HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_11_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes •
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN-.OF MAMARONECK .
NOVEMBER 24, 1998, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD .. ... •
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
• Present: Thomas:E. Gunther, Chairman .
J. Rene Simon
Jillian A. Martin
Arthur Wexler
Paul A. Winick . .
Also Present: .Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel. : . .. .' -
Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building '
Michele 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 8:50 p.m. .
Mr. Gunther informed those present that the approval of the Minutes of the previous meeting will be held -
over until the end of the meeting. Mr. Gunther also noted that the following applicants have asked-that
their cases be adjourned to another meeting, and read the pertinent letters: . .
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2326 (adjourned 9/23/98; 10/28/98) Requested an adjournment to the
January Zoning Board meeting.
Application of Dr. &Mrs. Anthony Loebel requesting a variance to construct a second floor to an existing
1'k story dwelling. The second story addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 ft. where 10.0 ft. is
required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a), a rear yard of 21.2 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to
Section 240-38B(3); and further, the second story addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises
located at 34 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block .
502 Lot 147. - -
•
APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2335 Adjourned to the next meeting, as requested by the applicant. ..
Application of Christopher J. Renson requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for the rear deck. The deck
as built has a rear yard of 23.95 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B (3)(a). The
side yard is 9.89 ft. where 25.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(2)(a); and further, the fence
below the deck has a height of 6 ft.6 in.where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A;
and the deck, steps and platform increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-A 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.
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2336 Adjourned as requested to the January meeting.
Application of Mr. &Mrs. Michael Mollerus requesting a variance_to construct a deck at the rear of the
house and a one-car detached garage in the rear yard. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 21.2 ft.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 2
where 25.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); the garage as proposed has a side yard of 1.0
ft. where 5.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(c)and a rear yard of 1.4 ft. where 5.0 ft. is
permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)(b) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises
located at 42 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
128 Lot 136.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2329 (adjourned 9/23/98; 10/28/98)
Application of Rick Bernstein requesting a variance to construct a railroad tie retaining wall with a 4 ft.
high chain link fence. The railroad tie retaining wall with a chain link fence as proposed has an overall
height of 9 ft. 6 in. where a maximum 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence or wall
in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 24 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Lot 310.
Benedict Salanitro, the engineer, of 517 Linden Street, Mamaroneck, appeared, along with Rick Bernstein.
Two months ago a presentation was made for a variance to allow a 4 ft. high chain link fence on or near
the property line approximately 12 in. to 18 in. away from the property line after the construction of a 5
ft. high retaining wall. Subsequent to that meeting, a Planning Board meeting was attended on October
14, 1998, at which time the Planning Board granted a permit for this construction with two conditions,one
being the Zoning Board approval. The Planning Board also reviewed the SEQRA process and determined
there are no environmental inadequacies and it is an Unlisted Action. Mr. Salanitro said it is his
understanding that the Planning Board is the lead agency in the SEQRA process.
Ms. Gallent said that the granting of a variance for this project is a Type II.
Mr. Salanitro said the issue of the negative declaration for environmental impact was found by the Planning
Board. This evening Mr. Salanitro will discuss the revised plan, which was submitted to the Planning
Board as approved September 30, 1998,which shows the installation or planting of continuous ivy covering
the face of the wall and the 51/2 in. curb as requested by the engineer. The revised plan, submitted as
exhibit#1, is basically the same plan after taking the comments regarding softening of the wall, planting
of the ivy and similar comments the Planning Board had. Mr. Salanitro said there were revisions from
Malcolm Pirnie on August 28, 1998, and Planning Board revisions regarding the ivy on September 30,
1998. He is proposing to have the fence installed behind the proposed 5 ft. high retaining wall which will
be approximately 18 in. off the face•of the wall on the property line.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Salanitro to advise the board as to the changes on the plan.
Mr. Salanitro said there are two changes. One change is the installation a 5' in.curb, a dimension above
the wall, to act as a buffer for any water that will flow naturally above the wall as requested by Mr.
Capicotto, the engineer for the Planning Board. The second change is the planting of the ivy, Euonymus
Fortunei Coloratus, suggested by the Planning and Zoning Boards, to soften the look of the wall.
