Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_05_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 28, 1997, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman 4 Patrick B. Kelleher 3 4 �� Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon RECEWED Arthur Wexler 18 111 Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector Susan Sturino, Public Stenographer Q` 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 7:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said the Minutes and administrative matters will be reviewed at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2258 Application of Paul Eckstein requesting a Certificate of Occupancy on the premises located at 33 Country Road for the deck and addition as constructed 13.75 ft. from the side line where 15.0 ft. had been granted in March, 1991 and where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(a)in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 33 Country Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 315 Lot 102. Mr. Eckstein of 33 Country Road, Mamaroneck 10543 appeared. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Eckstein that his case was called last month and Mr. Eckstein was not present. Mr. Eckstein said that he was traveling. Mr. Eckstein said he is before the Board for a Certificate of Occupancy for a variance that was granted two or three years ago. Mr. Eckstein said there had been an minimal error, 0.2%, in the measurements as prepared by Mr. Widulski, the engineer. An attempt was made to comply to the restriction of the zoning laws, but when the final measurement was made the error was realized. Mr. Eckstein referred the Board to the photographs submitted. Mr. Gunther asked who performed the construction, and asked if surveying was done prior to the start of construction to determine the location. _ Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Eckstein said he performed all the construction, and followed the instructions of Mr. Widulski. Mr. Eckstein referred to the nature of the noncompliance on the plans before the Board. A discussion ensued regarding the minimal error at the northeast corner of the house, the minimal protrusion of construction going into the side lot line by approximately 1'4 ft. Mr. Eckstein said the violation is a minimal 5 sq. ft. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Eckstein if the deck and addition were built as the plan indicated, as the plan indicated a portion of the deck over the setback in the corner. Mr. Eckstein said that was correct. Ms. Gallent stated for the record that this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and they did not have any comments. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, 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, Paul Eckstein has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy on the premises located at 33 Country Road for the deck and addition as constructed 13.75 ft. from the side line where 15.0 ft. had been granted in March, 1991 and where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(a) in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 33 Country Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 315 Lot 102; 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(2)(a); and WHEREAS, Paul Eckstein 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 outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this ` conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties. B. The variance requested is minimal, and there is no reasonable alternative to granting it other than demolishing a structure that already exists. _ Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 3 C. The variance is not substantial in that it amounts to 1.25 feet. D. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance, and there will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district by maintaining the deck in its current placement. E. The applicant's difficulty self-created, but was not done with any intent to violate the Zoning Ordinance. F. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. 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 Mr. Eckstein to see the Building Department during normal business hours for the Certificate of Occupancy. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2264 Application of Antonio Portanova requesting a variance to maintain a 6 ft. fence in a front and side yard. The 30 lineal ft. of six (6) ft. fence, as erected, exceeds the four(4) ft. height allowed in a required front yard, and; the balance, 35 lineal ft. of six (6) ft. fence, exceeds the five (5) ft. height allowed for a fence in a side yard both pursuant to Section 240.52A, for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 106 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 448. Mr. Simon abstained from this case because the applicant is a neighbor. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Simon to leave the room until the case is heard, which was done. Antonio Portanova and Maria Portanova of 106 Myrtle Boulevard, Larchmont, appeared. Ms. Portanova explained to the Board that a town tree which was on the next door neighbor's property fell over and crushed and destroyed plants. Pictures were submitted to the Board. The Town said cleanup and damages would be handled by the Town. When damages were submitted to the Town's insurance company, the insurance company said the Town was not responsible because the Town did not know the Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 4 tree was rotted. A neighbor had notified the Town approximately one year or six months ago, complaining that the tree needed pruning, was rotting, and the Town did prune some of the tree. Ms. Portanova said instead of replacing the plants which were 12 ft. to 15 ft. in height the Portanova's installed a fence, but were unaware of the regulations regarding fencing. After the installation of the fence, a violation was received. Ms. Portanova would like to keep the fence, and said the neighbors have no objections. The installation of the fence was done in an attempt to cleanup the area damaged. Ms. Portanova said they have resided at that address for 17 years, if the tree had not destroyed the property, the area would be as it previously existed. Ms. Martin asked for clarification regarding the front yard and side yard, which was explained by Ms. Portanova. Mr. Gunther said the Notice of Disapproval says 30 lineal ft. of six