HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_03_17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
MARCH 17, 1999, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Jillian A. Martin
J. Ren6 Simon
Arthur Wexler
Paul A. Winick
Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel
Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building
Antoinette Day, Public Stenographer
Terranova, Kazazes &Associates, Ltd.
49 Eighth Street
New Rochelle, New York 10801
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary -
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Gunther informed the Board and those present that the review of the previous board Minutes and any
administrative matters will be discussed at the end of the meeting.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2344(adjourned 1/27/99;2/24/99)
Application
of Peter Camaj requesting a variance to convert an existing pharmacy-retail'business into a
pizza/pasta restaurant. The proposed change of use requires 14 parking spaces,pursuant to Section 240-78,
(Off-street parking requirements) for a new use in a B Business Zone District. No spaces have been
allotted for this proposed new use on the premises located at 170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax -
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 657.
Mr. Camaj, the applicant,addressed the Board. He presented a letter to the Board,marked exhibit 1, from
the managing agent for Larchmont Hills Owners Corp., Robert Orlofsky Realty, Inc., considering Mr.
Camaj's request to provide an Agreement to cross their driveway in order to facilitate Mr. Camaj's daily
garbage removal. It stated that the attorneys for Larchmont Hills will be preparing a formal License
Agreement. Mr. Camaj said that he had a meeting with the owner of Larchmont Hills.
Mr. Gunther reiterated that preliminary consent has been given for access for trash removal, in addition
to a letter from Suburban Caring regarding arrangements made for trash pickup. Mr. Gunther said that
the Board was also waiting for comments from the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC).
Mr. Gallent said comment was received from the CZMC by letter dated March 3, 1999, which Mr.
Gunther read into the record.
Mr. Winick informed the Board that he took very seriously the concerns of the people who live in the
-. ,, ,.adjoining:buildings_and made a study of the parking available in the-street surrounding,the restaurant area
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 2
the twelve nights since the last meeting. He circled the block to find a parking spot and determined that
there were between one and two parking spots available directly in front of the premises every time he
went by. The entire side of the street on the other side was empty. There were also varying numbers of
spots,between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., available by Total Fitness and in the street behind the premises.
He feels there would be enough parking to handle the cars. It does have an impact on the people in the
building,because they may not be able to park as close to the building as they would like to. But, that is
not sufficient or substantial for denial of granting a variance.
Mr. Camaj reiterated to the Board that two months ago he put his name on the list to apply for as many
municipal parking spaces that become available and will do so.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Camaj the maximum number of employees he will have.
Mr. Camaj said he will have possibly three or four employees, and that most of the employees come from
the Bronx by train.
Mr. Wexler said the problem across from the Thruway is that employees park and take the spots. Mr.
Camaj should make an effort to obtain those spots.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other matters that needed to be addressed. There being none,he said
that a Negative Declaration has already been issued and approved.
After further discussion regarding the public hearing, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from
the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick,
the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0.
WHEREAS, this Zoning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is an unlisted
action for purposes of SEQRA and, ADOPTED a Negative Declaration; and
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Peter Camaj has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with
plans to convert an existing pharmacy retail business into a.pizza/pasta restaurant. The proposed change
of use requires 14.parking spaces, pursuant to Section 240-78,(Off-street parking,requirements) for a new
use in a B Business Zone District. No spaces have been allotted for this proposed new use on the premises
located at 170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 133 Lot 657; 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 240-78, (Off-street parking requirements) for a new use in a B Business Zone District; and
WHEREAS, Peter Camaj 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 or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered::the following factors:-
Zoning Board
• March 17, 1999
Page 3
A. Through personal observations gained by living and working in the community
the Board is persuaded that the granting of the variance will cause no
undesirable change in the community at that location. It is a very interesting
part of the community in that it is a residential/retail portion of the Town. At
the end of the block is an office building. Most of the retail establishments are
service/retail establishments for people who live in the community. A pizza
restaurant of this nature will enhance the services for the people who work and
- live in the community. With respect to the additional parking need associated
with the conversion to a restaurant, the peak hours for this use is after 6:00
p.m. At that time, the office use that burdens this area in the daytime is closed
down, freeing up parking spaces. Experience shows that the fourteen(14)space
variance in the context of the area will not be a detriment to the area;
B. Since this is a store within a building that is built almost to the lot line, there is
no way that the applicant can achieve its goals on this piece of property without
a variance for the four (4)parking spaces;
C. Viewed in context, this variance is not substantial given the amount of cars in
that area and the amount of available parking spaces. Personal observations of
Board members show that there are regularly sufficient parking spaces available
during the restaurant's peak hours of operation;
D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district. The Coastal Zone Management Commission felt
this application would neither help nor hinder the environment;
E. This is not a self-created difficulty, since the building was previously used for
retail purposes and there was no parking available on the site prior to Mr.
Camaj's request for a pizza/pasta restaurant;
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
-
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant will make an effort to relieve the need for the variance by obtaining,when
available, at least four (4) municipal parking permits to be used for staff or patrons
during the daytime when there is a tighter parking condition.
2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented'and no other.
3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of'the filing of this
Resolution.'
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 4
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 business hours for a
permit.
Mr. Camaj thanked the Board for their cooperation and assistance.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2347
Application of Country Curtains Retail, Inc./Robinson requesting a variance to install awning signs. The
front awning signs as proposed have graphics 24 in. in height where a maximum of 6,in. is permitted
pursuant to Section 175-11L; the rear awning sign has two line graphics where only single line graphics
are permitted pursuant to Section 175-11L for a retail business in a B Business Zone District on the
premises located at 1331 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 411 Lot 119.
Ed Robinson and Marilyn Hansen, representatives from Country Curtains' main store on Main Street,
Stockbridge, MA 01262, appeared.