Mr. Salanitro then advised the Board of the four points taken into consideration by the Planning Board,
dated October 14, 1998; (1)The activity proposed is of such minor nature as not to effect or endanger the
balance of systems in a controlled area; (2)The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation,
protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits,because(A)the proposed activity will have only
a minor impact, (B) it is the only practical alternative, and (C) it is compatible with the economic and
social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or social burden on the community; (3)
The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of any part of the
wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective conditions imposed by this
resolution; (4)The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of its
minor impact in the controlled area;
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 3
Mr. Gunther said the face of the retaining wall is one-half inch shy of 6 ft.
Mr. Salanitro explained that the wall will be 5 ft., even though shown as 51 ft. to 6 ft. maximum. The
curb is 5' in.,basically above the wall and not a part of the wall. The fence will be sitting on the grade
below that curb. The measurement from the height of the fence will be from the height of the wall. The
curb is 5' in. above the bottom of the fence and will not act as a part of the wall.
Mr. Wexler said visually it is a wall and asked how someone would know that it is a curb from the low
side unless it is looked at from the upper side. From the drawing as presented the wall appears to be 5
ft. 111/2 in. from the low side of the grade and suggested Mr. Salanitro amend the drawing to show the
wall is 5 ft.
Mr. Salanitro said the drawing can be amended to show that, as the variance being sought is not for the
wall.
Mr. Wexler withdrew his question.
Mr.Winick asked if the series of stepped strings encountered when reviewing the site, show the anticipated
grade.
Rich Bernstein of 24 Winged Foot Drive answered, stating the strings were put up to determine how much
fill would be needed.
Mr. Winick asked if the same construction will continue next to the neighbor's property.
Mr. Salanitro said yes.
Mr.Winick asked Mr. Salanitro to clarify if he plans to step the fence,will it be 18 in. off the outside face
of the retaining wall?
Mr. Salanitro said that is correct. The dimensions of the proposed wall and footings for the fence are
roughly 16 in. to 18 in. It is not really on the property line.
Mr. Winick asked what is the wall constructed of.
Mr. Salanitro said it is constructed of railroad ties.
Mr. Winick asked if the railroad ties were 8 ft. by 8 ft. and an 8 in. concrete pier according to the plan.
Mr. Salanitro said yes. There will be a half inch batter on the wall, slightly inclined toward the property
itself for additional stability.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.
Mr. Wexler said at the last meeting adjustments were requested to soften the wall and asked how Mr.
Salanitro arrived at proposing a wall that is visually 6 in. higher than what was previously proposed.
Mr. Salanitro said the Board had made some suggestions which were reviewed, either tiering or setting the
wall back. Because the costs are prohibitive,an increase of 50%because of the rock, with a 2 ft. setback
the location of the fence would be at the 4 ft. line and a variance would not be needed. The economics
is just not feasible.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Salanitro to explain where the rock comes into the project.
4
• i
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 4
Mr. Salanitro said based on the detail that is shown, the railroad ties are anchored into the stone. The
anchoring method is where the costs are. In order to start the wall at the property line, as proposed last
time, go up 2 ft., set it back 2 ft. and start again, a certain number of the railroad tie wall must be buried,
which will require going back into the same rock again. The costs will be doubled, and the wall will be
31 ft. away from the property line.
Mr. Wexler said the applicant is picking up approximately 35% more useable rear yard versus the cost of
that pinning, and asked Mr. Salanitro if he thought it was worth it.
Mr. Salanitro said no.
