Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_10_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 23, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler 40 3 Lg Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector 7-4 NRECEIVED � s D� Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer A91A � i( Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. *1 49 Eighth Street e>. New Rochelle, New York 10801 OP 1 V 6 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Gunther welcomed the new Zoning Board member, Jillian A. Martin, to the Board. Mr. Gunther said the Board has three sets of minutes to approve, which will be covered at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2239 (adjourned 9/4/96; 9/25/96) Application of Richard F. Hein requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition, front porch, addition to the garage and conversion to a family room and install a new side patio. The second floor addition would have a side yard of 9.16 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a) (formerly Section 89-33B(2)(a)); the addition at the garage would have a side yard of 7.2 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a) (formerly Section 89-33B(2)(a)); the front porch would have a front yard of 13.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1) (formerly Section 89-33B(1)); the proposed patio to be installed in the side yard would be 3.0 ft. from a side line where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-50(formerly Section 89-44A);and, further the additions as proposed would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 (formerly Section 89-57) for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 44 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221 Lot 305. Richard Hein, the owner and architect, of 44 Sheldrake Avenue, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Hein how he would like to proceed, as the application has been before the Board, been adjourned at two prior meetings so that Mr. Hein could change his presentation to the Board. Mr. Gunther informed the Board the current plans he is referring to are dated October 8, 1996. Mr. Hein said when he was before the Board at the previous meeting, he indicated he would be in discussion with the neighbors to try to find a solution to the addition that would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hein said in so doing he submitted the revised plan that lessens the number of Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 2 variances requested, by eliminating the conversion of the garage to a family room, by keeping the garage in its existing state and eliminating the proposed front porch that had been requested in the prior submission, and restoring the existing entry. Mr. Hein has attempted to reduce the height of the main central portion of the house,simply raise the ridge of the house by transposing it forward toward Sheldrake Avenue. Mr. Hein said the intent is simply to meet the code. Mr. Hein said the drawing before the Board is not a working drawing and he does not have a structural section for the Board, but if the presentation was to meet the Board's approval, Mr. Hein would work with the Building Department to get habitable space in what is now a storage area and create a sitting room. Mr. Hein said in deference to the neighbors and in an attempt to lessen the mass of the house, Mr. Hein is suggesting a bedroom be built above the enclosed sun porch on the first floor between the main ridge and the garage. Mr. Hein said there would be a 2-story element between the main ridge and the garage. Mr. Hein said the drawing before the Board is a schematic design, the height which would be determinant would be in accordance with the Building Department code to give the minimal height by meeting code and structure. Mr. Wexler said when Mr. Hein drew the elevations he must have had something in his mind that would establish the ridge height. Mr. Hein said he has an indication of existing and proposed. Mr. Wexler asked if proposed would yield the habitable space in that room. Mr. Hein said that is correct. Mr. Hein believes that the final dimensions may reduce the proposed ridge height. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Hein to display and discuss the blueprint before the Board. Mr. Hein said the only change on the first floor is to expand the building above the existing blue stone patio, the garage would stay as is, the front would stay as is and he is proposing a patio in the backyard on grade. Mr. Gunther said if there is anyone in the audience that would like to view what is being explained on the blueprint to move forward. Mr. Hein explained on the blueprint the existing house as it sits now, the central element with the ridge parallel to Sheldrake Avenue, the sitting area on the second floor plan which currently has a 6 ft. 4 in. headroom and is not legally habitable. Mr. Hein would like to make the second floor into some habitable space, as the current two bedroom house is unsuitable. Mr. Wexler asked how Mr. Hein proposes achieving the headroom from the existing 6 ft. 4 in. available. Mr. Hein demonstrated on the drawing the existing ridge, and said he is extending the ridge forward and projecting the existing rafters higher. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Hein if the dotted line represents the roof beyond ridge. Mr. Hein said the dotted line shows the existing ridge, if continued at the same exact pitch not touching the rafters at the back section of the house and extend them forward moving the ridge closer the Sheldrake, shift the center of the roof forward thereby triangularly creating a habitable space. A discussion ensued about the height of habitable space which currently is 6 ft. 4 in. and proposed 7 ft. Mr. Hein said he is looking to do the absolute minimal to code. Mr. Hein discussed the problems that will arise in creating the room referred to; i.e. an existing stair lands at a portion where there would have to be a dormer to achieve code, unless he is exempted by the Building Department. The dormers were pointed out by Mr. Hein on the blueprint before the Board. Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Hein said in both cases the proposed is an eyebrow dormer, with no window. A discussion ensued. Mr. Hein said that explains the central portion of the proposal. Mr. Hein then discussed the sunroom and the intent to piggyback a bedroom on top of the existing sunroom that has a cathedral height and the elevations. Mr. Hein said the garage is existing. A discussion ensued regarding the setback and the enlargement of the first floor. Mr. Wexler said in essence proposed new construction is on the first floor in the front of the house, not in the rear, on the second floor bringing the ridge line closer to the street, and adding a second floor to the center area. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Hein to point out what areas would require a variance, as what was originally proposed was considerably different. Mr. Hein said he had shown a front porch, which would have required a variance, which has been eliminated. Mr. Gunther said in the original application there were four (4) different requests for a variance. Mr. Gunther said the front yard setback of 13 ft. where 30 ft. is required is eliminated. Mr. Hein said that was correct. Mr. Hein said he had requested the conversion of the garage to a family room, which is eliminated as the garage will remain as is. Mr. Hein said he is still requesting the patio on grade. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Hein what the existing square footage of the house is. Mr. Hein said the existing square footage is approximately 1,200 sq. ft., with the proposed addition approximately 1,800 sq. ft. A discussion ensued regarding the side yard of the second floor addition, which has been eliminated as well, the front yard and setback. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Hein that he was having difficulty understanding what variances are being requested as he is dealing with the original application, and asked for clarification as to which variances Mr. Hein is seeking as opposed to which variances Mr. Hein is not seeking to better understand if the variances being sought are significant or not. Mr. Hein said it was his understanding when the matter was adjourned at the last meeting, if a plan was submitted requesting fewer variances, he could resubmit the plans. Mr. Hein said to recap, he has eliminated the front porch, the conversion of the garage and the storage box which had been shown in the back of the garage. Mr. Hein said the situation on the second floor is very complex, but the intent does not go beyond, he will stay within the existing setbacks and minimize the height. Mr. Wexler said it appears that Mr. Hein is asking for two variances, one to build a second floor in line with side of the side yard which is no closer to the property line that presently exists, but is less than the zone allows, asking for 9.16 ft. where 10 ft. is required. Mr. Wexler said the next variance Mr. Hein is asking for, since this property has two (2) front yards, is a front yard variance projecting out on the first floor to be 13.6 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required setting the second floor further back from the front line. Ms. Gallent said Mr. Hein was correct in stating that if the revised plans called for relief less than the original plans there was no need to reapply. Ms. Gallent said the plan submitted is a different plan and for Mr. Hein's protection the Board wants to make sure it understands what Mr. Hein is asking for. A discussion ensued regarding the variances being requested. Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gerety what the square foot requirement is in an R-10 zone. Mr. Gerety said for a one-family residence in an R-10 District, the square footage is as follows: (1) One (1) story: one thousand four hundred (1,400); (2) One and one-half (1'/) stories: one thousand one hundred (1,100); (3) Two (2) and two and one-half(21/2) stories: nine hundred (900). Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. John Cuddy of 11 Holly Place, Larchmont, NY appeared. Mr. Cuddy said his property abuts Mr. Hein's property and is located directly behind Mr. Hein's property with approximately a 5 ft. separation between his house line and the property line in close proximity to the expansion. Mr. Cuddy said this matter has been adjourned a few times,and appreciates Mr. Hein having granting Mr. Cuddy the opportunity to speak with him. Mr. Cuddy hired an architect to assist him, to understand the magnitude and the intensity of this issue. Mr. Cuddy said his architect has been in touch with Mr. Hein as well. Mr. Cuddy said that Mr. Hein informed him he was not seeking a vote on this matter this evening from the Board. Mr. Cuddy said there are perhaps three(3) interpretations of the variances being sought. Mr. Cuddy cannot tell from the diagrams, there is a due process issue that needs to be addressed and the notice is not clear. Mr. Cuddy then pointed out on the three(3)diagrams the second floor elevation, the bathroom which abuts the back line of the property and said to compare that to the rear elevation. Mr. Cuddy said Mr. Hein indicates that it is an eyebrow dormer, but the plans supplied to Mr. Cuddy did not indicate same which is directly contrary to Mr. Hein's statement to the Board that he is not trying to expand the bathroom out to the end of the property. Mr. Cuddy said unless the bathroom follows the roof line, there is no way to explain how the bathroom will fit. Mr. Cuddy said there appears to be two (2) dormers, and asked the Board to review the plan they had, stating there is only a single dormer. Mr. Cuddy said more than half of the space has been noted sitting area and landing and asked what is the purpose for that. Mr. Cuddy said Mr. Hein asserts that this is necessary for his family, as nothing in the record supports the need for this magnitude. Mr. Cuddy said the whole volume of renovation is completely outside the scope and what the size of the property can tolerate. Mr. Cuddy said his principle concern is what the proposed addition will do to their light, air and view. Mr. Cuddy said he recognizes the fact that Mr. Hein took the time during the adjournment to restructure the plan to reduce the magnitude of the elevation,which is a positive step forward. However, in creating a first floor with an elevated ceiling and putting up a full second floor, is exacerbating the entire issue for the Cuddys. Mr. Cuddy presented some pictures for the record to the Board. Nina Recio appeared, Mr. Cuddy's wife, and said each picture illustrates one of the problems and presented a schedule for the record to the Board which explains the photographs. Mr. Cuddy then proceeded to discuss the photographs, referring to the schedule, regarding the view, amount of light and air, especially during the wintertime, and ultimately the property value regarding the impact it will have on the Cuddys' property. Mr. Cuddy said he is willing to work with Mr. Hein, but there seems to be a procedural matter for the Board. Mr. Cuddy said the plans are a sufficient basis for the Board to go forward tonight,and there is more work to be done with the Building Department to firm up the plans that can be accurate. Mr. Cuddy said his initial question is, what is the procedural status of this. Mr. Cuddy said he did not ask his attorney to attend this evening, as Mr. Hein said he was not going to press for a vote. Mr. Cuddy also stated there are a number of letters submitted opposing the approval of this application which he would like read into the record. Ms. Gallent asked Mr. Cuddy to show Mr. Hein the shadowing chart presented to the Board. Mr. Gunther said rather than proceeding with a discussion between Mr. Hein and Mr. Cuddy, he asked