ft. fence, exceeds the four ft. height allowed. Mr. Gerety said the first 30 ft.,plus or minus, is front yard, the 34 ft. beyond that is considered side yard. Mr. Wexler asked what the reason is for the 6 ft. height of fence. Ms. Portanova said the shrubs that previously existed were 12 ft. high, and privacy was the issue. Ms. Portanova did not realize there would be a problem with the 6 ft. fence. Mr. Wexler said the fence is very exposed from Myrtle Boulevard. Ms. Martin asked if thought was given for plantings or ivy that would grow and soften the look of the fence. Mr. Portanova said he will plant a tree at the end. Mr. Gunther said he has a problem with a 6 ft. fence in a front yard so exposed, which becomes a major vantage point for everyone riding through the town. It is unfortunate that the fence was installed before first talking to the Town. Mr. Wexler asked what will be done in the area between the driveway and the fence in the front where the truck was parked and if it will be used as a parking spot. Ms. Portanova said yes, it will be used as a parking spot. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. Mr. Wexler said there are only four members voting. Mr. Gunther said normally if there are only four voting members, three members have to vote in favor for an action to occur. One of the Board members has recused himself from the case, because he is a neighbor. In this particular instance, there is no alternative but to proceed. If one member were absent and not recused, the applicant would be informed if he would rather hold off until the next meeting and all members were present, where three out of five would have to vote in favor for an action to occur. Mr. Wexler asked about the distance of the house on the other side of the fence. Mr. Gerety produced the tax map for the members to view the location. Mr. Wexler said there is no shrubbery present, even in the.photographs. _ Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Gunther said before someone makes a motion on the matter, he would like to talk through some of the options available for the Board members. Mr. Gunther said that personally, he is not in favor of allowing a 6 ft. high fence especially in an open area in the town, but would consider shortening the height of the fence in the front yard area to its allowable height, and would consider a fence of greater height in the side yard. Mr. Wexler asked for clarification about the side yard area. Mr. Gunther said the first 30 ft. is considered front yard, the town maximum allowed is 4 ft. in the front yard. That 30 ft. portion of fence would have to be reduced to 4 ft. and the remaining 30-ft. to 35 ft. could remain if screening/shrubbery were planted along the side that has the greatest amount of visibility. Mr. Kelleher agreed with Mr. Gunther's suggestion. Ms. Portanova said she would rather have shrubs than the fence, if the town would replace the shrubs. Mr. Wexler said the zoning board cannot make that decision, and suggested Ms. Portanova speak to the insurance company about replacing the shrubs. Ms. Portanova said the town's insurance company denied everything, even though the matter was brought to the attention of the town. Mr. Wexler informed Ms. Portanova to speak to the Town Board, as the zoning board has no jurisdiction regarding this issue. Ms. Gallent suggested Ms. Portanova speak to the Town Administrator. Mr. Wexler asked if the hedges still exist on the side of the property, as the survey states. Ms. Portanova said there is a fence with vine. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and adopted 4-0, Mr. Simon abstained. 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, Antonio Portanova has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain a 6 ft. fence in a front and side yard. The 30 lineal ft. of six (6) ft. fence, as erected, exceeds the four (4) ft. height allowed in a required front yard, and; the balance, 35 lineal ft. of six(6) ft. fence, exceeds the five (5) ft. height allowed for a fence in a side yard both pursuant to Section 240.52A, for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 106 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 448; 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 240.52A; and WHEREAS, Antonio Portanova submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 6 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 outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. By reducing the height of the fence to the as-of-right height of 4 ft. in the front portion of the property, there will be no undesirable change to the community. B. Keeping the 1 ft. height extension on the allowable 5 ft. high fence in the side yard of the property is minimal in nature and would be softened by the existing shrubbery. C. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative, because the shrubbery that formerly provided a natural fence in this area was destroyed by a fallen tree. Given the financial burden that the fallen tree has imposed on the applicant, it would not be reasonable to require the applicant to remove the entire fence. D. The variance for the 6 ft. high fence in the side yard is not substantial in nature (it exceeds the permitted height by only 1 foot), and will not have a physical or environmental impact on the community since the tree that existed for privacy came down and removed most of their privacy. E. The difficulty was created by the tree that came down, and is not self-created. F. 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 granted as modified below, subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing 6 ft. high fence in the front yard portion of the property be shortened to 4 ft. in height for the distance from the face of the house to the end of the fence as it approaches Myrtle Boulevard, and the remainder of the fence remain at 6 ft. in height as indicated on the requested variance. 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. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 7 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2265 Application of Timothy Cannon requesting a variance to construct a 6 ft. high stockade fence. The 6.0 ft. high wood stockade fence as proposed exct-Prls the 5.0 ft. maximum height allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A for fences in a residential R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 14 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 113.1. Timothy Cannon of 14 Copley Road appeared. Mr. Cannon wants to replace an existing 6 ft. fence in the back yard with the same fence. Two houses next to Mr. Cannon's house have the same 6 ft. stockade fence. There is commercial property behind Mr. Cannon. Mr. Wexler asked about the location of the fence, as it is not indicated on the site plan. Mr. Cannon said he is only replacing the 6 ft. fence in the back. Ms. Martin asked if there is currently a fence on the side as well, said there is a chain link fence in the rear and asked if Mr. Cannon is putting a consistent stockade fence. Mr. Cannon said he wants to replace the existing 6 ft. fence. Mr. Wexler said when driving on the Boston Post Road, it is an interesting fence that is covered with ivy and blends into the entire property. Mr. Cannon said he has shrubbery growing behind the fence, and hopes it will not be disturbed. Mr. Wexler asked if the fence was set back from the property line approximately 4 ft. Mr. Cannon agreed. Ms. Gallent stated that the record should reflect that this matter has been referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and there has been no comment. Mr. Gunther asked if the fence will be set in 4 ft. from the rear yard. Mr. Cannon said it will be set in on the same line. Mr. Wexler said a problem Mr. Cannon may have is that the fence is showing the good side facing the yard, and the requirement is that the good side face out. Mr. Cannon said that was not a problem. Mr. Gerety said there is nothing in the code regarding the facing of the fence. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, 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 Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 8 WHFREAS, Timothy Cannon has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 6 ft. high stockade fence which exceeds the 5.0 ft. maximum height allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A for fences in a residential R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 14 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 113.1; 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 240-52A; and WHEREAS,Timothy Cannon 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 outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The erection of a replacement for the previously existing 6 ft. high fence will not change the character of the neighborhood. B. The replacement of something that existed is a method of achieving the applicant's goal in a reasonable way. C. The variance requested is not a substantial one, because it is mirroring what was there already. D. The granting of this variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It will maintain current conditions. E. 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. F. 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 property of the applicant is bounded by commercial activity shown in the photographs presented, and the maximum screening is very desirable for anyone living on that property. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 9 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 Mr. Cannon to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2266 Application of Thomas Kearns requesting a variance to maintain a 6 ft. fence on a 2 ft. high wall. The fence and retaining wall have an average height of 8.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is the maximum height allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in the side yard of a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 54 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 15. Elsie Kearns of 54 Edgewood Avenue appeared. Ms. Kearns said she is requesting a variance to maintain a 6 ft. fence that was built to replace another 6 ft. fence that was not as attractive and was a source of safety concerns because of the nails protruding and children present in the area. Ms. Kearns said she had no idea there were fence regulations. Mr. Wexler asked if the fence was in the side yard. Ms. Kearns said the fence is in the side yard, as it is an odd shaped piece of property. Ms. Kearns said the new white fence is somewhat shorter than the other ones and the effective height of the solid part of the fence is much shorter because lattice work was put on the top. Ms. Kearns said had she not found out that the fence was illegal, she was also planning to plant shrubs. Mr. Wexler said the fence is very handsome and from the street it looks like it is part of the house not a fence. Mr. Wexler said the fence attaches to the house on one side and can be considered a wall attached to an existing structure, and if its attached on the other side it would not be a fence anymore. Ms. Kearns said a variance had been received to put up the garage. In order to be able to put the garage up, the fence had to be relocated. Part of the fence was falling down, and the part that had to be relocated could not be saved. After looking at other fence possibilities, the current fence was installed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. Ms. Martin said she feels persuaded with the information provided by the applicant, regarding the fact that the most obtrusive nature of the fence provides a certain safety consideration in that it is a dead-end street with many children playing, it is very visible and will help to regulate traffic. Mr. Wexler said someone said it is a dead-end street, but it suddenly makes a left turn along part of the property and asked if the street goes beyond the intersection. Ms. Kearns said there are three houses that go from the intersection to the end, and it is the dead-end street. Cars went up the street and backed down, as the prior fence could not be seen. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Wexler questioned the size of the front yard/side yard, the small piece of property on Hillside. A discussion ensued regarding the unique piece of property with the Board referring to the tax map. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Ms.Martin inquired if Ms. Keam's is intending to replace plantings in the box,based on what Ms. Kearn's previously stated. Ms. Kearns said the bushes as shown in the picture are not planted, but are just old bushes that were dug up and bloomed. Ms. Kearns is not sure whether she will replace the bushes on the left, as shown in the pictures before the Board, but will put some type of plantings on the right. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, 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. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Thomas Kearns has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain a 6 ft. fence on a 2 ft. high wall with an average height of 8.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is the maximum height allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in the side yard of a residence in an R- 7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 54 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 15; 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 240-52A; and WHEREAS, Thomas Kearns 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 outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The granting of the variance to maintain a non-conforming fence will be a desirable change in the neighborhood because the fence is more aesthetically pleasing than the previously existing stockade fence. B. Due to the fact that the fence is already erected, any alternative would involve major modification or its removal,which will be a hardship on the applicant and is not a reasonable alternative,given the more attractive nature of the new fence as described above. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 11 C. The variance is the difference between 6 ft. and 5 ft., and considering the fact that there had previously been a 6 ft. fence, the variance is not substantial. The fence is 18 ft. within the owner's property line, and not immediately adjacent to the side lot line and somewhat removed, further mitigating the substantial nature of the fence. D. The granting of this variance will have a positive aesthetic impact on the physical condition of the neighborhood, and will provide a readily visible presence at the end of a dead-end street, which is a safety improvement. E. There is screening on the lower portion of the fence, reducing its physical impression, with plans for additional screening. F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. 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 Ms. Kearns to see the Building Department for a permit. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2267 Application of Anthony and Sylvia Siano requesting a variance to construct a rear addition, deck,platform and enclose a porch to living space which would have a side yard of 8.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a total side yard of 18.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b) and a rear yard of 23.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(3); further, the decks, addition and alteration 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 70 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Lot 434. R.S. Raabe of 30 Tersaub Drive, Easton, Connecticut, the architect for the project, appeared and handed out 3 pages of architectural drawings and site plan, exhibit 1. Mr. Raabe then explained the plans stating the first floor has five rooms and a 9 ft. x 4 ft. kitchen, which is the problem. There is no casual living space, only a living room, dining room, sunroom and a bedroom. The house is nonconforming on a nonconforming lot. The rear 70 ft. of the property tapers to a triangle and there is no useable rear yard. It is possible to design a different addition, but it would totally destroy the back yard of the property, Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 12 referring to sheet 3 on the plans before the Board, which shows a triangular piece of property with a triangular house. Mr. Raabe submitted photos to the Board, exhibit 2, of the surrounding properties. Mr. Raabe said it is possible to construct an addition that would fit into the side and rear yards, but it would use the entire triangular piece of property available, leaving a minuscule rear yard. The lot lies in an R-10 zone, but it does not even conform to an R-6 zone, the zone immediately behind the applicant's property. Of the 25 parcels in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's property, 24 of them are nonconforming. The applicant is seeking a 2 ft. by 12 ft. variance on the deck, a 2 ft. by 6 ft. variance on the rear part of the deck, a 4 ft. by 10 ft. variance for the exit platform from the kitchen and a 2 ft. by 6 ft. triangle for the kitchen addition. Mr. Raabe then explained the pictures presented to the Board. Mr. Wexler asked if the house has a foundation. Mr. Raabe said yes, a crawl space. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 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. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Anthony and Sylvia Siano have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear addition, deck, platform and enclose a porch to living space which would have a side yard of 8.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a total side yard of 18.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b) and a rear yard of 23.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3); further, the decks, addition and alteration 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 70 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Lot 434; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b), Section 240-37B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Anthony and Sylvia Siano 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 outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties, as it is a one story addition that exists within a large triangularly shaped back yard. Thus the impact of the addition will not be perceived from other properties. B. There does not appear to be a reasonable alternative that would not involve the necessity of an area variance without making the shape of the addition unacceptable. C. The variance is not substantial in nature, given the fact that the house itself is nonconforming and the placement of the addition is in keeping with the existing position of the house itself on the lot. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 13 D. The granting of this variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. E. The addition is not visible to the surrounding area and will not reduce the amount of open space in the back yard. It is backed up on an R-6 zone which has conditions which are much more in line with this style house. The lot is much smaller in size than the typical lot in an R-10 zone. F. The addition comes no closer to the side yard than the house presently exists. G. The difficulty is not self-created. H. 