Mr. Robinson said he would like to install a sign on the front of the premises with lettering in the upper
case of 24 in., lower case 12" and install an awning on the rear entrance of the building where the
customers will be entering with a small awning over the rear door and lettering on two lines as opposed
to one line.
Ms.Hansen presented Country Curtains' catalogue to the Board, which also has an example of the logo.
Mr. Wexler asked if the existing frame will be used.
Mr. Robinson said if possible the same frame will be used.
Ms. Hansen said it will be a similar concept.
Mr. Wexler said presently there is a very uniform feel around the whole building.
Mr. Robinson said the awning will be a different color and fabric, a canvas material as opposed to vinyl.
Mr. Wexler questioned the look:of the different color and fabric.
Ms. Hansen said the awning will be cut and brought back in so that there will be definition. The space
between the two will be small, approximately 3 in.
Mr. Wexler asked if it will be like the one shown on the drawing.
Ms. Hansen said the drawing doesn't show the continuation of the awning.
Mr. Wexler asked what will be-done with the existing awning on the other side of the break.
Ms. Hansen said the Blockbuster awning will stay.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 5
Mr. Wexler said there is a uniform awning and asked if it will be cut.
Ms. Hansen said yes. She said they are before the Board of Architectural Review and submitted samples
of three fabrics.
Mr. Winick asked if the sample green is the standard color used.
Mr. Robinson said yes. It will be as shown in the photograph of the Rochester, NY store submitted with
the application.
A discussion ensued regarding the color samples before the Board.
Mr. Gunther asked if what Ms. Hansen is proposing is currently existing on the side of the building and
would wrap around with a new awning over that.
Ms. Hansen said yes.
A discussion ensued regarding the lighting.
Ms. Hansen said it will be back lit through the letters. The letters are the only thing that will be
translucent white vinyl and explained how that will look.
Mr. Gunther asked if the watering can will light up.
Ms. Hansen said no, the picture of the daisy logo watering can will not be used.
Mr. Gunther asked the difference in the size of the lettering versus what currently exists for Blockbuster.
Ms. Hansen said the Blockbuster letters are 24 in.
Mr. Robinson reiterated that the upper case letters will be 24 in., the lower case 12 in.
Mr. Winick asked if the frame cannot be salvaged and is removed, will the dimensions be the same.
Ms. Hansen said the size and shape will be the same.
Mr. Robinson said if it is not structurally sound, it will be removed and replaced.
Ms. Martin said that the color is not decided by this Board, but addressed by the BAR.
Mr. Wexler said that is correct.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, he asked if there
were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on a motion made by Mr.
Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin, the following Negative Declaration was unanimously ADOPTED, 5-0:
Country Curtains Retail, Inc. has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town
of Mamaroneck for an area variance to permit the erection of awning signs on the building located at 1331
Boston Post Road(the "Property")(the "Proposed Action"). The front awning signs would have graphics
24 inches in height where a maximum of 6 inches is permitted pursuant to §175-11L of the Mamaroneck
Town Code. In addition, the rear awning sign has two line graphics where only a single line is permitted
pursuant to §175-11L for a retail business in the B Business Zoning District.
The Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA. See 6
N.Y.C.R.R. §§617.4 and 617.5; Town of Mamaroneck Code §§92-7(A)and 92-7(B).
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 6
The Short Form EAF submitted by the applicant reveals that the only potential impact
of the Proposed Action is the aesthetic impact of the signs on the surrounding area.
The Town's Coastal Zone Management Commission has waived its jurisdiction over this
matter by letter dated, August 28, 1997, on the ground that sign variances such as the one at issue here
are neither consistent nor inconsistent with the policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
The Board examined the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed signs. They will be
located in an already commercial area with existing signage. The addition of the proposed signs in this
intensely developed commercial area is not a significant impact. In addition, the Board of Architectural
Review, which is charged with preserving the character and appearance of the Town, approved the
Proposed Action by resolution at its February 18, 1999 meeting.
Conclusions and Findings
The Zoning Board of Appeals the Town of Mamaroneck has concluded that the Proposed
Action will not result in any large and/or important impacts. Accordingly, the Zoning Board hereby finds
that the Proposed Action would have no significant environmental effect. This negative declaration has
been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0.
WHEREAS, this Zoning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is an unlisted
action for purposes of SEQRA and, ADOPTED a Negative Declaration; and
On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Country Curtains Retail,Inc.has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to install awning signs. The front awning signs as proposed have graphics 24 in. in
height where a maximum of 6 in. is permitted pursuant to Section 175-11L; the rear awning sign has two
line graphics where only single line graphics are permitted pursuant to Section 175-11L for a retail business
in a B Business Zone District on the premises located at 1331 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411 Lot 119; 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 175-11L; and
WHEREAS, Country Curtains Retail, Inc. 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 or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 7
A. No undesirable will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor a
detriment to nearby properties created. The signage will be virtually identical
to the signage that exists now and will be existing immediately adjacent at the
Blockbuster Video location. Photographs of that area provided as part of the
application package demonstrates that the signage as proposed is consistent with
the signage used up and down the Boston Post Road and will not create any
change. In addition, the matter was referred to the Westchester County
Department of Planning. It stated the matter is non jurisdictional and it has no
comment;
B. The applicant cannot achieve its goals via a reasonable alternative. Given the
fact that individuals travel the Boston Post Road at relatively high speeds and the
way the property is situated on the Boston Post Road, in order for that sign to
be seen by passing motorists it has to be a reasonable size. The neighboring
signs all have same size type;
C. White the variance might be said to be substantial, it is justified because it is
consistent with signage already in place on that part of the Boston Post Road;
D. There will not be an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions;
E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare;
F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community;
G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 8
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2348
Application of Helen and Robert Chun requesting a variance to construct a stockade fence at the rear of
the property with varying heights from 10.0 ft. to approximately 13.0 ft. The fence as proposed has a
height of approximately 13.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in
an R-2F Zone District on the premises located at 24 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Lot 415.