the individuals to proceed with Mr. Cuddy asking a few questions and thereafter when Mr. Cuddy is finished if Mr. Hein wishes to respond he may. Ms. Recio stated when Ms. Recio purchased the house next to Mr. Hein's property in 1985, Mr. Hein did not live there. Ms. Recio said they knew nothing could be built on that property without a variance, there Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 5 was no as-of-right, and improved their property by approximately $85,000.00 relying on that understanding. Ms. Recio said Mr. Hein, who is a practicing architect in the community, has more than constructive knowledge of the zoning laws and was aware of the circumstances when the purchase was made. Ms. Recio said it would be unfair to ask Recio/Cuddy to have their property value diminished when the situation is a self-created problem, and cannot ask the neighbors to sacrifice their light, views and air. Ms. Recio then proceeded to explain the shadowing chart to the Board,emphasizing the loss of light,view, air, ridge line and the safety of their children. Ms. Recio said Mr. Wexler stated Mr. Hein did not need a rear yard variance, but Ms Recio said Mr. Hein does need a variance, because there is a proposed patio. Ms. Recio had their architect calculate the square footage of the house. Ms. Recio said the existing square footage is approximately 1,176 square feet, less the garage, the proposed square footage will be approximately 1,336 sq. ft. on the first floor, the proposed square footage on the second floor is about 885 sq. ft. Ms. Recio said the total square footage is 2,200 sq. ft. Ms. Recio said to start with a house that was historically a cottage to be turned into 2,200 sq. ft. which is on a lot in an R-10 Zone District at 10,000 sq. ft., the applicant has only 7,000 sq. ft. In addition the applicant is supposed to have minimally a side yard setback of 10 ft., the problem being the Recio/Cuddy setback is supposed to be 10 ft. or 15 ft. depending on what is on the other side which means the structure the applicant is proposing will be 15 ft. from the Recio/Cuddy structure which will create a loss in value, the quality of light and air to Recio/Cuddy. Ms. Recio asked the Board to not allow the variance which will diminish the value of their property and will affect the light, air, quality of life and view as Recio/Cuddy do not want to look at a concrete wall. Ms. Recio asked the Board to keep in mind the property around the proposed area, an area where most of the houses do not have the side and rear yard setbacks. Ms. Recio said allowing a variance in the neighborhood in question is going to exacerbate the condition which already exists and stressed that Mr. Hein's situation is a self-created problem, and referred to similar previous cases: i.e. the Krenkel and Hoffmann applications, which the Board should review because they were denied. Ms. Recio said a substantial amount of monies have been invested, and asked the Board to refer to the various sections in the Zoning Code that apply; i.e. Section 240-2, subdivision B and subdivision D, which Ms. Recio described, which her architect also referred to. Ms. Recio asked the Board to remember that the applicant has the burden of meeting certain standards, and the Board is free to deny an application; i.e. The benefit to the applicant must outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community, whether the applicant can achieve his goals via some other method and described the possibilities, whether or not the variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,whether the requested area variance is substantial and described same. Ms. Recio said on this basis alone, whether or not the request if self-created, the Board could deny the application and said the if the Board reviews the facts the Board will say the request if self-created. Ms. Recio then referred to a previous case heard by the Board, Fisher, which was also denied. Ms. Recio said on the basis of law, equities and of fairness, the application should be denied. Mr. Simon asked Ms. Recio if her objection was strictly for the second story, dormer and ridge line, because it will minimize the light. Ms. Recio said that was correct, because when the applicant raises the proposed second story that will effect the light and referred to the chart before the Board. Mr.Wexler said in Ms. Recio's presentation she stated the applicant cannot build anywhere on the property without a variance, but he would like to make a clarification that there is an area where the applicant can build;i.e. an approximate 1,050 sq. ft. area on the second floor not requiring any variances and described a trapezoidal shaped area where it can be done. A discussion ensued regarding Mr. Wexler's statement whereby Mr. Wexler stated, as an architect, that it might be more detrimental to Ms. Recio's property to build without the requested variance than what is being proposed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Gail Vasilkioti of 2 Forest Avenue appeared and stated she has lived at that address for two(2)years and has resided in the Town of Mamaroneck for twelve(12)years. Ms. Vasilkioti said the area is mixed with Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 6 some substantial homes, tiny cottage-type bungalow homes that have been added on to over the years and said the proposed application would severely impact everyone in the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked if there was anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment on this application. There being none, Mr. Gunther then read letters received for the record in opposition from the following individuals,Howard A. Shuman, Ph. D., of 34 Holly Place, Claire Garabedian of 10 Holly Place, Sophie A. Kent of 731 Forest Avenue and Paula Pirzinger of 21 Sheldrake Avenue who said she had not received any Public Notice because the Public Notices had been delivered to her mortgage bank in North Carolina, the outcome of a computer mail label system currently used. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Hein if he wished to respond. Mr. Hein said he is a little overwhelmed, and asked what the Board would propose at this point in time. Mr. Gunther said there are a few things that need to be addressed; i.e. what is the need for the variance and said Mr. Hein may want to consult with the Building Department requesting the Building Department review the plans to make a determination of what variances are being sought,respond to the neighbors with their concern for loss of light, air and space as it relates to the diagram of shadow and other alternatives. Mr. Gunther said even though Mr. Hein has appeared before the Board on other matters, Mr. Gunther would like to discuss what the Board looks at which Ms. Recio covered in her remarks with regard to how the Zoning Board makes a determination. Mr. Gunther said the Board does review the benefit to the applicant as opposed to the detriment to the community and whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance, whether the variance being sought is substantial,whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and whether there has been any self-created difficulty which is not necessarily the overriding factor of the others but is one that the Board will review. Mr. Gunther suggested Mr. Hein gather more information on those points and respond to points made by the neighbors. Ms. Gallent said Mr. Hein may also want to provide the Board with the square footage of the house and final plans showing what is now being requested because a variance will be granted, if at all, for what is specifically shown. Mr. Gunther said one final element that Mr. Hein may want to review for improving Mr. Hein's plan would be what the zone permits regarding lot coverage in terms of an R-10 District . Mr. Gerety said a new provision in the Zoning Code for Lot coverage is thirty-five(35%), adopted June 25, 1996, in 240-37F, One-Family Residence District: R-10 Lot Coverage. Mr. Gunther then read the description of 240-37F, Lot coverage, effective June 25, 1996. Mr. Hein said an interesting comment is that the neighbors were granted two (2) specific variance which, in the words of Ms. Recio, further exacerbated an already bad situation. Mr. Hein said the Board should be reminded that Recio/Cuddy received two(2)variances within the last several years which increased the nonconformity, increased the height of their building which placed them in a position that took advantage of the interpretation that they should be granted a variance. Mr. Hein said he is not a lawyer and does not have the capacity to respond in different terms. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Hein if he would like the Board to adjourn the application until the next meeting, as the Board is not going to take any further action at this point. Ms. Gallent said the application should be renoticed based on what the Building Department determines are the variances necessary for the proposal. Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Wexler made a suggestion that the application be renoticed including the quantity and substance of the application. Mr. Gunther asked the secretary filing time is involved. Ms. Roma, the secretary, said if the applicant submits the information at least ten days prior to the next meeting the application can be included in the Public Notice mailing for the November meeting, which is mailed out seven (7) days prior to that meeting. Mr. Gunther asked the secretary to be sure that the Public Notice itself is sent out to the neighbors within a 400 ft. radius. Mr. Cuddy said to respond to Mr. Hein's last comment regarding the two(2)variances Recio/Cuddy were granted, one need not be a lawyer to respond to that. Mr. Cuddy said the plans were brought to each neighbor including Mr. Hein, showing in advance what was intended to be done. Mr. Cuddy said the current problem would have been alleviated if Mr.Hein had used the same courtesy. Ms. Recio said the Board had a full hearing on their application. Mr. Gunther said Ms. Recio can be assured that every application that comes before the Board has a full hearing. Mr. Gunther then asked Mr. Hein if he would like his application held over to the next meeting. Mr. Hein said he would like his application held over to the next meeting. Ms. Gallent said if Mr. Hein wants to review any of the information submitted this evening, it will be available at the Building Department. Mr. Kelleher said that this evening counsel made a point that Mr. Hein was lead to believe at the last meeting if Mr. Hein brought back an application of a lesser scope it basically could be considered equal. Mr. Kelleher said that before the public had anything to say, the Board was confused. Mr. Kelleher said in fairness to Mr. Hein, the Board deserves some clarification of what Mr. Hein is seeking at the present time. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of application#2239 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the November 20, 1996 meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2244 Application of Charles Bradford requesting a variance to construct a side and rear addition and deck with a side yard of 6.22 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a rear yard of 3.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3); and further, the addition and deck 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 6 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 262. Gary Savitzky of 94 Shear Hill Road,Mahopac, NY, the architect for the project, appeared. Mr. Savitzky said the house is located at 6 South Drive and sits on a parcel of property 12,000 sq. ft. Mr. Savitzky said the house is situated on the northwest corner of the site with an existing side yard of approximately 16 ft. and rear yard of approximately 3.5 ft. Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Gunther questioned the side yard footage. Mr. Savitzky said the existing side yard is 15 ft. and the rear yard is approximately 3.5 ft. A discussion ensued. Mr. Wexler said something is out of scale with the site plan, stating the 10 ft. setback goes to a break in the proposed plan and asked if it was a 4 ft. break. Mr. Savitzky said it is a 6 in. break. Mr. Savitzky proceeded to review the proposed plans with the Board, specifying the rooms, the rear addition and deck, stating the applicant now has two children and a full-time housekeeper requiring a need for change. Mr. Savitzky said he does not believe the addition will have an adverse affect on the neighborhood and proceeded to explain the proposed changes. Mr. Savitzky said the Bradfords contacted the six (6)neighbors in the neighborhood, showed the neighbors the plans, presented a letter to the Board signed by the neighbors showing no objections to the proposed addition and requested the Board grant a variance. Mr. Wexler asked if a wood burning fireplace was proposed to be built, and asked about a chimney. Mr. Savitzky said a wood burning fireplace was proposed to be built, but the chimney is not shown on the front elevation. Mr. Savitzky said most of the houses in the neighborhood are tudor style, Mr. Savitzky will continue the same design using stucco and referred to the photographs before the Board. Mr. Savitzky said the requested addition is for a minimal 230 sq. ft. A discussion ensued regarding the size of the addition and the proximity of the next door neighbor. Mr. Wexler referred to the zoning map, and said the deck addition faces the two (2) side yards of the house behind. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, 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, Charles Bradford has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a side and rear addition and deck with a side yard of 6.22 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a rear yard of 3.