Mr. Bernstein addressed the Board. He said when he met with the Board a couple of months ago, he took
the suggestions the Board made very seriously to soften the look of the wall. He spoke to the engineer,
to the architect, the attorneys, had many conversations with Mr. Carpaneto and did everything he could
to soften the impact as suggested. He has driven around community, taken photographs of other walls
covered with ivy and understands the Board's concern. Mr. Bernstein asks that the Board take into
consideration that the walking portion of the trail is 75 ft. from the rear of his property. There are 136
trees between the trail that people walk and the rear property line. This situation may be a little different
in relation to someone putting a wall up between two neighbor's homes or in the front of someone's house
up against the street. There is a substantial buffer between the two. He understands the concern about the
trail, as he too walks the trail every weekend. The proposed wall in railroad ties is very similar to the
color of trees and vines between his property and the walking portion of the trail. The trail sits lower than
his property. Someone would have to turn to the side and look up in the air in order to see the proposed
wall to be constructed. The proposed ivy will cover the proposed wall and provide the softened look
requested. He looked into alternatives, but that would increase his costs 50%. He has spoken to all the
neighbors that live in the vicinity of the trail, who are all support what has been proposed. . A copy of
exhibit#1, which was presented to the Planning Board on September 9, 1998, is on file. Mr. Bernstein
said if the wall has to be set back 4 ft.,it will be difficult to maintain the space between the fence and wall.
Mr. Bernstein had a sight-line study, (exhibit#2), performed to see what the impact of the fence would
be to someone walking on the trail. He explained the visual aspects being 2 in. to 3 in. whether the fence
is 18 in. as proposed to 4 ft. from the wall. He said he will loose approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of useable
land for his children to safely play in. The trail is 75 ft. away and there are 136 trees in between. Mr.
Bernstein hopes that the Board will take that into consideration when deciding how much of an impact the
proposed project will have on the trail.
Mr. Wexler said if Mr. Bernstein had to set the fence back 4 ft., would he build the retaining wall the
proposed height. He can slope the ground off to about a 45 degree angle and build the wall 21/2 ft. to 3
ft. high.
Mr. Bernstein said he feels if he built a wall the height Mr. Wexler suggests,he does not believe the land
can be made functionable.
A discussion ensued regarding the look of the land now in the back which can be contained with ivy, if
so chosen, the proposed retaining wall as shown on the drawing as 5.6 ft. high maximum plus a 5.6 in.
wood curb on top of that anchored to the wall which is almost 6 ft.
Mr. Salanitro said it was an error on his part not to change the maximum height dimensions to 5 ft., and
suggested the Board establish a condition to that nature. The curb can be set off that wall along side the
fence, and if there is concern about the curbing mentioned by the engineer at the Planning Board meeting,
it can be set away from the wall. Mr. Salanitro can have the plan revised to show a 5 ft. high wall will
be installed, nothing greater than that. No variance is needed for that.
•
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 5
Mr. Bernstein said that shortly before the Planning Board meeting of October 14, 1998, he felt he would
get approval from the Planning Board. He did not start construction on the wall, because he did not want
the Zoning Board to get the impression he is unwilling to work with the Zoning Board.
Mr. Wexler asked how Mr. Bernstein can build the wall without a building permit.
Mr. Bernstein said he could have started as soon as a permit was received.
Mr. Winick voiced his concern regarding the opinion of the current neighbors supporting the proposed
project and the visual impact that will be created, as the neighbors may move and new individuals may
occupy the residences. •
Mr. Wexler said the height of the fence above the wall that is in front is the issue. Mr. Wexler's point
of view is what is below it. Mr. Wexler feels what is proposed is not necessary.
Mr. Bernstein said all the suggestions made by the Board were going to cost 50% more.
Mr. Wexler said the costs could be reduced, if Mr. Bernstein does not build the proposed retaining wall
as presented on the drawing before the Board.
After considerable further discussion, Ms. Gallent reminded the Board that the variance request before the
Board is for a fence and not the wall.
Mr. Winick said the wall is not an issue before the Board. The wall stands on its own and is not within
the Board's purview. The Board must decide whether the fence should be 4 ft. back, which is permissible
without a variance, as anything less than that is not.
•
Ms. Gallent stated that the Board can consider the impact of having the fence on top of the wall.
Mr. Wexler said he has no question about that. He is thinking of ways to get to the 9 ft. height visually,
from the top of the chain link fence, without having as great an impact as to what is being presented. In
doing that the elements must be varied from the top of the wall to the current grade.
Mr. Winick stated, for the record, that the wall as presented is not subject to vote by the Board. The
choice is simple, fence or no fence.
