Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_05_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 27, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Absent: Patrick B. Kelleher J. Rene Simon Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building • Michelle Nieto,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 stated that regular business,review of Minutes,will be carried over to the end.of the meeting. He said that two Board members are unable to attend, Mr. Simon is ill and Mr. Kelleher is out of town. He explained that three Board members are present, sufficient to take action on the application before the Board. If the applicant decides not to proceed but wait for a full Board at the next meeting, advise the Board when the application is called and the matter will be postponed to the next meeting. In order for a variance to be granted, three members must be in favor. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2307 Application of Mr. &Mrs. A. Ohebshalom requesting a variance to construct a den extension into the open front porch. The extension of the den would have a front yard of 39.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1); and further, the extension increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 2 Lakewood Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Lot 157. Larry Gordon, the architect, of 17 No. Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont appeared, along with Albert Ohebshalom of 2 Lakewood Lane, Larchmont. Mr. Gordon said the applicant is proposing to extend the existing den into what is now a covered porchway. The proposed construction will not go any further than the existing house, which is nonconforming. Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant is moving the front line of the den to match the existing front line of the garage, which Mr. Gordon verified. Mr.Gunther asked how many square feet is being added to the house and the percentage of the whole. Mr. Gordon said 72 sq. ft. is being added to the house, which constitutes 3% of the total area of the house. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There were none. Ms. Gallent said the matter had been referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, thirty days have elapsed, and no comment has been received. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. A. Ohebshalom have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a den extension into the open front porch. The extension of the den would have a front yard of 39.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1); and further, the extension increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240- 69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 2 Lakewood Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Lot 157; 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 240-34B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. A. Ohebshalom 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 fmdings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor a detriment to nearby n ronerties as the proposed construction does not increase the footprint of the house; B. There is no reasonable alternative for the applicant to achieve his goals; C. The variance is not substantial. It only effects 3% of the entire size of the house; D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 3 E. It is not a self-created difficulty in this case; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 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. A discussion ensued regarding the variance requested and the line shown on the survey which was incorrectly drawn. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2308 Application of Mr. &Mrs. Alan Sutin requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition. The one- story addition as proposed would have a side yard setback of 6.81 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(a); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 819. John Cotugno, the architect, of 15 Claremont Road, Scarsdale appeared, along with Alan Sutin of 21 Copley Road. Mr. Cotugno said the applicant is proposing a one-story addition to the rear of the house; i.e. a kitchen addition in line with the existing house which is 6.8 ft. It will be 3 in. in from the existing house and will extend back 18 ft. A garage will be demolished, which is less than 6 in. from the property line. The conformity of the lot is being greatly increased by demolishing and relocating the garage to a conforming position on the property. The property is oddly shaped, with streets on all three sides. The kitchen is being made larger and the garage relocated. All the neighbors were notified. Mr. Sutin said he personally Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 4 reviewed and discussed the plans with the neighbors. He then presented the Board with a letters signed by the neighbors, all in favor of the proposed addition. Mr. Gunther read the letters addressed to the Zoning Board, marked as exhibit 1, which are a part of the record. Mr. Wexler said it appears the applicant needs a variance for the deck on Kenmare Road side. A discussion ensued regarding the three front yards and the required yards. • Mr. Wexler informed the applicant that he would have to apply for a separate variance for the deck, or return next month and present an amended application. Ms. Gallent said the applicant can proceed with what is before the Board, but the deck cannot be considered because it was not part of the public notice. Mr. Sutin said he will proceed with what is currently presented and will refile for the deck as shown on the plans. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Alan Sutin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story addition. The one-story addition as proposed would have a side yard setback of 6.81 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(a); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 819; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted fail to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Alan Sutin submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. An undesirable change will not be created by the proposed construction; • Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 5 B. The variance requested is not substantial given the size and shape of the property; C. The applicants cannot achieve their goals in any other manner; D. It is not a self-created difficulty; E. The property is a uniquely shaped piece of property bordered by roads on three sides, therefore the required setbacks are greater than for a typical parcel. The proposed addition is no closer to the side property line than the house presently exists. The removal of the existing garage and the construction of the new garage brings that portion of the property more in compliance; 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 is limited to the construction of the one-story addition and garage, and does not include the deck that is shown on the drawing. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Ms. Gallent stated this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board more than a month ago and no comment has been received. At this point in time after some discussion, the Board scheduled the next Zoning Board meeting for June 17, 1998. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2309 Application of Nicholas Radcliffe requesting a variance to maintain an enclosed entry and frame open porch. The front entry as built has an existing front yard setback of 14.8 ft. and the open porch has an Zoning Board • May 27, 1998 Page 6 existing setback of 8.8 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the new construction would further increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 73 Chester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 302. Nicholas Radcliffe of 73 Chester Place appeared. Mr. Radcliffe stated that when he originally came before the Board the calculations used were based on the original survey which was incorrect. A subsequent survey revealed the house was not in compliance, hence the reapplication. Mr. Radcliffe said the porch looks nice, and the neighbors are pleased. Mr. Gunther asked about the difference between what was built and what was approved. Mr. Carpaneto said in 1997 the setback was 9.7 ft. versus 8.8 ft. Mr. Gunther asked who performed the construction. Mr. Radcliffe stated Greg Fernandez, D.P.A. Contracting Corp. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Nicholas Radcliffe has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an enclosed entry and frame open porch. The front entry as built has a front yard setback of 14.8 ft. and the open porch has a setback of 8.8 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the new construction further increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 73 Chester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 302; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(1), Section 240-69; and 'WHEREAS, Nicholas Radcliffe submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board, finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor a detriment to nearby properties created; Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 7 B. There is no reasonable alternative to the applicant; C. It is not a substantial variance. The variance is deminimis(less than one foot); D. There will be no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; E. The need for a variance is not self-created, as it is the result of a mismeasurement; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther stated for the record that the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, and no comment was received. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2310 Application of Remodeling Consultants for Brant&Sheryl Mailer requesting a variance to construct a rear extension for a new bedroom and breakfast area and remodel kitchen. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 8 ft. 11 in. where 10.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a);a rear yard of 14.0 feet where 25.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 209 Lot 227. Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 8 Ms. Martin stated for the record that she is acquainted with one of the applicants, Sheryl Mailer, and does not feel it will have any bearing on her being able to give an objective opinion. Eric Jacobsen of 500 Halstead Avenue, Mamaroneck, and Robert Ciamei of 500 Halstead Avenue, Mamaroneck, of Remodeling Consultants, the architects for the project appeared, accompanied by Brant Mailer and Sheryl Mailer of 7 Winged Foot Drive. Mr. Jacobsen said they are present to make application for a variance for the rear yard setback being encroaching upon and extending an existing nonconforming side yard setback. The rear yard setback is also an existing nonconformity. At the present time there is about 17' ft. off the rear yard proposed to be increased 3' ft. to about 14 ft. for the main addition and extend the existing nonconformity side yard to 8.11 ft. The addition will contain the remodeled kitchen which currently is small and outdated, a breakfast room which is currently small, a fourth bedroom which will be used by the applicant's mother and powder room. The rear yard is bordered by Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Wexler asked if it runs all the way along the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Jacobsen said he was not sure. Mr. Jacobsen submitted for the record a letter, dated May 1, 1998, signed by all the abutting neighbors who are in favor of the proposed construction,which Mr..Gunther read and is a part of the record marked exhibit#1. Mr. Gunther referred to the tax map of Block 209 to peruse the house in relationship to other houses and the Town of Mamaroneck park area. A discussion ensued regarding the conservation area. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Eric Jacobsen of Remodeling Consultants,representing Brant and Sheryl Mailer,has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear extension for a new bedroom and breakfast area and remodel kitchen. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 8 ft. 11 in. where 10.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); a rear yard of 14.0 feet where 25.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 209 Lot 227; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-36B(2)(a), Section 240-36B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Eric Jacobsen of Remodeling Consultants, representing Brant and Sheryl Mailer, submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 9 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The addition will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor be a detriment to nearby properties; B. Given the irregular shape of the property and the location of the existing structure to its property lines, the applicant had no reasonable alternative to successfully create the required space within the required setbacks of the zone; C. In this instance, the variance is not substantial given the fact that the building presently exists 171/2 ft. from the rear property line and the request is for an encroachment of approximately 3 to 3' ft. greater for the rear setback. The side property line is no closer than presently exists on the house; D. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,given the fact that area most effected is the rear of the property which is a buffer to a conservation area of approximately 200 ft. in width; E. The difficulty is not self-created by the applicant; •F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 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. Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 10 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 house for the building permit. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2311 Mr. Gunther informed the Board and the public that Application No. 5 - Case 2311 had been withdrawn. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2312 Application of Daniel Teboul requesting a variance to construct a deck addition at the rear of the house. The deck addition as proposed has a rear yard of 20.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3) for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 38 Orchard Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Lot 246. Mr. Gunther stated for the record he is acquainted with the applicant as he lives on the same street, and he has no interest in his property or any business dealings with him. Ms. Gallent asked Mr. Gunther if his acquaintance with the applicant will prevent him from making an objective decision. Mr. Gunther said it will have not have any bearing on his decision. Daniel Teboul of 28 Orchard Road, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Teboul explained he is proposing to build an 11 ft. by 15 ft. deck and explained how the deck will be accessed. One area of the deck will be 10 ft. away from the property line, another area is 25 ft. The Board reviewed pictures that were submitted with the application. Mr. Gunther asked if egress will be provided by the window,next to the garage, which Mr. Teboul addressed. After some discussion, Mr. Gunther stated he is having difficulty understanding what is being proposed to be built. Plan #1 shows the kitchen window is turned into a door. Mr. Teboul said then there is a balcony. Mr. Gunther said there a walkway at the same level as the kitchen floor and asked if the deck will be on the same level with a stairway going down, which Mr. Teboul verified. Mr. Gunther asked the square footage off the ground at the lowest and highest point. Mr. Teboul said the square footage off the ground at the lowest and highest point will be 3' ft. to 9 ft. A discussion ensued regarding the setback in the proposed deck area. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED' unanimously, 3-0. Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 11 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Daniel Teboul has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a deck addition at the rear of the house. The deck addition as proposed has a rear yard of 20.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3) for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 38 Orchard Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Lot 246; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(3); and WHEREAS, Daniel Teboul submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor a detriment to nearby properties created; B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative particularly due to the uneven, curved nature of the lot; C. It is not a substantial variance. Portions of the deck are already within the setback restrictions; • D. There will be no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; E. There is no self-created difficulty in this instance as the applicant is faced with an irregularly shaped lot. The deck is extending back at its furthest point behind the house and the widest part of the deck is where the widest amount of setback is available, as opposed to making the widest part of the deck where the least amount of setback is available; 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; Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 12 H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 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 house for the building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2313 Application of Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition to an existing one-story building. The two-story addition as proposed would have a total building coverage of 43%where 25% is required pursuant to Section 240-46A; a 75.0 ft.width at the front lot line where 100.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-46A; and further, parking is proposed in the front of the building within 75.0 ft. of the front lot line where parking is not permitted pursuant to Section 240-46B for a building in a Service Business District on the premises located at 24 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Lot 36. Charles McGoey, of 271 North Avenue, New Rochelle, the attorney for Beechmont Bus Service appeared along with Henry Meltzer, the architect, and John Miller of Beechmont Bus Service. Mr. McGoey stated that over the last year new regulations were imposed by the New York State Department of Transportation on Beechmont Bus Service regarding safety and maintenance. As a result, two new maintenance bays must be added. The application for a variance at 24 Valley Place, which is in the Service Business (SB) zone district, is to increase the lot coverage from approximately 23% to 43% for parking in front within the 75 ft. setback. The second floor of the addition will be used for offices, for which no variance is required. A discussion ensued regarding the permitted 50% limit allowed and adherence to that limit by the applicant. Mr. McGoey said the area of the new addition will be used to store buses, enclosing whatever buses are currently stored in that area. Mr. Wexler asked where the buses are now stored, at which time the Board referred to the tax map. Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 13 A discussion ensued after Mr. McGoey submitted a picture of the area, marked exhibit 1, which is a part of the record. Mr. Wexler made a practical comment on the building itself in reference to egress on the mezzanine level, at which time a discussion ensued. Mr. McGoey said he will review that practical observation with Mr. Carpaneto. Mr. McGoey said the property is zoned for this use and received a prior use variance in 1972. Mr. Gunther read for the record a letter received this date from the CZMC requesting a review extension from the Zoning Board for addition information, so that the CZMC can render its opinion on this matter. A discussion ensued regarding the items requested by the CZMC and the various Boards that would address the items listed. Mr. McGoey said he met with the CZMC on May 26, 1998, stating that the CZMC wants more data to make sure the addition meets their concerns and requirements. Mr. Wexler asked Ms. Gallent if the Board holds off on a decision, where does that put