Helen Chun, the owner, appeared and said she purchased the house on December 16, 1998. Currently
there is a 3 ft. wire fence and referred to color pictures provided to the Board this evening explaining the
conditions that exist at 24 Blossom Terrace, 26 Blossom Terrace and 28 Blossom Terrace regarding the
railroad tracks and fences. She stated on the bottom of page 2 is shown the property of her back yard,
showing the train tracks on ground level. The only protection she has is a 3 ft. wire fence. She is
requesting a stockade fence, 10 ft. to 13 ft., because of the grade of the property. She said a variance
granted to a neighbor a few years ago at 26 Blossom Terrace for a 6 ft. to 10 ft. fence. She would like
to level the top of the fence with her neighbor's fence.
Mr. Gunther asked if it will be horizontal across the top and then goes down, with which Ms. Chun
agreed.
Ms. Chun said different photos were submitted with the application. She said she will eventually landscape
in front of the fence to provide some cover, pos3ibly with Arborvitae.
Mr. Gunther asked how much space there is from the property line to the railroad tracks.
Ms. Chun said approximately 10 ft. to 15 ft. In speaking to the neighbors at 28 Blossom Terrace, Ms.
Chun was informed that the neighbors across the tracks have crossed over the tracks and walked through
her back yard. She would also like the fence for security.
Ms. Martin said it will be an attractive nuisance.
Mr. Gunther asked if there is a fence at 22 Blossom Terrace.
Ms. Chun said there is a 5 ft. or 6 ft. fence. Their property drops down 4 ft. from Ms. Chun's
in entirety, there is a retaining wall and the 3 ft. fence.
Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Chun if the only reason for the 10 ft. height is to match with 26 Blossom Terrace,
with which Ms. Chun agreed.
Mr. Wexler asked if the 10 ft. includes the differential in grade in this area.
Mr. Carpaneto said it can go from 10 ft. to 13 ft. to keep the top level.
Ms. Chun said the 10 ft. to 13 ft.just covers the train as it approaches.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked
if there were any questions from the public on this application.
Kay Santoro of 22 Blossom Terrace appeared. Ms. Santoro said she has no objection to the fence.
However, her property is at the bottom of the pit at the 13 ft. end. She has a 5 ft. fence and the
installation of the requested fence will be unsightly. Ms. Santoro presented five(5)pictures to the Board,
marked as exhibits 1 through 5. Exhibit#1 shows what currently exists.
Tom Santoro of 22 Blossom Terrace appeared. He said Ms. Chun mentioned 4 ft. Mr. Santoro said he
is at the lowest point on Blossom Terrace. Ms. Chun's property is already 6 ft. above their property.
With his 5 ft. fence in the back, if she installs 13 ft. and trys to come down to the end of Mr. Santoro's
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 9
property, it cannot be done because there is a county manhole. She would have to go around that and it
will look like a monstrosity. It would be almost 13 ft. above Mr. Santoro's property level. Exhibit#2
shows the fence as it comes around because of the manhole.
Mr. Santoro said the builder, rather than raise the manhole up to the property,put stones around it so the
manhole would not have to be raised.
Mr. Winick said it is outside the fence line as shown in exhibit#1, which Ms. Santoro verified.
After further discussion, Mr. Wexler said it would be helpful if the fence was drawn on the survey
submitted, as the only document submitted with the application is the survey and there is no site plan.
Mr. Gunther asked if the existing chin link fence is on the property line or closer to the house.
Ms. Chun said it is closer to the house, at which time a discussion ensued regarding same.
Ms. Martin asked if, in exhibit#5 shown from the rear, that is the fence return.
Ms. Chun said it is the fence return which is 3 ft. deep. The fence comes beyond that.
Mr. Gunther said Ms. Chun is referring to the fence on 26 Blossom Terrace as shown on the bottom
picture. The return coming up the side of the property is the difference between the property line and the
existing chain link fence.
Ms. Chun said the chain link fence is not straight across, it is diagonal. There is a part about 6 ft., 7 ft.
closer to her property.
Mr. Gunther asked if it goes around the outcropping of rock as shown in the pictures, with which Ms.
agreed.
Ms. Chun feels it is better to take it out to the property line and go straight across.
Ms. Santoro said exhibit#3 shows another position of the fence where it ends at this point. Exhibit#4
shows how the fence is laid out.
Mr. Gunther asked where the piece of fence is in exhibit#2.
Mr. Santoro said it is on his property line. The piece in the corner is where the manhole is, 5 ft. to 6 ft.
below his property line. Ms. Chun can't come down to the corner, because of the manhole.
Mr. Wexler said the application is deficient in laying out the fence as planned. It is hard to see what Ms.
Chun is proposing to do without seeing dimensions from the property line drawn on a plan showing where
the fence is going,taking into consideration the topography in the back, the depression around the manhole
and how that is going to be solved and to see what that impact has on the neighbor's property.
Mr. Winick said it would be very helpful to show the existing conditions and where the proposed fence
will be going,so the Board can see what the difference is. It will also be helpful to indicate the neighbor's
fence on the drawing, to get the proper perspective.
Ms. Santoro again questioned the 10 ft. to 13 ft. height, because of the layout of the land.
Mr. Gunther said he understands Ms. Santoro's question. The Board is not ready to make a decision on
this application at this point, because the Board feels more information is needed. The applicant will be
asked to go to the fence contractor and map out exact dimensions, make clear what the impact is of the
fence and have conversations with the neighbor about another approach on how to construct the fence to
lessen the height and find a reasonable way to solve the situation.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 10
A lengthy conversation ensued regarding the height of the fence, the position and height of the manhole
and the inclusion of elevations on the new drawings to be submitted.
Mr. Simon suggested the applicant submit an updated survey.
