Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_09_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 23, 1998, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Absent: Patrick B. Kelleher J. Rend Simon Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Katie Cullen, 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 8:46 p.m. Mr. Gunther made an announcement that only three board members were present this evening. Mr. Simon is ill and a second board member is out of town and unable to attend. He explained that the board will hear all cases. For an action to carry, all three members present must vote in favor. If you wish to have the application held over to the next meeting, it will be done without prejudice. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2323 (adjourned 9/10/98) Application of Deborah & Bill Walters requesting a variance to construct a new entrance vestibule and stoop. The entrance vestibule as proposed has a front yard setback of 25.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1),a side yard setback of 6.1 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further, the entrance vestibule 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 197 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113 Lot 318. Debbie Walters, of 197 Murray Avenue, appeared. Mr. Gunther stated that this application was held over from the last meeting. Ms. Walters verified that the application was held over from the last meeting, because there was a discrepancy in the plans presented about the side yard being 6.1 ft. or 6.4 ft. She said her architect is enroute, informed her that an error was made on the drawing and that it should conform with the survey which reads 6.4 ft. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Gunther questioned the new entry vestibule, shown on the drawing presented to have a greater side lot line than the existing house and asked if that is the intent. After further discussion on this matter, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler and unanimously approved, application#1, case #2323, was adjourned until the applicant's architect arrives. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2324(adjourned 9/10/98) Appeal by Lauren Miralia, 210 Hommocks Road, of a determination by the Building Inspector, dated 6/29/98, that the columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates that are part of the fences and walls at the Pressman residence located in an R-50 Zone District at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417, Lot 107, comply with the height limitations set forth in Section 240-52. William Maker,Jr., attorney for the applicant, appeared and requested an adjournment to the next meeting. After some discussion, the date set for the next meeting was October 28, 1998. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously approved, application#2, case 2324, Lauren Miralia, was adjourned to the October 28, 1998 meeting, at counsel's request. Stephen Gaines, of the law firm Pirro, Collier, Cohen & Halpern, attorney for the Pressmans appeared, made a short statement and said he will also be attending the October 28, 1998 meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2325 Application of Larchmont Acres East/Christopher S. Harris requesting a variance to legalize an existing sign. The existing sign has a total square footage of 20.0 sq. ft. where a maximum 3.0 sq. ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 175-10A(1) for a rental sign in an R-TA Zone District on the premises located at Palmer Avenue and Richbell Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 408 Lot 86. Christopher Harris, of 726A, Larchmont Acres East, appeared. Mr. Harris said the sign is not a rental sign but a property identification sign. Mr. Gunther asked if it is a replacement for the original sign, and asked how long the sign existed. Mr. Harris said it is a replacement sign, and has been in existence since 1938. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carpaneto when the Sign Law, with regard to limitations, went into effect. Mr. Carpaneto said in 1994. Mr. Gunther asked when the size of the sign is calculated, does it include the posts? Mr. Carpaneto said no, it doesn't include the posts. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr. Carpaneto said the sign setback on the site plan is 32 ft. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Wexler asked if there is a requirement where the sign has to be? Mr. Carpaneto said it can be either 25 ft. or 30 ft. back. A discussion ensued regarding whether the sign can be in the front yard. Ms. Martin asked whether it makes a difference how the sign is characterized? Mr. Carpaneto said it does not make a difference. Mr. Wexler asked if all signs in a residential zone can be no greater than 3 sq.ft. Mr. Carpaneto said he believes that is so, then addressed the set back issue and placement of the sign. Ms. Martin asked if the sign had been there previously for a long period of time? Mr. Harris said it is a new sign, which he is trying to legalize. There had previously been a rental sign, not a property identification sign, there since 1938. Mr. Wexler asked if it is a rental complex, which Mr. Harris verified. Mr. Carpaneto said this matter will also go before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Mr. Gunther said Zoning Board approval is for sign size, which Mr. Carpaneto verified. Mr. Wexler asked if this matter is the same as an area variance? After research and discussion between Ms. Gallent, Mr. Carpaneto and board members, Ms. Gallent said it is similar to an area variance. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Harris represents Larchmont Acres? Mr. Harris said he is the superintendent of Larchmont Acres. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Larchmont Acres East has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing sign. The existing sign has a total square footage of 20.0 sq. ft. where a maximum 3.0 sq. ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 175-10A(1) for a rental sign in an R-TA Zone District on the premises located at Palmer Avenue and Richbell Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 408 Lot 86; 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 175-10A(1); and WHEREAS, Larchmont Acres East submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 4 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. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. The sign, or a substantially similar sign, has been in existence on the property for approximately sixty years; B. The applicant cannot achieve its goals via a reasonable alternative to the size of the sign proposed, given the fact that it would be difficult to see and read a 3 ft. square sign from Richbell Road; C. Although the 20 sq. ft. sign is substantially larger than the allowable square footage under the code, the other factors outweigh that particular factor in this instance; D. There will be no adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the community. No objections were received from the public as to the size of the sign, as it is a continuation of the size of the sign that has been in existence for years; E. It is not a self-created difficulty, in this instance; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 5 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant for application #4, case 2326, Dr. or Mrs. Anthony Lobel were present. Larry Gordon said the applicants are not present, but he is the architect. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Gordon would like to proceed. Mr. Gordon said he would like to proceed. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Gordon that only three board members are present, which was mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. He can proceed or, without prejudice, the case can be held over until the next meeting. Mr. Gordon said the owner is not present, and will wait until later in the evening. Mr. Gunther said he will call the case later in the evening. Mr. Gunther asked if applicant for application#5, case #2327, Ben or Hollis Sax, are present. No one came forward. Mr. Gunther then asked if the applicant for application#6, case#2328, Chris Hofstedt,was present. Mr. Hofstedt was present. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2328 Application of Chris Hofstedt requesting a variance to construct a new master bedroom over an existing garage. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 13.15 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37(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 292 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 615. Chris Hofstedt, of 292 Murray Avenue, Larchmont, appeared. Mr. Gunther stated for the record that there was a municipal referral for 292 Murray Avenue to the Westchester County Planning Department. Ms. Gallent said it was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, by letter dated May 22, 1998, and that no comment was received. Mr. Hofstedt said he is requesting a variance to allow an additional bedroom to be built on top of a two-car garage. Mr. Wexler asked if that bedroom is a master bedroom. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Hofstedt said it will be. Mr. Gunther said the garage is attached to the house on the rear portion of the property? Mr. Hofstedt said that is correct. Mr. Gunther said the new addition will have no additional increase in the footprint? Mr. Hofstedt said the footprint will be the same. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the board or the public. Mr. Wexler asked if all materials used will be the same as currently on the house, including a tile roof? Mr. Hofstedt said all materials used will be the same, but the roof will be shingled. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from board members. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Chris Hofstedt has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a new master bedroom over an existing garage. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 13.15 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37(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 292 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 615; 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 240-37(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Chris Hofstedt 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 addition as proposed will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, since the structure itself is of a style that has a lot of changes in the roof. The addition will enhance the architecture of the existing building. While there is additional massing being formed over the Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 7 garage in the rear of the house, because of its placement in relation to all other properties in the area, it will not have a significant impact on them; B. The applicant cannot achieve the benefit requested in any other manner, since the house presently exists 13.15 ft. from the property line. The use that must be accommodated, another bedroom, is best built where it is presently proposed; C. The variance is not substantial in respect to the required setback from the rear lot line. The house that