Mr. Bernstein asked to get a sense of the Board.
Mr. Gunther said when Mr. Bernstein was finished he was going to poll the Board members to get their
sense of the application, before voting, so Mr. Bernstein can decide whether to proceed or not.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Bernstein submitted pictures, marked exhibit#3. Pictures #1 and #2, show other walls well over 4
ft./5 ft. tall on Rockland Avenue. The other two are walls that show ivy growing over them,which shows
a softened look.
Mr. Wexler said Mr. Bernstein should have included the wood retaining wall that was built coming off the
Thruway exit in Larchmont to Chatsworth Avenue to retain parking on top, which is much more in line
as to what is proposed than the stone wall in the pictures presented.
A discussion ensued regarding that issue.
Mr. Gunther asked for a sense of the Board on this application before voting.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 6
Mr. Winick said he would not at this moment vote in favor of the application. The drawings presented
are inconsistent with what is being presented regarding the height of the fence. Another concern is making
planting a condition on this application, as there is nothing presented in the application to review. The
Board should be able to vote on actual plans.
Ms. Gallent said the Board has to vote on a set of plans.
Mr. Winick continued saying the Board cannot vote on Mr. Bernstein's promise of screening the property.
A landscape plan must be presented, showing the screening and ivy on the retaining wall. Mr. Winick is
very concerned about the chain link fence. He would like everything on a plan for the Board to evaluate.
The site plan provided deprives the Board of the opportunity to properly evaluate the proposed project.
Due to that, he would vote to deny the application.
Mr. Bernstein asked if the Board needed something in writing regarding the agreement with the neighbors.
Mr. Winick said it should be shown on the plans.
Mr. Bernstein addressed the Board's concern about the chain link fence, stating the sole reason for the
chain link fence was because he felt it would be the most transparent of all the fences and asked if a split
rail fence would be more appealing.
Mr. Winick would like to see something that gives a 7' ft. impact that can be screened, so there is no
impact on the Leatherstocking Trail, possibly with planting in front of it.
Mr. Wexler said what Mr. Winick is suggesting was suggested months ago. It cannot be done, because
the applicant's goal is to utilize 100% of his property.
A discussion ensued regarding screening the proposed project.
Mr. Simon suggested the applicant put the fence 4 ft. back with screening in front of the fence to minimize
the effect.
Mr. Wexler said if Mr. Bernstein puts the fence 4 ft. back, he does not need a variance.
Mr. Gunther said he has a problem with the application. The basis of his objection to the placement of
the fence goes back to the five factors the Zoning Board has to consider. The first one being that no
undesirable change will be produced in the character or neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.
The second factor is that there is no reasonable alternative. The third is that there is no adverse impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. While there may not be an
environmentally based condition change,based on the fence of that height in that area, a public access area,
Mr. Gunther feels it will create an undesirable change six months out of the year. Mr. Gunther feels there
is a reasonable alternative, which is to move the placement of the fence, other than what has been
presented. On those grounds, Mr. Gunther feels legally he does not have the right vote in favor of the
application as presented.
Mr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Gunther's comment about the location of the fence, and asked if Mr.
Gunther is suggesting he would or would not allow anything less than 4 ft. from the wall?
Mr. Gunther said what is permitted by the law is 4 ft. There is nothing he can do or say about that.
Because of the height and visual nature of the conservation area, Mr. Gunther feels it will be a detriment.
Ms. Gallent said there are no plans to be reviewed, and that question cannot be answered in the abstract.
Mr. Wexler said he would deny the application as presented.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 7
Ms. Martin said the Board is required to weigh the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the
community and neighborhood. Despite the fact that the applicant has the right to build the 4 ft. fence, the
5 ft. retaining wall is causing the most concern. There are reasonable alternatives. In weighing the
applicant's benefits to the detriment of the community,Ms. Martin would not grant application at this time.
Mr. Wexler said in weighing the factor of a self-created hardship, by building the retaining wall the
applicant is creating a condition dangerous to his children. The fence being put there is a self-created
hardship.
Mr. Bernstein said the condition already exists in the yard, as shown in the photographs.