Mr. Wexler informed Ms. Chun that the fence contractor can do what is being requested. The Board
wants Ms. Chun to present a layout of what she is proposing to do.
Mr. Gunther informed Ms. Chun if she has any questions to contact the Building Department.
Mr. Santoro asked if the Board wants the fence shown on the rear property line as it exists, which was
verified.
Mr. Simon said a survey should be submitted also.
Mr. Gunther said a topographical feature is not shown on the survey that was provided.
Ms. Chun asked what is needed now.
Mr. Carpaneto asked Ms. Chun to have the fence contractor to contact him.
Mr. Gunther suggested that while the plan is being put together, to take a look at the property in the back
and recognize what the impact is going to be by bringing the fence all the way across or sloping the fence
down with the property to lessen the impact or stepping it.
Mr. Wexler said Mr. Chun is proposing to put a span of dense Arborvitae that will eventually block the
fence totally in growth. It should be noted that there is a rather substantial negative impact with the train
that is beyond it.
Mr. Santoro said where the fence ends, they will be looking at 17 ft. to 18 ft. of fence.
Ms. Chun said there were trees there before, that had to be taken down because they were dead.
Ms. Santoro said they are not objecting fence, but they want to know how it is going to effect them.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public on this application.
Angelo Rigano of 18 Blossom Terrace, who lives next door to the Santoros, appeared and said he has lived
at that address for forty years. The property line is about 35 ft. from the railroad, 12 ft. from the property
line, to where the sewer goes through. There is a manhole on his property, the Santoro's property and
the Chun's property which goes all the way down to Fenimore Road. They have a 5 ft. fence, and if you
look along the fence of their property there is just about a 5 ft. difference in it. There are two families
with fences and they step down. If Ms. Chun steps the fence down like the others have, the trees will be
fine. He has planted tress in the back of his property and they have grown, but it takes a while. The
railroad had a fence there at one time.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions.
Ms. Chun said that the fence at 28 Blossom Terrace and 26 Blossom Terrace steps down 1 ft. If Ms. Chun
steps down 1 ft. it will still be 9 ft. to 12 ft. and asked how far down does she need to bring it.
Mr. Gunther asked why it has to be 10 ft.
Ms. Chun said she wanted it to cover the railroad from the first floor.
Mr. Wexler asked the height of the sound barriers.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 11
Mr. Carpaneto said the height is 20 ft. to 25 ft.
Ms. Chun said it is unfortunate that the property drops that much.
Mr. Gunther said that Arborvitae grow to 60 ft. and asked Mr. Rigano how tall his tree are.
Mr. Rigano said his Arborvitae are 30 ft., but it took forty years.
Mr. Winick told Ms. Chun to talk to the building inspector. The Board is encouraging Ms. Chun to talk
to her neighbor and try to address their concerns as best she can to minimize the impact.
Mr. Wexler said the application before the Board is for a fence no higher than 13 ft. The Board, with her
approval, can suggest a fence lower than that at a meeting, if they deem that is what is required. The
Board cannot suggest a fence higher than that, because in that case it has to be renoticed. What is
proposed can be adjusted at a meeting. Mr. Wexler suggested Ms. Chun work out the visual softness with
the neighbors and then return to the Board. He informed Ms. Chun not to worry about the height, at this
point.
On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2348 be, and hereby is,adjourned to the April 28,
1999 Zoning Board meeting.
Mr. Gunther said the application will be the first heard at that meeting.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 4- CASE 2349
Application of David Morse requesting a variance to construct a deck and stairs. The deck as proposed
has a front yard of 23.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and further, the deck
and stairs increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a
residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 150 Rockingstone Avenue and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116 Lot 591.
David Morse of 150 Rockingstone Avenue, and John Woodruff, the architect, appeared.
Mr. Woodruff said that Mr. Morse has an existing set of stairs at the back of his house which go up 12
ft. and are in poor shape. They are not made out of pressure treated lumber and the rise and run of the
stair is difficult to navigate. Every day Mr. Morse comes home, parks in his driveway and then goes up
the steps and is constantly using the steps. Since the steps need to be repaired, the applicant has decided
to try to fix a few of the existing problems at the house. The first thing was to change the rise and run
of the stairs, as the stairs currently go straight up in one straight run. An intermediate platform has been
introduced which goes up to approximately 31/2 ft., then walk across the platform and go up at a much
more slight rise and run providing a deeper tread and not as high a riser. It doesn't make it as steep, and
makes it easier for the two small children and everyone to navigate. The second change is putting a small
roof over the upper deck area, which will help to keep.the snow off the upper deck and make life a little
easier. The third change is because of the way the property is situated. Approximately 7'h ft. to 8 ft. in
front of the house there are a lot of mature plantings,tall,beautiful rhododendrons. The distance between
those plants and the house is basically sitting unused. The applicant would like to capture some of that
unused space between the plantings and the house with a small 31/2 ft. deck above the ground,which would
go underneath the stairs picking up a small area about 16 ft. by 7 ft. for a lawn chair and also have a set
of stairs that go back down to the rest of the yard. The applicant will keep the mature plantings as
currently exist, trimming them down to 4 ft. or 5 ft.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 12
Mr. Morse said he will probably move the rhododendron against the property line on Chatsworth Avenue
because it will be too shaded, to screen it further from the street.
Mr. Woodruff said the applicant will have plantings screening the deck.
Mr. Morse said the rhododendron are about 7 ft. out from the house.
Mr. Woodruff said the finish of the deck will match the existing finish, which is a white painted railing,
and that all the trim on the house is white. Currently the deck and stairs are pushed tight against the house
and the steps will be widened making access easier. Mr. Woodruff said the house is on a corner lot.
Mr. Wexler asked about the new roof and if Mr. Woodruff is going to cut the overhang off on the
building.
Mr. Woodruff said he had not planned on doing that and worked hard to set the height to be able to walk
underneath the steps and use some of that space under the steps.