presently exists is set back 13.15 ft. from the rear lot line, and this proposed addition will be no closer to the rear lot line than what presently exists. The footprint of the house will stay the same as it presently exists; D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, since the architecture that exists is in keeping with the architecture of that specific part of the town, has a unique character to it and the proposed addition is within the vocabulary of that character; E. The difficulty is not self-created, since the house itself is set back 13.15 ft. from the rear lot line and the proposed addition follows the actual footprint of the house; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 8 The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2326 Application of Dr. &Mrs. Anthony Loebel requesting a variance to construct a second floor to an existing 11/2 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. Larry Gordon, of 17 N. Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont, appeared. Mr. Gunther said the record should reflect that the applicant was present and requested that the application be held over until the next meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously approved, application#4, case 2326, Dr. &Mrs. Anthony Loebel, was adjourned to the October 28, 1998 meeting. A discussion ensued as to whether the address of premises is 34 or 36 Harrison Drive, 34 Harrison Drive being the correct address. A neighbor of the Loebel's said she and a few other individuals are present this evening to speak about this application and asked if they too had to come back on October 28, 1998. Mr. Gunther suggested those individuals who would like to make a statement about the application should come back on October 28, 1998 when the application will be heard. Nicholas Mounier asked how he can find out how many members of the board will be present at a meeting? Mr. Gunther said under normal circumstances all five members of the board are present. He suggested that Mr. Mounier call the Building Department at 381-7830 and ask for the secretary to the Zoning Board to inquire if the meeting will be held and will all board members be present. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2329 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. Rick Bernstein, of 24 Winged Foot Drive, said his engineer is not present, but is on his way. Mr. Gunther reiterated that there are only three board members present out of a possible five members. For an application to be approved, all three member have to approve the request. Mr. Bernstein can either proceed or if so desired, without prejudice, the application can be held over until the next meeting. After some discussion, Mr. Bernstein decided to proceed. He stated is proposing to put up a retaining wall and fence. The wall is to be constructed on the property line at a maximum height of 5 ft. 6 in. At the Planning Board meeting two weeks ago, it was recommended that Mr. Bernstein raise the height an additional 3 in., to prevent excess runoff. Mr. Bernstein said at the same time, he would like to install Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 9 a 4 ft. chain-link fence on top of that wall. The purpose for the project is because a large portion of the property is unusable. He has a three year old, 1 year old and another child on the way and it is not a safe place for children to play. Mr. Bernstein said he would also like to have a yard that is functional. The issue is that the code states Mr. Bernstein is allowed a maximum height of 5 ft. and there must be a 4 ft. setback with the fence. The purpose of the 5 ft. 6 in. request is that one small portion of the property drops down further than the other, approximately 20% of the proposed wall. The purpose of the proposed fence to be installed as close to the wall as possible, is to maximize the use of the yard. Mr. Bernstein stated it would be a waste to give up the 4 ft. use of the property. It is an expensive project. Mr. Bernstein has agreed with his neighbor to plant ivy on the left side of the property, and the right side will cover the wall. In speaking to neighbors who border the trail in his vicinity, they do not object to the proposed plan and he has signatures from all of them. Mr. Bernstein said Mr. Darsky, a member of the Planning Board, who uses the trail on a regular basis, commented that Mr. Bernstein's property can hardly be seen from the trail because it sits much lower to the property. Mr. Bernstein also mentioned that eight houses down from his house at 4 Hilltop, a similar project was done with a 4 ft. railroad tie wall with a 10 ft. fence on top of the wall. Mr. Bernstein reiterated that the purpose of the fence is to protect his children from falling over the side and has chosen a chain link fence because it will be the most transparent and also the least obvious. It is difficult to see his home from the trail. He is not aware of anyone voicing displeasure. Ms. Martin asked if there were pictures of the other property. Pictures were provided. Mr. Wexler asked, on the site plan presented, how Mr. Bernstein arrived at 5 ft. 6 in. on the rear left corner. A discussion ensued regarding this issue. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Carpaneto, without a variance, how high can the wall be? Mr. Carpaneto said the height of the wall can be 5 ft., on the rear property line. Mr. Bernstein said if someone is on the trail looking up at the property, will they be able to tell the difference if the fence is against the wall or if it sits 4 ft. back from the wall? Mr. Wexler said he does not have a problem with the fence, but with the retaining wall. It is the height of the two combined creating the problem. Mr. Bernstein asked if he can build a wall a maximum of 5 ft., would the board allow the fence on top of that? Mr. Wexler said he would prefer no wall. It is his position that Mr. Bernstein should balance the wall in some way to soften the impact of the wall from view on the Conservation Trail when there are no leaves on the trees. It is unfortunate that the applicant is able to build a 5 ft. high retaining wall and for safety needs a fence which cannot be put on the property line but 4 ft. back legally. There may be a compromise that can be reached that will soften the impact of this on the Leatherstocking Trail while meeting Mr. Bemstein's his goals. Mr. Wexler feels that there are a few alternatives, without a 4 ft. fence setback. Mr. Bernstein said he is open to suggestions. The reason for choosing a chain link fence is because it will be more transparent. There are many trees behind the property. Mr. Wexler said he is only giving his suggestions. He is only one member out of a board of five members. Mr. Bernstein said his engineer, Benedict Salanitro, is now present and will address any questions the board may have. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Wexler explained that one alternative the applicant might consider is stepping the profile of the railroad ties to permit planting on the lower level. This will soften the upper part of the railroad ties and block out, visually, a good portion of the railroad ties going back 2 ft. on Mr. Bemstein's property. Mr. Bernstein asked if the wall is put on the property line, would the town allow dirt to be placed in front of the wall facing the trail to cover up the wall? Mr. Carpaneto said it is town property, and the answers cannot be addressed by this board. Benedict Salanitro, the engineer, of 517 Linden Street, Mamaroneck, appeared and apologized for being late. Mr. Salanitro said the applicant has been before the Planning Board and the issues are the aesthetics and environment impact. The Planning Board is going to give input with regard to zoning concerns. The zoning conditions are, can the fence be brought 1 ft. from the face of the wall rather than 4 ft. away from the face of the wall? Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Salanitro's sense from the Planning Board on the visual impact of the wall. Mr. Salanitro said the presentation made to the Planning Board addressed the concerns of the Planning Board, since the distance from the trail itself is 68 ft. and there is no impact. The questions posed addressed the visual impact and photographs were taken from the adjoining property that has something identical but is 10 ft. high. The proposed chain link fence appearance is not a barrier, it does soften the appearance. The planting of ivy was also discussed, which Mr. Bernstein proposes to do on the neighbors side as requested. This is a compromise, softening the look of the wall. Mr. Wexler asked how it will soften the look along the Leather Stocking Trail. The presentation continued regarding the effect the ivy will have on the wall. Mr. Wexler said, then it's Mr. Salanitro's goal to keep the wall vertical and plant ivy that is not on the applicant's property. Mr. Salanitro said it would be on the applicant's property. Because the property is wooded beyond Mr. Bemstein's property line, there will be an overgrowth of weeds and things natural to the forest covering a portion of the wall and there is not a visual impact. Mr. Salanitro feels that the fence issue is a non- issue, because it is not seen. Mr. Wexler said, from his point of view, the fence is an issue. He asked if Mr. Salanitro has given thought to terracing the back face enough to get a separation between the lower level, which can be 3 ft. high and then a setback of 2 ft., leaving enough of room to plant something 18 in. in diameter on a terrace that will block, visually, the impact of the wood-wall. Mr. Salanitro said the applicant is before the zoning board to seek a variance for the retaining wall and fence and addressed the rock outcropping issue on the property. Mr. Wexler said the facts must be weighed against the detriment to the environment. He feels it is a detriment and asked if there is someway to soften that impact. Mr. Salanitro said with respect to seeking the Freshwater Wetlands permit through the Planning Board, he feels the Planning Board will use due diligence in providing the Zoning Board with that answer. Mr. Wexler said the Planning Board can't provide the Zoning Board with that answer, because once the ® Zoning Board grants the fence height that is binding. Mr. Salanitro said the applicant is trying to obtain beneficial use of the property by leveling the rear of the property. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 11 A lengthy discussion continued regarding the applicant obtaining 100% use of the property, the wall, the fence, the set back, regrading, the impact and other alternatives available. Mr. Bernstein said he is allowed to build a 5 ft. wall. Mr. Wexler said he is allowed to build a 5 ft. wall, if the Planning Board grants it as he is in a wetland buffer. He said Mr. Bernstein would not build a 5 ft. wall without installing the fence, which is the reason for the requested variance. Mr. Salanitro informed the board that letters were submitted to the Planning Board from the all the adjoining property owners supporting the application,copy of which the Zoning Board members perused. A lengthy discussion ensued with reference to how the applicant can soften the look of the wall and fence so that the