mr. Gunther said he feels the Board is at a point where it may serve the applicant's purpose better to hold the matter over until the next meeting to give the applicant additional opportunity to satisfy some of the zoning requirements that will answer some of the questions raised, if they wish to come back before the Board. Mr. Wexler also said, it is only a four member Board not a full five member board, and there might be a different vote next month with a full Board. Mr. Kelleher said it would appear the applicant will not receive the variance requested at tonight's meeting, and the Board should offer the applicant the opportunity to submit more persuasive evidence of his hardship and his efforts at the next meeting. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Wexler if he would be leaning in favor only for the same reasons already stated. Mr. Wexler said yes. Mr. Gunther said he has no objection to the use that is being presented, but does have an objection to the applicant meeting the standards set. Mr. Wexler said he knows the property has been vacant and out of use for a long period of time. If the figures submitted are correct, the applicant is getting a reasonable loss on this piece of property for a reasonable amount of years. The request the applicant is making is rather miner. The request visually is the same whether cars are parked there or not parked there. There is a quirk in the zoning that parking has to be inside instead of outside. It is not an unreasonable request. The applicant meets the criteria. The applicant is not asking for a rezoning of the area or use change which would bring a totally different project. It was a garage, there will be cars that will be stored for a couple of days that are brought in waiting for parts and there is no difference physically. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Maker how he would like to proceed. Mr. Maker said he feels it is in everyones best interest to hold the matter over to the next meeting so Mr. Auricchio can address the issues lacking that have been raised by the Board members or perhaps come up with another alternative so that there is no need to have a variance. It is a very small matter, and that is why the applicant did not devote a lot of time, effort and money regarding proof. It is not unreasonable. It is only a matter of a variance, the type it is and the fact that a condition can be imposed. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Maker to submit a financial breakdown stating where there are line items of rental income to break it down by space. Mr. Kelleher said as counsel brought up the fourth criteria of the project being unique, maybe something could be presented demonstrating the uniqueness. Mr. Gunther made a motion that the application be adjourned to the next meeting, which was seconded by Mr. Kelleher and unanimously approved. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if mortgage payments come under expenses, because if the applicant owned the property outright there would be less of a loss. Mr. Kirkpatrick said yes, but what was presented was a simplified way of showing the financial data. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2229 Application of Julio Miyares requesting a variance to construct a new second floor and front portico with a front yard of 28.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(1)and the second floor has one side yard of 8.0 ft. and the other side yard of 7.9 ft. where a minimum of 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a) and the total side yard width is 15.9 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b); and further, the addition and portico increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at on the premises located at 4 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 595. Howard Raabe, architect, of 30 Tersana Drive, Eastham, CT appeared, representing the applicant. He presented photographs to the Board for their review, and an updated plan showing how the applicant arrived at the solution. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any persons in the audience interested in the application and wished to see what is being presented. There were people interested, at which time Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Raabe ® to position the plans so everyone can see the drawings. Mr. Raabe said the applicant is seeking permission from the ZBA to take a two bedroom, five room cottage and turn it into a eight room, four bedroom house. Mr. Raabe then proceeded to demonstrate and discuss the various options on the renderings submitted. Two options, one and two, would respect the zoning requirements, the third one actually does justice to the neighborhood and the house and needs a variance. Mr. Raabe said if the addition is put in the back of the house, page 3, it creates an undesirable situation by being a 70 ft. deep house, approximately 12 ft. off the grade, creates an unworkable floor plan, and "destroys the back yard of the entire neighborhood." The second scheme, page 4, is a second story addition respecting the side yards, but still gives sufficient square footage to create the four bedrooms and a bathroom forcing the applicant to cantilever off the back of the house and leaves an ungainly two foot nibs on either side of the second story creating an odd looking addition which would be detrimental to the applicant and the neighborhood. The third solution would create a simply two-story home that is not unlike all but one of the houses in the neighborhood. The stucco finish of the existing house would be continued on the entire house. The house is approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of useable space, whereas in the R-7 Zone for a one-story house, 1,200 sq. ft. is the minimum required. By adding the second story, the applicant is bringing the house more into conformity with the zoning requirements. Mr. Gunther asked how many square feet the applicant will have after the addition. Mr. Raabe said approximately 2,000 sq. ft., doubling the size of the house. The house is on a unique lot which is only 50 ft. wide., one of two in the neighborhood that are 50 ft. wide. All the other lots are 60 ft. to 90 ft. wide. The lot is penalized for being a narrow lot, and to require it to have 10 ft. setbacks or 20 ft. total setbacks gives the applicant a much more unbelievable hardship. The applicant is also seeking a two ft. variance on the front yard setback, so the applicant can have a portico over the front door. The applicant can install a two and one-half ft. portico which would fall within the zoning requirements, but it would look odd giving the fact that the platform the individual would be stepping on to would be at least four ft. The last sheet presented shows basically a prospective of what the applicant is proposing. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Wexler asked if there was an FAR on this zone, questioning whether someone can actually build that much volume of square footage on the piece of property in this case. Mr. Kirkpatrick said he did not recall an FAR. Mr. Wexler said then someone can actually, physically build that much square footage. Mr. Raabe said the immediate next door neighbors also have a 50 ft. lot in the immediate vicinity, and within the last four years was granted a side yard variance. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant will be keeping the same chimney top. Mr. Raabe said the applicant can keep the same chimney top. Mr. Gunther asked if the plan handed out this evening is background for the plans that were previously submitted. Mr. Raabe said yes the plan handed out this evening is background for the plans that were previously submitted, and supports how the applicant arrived at the solution. Mr. Gerety said referring back to the question on how much can be built on that lot, where the floor area is there are minimums not maximums. The applicant still has to leave a balance of 1,200 sq. ft. of useable plot space. Mr. Raabe said the applicant is looking to build a compact house. Ms. Recio asked when the applicant purchased the house. Julio Miyares, the applicant appeared, and said the house was purchased in July of 1992. Mr. Wexler said the proposal is to put all the bedrooms upstairs, and asked if the family has increased or is going to be larger than it was in 1992. Mr. Miyares said at the time of purchase he had one son, and have since had a daughter. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. Ms. Recio asked Mr. Miyares if he has shown and discussed the plans with the adjacent or contiguous neighbors. Mr. Miyares said in April he told the next door neighbor, the one that has a 50 ft. lot, and did not discuss it with the other neighbor who is at least 50 ft. away. Mr. Gunther again asked if are no other questions or comments, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 11 WHEREAS, Julio Miyares has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,ector together with plans requesting a variance to construct a new second floor and front portico with a front yard of 28.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(1)and the second floor has one side yard of 8.0 ft. and the other side yard of 7.9 ft. where a minimum of 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a) and the total side yard width is 15.9 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b); and further, the addition and portico increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at on the premises located at 4 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 595; 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 89-34B(1), Section 89-34B(2)(a), Section 89-34B(2)(b) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Julio Miyares 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: o 41, 1. The applicant is on a block where his house is the one which is unique in having only one story as opposed to two stories. 2. While it is not a matter relating to the land, the needs of the applicant would be met by this addition as his family has grown since the purchase of the house in 1992. 3. The existing house is less than the minimum square footage required. 4. The applicant's alteration is remaining within the footprint as it currently exists. 5. 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. 6. The variance is the minimum 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. 7. 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; Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 12 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther told the applicant to contact the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2230 Application of Alex Brehm requesting a variance to maintain an existing attached garage extension as erected with two front yards. One front yard is 15.5 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89- 34B(1)and the second front yard is 26.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required, also pursuant to Section 89-34B(1); and further, the addition increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 97 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116 Lot 659. Alex Brehm of 97 North Chatsworth Avenue appeared. At this time Ms. Recio said she would like the record to reflect that she is acquainted not with the applicant but his wife, Ellen, and that should not create any problem in rendering an impartial decision. Mr. Brehm said the reason he is present this evening before the Board is that he did a renovation on his house and is seeking a Certificate of Occupancy. The Building Department informed Mr. Brehm that he cannot get a Certificate of Occupancy until a variance is granted, because it does not conform. Mr. Gunther said according to what the application stated, the garage was built sometime prior to August, 1950, and was plainly on the survey made on that date. Also, when the house was purchased in 1992, the previous owner provided Mr. Brehm with a letter, which is attached, from the Building Department dated October 19, 1988 which led Mr. Brehm to believe that the house conformed with the zoning laws. Mr. Brehm said that was correct. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gerety, the Assistant Building Inspector, if the Building Department could explain the letter received from the Building Department. Mr. Gerety, the newly hired Assistant Building Inspector, said he could not. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Brehm if the garage was altered in any way. Mr. Brehm said the garage was not altered in any way. Ms. Recio asked Mr. Brehm when he purchased the house, and if the garage was at its present location. Mr. Brehm said the house was purchased about three or four years ago, and the garage is exactly where it was when purchased in August, 1950. Mr. Gunther said the survey attached to the application is dated August 5, 1950. Mr. Brehm agreed. Mr. Gunther asked what date the Zoning Law changed. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Gerety said the date the Zoning Law changed was in 1959. Mr. Gunther then read the letter that was attached as follows: As per your request we wish to advise you that the use of the above mentioned premises, 97 North Chatsworth, conforms with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck for a one family district where it is located." Ms. Recio said the letter is not relevant or material. All the letter is saying is if someone was going to a closing and there wasn't a Certificate of Occupancy, the letter explains it conforms as a one family. It doesn't say whether or not anything was built or not built with any kind of permit. Mr. Wexler said the letter states it conforms with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Kelleher said the applicant is before the Board with a simple request. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Alex Brehm has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to maintain an existing attached garage extension as erected with two front yards. One front yard is 15.5 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(1)and the second front yard if 26.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required, also pursuant to Section 89-34B(1); and further, the addition increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 97 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116 Lot 659; 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 89-34B(1) and Section 89-57 ; and WHEREAS, Alex Brehm 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. Mr. Brehm purchased the house in this condition. 2. The garage existed since at least 1950. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 14 3. This property is burdened with two front yards and has unique circumstances. 4. The addition as presently built is in conformity with the community. 5. 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. 6. The variance is the minimum 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. 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Brehm to contact the Building Department regarding the Certificate of Occupancy. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2231 Application of John Segal requesting a variance to construct a rear addition and decks with a rear yard of 22.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(3); the deck would have a rear yard of 18.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required and the deck and addition would increase the nonconformity pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 19 Huguenot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129 Lot 349. Mr. Gary Savitzky, architect, of 94 Shearhill Road,Mahopac, representing the owner appeared, and stated he is proposing to construct a one story family room in the rear of the house symmetrical to the body of the main house. He is also proposing to construct a deck, one on the north side and one on the south side. He then discussed the proposed on the existing site plan before the Board stating there is an existing terrace in the rear yard that encroaches on the original site plan approximately 3 ft. which he understands was approved and received the required variance. Mr. Savitzky is proposing to construct a family room directly on top of the existing terrace covering the same footprint and keeping the same nonconformity as it presently exists. On the north side of the house, Mr. Savitzky proposes to construct a deck that will fit inside the rear and side setbacks as-of-right. However, on the south side Mr. Savitzky proposes to construct a deck that will encroach into the rear yard 7 ft. It is important to note, as one can see from the rear elevation, that the existing grade is approximately 5 ft. from the finished floor of the first floor Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 15 bathroom. The clients are an older couple, have four young grandchildren and would like to have access to both sides of the new family room. He is extending the foundation wall approximately 5 ft. which is the same dimension as the cutout where the terrace was before, covering the same footprint. Mr. Gunther asked what variance Mr. Savitzky was referring to. Mr. Savitzky said it was a variance for the rear yard, 22 ft., and received a 3 ft. variance. Mr. Gunther asked when the variance was granted. Mr. Savitzky said he did not have the exact date, probably the early '90's. Mr. Gunther asked what the variance was for. Mr. Savitzky said it was for the existing screened terrace and currently the screened part is no longer present. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any further questions from Board members. Mr. Savitzky said there are also photographs that show the existing condition. Mr. Gunther again asked if there were any further questions from Board members or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,John Segal has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a rear addition and decks with a rear yard of 22.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(3); the deck would have a rear yard of 18.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required and the deck and addition would increase the nonconformity pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 19 Huguenot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129 Lot 349; 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 89-34B(3) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, John Segal 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 • Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 16 • WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The main extension is going to be built on the footprint of the existing terrace. 2. The proposed decks on either side are a minimal encroachment into the setback areas. 3. The house sits askew from the actual property lines creating this type of condition that the applicant is trying to get a variance for. 3. 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. 4. The variance is the minimum 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. 