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. I. 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 lot being 60 ft. wide in a zone that requires a minimum of 85 ft. is burdened immediately once this overlay zone was put onto the lot and is a condition that preexists. 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 hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2268 Application of Nolan and Alison Matz requesting a variance to construct a second floor rear addition which would have a side yard of 5.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is the minimum required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(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-10 Residence Zone District on the premises located at 165 W. Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Lot 463. Nolan and Alison Matz of 165 West Brookside Drive, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Matz said they are proposing to build a master bedroom and bathroom over an existing den built in the '50's on the back corner side of the property. Mr. Matz said they are not looking to extend anything past the existing building. The applicant is going to take the top off and build over the greenhouse that currently exists which will cover the porch. The only portion of the property not in conformity is the portion of the corner of the den, the property to the right facing the front of the house from West Brookside, approximately 5.5 ft. from a stone wall. A discussion ensued regarding the trees in the greenhouse. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 14 Ms. Martin asked to see the tax map. Ms. Martin said when the property was viewed the house next door also seems to be slightly angled to the back, and by adding another story to the applicant's house the two houses would be put into a very close proximity to one another. Mr. Matz explained that the area in question is a back yard deck, not the house. The house is set further forward and raised higher. Ms. Martin asked if there is not a structure at that point. Mr. Matz said there is no structure at that point. It is empty space with back yard furniture. Mr. Gunther stated Ms. Martin and Mr. Matz are referring to the tax map of block 219. Mr. Matz said the neighbor's house is approximately 10 ft. from her stone wall, at that point. Mr. Matz' property, where the addition will be, is 5.5 ft. from a stone wall. From the stone wall, the neighbor's house is approximately 10 ft. The neighbor's house is not built up to the edge of the stone wall. There is a walk on the side of Mr. Matz' den, and there is approximately 10 ft. between the properties. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Matz has shown the plans to the neighbors. Mr. Matz said the plans have been shown, and no one has voiced any concern. . Mr. Wexler said the area is very overgrown with plantings. Mr. Matz said the previous owner was heavily into landscaping, referred to the Board to the photographs submitted, and said the den is covered with trees which must be kept trimmed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted 4-1, Mr. Simon opposed. 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. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Nolan and Alison Matz have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor rear addition which would have a side yard of 5.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is the minimum required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(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-10 Residence Zone District on the premises located at 165 W. Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Lot 463; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Nolan and Alison Matz 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 outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 15 A. The change to be produced in the character of the neighborhood is not undesirable or a detriment to the nearby properties due to the topography of the site. B. There does not appear to be a reasonable alternative, as the footprint of the house itself is not being changed, the house is on a nonconforming lot in a nonconforming position on the lot and the applicant is simply building out over an existing porch and downstairs room. C. The variance is not substantial, given the fact that it is going to be built on the existing footprint of the house. D. While there is concern that there will be some impact on the adjacent properties due to the close proximity of the addition in the rear to the adjoining property, there has not been a significant amount of testimony about this impact that would overwhelm the other considerations of the application. E. There has been no self-created difficulty in this instance. 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 shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. 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. During the motion process a discussion ensued regarding the placement of the addition, the aesthetics of the house and the reasons given by Mr. Grippi, the architect, for the placement of the addition, with changes that were discussed incorporated the in above resolution. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2269 Application of Andrea Madori requesting a variance to construct an in-ground swimming pool and patio which would be 10.0 ft. from the principal dwelling unit where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(a); and further, the pool and patio would increase the lot coverage to 39.5% of the lot area where a maximum of 35.0% lot coverage is allowed pursuant to Section 240-35F all for a residence in an Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 16 R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Carol Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330 Lot 123. Steven Chirogianis of 240 Overlook Road, New Rochelle, the architect for the project appeared. Mr. Chirogianis said he is present on behalf of his client, Mr. &Mrs. Madori, requesting a variance pertaining to the pool and patio which exceMs the allowed coverage of the site by about 4%. The allowed coverage is 35%, the lot with the pool would be at 39%. The pool code requires that a pool be 15 ft. away from a major structure, and the proposed pool is only 10 ft. away. Prior to the design, Mr. Chirogianis conferred with Mr. Jakubowski who suggested that putting the pool closer to the house would be less detrimental