After further discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There
being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr.
Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,
5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, David Morse has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with
plans to construct a deck and stairs. The deck as proposed has a front yard of 23.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is
required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and further, the deck and stairs increase the extent by which the
building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the
premises located at 150 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 116 Lot 591; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(1), Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, David Morse 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 or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. Based on review of the application,knowledge of the community and review of
this specific site, no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 13
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created. The plan as detailed
by the applicant and architect is an aesthetically pleasing solution to the problem;
B. There is not a reasonable alternative to the applicant in this instance, as the
stairs are in poor condition. The proposed plan is an improvement in safety and
access to his house;
•
C. It is not a substantial variance. The applicant is burdened by the location of the
property which has two(2)front yards. These onerous setback requirements are
not faced by the majority of the community;
D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. It will improve the physical and environmental
conditions in the neighborhood by providing a safe access to the house and use
of the property;
E. The difficulty is not self-created, because of the unusual access to the house
through the steep stairway. The applicant is making the best out of a difficult
situation.
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (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.
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:
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 14
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2350
Application of Iven Taub and Diane Dockler requesting a variance to construct a portico over an existing
front step. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 28.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to
Section 240-39B(1); and further, the portico 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 12 Dante
Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 16.
Iven Taub appeared and informed the Board that the co-owner's name is Duckler not Dockler and
introduced Arnold Wile, the architect.
Mr. Wile said the applicant proposes to build 28 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required,
in order to provide an overhang portico. He presented three (3)pictures to the Board marked exhibit 1,
2, and 3. Currently there is a 49 in. deep platform and the applicant proposes to build a small roof over
that exiting platform.
Mr. Winick asked what the depth of the roof will be.
Mr. Wile said the depth of the roof will be 4 ft.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Wile for an explanation of picture. #3.
Mr. Wile said picture #3 just shows the complete picture of the house.
Mr. Gunther asked that the record reflect that exhibit#1 refers to a picture of the house taken from across
the street from the subject property and exhibit#2 and#3 refer to the subject property. He asked if there
were any questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from
the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick,
the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Iven Taub and Diane Duckler have submitted an application to the Building
Inspector, together with plans to construct a portico over an existing front step. The portico as proposed
has a front yard of 28.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); and further, the
portico 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 12 Dante Street and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 16; 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, Iven Taub and Diane Duckler 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:
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 15
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 or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. There will be virtually no change to the neighborhood, except perhaps an
aesthetic improvement, nor a detriment to nearby properties created by this
proposal. The proposed improvement is similar to that of the house across the
street, and it is similar to many other properties that are in the area;
B. The applicant cannot achieve his goal of obtaining shelter at the front door,
without providing some form of structure. In as much as the depth is the same
as the existing stair, it is both a rational depth and perhaps the only one that
would be capable of providing shelter on the existing stair;
C. The variance is not substantial;
D. It will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district;
E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare;
F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community;
G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (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.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2351
Application of Marianne Hoffman and Peter Robb requesting a variance to legalize an existing enclosed,
screened porch and existing accessory one-car garage. The existing enclosed screened porch to be legalized
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 16
has a side yard of 5.7 ft. where 8.0 ft is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);the existing enclosed
screened porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for
a residence in an R-6 Zone District; the existing accessory one-car garage to be legalized has a front yard
setback of 28.6 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39 (3)(b); and further, the existing
arePssory one-car garage has a rear yard setback of 3.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section
240-39(3)(b)for an accessory building in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 33 Cooper Lane
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 534.
Marianne Hoffman and Peter Robb of 33 Cooper Lane appeared to address the Board.
Mr. Robb said the requests are all existing. The garage has been in existence for forty-five(45)years or
more and the porch is also existing. The applicants discovered these problems when closing on the house
in November, 1998, at which time the closing was performed contingent upon receiving a variance for
same.
Mr. Gunther asked if the applicants knew how long the porch and garage existing on the property.
Mr. Robb said there were no Certificates of Occupancy in the file when they were built,and they have no
dates. He said the previous owner was supposed to rectify this situation and did not do so.
Ms. Hoffman said the owners were not aware that there were no Certificates of Occupancy until the title
search occurred.
Mr. Wexler asked how long the previous owners owned the house.
Ms. Hoffman said the previous owners owned the house for twenty(20)years. Ms. Robb said the garage
is in the same architectural form and materials as the house.
Ms. Martin asked when the house was built.
Ms. Hoffman said the house was built in 1924.
Mr. Robb said the previous owner said this was all existing well before they purchased the house. Mr.
Robb reiterated that the closing was contingent upon the granting of the variances and a Certificate of
Occupancy obtained.
After review and discussion by Board members, reference was made to the latest update of the Town of
Mamaroneck Assessment Tax Map showing property locations. Mr. Carpaneto said on the tax map in his
possession, it was updated in 1940. When individuals get title searches, the title company guarantees that
there are no violations of record. If there are violations,usually an attorney will handle whatever problems
arise.
Ms. Hoffman said the title search said there were no violations of record.
Mr. Robb said that the title company intimated it is a common problem.
Mr. Wexler made comment on the property line footage shown on the tax map, in regard to the various
property lines at this location.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions form Board members. There were none.
Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and it is non-
jurisdictional.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 17
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on
motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED
unanimously, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Marianne Hoffman and Peter Robb have submitted an application to the Building
Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing enclosed, screened porch and existing accessory one-
car garage. The existing enclosed screened porch to be legalized has a side yard of 5.7 ft. where 8.0 ft
is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);the existing enclosed screened porch increases the extent by
which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District;
the existing accessory one-car garage to be legalized has a front yard setback of 28.6 ft. where 30.0 ft. is
required pursuant to Section 240-39(3)(b); and further, the existing accessory one-car garage has a rear
yard setback of 3.0 ft.where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39(3)(b)for an accessory building
in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 33 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map
of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 534; 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 240-69, Section 240-39(3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Marianne Hoffman and Peter Robb 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 or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. Based on review of the application and inspection of the property in question,
no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to nearby properties created. Based on the available records, the
garage and porch on this property that are in question have existed in their
present location and condition for more than forty (40) years;
B. There is no reasonable alternative to the applicant. To move or reconstruct
these structures would certainly not be reasonable;
C. While the variance is substantial in the sense that the garage is located very
close to the property line, a review of the surrounding properties from the tax
map indicates that this is a common condition in the neighborhood and should
not be viewed as an unusual situation;
D. In that regard, there is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. This is the way it has existed and
should continue to exist as such;
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 18
E. The difficulty is not self-created, as it has been in existence for a long time.
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare;
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community;
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2352
Application of Eugene Pressman requesting a variance to legalize an existing pillar. The pillar as
constructed has a height of 6 ft. 10 in. where 6 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52B for a pillar
in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417 Lot 107.
Mitchell Baker,an attorney of 1 North Lexington Avenue,White Plains,NY,appeared for attorney Steven
Gaines, his partner, who has appeared before this Board on this matter and could not be present this
evening to represent the applicant. Mr. Baker stated that the Board should be familiar with the
circumstances in this matter and that he will answer any questions that the Board may have.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Baker what the applicant plans to do with the two columns that have already been
built.
Mr. Baker said it is his understanding the two columns were built, one at 6 ft. and the second one at 6 ft.
10 in., under a permit issued by the Building Department. It was determined that the permit was issued
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 19
incorrectly. He stated Mr. Gaines had appeared before the Board and was advised to make an application
for a variance for the 6 ft. 10 in. pier.
Ms. Wexler asked if at that time there was a question about an electrical wiring or conduit on the top for
future light and what the final determination was.
Mr. Carpaneto said that was in the front and did not count.
Ms. Martin asked if there will be additional construction.
Mr. Baker said he didn't believe so, as the property is on the market for sale.
Ms. Martin said she didn't mean with respect to the entire property,just with respect to the columns i.e.
fencing, gating.
Mr. Baker said the applicant has done everything he is going to do.
Mr. Gunther took a moment to review Mr. Gaines' letter and asked Mr. Baker what would be required
to make the pillar conform.
Mr. Baker said he believes the applicant would have to hire a stone mason. He is not sure of the costs
involved,but it may be in the thousands of dollars. He reiterated that it was built under the building permit
that was issued at that time, and it is not a self-imposed hardship. It was done for aesthetic reasons to keep
the balance of the columns, rather than imbalance to the view.
Mr. Gunther asked what was requested in the original building permit.
Mr. Baker said he did not know exactly what it said, but a permit was issued, the Board has the plans, it
was built and approved. He said it states the height, but does not know if it had the elevations on the
building permit.
Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Carpaneto had a copy of what was originally allowed when the building permit
was issued.
Mr. Carpaneto said that is not included in this package. He stated the only problem determined at the last
meeting was the grade around the wall.
Mr. Gunther said he is not referring to the request for determination, but what was originally requested
and asked if it is possible for Mr. Carpaneto to get the files pertaining to this matter.
At this time, Mr. Gunther adjourned for a few moments to allow Mr. Carpaneto to retrieve the files.
The meeting reconvened after a few minutes, when Mr. Carpaneto returned with the files.
Lauren Miralia of 210 Hommocks Road addressed the Board. Mr. Miralia made a suggestion to the Board
in that identifying that building permit, that permit was revoked in the process of the construction and the
building department may not have it.
Mr. Carpaneto said a building permit was approved April 21, 1993.
Mr. Miralia said the plans changed and that permit wasn't used.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carpaneto if it requires office research time to go through the files, with which
Mr. Carpaneto agreed.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 20
Mr. Baker said if there are questions he will consent to an adjournment, to allow his office to answer any
questions the Board may have.
Mr. Wexler asked what is the relevance of finding a permit, at this point in time, since there was a whole
proceeding prior to this to vacate that permit.
Mr. Gunther said he wants to establish what was built,was it built based upon what the Town has allowed
to be built and it was after the fact that it was incorrect. If the Town said the applicant can build
something, or did the applicant willfully did something beyond what was specifically allowed within the
permit that was requested. The Board as a whole will make a determination, but Mr. Gunther would ask
the applicant to return the pillars to the condition that was originally requested if the applicant went beyond
what was permitted by the Town.
Mr. Wexler said given irregular topography when doing a site plan and you come to an end wall condition
that states 6 ft. and you don't know exactly what the end result will be because of the run. It is 500 ft.
long and is a very small dimension on the drawing. You have a 6 ft. height elevation that goes from 6.5
ft., 6.4 ft., 6.3 ft. etc. to keep the concept of what is being built along. That is what happens as a matter
of working the site. He did not intend to make it 6 ft. 10 in., he intended to make it 6 ft. high. The
ground dipped at that point and for aesthetic reasons this happened. This was a mistake that happened,
not willfully. From the point of view of the practicality and of what would look best in the environment,
it is conventional piers.
Mr. Gunther said it is certainly important,essential information for the Board to know what the background
information is so they can go from there and take everything into consideration. The applicant's letter just
reviewed what the Board looks at every time they review an application for a variance, that is whether the
benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community is a weighing factor the Board has to use.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr.
Gunther asked if Mr. Miralia wished to address the Board.
Lauren Miralia,who resides at 210 Hommocks Road which is directly across from the Pressman's, spoke
in opposition to the request for a variance. He said he has been appearing before the Board every year
since 1994 on this issue and revisited in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 through Article 78's. One
ruling in favor of the Pressmans by Supreme Court Justice Colabella was reversed on Mr. Miralia's appeal
to the Appellate Division of the Court. He is before the Board this evening to oppose the variance request
for several very important reasons. Mr. Miralia said that no one knows where 6 ft. 10 in. came from.
