Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_01_12 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 12, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Michelle Nieto, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kaza7Ps & 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 8:55 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed the Board and the public that administrative matters will be discussed at the end of the meeting,unless there is a need to do so before hand. There being no response,he also informed those present that one of the Board members, Paul Winick, is not yet present, but the Board will proceed. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2329 (adjourned 9/23/98; 10/28/98; 11/24/98) Application of Rick Bernstein requesting a variance to construct a railroad tie retaining wall with a 4 ft. high chain link fence. The railroad tie retaining wall with a chain link fence as proposed has an overall height of 9 ft. 6 in. where a maximum 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence or wall in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 24 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Lot 310. Dolores Battalia of Stein & Battalia, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont, who will be representing Mr. Bernstein appeared along with Mr. Bernstein. Ms. Battalia indicated that the Board has made certain requests of Mr. Bernstein with regard to revised plans and the accuracy of the exact height of the wall and fence. As indicated on the drawing presented this date, the wall will be a maximum 5 ft., the fence 4 ft. Also, in reviewing the record it appears the Board's major concern is the visual impact on the Leatherstocking Trail, especially in the months when there is no vegetation or shrubbery. A compromise was suggested to Mr. Bernstein that the retaining wall be moved into the property 1'h ft. to 20 in. and plantings installed in front of the retaining wall. Mr. Bemstein's landscaper has come up with a plan of plantings which will grow 12 in. to 16 in. high, will cover the wall and the fence over a short period of years and neither will be visible from the trail. Ms. Battalia presented the Board with a drawing for its review. After reviewing the drawing, Mr. Wexler said the applicant is calling for the plants to be 5 ft. on center and asked what the spread is on the tree. Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 2 A discussion ensued, and Ms. Battalia said she did not have the specific answer to that question. Rick Bernstein of 24 Winged Foot Drive, Larchmont, addressed the Board. Mr. Bernstein said the plants will not totally conceal the wall at that point in time, but will grow 12 in. to 16 in. a year, upward and outward. Paul Winick arrived at this time. Further discussion ensued regarding the plants, with Ms. Martin saying the plan states the trees will be "Spreading Euonymus". Mr. Bernstein said he has documentation on the plants, which he presented to the Board. Mr. Gunther asked if he was correct in assuming there is ivy on the south side of the wall that covers the whole wall that faces Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Battalia said that is correct, but presumes that may not be necessary and may appear again before the Planning Board to discuss this issue. Mr. Gunther said the plan states the plant grows 8 ft. to 10 ft. high. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the plant (4 to 6 ft.), and the Manhattan variety. Ms. Battalia said if the Board wants the size and/or spacing of the plant specified, that can be done. Ms. Martin asked if the Board has the ability to influence maintenance of plantings over a period of time? Mr. Gunther said the Board can condition a variance on the installation and maintenance of plantings. Mr. Wexler asked how far the wall is set back from the property line. Mr. Gunther said the wall is set back 20 in. Ms. Battalia said all the plantings will take place on the outside of the property. Ms. Mai tin asked if terracing was considered, as there had been some discussion about terracing visually softening the wall. She asked how the present submission compares to that idea, breaking up the sheer face. Mr. Bernstein said what was discussed at a prior Zoning Board meeting was building the wall 2 ft. in height, a 2 ft. terrace and then a wall 3 ft. in height. After some discussion, Mr. Bernstein said he is slowly approaching the 4 ft. setback that would have to be done anyway. The other problem is the rock on the ground, which is why he chose the current plan. Ms. Battalia then addressed the Board's concern about plantings on the side. Mr. Wexler said the drawing presented is the same as the drawing already on file. Mr. Bernstein said one drawing shows plantings in front of the wall, the other shows no plantings in front of the wall. After further discussion, Mr. Wexler asked if the walls are being set back on the side property line. Mr. Bernstein said no, he is not. 1 Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 3 Ms. Battalia said the fence would be on the neighbors side, and the plantings along the fence on the other side at the request of the neighbors. Mr. Wexler said then the fence is proposed to be built on the property line that faces the trail, there are two other side yard property lines, and asked if the retaining wall is proposed to be built on the property line or set in. Ms. Battalia said the retaining wall is proposed to be built on the property line. Mr. Wexler asked if the plantings are being done on the neighbors property. Mr. Bernstein said no. The neighbors on the side had requested plantings at the top of the wall and are satisfied with the ivy growing against the wall. The proposed plantings at the top of the wall will be Arborvitae and will be set back 28 in. from the face of the wall. Ms. Martin asked if Arborvitae was only being planted on the side and not in front of the fence along the back. Ms. Battalia said that is correct. The Planning Board requested the ivy. Mr. Wexler said the rear property line goes from an elevation of 22 ft. down to an elevation of 19 ft., which is about 3 ft. The proposed wall will be 5 ft. high. He asked if the wall will be stepped down to make the 3 ft. differential, or 5 ft. high at the 19 ft. elevation and 3 ft. high at the 22 ft. elevation. Mr. Bernstein said it will be a maximum height of 5 ft. Mr. Wexler said from the trail it will appear to be 2 ft. high at one end and 5 ft. high on the other end. Mr. Bernstein agreed. A lengthy discussion