applicant will have the use of a majority of the property, the alternatives available and the impact of that on the environment. Mr. Wexler stated he would not be in favor of this application. Mr. Gunther said the Zoning Board of Appeals is limited with what it can do based upon the code. When a variance is granted, it is granted based on the application presented which is either approved or declined. With that note in mind, Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Bernstein the limitation the Town Code has for Zoning Boards to grant a variance is that one of the tests, of which there are five specific tests, is that the minimum needed to alleviate the difficulty is only what zoning board may grant. In this case, there is another alternative to alleviate some of the applicant's difficulty, to have a reduced impact on the environment and in the community. It is the applicant's responsibility to take that path. In this particular application, there are other alternatives that can reduce the impact to the surrounding areas. With that in mind, Mr. Gunther would not vote in favor of the application. Mr. Bernstein asked why the other individual at 4 Hilltop was allowed to construct something higher than what he is requesting. Mr. Gunther said he does not have that application in front of him, but Mr. Bernstein can take that matter up with the Building Department. Mr. Gunther asked if Ms. Martin had any comment to make on this application. Ms. Martin did not have any comment to make. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Bernstein how he would like to proceed. The board can adjourn the application to the next meeting, Mr. Bernstein can alter the application and if asking for less than what has been applied for can continue to seek approval on the same filed application. If there is a substantial change, the application must be refiled. Ms. Gallent said if there is a substantial change to the application, the application will have to be renoticed. Mr. Gunther asked the secretary the time schedule for filing a new application for the next meeting. Ms. Roma said the deadline for the next meeting has already passed, but additional information must be received at least two weeks prior to the October 28, 1998 meeting. Mr. Salanitro asked if the Planning Board is the lead agency. Ms. Gallent said it is a Type II action. Mr. Bernstein asked if there is any happy medium that can be discussed. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Gunther suggested Mr. Bernstein has the benefit of Mr. Wexler's comments, and should take another look at the application and make recommendations to reduce the impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Bernstein asked if he could have discussions with board members prior to the next meeting. Mr. Gunther said that is not permitted. Ms. Gallent said Mr. Bernstein can ask the board questions this evening. The board reiterated what had previously been discussed this evening with reference to the wall and fence, a combination amounting to 9 ft., and making it softer. Mr. Gunther suggested Mr. Bernstein take what has been discussed this evening, think about alternatives to this situation,as the board cannot redesign an applicant's request. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Bernstein would like his application held over to the next meeting. Mr. Bernstein said yes. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously approved, application#7, case #2329, Rick Bernstein, was adjourned to the October 28, 1998 meeting. Mr. Gunther recalled application#1, case #2323, Walters. John Brice, of 1039 Prospect Avenue, Pelham Manor, the architect for the project, appeared. Mr. Brice apologized for his late arrival. Mr. Gunther said the side lot line as noted on the drawing is 6.1 ft. but should be 6.4 ft. Mr. Brice said that is correct. The survey indicates 6.4 ft., and the application should also be 6.4 ft. It is an error in the transcription. Mr. Gunther asked if the new entry vestibule, as indicated on the plan, is to be flush with the side line of the house? Mr. Brice said no, it will be recessed from the side of the house. It was intended to align with the window above the door and Mr. Brice is not exactly sure of the dimensions. Mr. Wexler said the problem occurs because a variance, if granted, is tied to a set of plans. The set of plans actually had a setback for the projection. Mr. Brice said that he has the corrected set that shows the revised existing building, marked exhibit 1. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Wexler is referring to the vestibule itself. Mr. Brice needs to determine where that's going to fit, at which time a discussion ensued regarding this matter. Mr. Brice said if the board wants to make a stipulation,he does not have any problem with it. It was more in trying to keep it aligned. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. Zoning Board • September 23, 1998 Page 13 On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Deborah & Bill Walters have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a new entrance vestibule and stoop. The entrance vestibule as proposed has a front yard setback of 25.