While the Board might interpret 10 in. as not substantial in changing the character of the neighborhood,
he submitted seven (7) photographs, numbered one (1) through seven (7), taken today which are labeled
on the back. Mr. Miralia said in the long photograph,#1, is the actual post height taken at the level where
the old macadam road was before the neighbors reportedly used a termite mound, 8 ft. 8 in., when
excavated today down through the termite mound to the top of the capital. He tried to show that in the
photographs, but it is not really clear.
Mr. Wexler asked the height of the pier on the other side.
Mr. Miralia said that Mr. Carpaneto said the height of the pier on the other side is 6 ft., at which time a
discussion ensued with Mr. Carpaneto stating the height of the pier is 71 in.
Mr.Wexler said he is looking at the photograph and the mound,which is disturbing to him,not the height.
Mr. Miralia said they appeared before the Board last fall and several questions were raised by the Board.
One of the questions raised was, is the pier a free-standing pier or connected to a wall. The pictures
clearly show it is connected to a wall. What the Board may not remember is that in 1995 the Board,
because of that, turned down the Pressmans and Mr. Pressman filed an Article 78. Mr. Miralia intervened
with the Town when the Board received the Article 78 by Mr. Pressman, and it was taken to the Supreme
Court. At that time, the Board, in October '95,had a discussion among themselves and said that this was
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 21
in violation and referred to Mr. Jakubowski's letter of November 1995 saying the piers must be removed.
The Board agreed with that, the word got back to Mr. Pressman and the two pillars in question this evening
were constructed between the October '95 meeting of this Board and the meeting of November at which
case it was reduced to writing, then the Town gave birth to Local Law 396, which was being enacted at
that time. Mr. Pressman went out in that one month interval and built these piers, knowing he was going
to be turned down. When Mr. Pressman received the letter, he said it was already up and was restoring
it. Mr. Miralia suggested to the Board that Mr. Pressman has no entitlement because they come up out
of the ground with very large RH-beams in the center, the Fanmont was moved from the front post that
used to be there to the side and not only is he not entitled but he is trespassing. He has the mounds on
people's property other than his. He has the posts and pillars/columns at the zero lot line,there is perhaps
an inch tolerance on his own survey. Mr. Miralia said last fall he gave a copy of the survey to the Board
and does not now have one. That mound is now coming onto the reserve strip. In looking at the
photographs today, Mr. Miralia dug a trench down to where the reserve strip used to be paved and
measured from there to the top of the capital.
Mr. Wexler asked what the wall was like in the hole that Mr. Miralia dug.
Mr. Miralia said the wall is fine, he didn't dig at the wall but at the column and it is exactly the same
thing. Mr. Pressman had done serious excavation, because at one time he wanted to install large gates
there.
Mr. Wexler said if this mound was taken away, at this time, there is a pier that is higher than 6 ft. 10 in.,
but looks homogeneous in visual down to that grade level, with which Mr. Miralia agreed.
Mr. Miralia said he would like to get this over with. The simplest answer is to reduce the height of the
other post to be consistent with the 6 ft. post and nobody would have a problem.
Mr. Wexler said the picture was cleverly presented in that it does not show the wall that is adjacent to the
other pier. Mr. Wexler asked if the pier on Hommocks Road was taken down, would it be lower than the
wall attached to it.
Mr. Miralia said it would be higher. In 1983, when Mr. Pressman and his wife brought the property,
there were some there, Mr. Pressman took them down and installed the new ones. At that time, the pier
was reduced to 6 ft. from its the existing height. If it comes back to 6 ft. to be in compliance with the new
code, then the adjoining pier, has to come down by the same amount to 6 ft.
Mr. Wexler said if that was taken down, would the pier that is currently legal be higher than the stone wall
it is attached to.
Mr. Miralia said yes. The front piers were already reduced to 5 ft. He said Mr. Carpaneto interpreted
last fall that the capitals on top were viewed as a decorative accessory, are not standing on top of the
capitals and are deemed to be 5 ft. tall in the front of the house. If the offending post is taken down to
a height of 6 ft., the maximum allowable, and reduced to size of the other one asked about, it would
probably be about 1' to 2 ft. higher than the wall.
Mr. Winick said to have them measured at 6 ft. high.
Mr. Miralia said he did measure. He stated that the Board has endured, because this has been going on
for several years. Mr. Pirro tired to convince the Board that an 8 ft. wall is really a 3 ft. wall on top of
a 5 ft. retaining wall. Mr. Miralia would measure from each of the four corners of the pier.
Mr. Baker referred to the picture where Mr. Miralia dug down to some old macadam road and said he does
not know what the existing conditions are and that isn't the proper reference point to measure up from.
Mr. Wexler said the question in front of the Board is that the applicant has a pier that is higher than 6 ft.
and is asking for a variance. The question now is whether it is a 10 in. variance.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 22
Mr. Winick reiterated his question regarding the 6 ft. 10 in. height.
Mr. Wexler said the Board can ask for more information. Mr. Wexler said the impact of this to the
environment is the question that the Board should address.
Mr. Gunther said he would guess that the measurement of 6 ft. 10 in. is from on top of the dirt pile
adjacent to the pier measured to the top. Prior to the dirt being shoveled against the pier it was 8 ft.plus.
At that point this Board had a problem with that. The decision was based on that issue and it was
determined that this pier was not in conformity. The building inspector originally measured from the top
of the mound to the top of the pier, 6 ft., but know there is an artificial creation of leveling creating an
artificial situation and the pillar is not in conformance. The options for the applicant, Mr. Pressman, is
either to correct this situation or ask for a variance which is being done.