Mr. Wexler said the drawing as presented to the Board and the requests in the application state Mr.
Bernstein is going to build an almost 6 ft. high retaining wall and requests putting a chain link fence on
top of that closer than 4 ft. to the property line creating the condition for the installation of the fence.
Mr. Salanitro said before starting the comment process, he read aloud the four points that the Planning
Board made, and asked counsel why the applicant went to the Planning Board.
Ms. Gallent said the Planning Board granted a wetlands permit.
Mr. Salanitro said a Public Hearing was held, which was clear and precise as to what the application
requested. There have been no negative comments received from the public. Although the Planning Board
granted a permit, they also took a position regarding the environmental impact. It was classified as an
Unlisted Action. Mr. Salanitro understands under the SEQRA process, this is a Type II action. Why is
the Zoning Board ignoring everything the Planning Board said.
Ms. Gallent said the applications are for different things and are considered for different aspects; the
Planning Board for detriment to the wetlands, the Zoning Board for impact on the community.
• Mr. Salanitro asked if the Board had seen the wetlands permit granted by the Planning Board.
The Board had not seen the wetlands permit granted by the Planning Board. •
Mr. Salanitro said when one board supports an application, the other board should be comfortable that
another public hearing was held and that other members of the advisory board reviewed the environmental •
impact of the project.
Ms. Gallent said Mr. Salanitro is missing the point. In this case, the application before the Zoning Board
is not subject to SEQRA, it is a Type II action, and expanded on that issue.
Mr. Salanitro said he understands what Ms. Gallent is saying, but there has been no input from the public
against the project. The only other persons speaking on the project, is the Planning Board. He said the
activity proposed is the installation of the wall and the installation of the fence above the wall. It is of such
a minor nature as not to affect or endanger the balance of the system in a controlled area, which is the
wetland, the Leatherstocking Trail.
Ms. Gallent asked the secretary to provide the Zoning Board with the Planning Board minutes related to
•
this matter.
• Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Bernstein if he would like the Board to move forward with his application.
Mr. Bernstein said he sees no benefit in doing so, and asked for an adjournment.
Ms. Gallent said that the board needs a set of plans and suggested the Board retain someone to review the
sight-line exhibit submitted.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 8
Mr. Winick said the drawing submitted is inaccurate.
After some discussion, the next meeting date was set for January 12, 1999.
On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2329 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January
12, 1999 Zoning Board meeting, per Mr. Bernstein's request.
Mr. Gunther requested that the Director of Building secure a professional to review the sight-line plan.
Mr. Gunther also suggested that the applicant provide corrected plans for the next meeting.
Mr. Bernstein asked the Board, if the structure of the wall is a straight up 5 ft. wall, should he assume or
not assume his request will be denied?
Ms. Gallent said the record is open, the Board needs some expert information and cannot give an answer
to that question until the additional information requested is submitted and reviewed.
Mr. Wexler suggested Mr. Bernstein review the five factors considered by the Board.
Mr. Bernstein said the members of the Board have made it clear if the wall remains unchanged, the Board
will not be in favor of granting a variance.
Mr. Wexler said he is not sure the additional information requested will be enough to change his opinion.
He thinks there are other alternatives.
Ms. Martin said her mind is not made up either way on the application. She is concerned about the
retaining wall and recognizes Mr. Bernstein rights.
Mr. Simon said he is not closed on this matter either.
Mr. Wexler said consideration should be given to the dimensions on the drawing, that they be specific, and
a consideration of the sight-line.
Mr. Bernstein asked if the matter will have to be renoticed.
Ms. Gallent said no.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2332 (adjourned 10/28/98)
Appeal of Robert and Judith Herbst, 76 North Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont, of a determination by the
Building Inspector, that a central air-conditioning unit which is located on the ground and is connected to
a single-family home at 72 North Chatsworth Avenue is not a "structure" within the meaning of the Zoning
Ordinance, Section 240-84(A), defined in Section 240-4, for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the
premises located at 72 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 117 Lot 221.
William Maker, of 2180 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, appeared representing his clients, Robert and
Judith Herbst.
Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Maker had other information to present. In the last couple of days, the Board
received 22 pages from Mr. Maker, 12 pages from Halperin & Halperin, the attorneys representing the
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 9
neighbor next door. The Board and counsel reviewed the documents. The Director of Building gave the
information to the Supervisor, per her request.
Mr. Carpaneto said the Supervisor wants to research the files,will be giving the department additional staff
to do so, but does not know when that will occur.
Mr. Gunther said work was started and is not yet finished, researching from the Town files as well as other
towns. Mr. Gunther said whenever the Zoning Board considers a request for a determination or an
interpretation, the Board generally likes to give it lots of time and attention because of the impact of the
decision that the board makes. The Board feels they are not yet in a position to go further.
Mr. Maker said he was not going to make another long presentation, but perhaps he could summarize the
contents of the two letters, plus letters he submitted, exhibit#1 dated November 23, 1998 and exhibit#2
dated November 14, 1998.
Mr. Maker said, in summary, he was asked by the Board and counsel to research the term structure.
Through the aid of computers he plugged in the Mamaroneck definition of the word structure and
proceeded to quote information for the Board included in the November 14, 1998 letter.
Mr. Maker then proceeded with a lengthy summary, discussing the letter written by the Hamblet's attorney.
The first case refers to a case in New Rochelle that does not even have a definition of the work structure.
Mr. Maker then presented, for the record, a case that Mr. Wexler recalled that the board heard in 1991,
Jacoby, marked exhibit#3, regarding a pool filter.
Mr. Maker said he recognizes the fact that the Board requires time to digest information submitted.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr.
Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public.
Steven Halperin, of Halperin & Halperin, of 18 East 48th Street, New York, New York, appeared
representing the Hamblets. He has already submitted his response to Mr. Maker's letters/memorandums
which speak for themselves. He points out that neither Mr. Maker nor himself have been able to identify
a single case anywhere in the state where the air conditioning unit installed by the Hamblets has been
defined as a structure. The definition of structure is very open-ended and vague. The Herbsts have
attempted to exploit that where just about anything on the ground can be defined as structure in the same
way as the City of New Rochelle attempts to do by prosecuting a bird feeder case. Mr. Halperin then
proceeded to discuss the other cases provided by Mr. Maker. He said there was not much of an
opportunity to prepare for this case, and brought along the air conditioning contractor to address the board
regarding his experience in installing these types of units all over the county. There was a misconception
last time that the unit was attached to the ground on concrete footings. The unit actually sits on the ground
on a plastic platform.
Charles Vaness, of 106 Nyack Avenue, appeared. Mr. Vaness said he has worked in the area Larchmont,
White Plains and explained the various steps needed when applying for installation of these units. His main
concern is that he has been servicing approximately forty house during the last three years that are close
to the property line and wonders whether all those houses will have to move the equipment over.
Ms. Gallent said that is not the issue before the board at this time.
Mr. Winick said he would like to hear how Mr. Vaness installs the equipment.
Mr. Vaness said the unit is set on top of a prefab plastic pad, which is leveled off if possible. The pipe
goes from the condenser inside the house.
Mr. Gunther asked how much the unit weighs.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 10
Mr. Vaness said approximately 200 lbs.
Mr. Herbst said it is important when the Board reviews the case law and what other towns may have done,
that the Board keep in mind the purpose of the statute which the Town of Mamaroneck has in evaluating
structures and regulating things which are located on the ground and constructed and erected; such as the
size of a swimming pool and tennis court which are regulated because there will be an impact on the
health, safety, aesthetics and property values of the community. It should be borne in mind that these units
which were located on the ground and constructed or erected are rated as 80+ decibels, which are
powerful enough to cause the lights to blink in Mr. Herbst's house every time they go on and have had
a demonstrative, negative, detrimental impact on his house through noise and disturbance. That is the
substantial detrimental impact which the board should consider and which was intended to be regulated by
the statute.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, on a motion
made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2332 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January
12, 1999 Zoning Board meeting.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2337
Application of Harold Hochberger d/b/a Mrs. Green's Natural Market requesting a variance to add two
(2) signs to two (2) existing pole signs. The erection of two signs attached to existing pole signs is
prohibited, as the existing signs are non-conforming pursuant to Section 175-11C; further, the signs
requested are directory signs that are 11 sq. ft. in area where a maximum of 8 sq. ft. per tenant is allowed
pursuant to Section 175-11M; and further, the type of lettering proposed differs from the lettering of the
existing signage where all lettering on directory signs must be the same pursuant to Section 175-11M all
for signage located on a Business Property in a Service Business Zone District on the premises located at
2444 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503
Lot 137.