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3); and further, the addition and deck 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 6 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 262; 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(3), and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Charles Bradford submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 9 WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The square footage of the proposed construction is modest in comparison to the overall square footage of the residence. 2. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance which the architect has addressed. 3. A letter signed by six (6) of the adjacent neighbors, indicated their non-objection to the application, which was very specific about the dimensions that would be the controlling new dimensions of the setback. 4. The proposed construction will be in keeping with what is present in several of the neighboring properties. 5. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 6. The variance is the minimum 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. 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2245 Application of Stephen and Rima Garrow requesting a variance to construct a 2 story addition and deck; the 2 story addition would have a rear yard of 20.25 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(3); the rear deck stair platform would have a rear yard of 16.75 ft.where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and the addition would increase the extent by which the premises is nonconforming Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 10 pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 410. Mike Csenge, the architect for the applicant, appeared. Mr. Csenge said the proposed application is for a small addition to expand the present first floor, referring to the plans before the Board as page A101, and described the rooms. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Csenge that page A101 did not indicate the rooms. Mr. Csenge that is correct, but said he was just trying to walk through some of the existing conditions prior to talking about the addition. Mr. Csenge said the owners want to create a family room and an in-home study. Mr. Csenge said the existing bedroom will be utilized and will expand it to create the proposed family room and working in a study off the living room. Mr. Csenge said the variance is for the back 4 ft. as the side addition of the study meets all the side yard setbacks. Mr. Csenge said the existing trees in the backyard will not be touched, the entire structure has been elevated on piers so there will be no impact on the trees and presented photographs to the Board for their perusal. Mr. Csenge said in the nonconformity there are three (3) variances; one is for the house in the rear setback to be reduced from 25 ft. to 20.25 ft., the second one for the stair off the proposed deck 3.3 ft. and the third is increasing the nonconformity. Mr. Csenge said the only item in nonconformity is the rear south which projects into the rear setback by about 2 ft. The lot area is zoned R-6, 6,000 sq. ft., the applicant has 8,000 sq. ft., the house is within all setbacks except for the proposed expansion and the applicant is seeking minor relief. Mr. Csenge said reduction in the rear yard is not A-typical in the neighborhood, houses located two or three houses away have substantial additions off the back and houses on both sides have considerably sized additions projecting into the rear yard a lot further than what the applicant is seeking. Mr. Wexler said he finds the proposed addition on the piers out of context. Mr. Csenge said because of the size and the age of the existing trees in the rear yard, excavation could severely impact the root structure of the tree and potentially kill the trees. Mr. Wexler asked if it is a stucco house, can the wall be dropped as the void space under the proposed addition is not handsome to look at. Mr. Csenge said there is no problem to screen around the addition, and bring the exterior material down. Mr. Gerety asked if it is being described as a solid opaque curtain wall. Mr. Wexler said something as if it were coming out of the ground. A discussion ensued. Mr. Csenge said one part the applicant would not want to screen is the access to the garage on the right side elevation, as two (2) houses share the driveway. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. Murray Brauman of 13 Dante Street appeared. Mr. Brauman said the rear of his house abuts into the Garrow property. Mr. Brauman said he only received last evening a written statement from the neighbor about the proposed project and has had no time to delve into the matter, however there are a couple of issues of concern. Mr. Brauman said the proposed construction, Mr. Brauman believes has the potential to produce undesirable environmental affects in the neighborhood and it will be a detriment to the properties nearby and including Mr. Brauman's for the following reasons. First, it is small property and there will be overcrowding of land, close and congested which involves air circulation problems, noise problems and restricts light. Mr. Brauman said the trees abut his property, and if anything goes wrong with the trees Mr. Brauman would be very concerned where they fall. Mr. Brauman said there is a retaining wall between the two properties in which the Town was given an easement, and Mr. Brauman does not know what the proposed construction would do to runoff. Mr. Brauman said considerable money Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 11 has been spent in trying to control any runoff from the rain. Mr. Brauman said considering the relative size of the two lots and the proximity between them, Mr. Brauman thinks the proposed variance is substantial, maybe too substantial. It may be a case where the neighbors purchased the house under one set of circumstances, those circumstances may have changed and the house no longer suits their needs. Mr. Brauman said he feels this type of construction raises a problem that has been discussed with the Board earlier this evening. Mr. Brauman said the key question as far as Mr. Brauman is concerned is, is the benefit of this construction to his neighbors outweighs the disadvantage it poses to the neighborhood. Mr. Brauman said he is before the Board this evening, since he has had no opportunity to review the plans, to request a postponement so that Mr. Brauman can seek professional help. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Valerie O'Keeffe, 11 Dante Street, said the gentlemen said there were substantial additions to houses abutting the property in the back. Mr. Brauman said he did not say abutting, but within side line, two to three houses away on either side. Ms. O'Keeffe said the house next door to the applicant's house which abuts the applicant's property does not have any kind of a build-out on the back. Mr. Wexler asked if the tax maps are updated with additions, and asked to see the page that refers to the .property. Mr. Wexler said if a postponement is granted, would the applicant stake out the addition in the backyard so the Board and the neighbors can see the proposed addition. Mr. Kelleher said it disturbs him that the neighbor only today got notice of this matter, which means the system is not working. Mr. Brauman said a notice was received from the Town on Friday, but only a paragraph, but no further indication. Mr. Wexler said the lot on Maple Hill and including all of Dante is one of the larger lots, 8,000 sq. ft. where most are 6,000 sq. ft. A discussion ensued regarding the size of Mr. Brauman's lot and the depth of the lot. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Csenge would like to respond to the neighbors request. Mr. Csenge said he understands the concerns, but the applicant tried to work an addition for minor relief that would not impact the neighborhood. Mr. Csenge said if the owners are acceptable to the postponement, it can be worked out. Mr. Kelleher said the specific suggestion that was made is a good one, because when you see the stakes in the ground it can be related to more clearly when it can be seen. Mr. Gunther said that since it appears this matter will be adjourned, he will suggest a few other things to be addressed in preparation for the next time the applicant is again before the Board. Mr. Gunther asked for a better clarification; number one, the reason for the variance, what is it that is necessitating the applicant to come before the Board to request the extension,and secondly, in relatively clear terms whether or not there is a reasonable alternative which would not necessitate the need for a variance, why does it have to be what is presented to the Board, why could it not be some other method to achieve what the applicant is looking for and what is the alternative. Mr. Gunther said those are two out of the five things the Board must consider before granting a variance. Mr. Wexler asked what space is being created. Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Csenge said the space that is necessitating a variance is the creation of a family room, and a sitting room off of one of the bedrooms on the second floor. Mr. Wexler said he is fording it difficult to follow the drawing since there is no nomenclature to the rooms, stating it is a bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. Ms. Csenge said it is a bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. Mr. Csenge said on the first floor there is a proposed family room and study. A discussion ensued. Mr. Wexler said no variance is needed on the first floor for the study. Mr. Csenge said on the first floor the applicant is taking an existing room and expanding it to create a den. Mr. Csenge said it could be done on the side yard but it would create a much larger footprint, much more lot coverage, more substantial impact to the surrounding neighbors even though it would be as-of-right and require no variance. Mr. Csenge said the approach taken would be easier an acclamation to utilize the one room and expand it and not impact the street facade and tighten up the houses side to side as it is one of the larger lots on the street. The applicant is trying to preserve as much of the opening as possible. A discussion ensued. Mr. Wexler said it would be beneficial at the next meeting to show the alternative on the site plan, the as- of-right, and show how that would be more of a detriment to the community than building out in the rear that would require a 4 ft. variance. Mr. Wexler said it might be helpful to the neighbors, because preserving the side open space is quite a nice relief on the block and gives the applicant more open space as one can see, in the photographs, right past the house. Mr. Kelleher said that is a tact presentation that is quite often seen where the architect or engineer will show as-of-right alternatives where no variance is required is actually more detrimental or less pleasing to the neighborhood than an alternative that does require a variance. Mr. Brauman said some years ago he thought about building a deck out the back, but when he realized what it entailed thought it would be an infringement on that house because they were right on top of each other. Mr. Wexler said according to the tax map Mr. Brauman has a shallow backyard, but the applicant has a backyard which is 5 ft. greater than the minimum. Mr. Wexler said if the applicant built out, the applicant would have more backyard than Mr. Brauman has. Mr. Wexler said the applicant has a nice side yard, and to build an as-of-right, the applicant would have to invade that space considerably. Mr. Wexler said the impact would be much greater to the street than building out in the back. Mr. Wexler said when it is staked out, a visual sense will be available. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2245 be, and hereby is,adjourned to the November 20, 1996 meeting. Mr. Gunther said it is important to note the reasons for modification and value of work on all Board of Appeals applications. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2246 Application of Stephen and Michele Wenzler requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition with two front yards, the first setback 20.0 ft. and the second 21.1 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 13 Section 240-39B(1)and the rear yard would be 7.9 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(3); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 1. Robert Pollack, architect for the applicant, appeared. Mr. Pollack said the owners of 10 Dante want to lift their roof up so they can have full 8 ft. ceilings in their bedroom which currently is a cottage with an attic type bedroom. On the eastern portion,there is no visible space at all,basically a one-story house with a shallow attic. Mr. Pollack said the applicants wish to raise the entire attic, to have a fully useable three (3)bedrooms and two(2)baths which currently is two(2)attic bedrooms and a single bath. Mr. Pollack said on the first floor they have a room that is used as a bedroom, but actually according to State code is not really supposed to use as a bedroom because it does not meet the 80 sq. ft. minimum required for a habitable space. Mr. Pollack said the dilemma is created by the fact that Dante Street and Dimitri Place are two parallel streets that instead of being the normal 200 ft. apart are 100 ft. apart and the piece of property has a point on it. Mr. Pollack said according to the Zoning Ordinance in the Town of Mamaroneck, on any corner property one must have two front yards, so this property has to have a front yard of 30 ft. on Dimitri and 30 ft. front yard on Dante the end result being a tiny triangle of a couple of hundred sq. ft. Mr. Pollack said obviously when the house was built in 1948, the owners obviously had to get a variance in the first place. Mr. Wexler