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1), a side yard setback of 6.4 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further, the entrance vestibule 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 197 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113 Lot 318; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(1), Section 240-38B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Deborah&Bill Walters submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the community. The small addition of the vestibule is in context with the houses in the community and the adjacent houses. It appears from the tax map that there are other houses along Murray Avenue that are closer to the property line than the 30 ft. that is required by the code. This change will not have any negative impact upon the alignment of the houses on the street; B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals in any other manner than as presented, since the vestibule is the required space that the applicant is looking for and by definition, the vestibule is attached to the front door; C. The area variance is not substantial,since this is a small one-story little addition to the front of a 21/2 story house; D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. It is not a self-created difficulty, since the house in its given days was built without a vestibule and helps the goals of the general public; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 14 H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2327 Application of Ben and Hollis Sax requesting a variance to construct a garage over a present driveway in front of existing garage. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.5 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further, the garage addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 8 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 238. Arnold Wile,of 34 Marbourne Avenue,Pleasantville,appeared representing the applicants, Ben and Hollis Sax. Mr. Wile said the applicant is applying for a variance that will allow the applicant to build within 5 ft. of the lot line. He pointed out, due to his error, the plans were submitted incorrectly. The application stated 6.5 ft. Mr. Carpaneto informed the board that he contacted Mr. Wile and informed him that, due to the error, the matter will have to be renoticed. Although Mr. Wile was informed that the matter was to be renoticed, he wanted to appear this evening to get a sense of the board regarding this matter. Mr. Wexler asked what Mr. Wile proposes for the roof. Mr. Wile said the roof appears sloped, but there is a part that will be flat as well. Mr. Wexler asked if it will be like a mansard roof, which Mr. Wile verified. Mr. Wexler asked what will be done on the sloped portion. Mr. Wile said it will match the rest of the house. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 15 Mr. Gunther asked what is on the other side, as it was not provided. A discussion ensued with the architect and Mr. Gunther with Mr. Wile explaining the placement of the other rooms of the house that were not on the floor plan to give a sense of the positioning of the wall. He said the proposed addition to be on the driveway side and not on the front side of the house. Mr. Gunther asked if all the finishes on the exterior will match the existing finishes, which Mr. Wile verified. Hollis Sax said it will look identical from the street, because it is on the corner by the driveway and the garage. On the other side, Ms. Sax said, the lead casement windows can be moved and used as replacements. Mr. Wile said the windows will be reused, to keep the character of the house. Mr. Wexler said he has no problem with the addition, and asked if the applicant has spoken to the neighbors. Ms. Sax said the neighbors have been spoken to and are very supportive. Mr. Sax reiterated that the neighbors do not have a problem with the structure. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant that the board cannot proceed any further, as the application must be renoticed. It was improperly noticed with a 6.5 ft. side yard, which should have been proposed with a 5 ft. side yard. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously approved, application#5, case #2327, is adjourned to the October 28, 1998 Zoning Board meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther made a motion to approve the September 10, 1998 zoning board minutes. Mr. Wexler said the minutes were just received, and would like time to review same. Due to this fact, the minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting. Mr. Carpaneto asked, due to the length of the October 28, 1998 zoning board agenda, the meeting start earlier. After some discussion it was unanimously resolved that the October 28, 1998 zoning board meeting start at 6:45 p.m. A discussion then ensued regarding the cases that were adjourned this evening and the order of the application, at the next meeting. Mr. Gunther said the held over cases can be started at 7:45 p.m. with newer cases heard first. Mr. Gunther asked that the secretary include a note regarding the 6:45 p.m. starting time of the October 28, 1998 meeting, along with a copy of the agenda to the applicants and those notified of the meeting within the 400 ft. radius. Ms. Gallent also suggested that the secretary call the applicants whose applications have been adjourned this evening, and inform them that the October 28, 1998 meeting will start at 6:45 p.m. and that the held over cases will begin being called at approximately 7:45 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 28, 1998. Zoning Board September 23, 1998 Page 16 © ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.' 17))d • . Mar erite Roma, Recording Secretary 'Note: After the meeting, counsel and Board members were polled and it was agreed to start the October 28, 1998 meeting at 6:00 p.m. rather than 6:45 p.m. due to the lengthy agenda developing. Mr. Gunther requested that the same procedure noted at the meeting be followed for notice and the hearing of "carried over" applications.