this application in relationship to the process. Ms. Gallent said the Board cannot vote this evening because this matter is an unlisted action under SEQRA requiring a determination of significance. There is not enough information in the submitted short form EAF. The CZMC is entitled to ask for an extension, as the CZMC decides whether or not an application is complete. An opinion does not have be rendered until thirty days after CZMC concludes that the application is complete. Mr. McGoey asked if the Zoning Board can act on the variances, before the CZMC makes their determination. Ms. Gallent said that cannot be done. The Zoning Board must refer unlisted actions to the CZMC and get an opinion before rendering a decision. Mr. Wexler asked if this matter will also be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review, which Mr. Carpaneto verified. Mr. Meltzer said the CZMC called him yesterday morning, May 26, 1998, for the meeting in the evening and advised him that he did not have to attend. Mr. Meltzer said he did attend and answered questions that arose, and arranged for additional information to be provided for the next CZMC meeting. Mr. Meltzer said at previous Zoning Board meetings for other matters, if another agency was involved, approval can be granted with conditions. Ms. Gallent provided Mr. Meltzer with the reasons approval cannot be granted subject to receiving CZMC's opinion in an unlisted action according to the Consistency Law. Ms. Gallent advised the Board that there is not enough information in the short environmental assessment form and more information is needed from the applicant for the Board to review and make a determination of significance. Ms. Gallent recommends that the long environmental assessment form be completed and submitted for review, so a determination can be made. A discussion ensued regarding scheduled meeting dates of the Zoning Board which is June 17, 1998, and the CZMC which is June 23, 1998, and the conflict that will arise. Ms. Gallent suggested Mr. McGoey ask the CZMC to reschedule their meeting to an earlier date to provide their opinion to the Zoning Board in this matter. Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 14 Mr. McGoey said there is a problem, as the applicant wants to open the new bays. Mr. Wexler questioned the suggestion to limit the macadam pavement, and asked what is intended for the sloped area. Mr. McGoey referred to a picture provided to the Board, marked as exhibit 1, stating it slopes slightly. The area is relatively flat, pitching slightly. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any trees in front of the property, and asked trees can be planted. Mr. McGoey said there were no trees in front of the property. A discussion ensued regarding the gates, with John Carello saying the gates will swing out,which has been done for twenty years. Mr. Carello said he wants to property to look as nice as possible. Mr. Wexler said he is referring to the distance between the fence and the curb, which is the unpaved area of the right-of-way. Mr. Carello said if the property in that area warrants plantings, he will install them. But, there is hard brick and asphalt. Mr. Wexler said the applicant is making for a reasonable request, and a little softness to the community would be beneficial. Mr. Gunther said since the lot coverage is being dramatically increased, he suggests what is being requested in terms of landscaping be considered. Mr. McGoey said he is sure that can be worked out. In most municipalities,the coverage permitted in this type of use is 100%, 25% is very low for commercial properties. Ms. O'Keeffe said it is an SB Zone District (service business) not just a business zone or an industrial zone. Mr. Meltzer asked if the Board requires a long form EAF for the next meeting. Ms. Gallent said it is not required, but will be helpful. Ms. Gallent recommends the Board request the long form EAF be submitted. Mr. Wexler said the applicant is basically creating a site that is 98% impervious, and the runoff on this parcel should be addressed; i.e. where is the runoff going, how is it controlled. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. Mr. Wexler asked if the CZMC does not accommodate the applicant, does the applicant want to appear at the next meeting. Mr. Meltzer asked if all the information is submitted to the CZMC and the long form EAF submitted to the Zoning Board, will the Board be able to act on the variance subject to CZMC approval. Ms. Gallent explained that CZMC approval is not necessarily necessary for the Board to approve the variance. If the CZMC determines that the application is inconsistent with the LWRP, the Board can nonetheless approve the application under certain circumstances set forth in the Consistency Law. Mr. Meltzer asked if a member of the Board can speak to the CZMC after the applicant submits the information. Zoning Board May 27, 1998 Page 15 Mr. Gunther said in the letter the Board received from the CZMC, a copy of which was given to Mr. McGoey, the last page noted contact references should there be any questions or comments. Ms. Gallent recommends that one of the individuals representing this case contact one of the CZMC representatives, Nancy Seligson, Lillian Andrews or James Athey. Mr. Wexler said the CZMC questions should be addressed. Ms. Gallent said the information requested will help the Zoning Board make its decision. Mr. McGoey said they have had significant DEC oversight over the years, and there will be no problem in supplying the information requested very rapidly. Mr. McGoey would like to get the feeling of the Board on this matter. Mr. Gunther said the individual Board members can respond if they wish. Mr. Wexler said if the concerns of the CZMC are addressed satisfactorily, he has no problem with the application. The construction of another structure will not effect the environment. It might be an opportunity to improve the environment. Adding trees might soften it. It might be a building that looks better than what currently is there. There might be a resurfacing to the paved area, which will make it look new and fresh. Mr. Gunther reserves opinion until information is received from the CZMC, as it is a substantial increase in coverage. Ms. Martin said based on what has been presented, she has no problem with it providing nothing of further importance surfaces. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2313 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the June 17, 1998 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the Zoning Board Minutes of April 29, 1998 were unanimously approved, 3-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on June 17, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. WI Margue a Roma, Recording Secretary