asked if a house has to have a rear and side yard. Mr. Gerety said yes, a house has to have a rear and side yard. A discussion ensued. Mr. Pollack said the property has a rear yard and two side yards. Mr. Pollack said the applicant wants to expand the second floor up along the existing exterior wall line, not extending the second floor out, all in keeping with the existing footprint except in the notched area which is within the actual allowable building area that has never been built on before. The applicant has a need to enlarge the kitchen in that area, as the present kitchen is a galley kitchen as there is no table space. The applicant wants to create on the first floor an extension of only about 100 sq. ft. Mr. Pollack said that while it will project out slightly past the allowable building line by about 2 ft., the variance is being requested for no more than what would normally be allowed for an allowable building projection. Mr. Pollack said the applicant also needs a variance to build a small platform and steps down from that kitchen which will also be inside the rear and front yard setback. Mr. Pollack said the impact on the neighborhood should be very minimal visually, because normally with a front yard infringement on a front yard setback, one is talking about a house sticking out in front of other houses when one looks down the street. Mr. Pollack said this street goes up at an angle where the street frontage that the house fronts on is really askew about thirty (30) degrees from the rest of the street because of the pencil point, which means this house is set back much farther than the other houses even though it doesn't meet the front yard setback. Mr. Pollack said visually it is quite back beyond the other houses, and on Dimitri Place all the houses on one side of the street have rear yards because it is only property deep. Mr. Pollack said across the street, individuals have front yards. Mr. Pollack said the visual impact of the addition or raising the house from the rear would be very little difference than what it is now because at present there is an 8 ft. second floor wall with a dutch dormer across the entire back of the house. Mr. Pollack said that line will not change but will come all the way out to the western side of the rear portion of the house instead of being set back about a foot where currently there are the old gables in the shape coming down to make it look like a cottage. Mr. Pollack said the actual wall height will have very little impact on the street, because the applicant is adding a little over one foot to that same wall turning it into a full height situation. Mr. Pollack said when he was first hired, the applicant had been talking to builders about what could be done and the cost. At that time the builders, without realizing the zoning impact, started adding out on the first floor in the gap on the first floor projection and the back wall. Mr. Pollack realized that would not be practical and after explaining same to the applicant, the applicant decided not to ask for a variance of that nature. Mr. Pollack said the property is 1,100 sq. ft. larger than the 2,000 sq. ft. required lot size but the situation and the angles creates a problem. Mr. Pollack said the character of the neighborhood is Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 14 essentially a 2-story neighborhood. Mr. Pollack said this house is different than most of the other houses, because it looks like a one-story cottage even though it really has a knee wall on the front wall which is about 3 ft. above the second floor. Mr. Pollack said at the present time the house is a one-story cottage which will be very nice two story Colonial when finished. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gerety for the tax map to view the property. Mr. Wexler said the applicant elected to draw the second floor ceiling at an even 8 ft. height and in doing that the applicant raised the structure. Mr. Pollack said the back wall of the house will be raised, and the ridge will definitely be raised. Mr. Wexler said what presently exists is a cottage, and suddenly a 21/2 story structure will be in its place and will have some impact. Michele Wenzler said they have three children who are getting bigger and with the situation as it is now upstairs there is attic space that is only accessible by crawling through it and to raise the roof is necessary. Mr. Wexler said if the applicant would have kept the majority of the center of the second floor at 8 ft. and lowered the side walls to 61/2 ft., would that have effectively reduced the ridge by 1'h ft. . Mr. Pollack said it probably would have, and said that roofs of most of the other houses in the neighborhood start at the 8 ft. line. Mr. Wexler said it has a 20 ft. front yard when parallelled to the curb, a 21 ft. front yard in the rear, there is no relief of another back yard next to it and is concerned about the height. Mr. Pollack said the front wall is a knee wall, and a discussion followed regarding the elevation of the ridge. Mr. Wenzler said it will not impact the sight line because all the houses in the neighborhood are distanced for each other. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. Evan Taub of 12 Dante Street appeared and said his is the only property that directly abuts the property at 10 Dante Street. Mr. Taub said that everything the architect said is basically true, all the other houses are far away. Mr. Taub said he and his wife fully support the application at present before the Board, the plans will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not have a negative impact on anyone. Mr. Pollack said that in 1987 the previous owner had applied for and received a variance for a second floor addition, but it was never built. Mrs. Wenzler said that she had signatures from most of the neighbors(fifteen)around the area in support of the application, and presented same to the Board which Mr. Gunther then read. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 15 On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Stephen and Michele Wenzler have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor addition with two front yards, the first setback 20.0 ft. and the second 21.1 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1)and the rear yard would be 7.9 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 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 240-39B(1), Section 240-39B(3) and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Stephen and Michele Wenzler submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The lot is an irregular, unusual shape which poses a hardship to the applicant. 2. The variances requested are necessary due to front yard restrictions which are burdensome due to the unusual shape of the lot. 3. The variance is not substantial given the site constraints. 4. A variance had been granted to the previous owner, but the previous owner never proceeded with the authorized construction. 