5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ® RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to contact the Building Department for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2232 Application of Arthur and Suzanne Coleman requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for an addition as erected with a side yard of 8.8 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 34 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117 Lot 131. John Weiss, appeared, whose office prepared construction documents for the project which was designed and constructed. Mr. Weiss said if he knew there was going to be a problem with the zoning side yard setback, 1.2 ft., prior to preparing the design, he would have come before the Board at that time. The survey Mr. Weiss worked with was out of date, the project was inadvertently scaled and considered the 2 ft. overhang an architectural element. When the final survey was prepared, the applicant was notified Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 17 of the encroachment of 1.2 ft. A discussion ensued regarding the use of the old survey and the encroachment. Ms. Recio asked how old the referenced survey was. Mr. Weiss said the survey was prepared sometime in the '50's. Ms. Recio asked when the house was purchased. Mr. Weiss said the house was purchased in 1983. Ms. Coleman said the original survey was prepared in 1928. Mr. Weiss said the survey was difficult to read, and basically tried to keep the look of the house with the roof line overhang in the front. He presented some photographs to reflect that and discussed the site elevations. Mr. Wexler said there were no elevation drawings submitted with the application. Mr. Weiss said the original plans that were filed had all the elevations, sections and details which the permit was based on. When the final survey was prepared, it surfaced that the applicant was 1.2 ft. into the side yard. Mr. Wexler stated the second floor? Mr. Weiss said yes, the second floor. Mr. Recio asked when the construction was completed. Mr. Weiss said the construction was completed about two months ago. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Weiss if he considered the whole floor an architectural feature. Mr. Weiss said no, it is the 2 ft. overhang. Mr. Gunther asked about the picture he marked #1, stating it indicates the overhang on the second floor. Mr. Weiss said it indicates the overhang on the second floor and the existing soffit line it will tie into. Mr. Gunther asked about the picture he marked #2, asking if this was taken from the rear of the property, to see the partial soffit on the side and then the second floor addition which meets it? Mr. Weiss said that was correct. Mr. Gunther then stated that the picture he marked #3 shows the same. Mr. Gunther then asked about the picture he marked #4, stating this is the overhang, and said there is no full side view picture of the house. There was no change in the foundation line, but merely the second floor width of the house was extended to meet the soffit. Mr. Weiss said that was correct. Mr. Wexler said the survey shows that the second floor addition goes out beyond the roof overhang. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 18 Mr. Weiss stated it does go a few inches beyond and ties into the gutter so that with the gutter in place it does not hang over in front of the addition but abuts to the addition itself. Mr. Gunther asked if the 1923 survey which was updated in 1996 was submitted with the application. Mr. Weiss said that was correct, it was the as-built. Mr. Wexler said elevations would have made it a lot easier. Mr. Weiss said he thought the photographs would help. Mr. Kelleher asked, now that Mr. Weiss perceives the problem at hand, what would his office do differently if they had an opportunity to tackle the whole project from scratch? Mr. Weiss said he would have had the owner get a new survey, as-built, have the survey reflect the addition and check the side yard setbacks. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members, and asked Mr. Weiss what it would cost to correct the problem. Mr. Weiss did not get involved in the pricing and did not know what it would cost to correct the problem. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was Qproposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Arthur and Suzanne Coleman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for an addition as erected with a side yard of 8.8 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 34 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117 Lot 131; 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 89-34B(2)(a); and WHEREAS, Arthur and Suzanne Coleman 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 Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 19 WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The application is the result of a design error for an alteration to an existing property. 2. The alteration to the property would not change the ground level footprint. 3. The addition is in character with the existing neighborhood. 4. 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. 5. The variance is the minimum 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. 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Ms. Recio said she was going to ask what reaction to the construction did the immediate neighbor have, but she was withdrawing the question. Mr. Gunther said the immediate neighbors did receive notice, and there is not anyone present objecting to the application. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2233 Application of Anthony and Valarie Vanadia requesting a variance to construct a front addition with a front yard of 41.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-30.1B(1)and the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 705 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Lot 168. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 20 Gregory Desousa, attorney, 6 McDonald Place, Scarsdale, NY 10583, appeared for the applicant to supplement a memorandum submitted by DeRos Hogue, the architect. Mr. DeRos Hogue, the architect, P.O. Box 268, Somers, NY also appeared along with the applicants. Mr. Hogue said the Board has a copy of the existing survey prepared in 1961, and referred to one in color of the original house. A later addition, #1, was built to the east of the house, and there was addition#2 on the rear of the house both exceeding the indicated front yard setback which was given a variance in 1981 and also alleviated the situation on addition#1 which did not have a permit. The actual front of the house faces south with an existing easement for driveway access. On Weaver Street there is a stone retaining wall the full length of the property with exception where the driveway comes in off of Weaver Street. The end of the house which faces Weaver in its original condition is 41.8 ft. and 42.4 ft. off of the property line, therefore the assumption was made that was the required setback. However, because of the 1981 variance which was a variance for the front yard setback for the additions built, the problem arose. Mr. Wexler said he is assuming the addition referred to is not built. Mr. Hogue said no the addition referred to is not built, the applicant is applying for a building permit and variance and pointed out that the existing kitchen is primarily on the east end of the existing house which is now an interior room due to the additions in 1981. He then referred to the drawings pointing out where the mechanical room, i.e. furnace, hot water heater, washer and dryer, were located. The kitchen was nearly impossible to work with, the applicant wants to expand the kitchen into what was originally a porch which became a mechanical room and now the mechanical equipment into the proposed addition adjacent to the existing garage. The addition represents 4.8% of the total square footage of the house and does not exceed the original existing east wall more than about 2 ft. The proposed addition does not exceed further than the additions that at present have a variance as far as the proximity to the Weaver Street property line. The reason for the location in the shell of the house for the laundry room equipment is the fact that there is no basement just a crawl space only and it would be a hardship on the is the applicant is not allowed to expand the kitchen. Mr. Wexler asked if it was a two bedroom house. Mr. Hogue said it is a three bedroom house, as the addition put on the house in 1981 contains a bedroom. Mr. Gunther asked when the house was purchased. Mr. Hogue said the house was purchased in February, 1996, and referred to photographs submitted with the application which indicate the setback next to the retaining wall. Mr. DeSousa said the property is not seen from the street, except the roof. There is 41 ft. between the proposed addition and the retaining wall. Then there is the area beyond the wall. Mr. Hogue said there is a photograph in the package, and referred to the photograph, taken standing on top of the retaining wall on Weaver Street which is about 4 ft. above curb line. Mr. Wexler said something was wrong with the survey. Mr. DeSousa said the survey was made in 1951, before the additions. A discussion followed. Mr. Wexler asked what the present setback is from the property line. Mr. DeSousa said it is about 33 ft. roughly, 32 ft. at present, but the proposed addition would be 41 ft. from the wall. Technically it is not an increase in the extent to which there is an encroachment, but really a decrease. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Hogue if he investigated and can he address why an addition would not have been available in some other part of the large parcel that would not require a variance. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 21 Mr. Hogue then demonstrated on the drawings the laundry room plus the existing mechanical equipment and said it made economical sense to simply go on the other side of the wall and continue hooking the existing mechanical equipment up to the existing flue on the other side. To relocate those two to another location would require building a new chimney and locating flues to whatever location that may be. Also, the current is a forced air furnace and the duct work is either in the crawl space or below the existing concrete slabs. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Dr. Mason, 480 Weaver Street, asked about the address of the applicant. Mr. Hogue said the address is 705 Weaver Street. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Anthony and Valarie Vanadia have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a front addition with a front yard of 41.0 ft.where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-30.1B(1)and the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 705 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Lot 168; 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 89-30.1B(1) and Section 89-57 ; and WHEREAS, Anthony and Valarie Vanadia 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 Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The proposed addition is no closer to the property line than the existing house being approximately 9 ft. further away from the front property line. 2. The house is so sited that it appears that,the front property line is a side property line. 3. It is a large parcel of land and well screened from Weaver Street. Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 22 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the location for the addition is the most logical and probably the only location for this addition to be built. 5. 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. 6. The variance is the minimum 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. 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to contact the Building Department for a permit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said the draft Board Minutes for the May 22, 1996 Zoning Board meeting were received late, and will be held over to the next meeting for approval. NEW MATTER Mr. Gunther said he would like to propose a quick resolution of thanks and support to counsel, John Kirkpatrick, who will be leaving the Zoning Board. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on June 26, 1996. JOHN KIRKPATRICK After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. WHEREAS, the Board finds as follows: Zoning Board June 26, 1996 Page 23 1. The Board expresses its thanks and sincere appreciation to John Kirkpatrick, Esq. for his long hours worked; 2. The Board expresses its sincere thanks and heartfelt appreciation for his morally sound, always prudent and sometimes humorous support needed to bear through many interesting and challenging applications over the years, of his service to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject certification is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 24, 1996 at 7:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Mar rite Roma, Recording Secretary