Bob Lewis, the sign manufacturer of White Plains Sign, appeared, representing the Mrs. Green's Natural
Market who has taken over from Nature's Warehouse. He is before the board to apply for a variance to
reface the existing sign structure on the Boston Post Road. There are two free-standing signs that are
double-sided in a V-shape. There are three tenants on the existing sign. The top sign is Staples, the
middle sign is CVS Pharmacy and the lower sign was Nature's Warehouse, which received a variance from
the board approximately a year ago. He is representing the new tenant and is before the board requesting
to reface the existing oversized sign, 11 sq. ft. versus 8 sq. ft., that is allowed by the code. The other
issue is the colors. Mrs. Green's has green lettering. The other signs are red with white background.
Mr. Lewis is asking for a variance that the coloring be the logo colors, green lettering and not the red
lettering that currently exists. Mr. Lewis informed the board he was before the Board of Architectural
Review (BAR) and received approval from them.
Mr. Gunther asked if the proposed signs are the same size as the original Nature's Warehouse sign, both
on the building and the Boston Post Road side.
Mr. Lewis said the wall signs are smaller than the existing Nature's Warehouse signs.
Ms. Martin asked if it is just a change in color and the smaller sign.
Mr. Lewis replied yes.
Mr. Gunther said only on the building, the signs beneath Staples and CVS are the same size.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 11
Mr. Lewis replied yes.
Mr. Lewis said he is proposing that the cabinet will remain and the plastic fascia that slides out and the
new one slides in.
Ms. Gallent asked if that is on the pole, with which Mr. Lewis agreed.
Ms. Martin asked if there is a periodic review.
Mr. Carpaneto said there is a periodic review every two years.
Mr. Wexler said there is currently a banner.
Mr. Carpaneto said the application started with the BAR, before coming before the Zoning Board for the
needed variance.
Mr. Lewis said he is before the board this evening for the ground sign. The size of the wall sign has been
reduced.
Mr. Wexler asked if there is a question of having two signs on two spaces of the building.
Mr. Carpaneto said there can be two signs on the building, because they are on a corner of the building.
The variance is for the difference in the print and for the size, at which time a discussion ensued regarding
this issue and prior submissions from other individuals.
Mr. Wexler asked when a tenant moves out, a new tenant comes in and changes the sign without changing
the size of that sign, does the tenant have to come back for a variance if a variance was required for the
previous tenant?
Mr. Carpaneto said the tenant has to come back and apply.
Mr. Gunther said the only thing being applied for are the two pole signs shown that fit below CVS. Mr.
Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.
Ms. Gallent said this matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and no
comment was received.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions regarding this application. There being none, on
motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following Negative Declaration was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action and based upon review of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form(EAF), the Board concludes that the action as proposed will not result in any significant
adverse environmental impact pursuant to SEQRA; and, therefore adopts a Negative Declaration, which
is on file with the Board.
On motion of Ms. Martin,seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Harold Hochberger d/b/a Mrs.Green's Natural Market have submitted an application
to the Building Inspector, together with plans to add two (2) signs to two (2) existing pole signs. The
erection of two signs attached to existing pole signs is prohibited,as the existing signs are non-conforming
pursuant to Section 175-11C; further, the signs requested are directory signs that are 11 sq. ft. in area
where a maximum of 8 sq. ft. per tenant is allowed pursuant to Section 175-11M; and further, the type
of lettering proposed differs from the lettering of the existing signage where all lettering on directory signs
must be the same pursuant to Section 175-11M all for signage located on a Business Property in a Service
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 12
Business Zone District on the premises located at 2444 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 137; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 175-11C, Section 175-11M; and
WHEREAS, Harold Hochberger d/b/a Mrs. Green's Natural Market 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. Based on inspection of the property by Board members and testimony given by
the representative of the applicant, no undesirable change will be produced in
the character of the neighborhood. It is a reasonable requested change in this
instance, as the signage requested is the same size that currently exists. The
applicant is using the same structure that currently exists and is only changing
the graphics and color of the sign, in keeping with the corporate logo. The
general conditions in the area would not preclude this sign or change of the sign
as it exists.