than putting it closer to either side line. The pool is 15 ft. from the required side yard and 20 ft. from the required rear property line. Mr. Chirogianis said he has conferred with Mr. Steinberg, the owner to the right, and Mr. Petrillo, the owner to the left, and both approve of the application and variance requested. Mr. Chirogianis pointed out that prior to the pool design, the applicant was at 30% coverage. Even though the house is only 2,800 sq. ft., with the driveway and rear patio, it will be approximately 39% coverage. Ms. Martin asked what Mr. Jakubowski's reasoning was regarding placing the pool closer to the house rather than closer to the property line. Mr. Chirogianis said even though the area is very heavily landscaped on both sides, it would be less of an objection to approach the side yard and be closer to the neighbor rather than being closer to the house. The pool patio will be enclosed with a 4 ft. high fence, for safety and will not be detrimental. Ms. Martin said she was not familiar with the regulations regarding pools. Mr. Wexler said it is considered an accessory structure. Mr. Gerety said it is covered in a section of the Town Code. Ms. Martin questioned the reasoning behind the placement of the pool. Mr. Chirogianis said theoretically the pool can be placed closer to the house, but if that is done the windows and the doors must be self-closing for safety reasons. Mr. Wexler said that would have to be the case in any event, if the pool was not enclosed with a fence. It has nothing to do with the proximity of the pool to the house. A discussion ensued regarding the positioning of the pool. Mr. Gerety said the positioning of the pool in relationship to the proximity of the house would be for emergency services, access to the house and getting around the perimeter of the house. It could effect the house itself in a number of ways, safety, the massing of the house if pool is up against the house. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr. Wexler asked by pushing the pool further away from the house, did that make the applicant go further over the required lot coverage requirement. Mr. Chirogianis said the house without the pool and the patio square footage is 6,400 sq. ft., or 30.66% lot coverage and now the coverage is 39%, the difference being 8-1/3%. The pool and patio would be 1,600 sq. ft. The applicant is 800 sq. ft. over the allowed square foot coverage. Mr. Wexler asked if the circular driveway, driveway, patio, house and pool are all impervious materials. Mr. Chirogianis said they are all impervious materials. Mr. Wexler said the lot is an odd shaped lot. Mr. Chirogianis said the house had to be pushed as far back as possible in order to get the square footage, because of the pie shape of the lot. A discussion ensued regarding irregularly shaped lots. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 17 Ms. Martin said if the pool was pushed back to the 15 ft. requirement, then a variance would be required for the two side yards. Ms. Martin said a variance would be needed one way or the other. Mr. Chirogianis agreed. Mr. Wexler asked if the codes had been changed regarding pools and decks. Mr. Gerety said the codes have been changed in reference to patios, pools and decks. Ms. Gallent stated that the record should reflect this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and they did not have any comments. 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 Ms. Martin, 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Andrea Madori has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an in-ground swimming pool and patio which would be 10.0 ft. from the principal dwelling unit where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(a); and further, the pool and patio would increase the lot coverage to 39.5% of the lot area where a maximum of 35.0% lot coverage is. allowed pursuant to Section 240-35F all for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Carol Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330 Lot 123; 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 192-5A(1)(a), Section 240-35F; and WHEREAS, Andrea Madori 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 outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties as there are pools in similar positions on the adjoining lots. Thus, the variance will be consistent with the immediate character of the adjoining area. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance given the positioning and the shape of the lot and the position of the house, and a variance would most likely be required for a swimming pool in almost any portion of the rear of the lot. Given the shape of the lot, the small dimension on the front property line versus the large dimension, the house must be set further back from the cul-de-sac requiring a longer driveway, more paved area and the result of that being a greater lot coverage. The fact that there is a larger area of lot coverage is a product of the shape of the lot. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 18 C. The variance is not substantial. The difference between the as-of-right and variance separation between the pool and house is only 5 feet, with a fence separating the pool from the house In this case the pool is an in-ground structure not an above-ground structure, visually it will not be experienced at all from any part of the property other than by walking between the house and the pool. D. The variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, even though it is backed up to Saxon Woods Park. This type of development should have no negative impact on the Park. E. This is not a self-created difficulty, since it is the shape of the lot that makes a variance necessary. 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 shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within twelve(12) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. 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. Chirogianis said that in speaking to Mr. Jakubowski, Mr. Chirogianis pointed out that it would be too late to start construction of the pool at this time and asked for an extension of the time period from six months to one year to start construction. A discussion ensued regarding the time requirement to obtain a permit and complete the project. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther to amend the resolution, which was seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously approved the following was incorporated in the resolution as stated above: i.e. The applicant shall obtain the building permit within 6 months of the filing of the resolution,and the permit shall be void if construction is not started within 12 months and completed within two years. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2270 4411, Application of Mr. &Mrs. Renson requesting a variance to construct a rear deck which would have a rear yard of 18.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(3)(a). The side yard would be 10.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(2)(a); and further, the fence below the deck would have a height of 6 ft. 6 in. where 5.0 ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A; and Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 19 finally, the deck, stairs and platform as proposed would increas the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an RA Zone District on the premises located at 1088 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 1. Mr. Simon recused himself from the meeting, due to his relationship with the applicant. A discussion ensued regarding Board regulations when recusing a board member from a meeting. Rick Hatem, of Diversified Building Consultants, the company that prepared plans for the proposed deck addition appeared. Mrs. Renson also was present. The reasons for the requested variance is the size of the deck, approximately 350 sq. ft. The side and rear yards are nonconforming and short to start with, which is problematic in itself. It is an attached, multiple dwelling unit,not a single family residence. The owners would like to have outdoor space that is immediately adjacent to their dining room and kitchen, as the applicants are close to retirement age and the steps to and through the basement will become problematic for them in time. The proposed deck is pleasing in design, and will be an enhancement to the area. Mr. Hatem submitted letters and a petition and signed by the neighbors in support of the application, (exhibit 1). Ms. Martin asked if that petition included individuals residing in the adjoining premises. Mr. Hatem said it included individuals that resided in the adjoining premises. Mr. Wexler asked what is unique about the applicant's lot and is different from the other clustered housing lots that would render a deck of this size, almost the size of the house permissible on this lot, and not the other houses down the line. Mr. Hatem said the lot is unique in that it is an end lot facing the school property, and does not have neighbors on the side and for a good portion of the rear yard. The property immediately adjacent to the rear is very heavily wooded, referring to pictures presented to the Board. The property is at a much higher elevation, significantly grown in with vegetation and rockout cropping. There is limited viewing from the neighbors and neighborhood in that particular location. Mr. Wexler said there are lattice walls on the deck, 6 ft. to 7 ft. high, and when the west light comes it will cast a heavy shadow into the neighbor next door. It is like an elevated, walled in court. Mr. Hatem said the individuals petitioned and the letters submitted from the neighbors, including the neighbor immediately adjacent, did review the plans prior to signing the petition or letter. The only area that will cast a shade will be either onto the Renson's property or to the parking area to the adjacent unit. A discussion ensued regarding shadowing from the sun onto the adjacent properties and parking spaces. Mr. Wexler said the development is very handsome, and asked why the applicant is seeking a 20 ft. by 20 ft. deck. Mr. Hatem said in laying out the furniture plan for the family, the dimensions are viewed as a minimum size in this situation. It appears to get distorted when viewing the deck that was superimposed on the site plan, because it is such a small house and-makes the deck appear enormous. Mr. Wexler said in proportion to the property and the house, the proposed deck is very large. Mr. Hatem said the applicant feels the deck is in a somewhat remote location allowing a more liberal size deck than had the deck been in a middle unit. Ms. Martin asked if the house had substantially more property, given the fact that it is an end unit, and asked about the property of the other houses. Mr. Hatem said the applicant has substantially more property. The other owners have a small circle of property for a walkway to get to the front entrance door and small areas in the rear mainly for parking. Other homeowners that have more property do have some patio areas and additional exterior spaces. Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 20 Ms. Martin said there is privacy fencing on one side, and asked if consideration was given to visibility on the side that faces the driveway to the school from the ground looking up. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the deck, the trellis, the windows on the second floor and the impact. Mr. Hatem said the unit is very close to Palmer Avenue, and the vast majority of individuals will not see it because of concentration on the roadway itself. Mr. Gunther asked why the deck has to be so high above the ground and not lowered with a couple of steps down. Mr. Hatem said the proposed deck is in line with the main floor of the existing housing. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. Alison Renson, the applicant, addressed the Board and agreed to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Gunther said a number of Board members are concerned about the size of what is being proposed, not only in total square foot area but also the height and visible impact of such an addition. Ms. Renson said she is aware of the concerns, but the neighbors and she feel it is a good idea for the reasons stated. Ms. Renson said she took the plans to all the individuals who signed the petition and has done extensive work to make a nice area which the neighbors love. Ms. Renson said her husband has retired, there is a need for the proposed deck right out the back because to get into the back yard one must go down a flight of stairs and the length of the house. The space was carefully measured to fit the needs of the family, i.e. number of individuals,furniture. Ms. Renson discussed the measures taken for privacy. Mr. Wexler asked about the lower level in the back yard. Ms. Renson said the lower level is a bricked-in patio. Mr. Wexler asked why the applicant could not build a tiered deck off the house that is not so far out from the house. It can have a barbecue and is convenient to the kitchen. The applicant can go down half a level to a deck that gives the space needed, and the impact is not that great on the environment. Mr. Hatem said in the design suggested by Mr. Wexler, the applicant will loose the ability to do anything underneath the deck. Mr. Wexler said the proposed deck can be integrated into a two-tiered deck that is handsome, the applicant will have the living space needed at a lower level, the barbecue will be close to the kitchen on the upper level, it will allow access to the basement and will not be an imposing structure on the environment. Ms. Renson said her husband is 6 ft. 7 in. and the applicants measured from the ground to the top of the deck which is 8 ft. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the size of the structure, the height of the structure, vine plantings, and the impact. Mr. Wexler said he feels the structure is too big, and to solve the applicant's needs it can be achieved another way. Mr. Hatem said there is parking in the rear, the two-tiered deck situation would dissect the yard's patio presently existing underneath the proposed deck which wraps around the house and comes into the side yard, and hinders access from the parking area into the building. Mr. Gunther said the applicant must be getting a sense from what one Board member feels, and it is possible there are other Board members that feel the same way that what is being proposed is bigger than what should be allowed in the space. The Zoning Board is not the Board of Architectural Review or a group that will tell the applicant what to build, the purpose being to render a decision on whether something should be built closer to a side lot line. It is up to the applicant to find a solution that will work, Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 21 Q knowing the conditions before the applicant and the Board's concerns. Mr. Gunther will poll each Board member, so the applicant can understand the Board's concerns. Mr. Hatem said for the record, this is not an arbitrary situation whatsoever. The applicant tried to keep the deck as close as possible to the line of the building, and tried to keep it in the least imposing place possible without having any other negative effect to other open areas on the property. In terms of the overall dimension, that was based on the furniture plan which is not excessive for a three member household. Mr. Gunther said from one Board member's prospective, which Mr. Gunther shares, the structure as proposed is too high and too large for the space provided. Mr. Gunther said his earlier suggestion was if there is a way to lessen the impact on the environment,he would be more favorably inclined to go along with it and possibly Mr. Wexler would also be inclined to go along with it as well. Mr. Gunther said how the applicant gets there, is up to the applicant. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Martin what her thoughts were. Ms. Martin said she would be more comfortable if she were able to consider an alternative. Ms. Renson said she will do whatever the Board requests. Mr. Wexler said not drawn on the plans is a side elevation of the deck in relationship to the house. When the structure is put on the side of the house, suddenly there is a lot of structure which is foreign from the materials of the house. After viewing other decks in the area, the proposed deck is the most elaborate, enclosed outdoor room without a room. Mr. Wexler said the applicant can sort through the concerns of the Board and match the applicant's needs with the concerns of the Board. Ms. Renson said Mr. Renson took pictures and had spoken to Mr. Jakubowski, and got the feeling everything would be alright. Other neighbors have decks that are 12 ft. high. Ms. Renson said the proposed deck is 18 ft. above existing walls, for which variances were granted. The neighbors support the proposed deck. Mr. Hatem said there are massive grape arbors and trellis work that individuals have covering large size patios. Mr. Wexler said there are raised decks. Mr. Hatem said there are both, patios and raised decks, which are very heavily planted around. Mr. Wexler said the question is what is seen attached to the house, which is a massive sized structure. A discussion ensued regarding the vines growing in that area. Mr. Hatem said in looking from the other angles, it is the end of a dead-end street. Ms. Renson asked if Mr. Wexler understood why she does not want to be on display at Central School. Mr. Wexler said he understands completely, but Ms. Renson is putting herself on display on the first level. The product of Ms. Renson's needs becomes an affront to the general environment. Mr. Gunther said the Zoning Board cannot design the project. The Board passes on its effect on zoning as it impacts the entire community, not just one block, one neighbor. Ms. Reason said if this is turned down, what time does it takes to reapply. Mr. Wexler said the Board is not turning down the application. The Board will not vote on the application, the application can be modified and the application can be adjourned to the next meeting. 111/9 Mr. Hatem said he respectfully requests an adjournment. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously Zoning Board May 28, 1997 Page 22 RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2270 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the June 25, 1997 meeting. Mr. Kelleher informed the applicant that he doesn't share some of the concerns of the other Board members. Unfortunately, Mr. Simon has recused himself from the meeting, and instead of having five people considering the application, there will only be four members available to vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said that Mr. Simon gave Mr. Gunther his proxy to vote in favor of both sets of Minutes. On a motion made by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin the Minutes of March 26, 1997 meeting were unanimously approved, 5-0. On a motion made by Ms. Martin and seconded, the Minutes of April 30, 1997 meeting were approved unanimously, 5-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on June 25, 1997. ADJOURNMENT The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m., and the Board went into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Margu ' e Roma, Recording Secretai