Mr. Baker said he is not sure if the 6 ft. 10 in. is from the top of the mound. In regard to Mr. Miralia's
excavation efforts,in looking at the pictures and in conversations with the Building Inspectors,Mr.Miralia
went down to some old macadam road to measure. Mr. Pressman is trying to make it look nice, make it
look even and is trying to balance the equities of the situation,which is for the Board's determination. Any
information the Board wants or needs, he will be more than willing to provide and will answer all the
Board's questions. He said it speaks for itself.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Miralia if he had any questions.
Mr. Miralia said in working hard interpreting this situation for several years regarding the new law in
1996, and believes by granting this variance it is condoning an illegal action which is the opinion of his
counsel, Mr. Maker, who could not be present this evening. What they did was flout the decision of this
Board twice. They were sent notices of violation by both Mr. Jakubowski and Mr. Carpaneto. Their
remedy has been everything from Article 78's to filing a new application. If they knew what the new
Town Code was going to say, drafted 6-3-1996,when they built the posts, they knew by a straw vote taken
and had an actual vote and were notified, the posts were already up. Mr. Miralia watched the laborers
work all weekend. They finished the pillars at 5:00 p.m. Sunday night.
Ms. Gallent said in reference to the legal standard, all of this may be true and she is not disagreeing with
Mr. Miralia, but the Board is constrained by the law. Ms. Gallent said the law states that the Board must
weigh the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community and consider the five factors set
out in the Town Law.
Mr. Winick said the problem he has is when this was measured it was measured from a mound of dirt.
Ms. Gallent said that Mr. Carpaneto measured from the top of the mound and said it is 6 ft. high. The
Board said it can't be measured from the top of the mound, it has to be measured from the finish grade.
Mr. Miralia said it appeared in the Minutes of October 28, 1998.
Mr. Wexler said the Board had lengthy meetings on piers when the Decision was vacated, and asked why
this argument wasn't brought up then.
Mr. Miralia said he can only surmise when the Board revoked one single pier in violation and let the other
three piers remain as legal, the two in the front and the other one on the side, that Mr. Pressman would
again file an Article 78 against the Board and the building inspector. Nothing was done until January. The
violation date was returned February 9. They didn't return or discuss anything with Mr. Carpaneto to Mr.
Miralia's knowledge. Then came the application for a variance. This goes back to last fall when Mr.
Miralia filed an Article 78 on a standby basis to rebut Mr. Pressman if he filed one. When Mr. Miralia
realized the time for filing had expired, the Article 78 was withdrawn. It was not intended to punish the
Board, but to simply work with the Board. Mr. Miralia said to his knowledge the Board has never been
asked to make a decision on columns, piers and posts under the new code. Mr. Miralia would like to see
the requested variance denied.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 23
Mr. Baker said Mr. Miralia has not mentioned anything about the detriment to the public health,welfare,
safety or anything of that nature.
Mr. Miralia said in Section 267-b3, are the five criteria to be analyzed and gave his personal response to
each.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.
Mr. Simon asked how the 6 ft. height was determined.
Mr. Carpaneto said it was determined by the side wall, which was 5 ft. and then 1 ft. higher.
Mr. Simon said it seems the applicant is playing a game. The pillar was built from grade, the grade was
raised and that it not legal.
Ms. Gallent said the Board has determined that it was not legal. The only question before the Board is if
a variance can be granted to permit the pillars to remain the same height.
Mr. Gunther said if the Board determines that the mound is inconsistent and it really is the grade, the
Board has to then determine the height from the reserve strip grade. If it is more than 10 in., the
application will have to be renoticed.
Mr. Wexler said if the Board looks at the photographs Mr. Miralia submitted,one shows an existing wall
that is next to an adjoining pillar toward the water. The intersection at the bottom of that existing wall and
the grade that is there would probably be the existing grade that was established along that part. It should
be established at that point as close to the mound as possible, the difference in elevation to the top of the
cap, and that dimension, the grade of 6 ft. 10 in., should be resubmitted as a variance so that the Board
can understand the impact of that height and move forward from there.
Mr. Baker asked for clarification, which Mr. Wexler provided.
Mr. Gunther said Mr. Wexler is referring to the bottom of the old existing wall from the pillar toward the
water where it meets to the grade before the mounding upward to the top under the cap.
Mr. Baker said a few inches could be lost because of the natural slope.
A discussion ensued regarding establishing the grade by the reserve strip.
Ms. Gallent said that Mr. Carpaneto will measure.
Mr. Wexler asked if the 6 ft. measurement is tc the underside of the capital.
Mr. Baker said the 6 ft. includes the capital.
Mr. Wexler would also like an elevation of that small portion showing the height of the piers, what the
affect would be if one was cut down or two were cut down, and is this inconsistent with the piers on that
block in height, as the piers vary greatly on that block.
Mr. Gunther said that is a different kind of an issue. One of the issues is what was the basis for this being
put up in the first place. If the basis was incorrect, it does make a difference because the action is illegal
from the beginning.
Ms. Gallent said that is not true. Everyone acknowledges this is illegal and that is why a variance is being
requested. Maybe what Mr. Gunther is referring to is one of the factors, and what Mr. Wexler is referring
to is another one of the factors. Whether it was self-created or not is a factor, too. It is relevant, but is
not determinative under the law.
Zoning Board
March 17, 1999
Page 24
Mr. Winick said there is skilled counsel in a skilled neighborhood. He doesn't feel the Board has to advise
them how to argue the case. Let them do what they do and in a month present their case to the Board.
Mr. Miralia reminded Mr. Wexler of the question he just raised, said it was discussed for about an hour
in 1995, it is in the Village of Mamaroneck and not in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Mr. Wexler said it is the most beautiful street in the community, from his point of view, and it is the
environment that counts.
On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2352 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the April 28,
1999 Zoning Board meeting.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on April 28, 1999.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gunther said that the approval of the previous Minutes will be held over until the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
41916(4t
Mar to Roma, Recording Secretary