B. Because it is the corporate logo, there is no reasonable alternative to be used
other than the sign as has been presented.
C. The variance requested is not substantial. The applicant is changing only the
color and graphics, reusing the same position and size of the sign as currently
exists on the property.
D. There will be no significant adverse impact on any physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood.
E. The difficulty is not self-created, as a change in ownership has lead to this
change.
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 13
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a
permit.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2338
Application of Beverley H. Nalven requesting a variance to construct a one-story bedroom and bath
addition. The addition as proposed has a rear yard setback of 17.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is permitted pursuant
to Section 240-37B(3); 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 Zone District on the premises located
at 91 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210
Lot 588.
Beverley Nalven, of 91 Rockland Avenue, Larchmont, appeared. Ms. Nalven submitted two letters from
neighbors in support of this application, marked exhibit #1. Ms. Nalven explained the back line of the
property. The property is located on a private road formerly the address being 89 Valley Stream. In 1950,
after the property was sold to Badger Day Camp by the original developer, the address was changed to 91
Rockland Avenue.
Mr. Wexler asked if Ms. Nalven was previously before the board for a variance.
Ms. Nalven said she was before the board ten years ago for another request.
Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Nalven to describe what is being proposed.
Ms. Nalven said due to her husband's illness, she will require a first floor accommodation with a full bath.
She has spoken to all those affected, and all are in support of the proposed project. The addition will be
built on stilts. For the environmental impact, there will be bushes in front, it will be screened out and
planted. There will be access underneath, where there is a tandem two-car garage.
Mr. Wexler asked if Ms. Nalven will be able to get out of the garage where the pier is located.
Ms. Nalven said yes. A cone was placed where the pier will be located and it does not interfere. The
retaining wall was curved out to protect the pier.
Mr. Wexler asked if it is Ms. Nalven's intention to screen the under part.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 14
Ms. Nalven said the under part will be screened. It will look like it is a full foundation, but it will not be
supported by a foundation.
Mr. Gunther asked what else Ms. Nalven is planning.
Ms. Nalven explained the proposed addition. She said it is the only feasible place for the addition.
Mr. Winick said to his recollection there are no neighbors.
Ms. Nalven said the addition will be looking at the parking lot of the camp.
A discussion ensued regarding the letters received and submitted in support of the application.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from board members. 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 Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Beverley H. Nalven has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together
with plans to construct a one-story bedroom and bath addition. The addition as proposed has a rear yard
setback of 17.5 ft. where 25.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(3); 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 Zone District on the premises located at 91 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 588; 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), Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Beverley H. Nalven submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the
reasons set forth in such application; and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law §267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In
reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. The proposal will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to any adjacent property owners created.
B. Due to the irregular shape of the site, any addition to the house would require
variance. It is the only feasible portion of the site that an addition, to meet the
applicants needs, specifically, the need to have a master bedroom on the first
floor for future physical conditions, can be constructed.
Zoning Board
November 24, 1998
Page 15
C. The variance requested as presented is not substantial,given the character of the
site, the open spaces around the site and the size of the house in relationship to
homes in the community. The size of the structure is in context with the homes
in the area.
D. Because the addition will be constructed on stilts, allowing for the growth and
future of the flooding conditions of the brook, there will be no physical impact
on the neighborhood or district.
E. It is not a self-created difficulty, since the site is irregularly shaped and
burdened by a brook running along a good portion of the property which
diminishes the useability of the applicant's property.
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
•
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
® NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gunther said the review of the previous Minutes will be held over to the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 12, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Marguerit oma, Recording Secretary