5. The only affected neighbor testified in support of this application. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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: Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 16 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. 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to contact the Building Department during the regular business hours for a permit. A five minute recess was taken at this time. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2247 Application of Christina and Howard Ives requesting a variance to construct a rear addition with a side yard of 8.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is 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 Zone District on the premises located at 25 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220 Lot 231. James Fleming, the architect, appeared along with Christina and Howard Ives. Mr. Fleming described the reasons for the request, to provide a standard kitchen with an eating area and a useable family room and powder room with a master bedroom upstairs. Mr. Fleming said the footprint of the original house was 25 ft. x 25 ft., a very small house with a sun porch added to it which was built 8'1/2 ft. from the side property line. Mr. Fleming said the applicants would like to expand the house within the lot coverage and line up the house with the existing wall of the house. Mr. Fleming proceeded to review in detail the expansion and addition in the plans before the Board, and said the project comprises about 6% of the entire footprint. A discussion ensued regarding what the project would be without the variance granted, and what it would be if the variance was not granted. Mr. Fleming presented a drawing to the Board and said to avoid pushing the addition toward the downhill side of the property, the proposed variance is being sought. A discussion ensued regarding the proposed application and the existing deck. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any pictures in the file, and was told there were none other than what was attached to the application. Mr. Fleming gave some pictures to the Board for their perusal. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Fleming to provide the Board with the reason for the modification, as the in reading the text of the application it states the applicant is looking to line the addition up with the side of the house but doesn't address why the applicant is adding to the house. Mr. Fleming said he provided a letter to the Board. Mr. Gunther said the letter Mr. Fleming is referring to talks about alternatives as opposed to what the reason is for seeking a variance to build the addition. • Mr. Fleming said the reason for the proposed application is that the house is very small to begin with and is proposing a useable family room and an eat-in kitchen area. Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Fleming if he knew what the minimum requirement is in an R-10 Zone District. Mr. Wexler said the minimum requirement for a two-story in an R-10 Zone District is 900 sq. ft. on the first floor, and Mr. Fleming had said there was 625 sq. ft. on the first floor. Mr. Gunther said on the first floor space the applicant is specifically below the minimum floor area required. Mr. Gunther asked about lot coverage and read the requirement from the Zoning Code stating lot coverage 35%. Mr. Fleming said lot coverage is 25% where 35% is allowed. Mr. Kelleher said the Board agrees that the proposal before the Board renders the applicant well below the required lot coverage. Mr. Gunther asked is there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked if gravel driveways fall into that coverage. Mr. Gerety said the determination was made that impervious areas, gravel driveways, wood decks, are not a part of the lot coverage. Mr. Fleming presented a letter to Mr. Gunther from the immediate neighbor on the side where the applicant is requesting a variance. Mr. Gunther read the letter from Cynthia L. Rocchio in support of the proposed application. Mr. Fleming pointed out the tree on the plan, said the area is ledge ridden and said the tree will not be touched. Mr. Fleming said he doesn't believe there is any aesthetic impact on the neighborhood at the location in the back of the house, and the applicant is trying to do the right thing by architecturally lining up the house. Mr. Fleming said this nature of the addition, a master bedroom, expanded kitchen and family room is a very typical addition to houses. Mr. Fleming said the 1' ft. addition does work better architecturally, and said shifting the addition around would not solve the problem the applicant is experiencing daily, and therefore is requesting a variance. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public or the Board members. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Christina and Howard Ives have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear addition with a side yard of 8.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is 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 Zone District on the premises located at 25 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220 Lot 231; and Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 18 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)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Christina and Howard Ives submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The proposed side yard is no closer to the side property line than presently exists. 2. The applicant has a house of rather small square footage for the neighborhood. 3. The proposed addition will bring the house more in line with the requirement of the minimum square footage for a house in an R-10 Zone District. 4. The applicant's need for additional space is relieved by the construction of the proposed addition. 5. The variance requested is not substantial in nature. 6. Given the footprint of the house, any invasion into the rear (west) of the house would make the flow in the house difficult to achieve. 7. Extending the right sideline of the dwelling further back as proposed, does not pose a visual detriment to anyone. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; Zoning Board October 23, 1996 Page 19 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. 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to contact the Building Department during regular hours for the building permit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said the approval of the Minutes of the July 24, 1996, September 4, 1996 and September 25, 1996 meetings will be carried over to the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 20, 1996. Mr. Gunther closed the public hearing of the meeting and called for an executive session to discuss pending litigation. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Margue ' Roma, Recording Secretary