between Board members ensued regarding same. Ms. Battalia said she could have plans prepared that will clearly indicate the proposed heights. She asked Mr. Wexler if he wants to make certain that the wall is at no point higher than 5 ft. Mr. Wexler said he wants to make sure that is what is presented on the drawing is actually what is the proposed solution and that the applicant reali7e_s same. Ms. Battalia said that is moving the wall back into the property line and putting plantings in front. It must be acceptable to the Board, to address the Board's concerns about the visual effect on the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Gunther polled the Board members, stating he was in favor of the redesign. Mr. Winick and Mr. Simon also expressed favorable views. Mr. Wexler said the only concern he has is that the plantings on the lower level facing the Trail, as one approaches it, there is going to be a bit of a wall that is 5 ft. high that goes into the side of the property that will be exposed. You might see a line of plantings, but it will look artificial because it is planted so regularly and then suddenly a wall juts out to the side on the side property line. It is not being hidden, as it is in the front. As you approach this on the trail, you are looking at the corner of the wall. Mr. Gunther asked how many feet of wall is on the right-hand side. Mr. Wexler said approximately 30 ft. Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 4 O Ms. Martin asked if the Euonymus is being put on the side, along with the Arborvitae. Mr. Bernstein said the neighbors have not requested anything. Mr. Gunther asked the elevation at the right-hand corner, the west corner. Mr. Wexler said that is where the wall is at its lowest, only 2 ft. high. Ms. Battalia addressed that issue, and asked if Mr. Wexler had any suggestions regarding plantings. Mr. Wexler said he just wanted to be sure that the height of the plantings are 4 ft. above the ball and that they will spread to cover the wall. There is an acute angle at the furthest corner of the rear property line, the wall is being brought to an acute angle then coming back. It is such an unusable space. If the retaining wall is reduced and came across it at an angle, something meaningful can be achieved at that corner that will hide the area at its highest point. Ms. Martin said she is satisfied with the applicant's efforts to meet the Board's concerns, provided the plantings are maintained. Ms. Martin understands what is happening on the Landis' side, and the other end of the property at the acute angle and asked if Euonymus or Arborvitae are being planted as well. Mr. Bernstein said Arborvitae will be planted, provided the neighbors are satisfied with it, as they have not asked for anything at all. Ms. Martin said then Mr. Bernstein is not going to put anything along the bottom of the wall, which will PIP"- be 5 ft. at that point. Mr. Bernstein said that is correct. It is so far down on the property, there is no concern regarding that issue. Mr. Gunther said if Mr. Bernstein cuts back that corner, it will probably be 4 ft. at that point,because the ground slopes up and the ivy will go down the side of the wall. Mr. Wexler suggested the dimension for cutting back the wall to be 20 ft. facing the Leatherstocking Trail, and 20 ft. on the other leg of the corner, which would save Mr. Bernstein approximately 30 ft. in wall structure. Ms. Battalia said that will almost eliminate the wall on the left side. Mr. Wexler said the wall on the left side, from the drawing, goes 40 ft. Ms. Battalia asked if it can be done 20 ft. on the Leatherstocking Trail and less on the other side? Mr. Wexler said it is. It is 20 ft. on the Leatherstocking Trail and about 17 or 18 ft. on the other, giving an opportunity to put plantings to soften the look of the wall. Mr. Bernstein questioned the reason for chopping off the corner and putting something in front of it. Mr. Wexler said it is not useable area. Ms. Battalia said perhaps the applicant can go back to the engineer to see what works with respect to the design. After further discussion, Mr. Winick suggested the engineer make a plan to show what has been suggested. Zoning Board January 12, 1999 © Page 5 Mr. Wexler said at that point the elevation is 20 ft.,as shown in the drawing, on the Leatherstocking Trail. It is now coming up one foot more on the grade, which allows more flexibility in building the wall. Mr. Wexler suggested that the engineer take a look at it. Ms. Battalia asked if there were any other suggestions from the Board. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board of the applicant. There being none, he asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. Mr. Wexler asked the reason for the 2 in. galvanized vinyl coated fence as opposed to a post and rail fence with a mesh on it, which is larger, more transparent and natural. Mr. Bernstein said it is his feeling the chain-link fence is more transparent. Mr. Battalia said it was suggested to Mr. Bernstein that the black coated fence would be less likely to be seen. The applicant can look into the other suggested fence, if necessary. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant would like the matter adjourned. Ms. Battalia said she would like the matter adjourned, to be able to return at the next meeting with revised plans. A discussion ensued regarding the next meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. OWexler, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2329 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 27, 1999 Zoning Board meeting. At this point in time, the February meeting date was set to be February 24, 1999. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2332 (adjourned 10/28/98;11/24/98) Appeal of Robert and Judith Herbst, 76 North Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont, of a determination by the Build_sg Inspector, that a central air-conditioning unit which is located on the ground and is connected to a single-family home at 72 North Chatsworth Avenue is not a"structure" within the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 240-84(A), defined in Section 240-4, for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 72 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117 Lot 221. William Maker, Jr., appeared for the applicants. Mr. Maker said the matter was adjourned in November, 1998, to allow additional time to get reports from various persons within the Town on the ramification of legal issues. He does not have a presentation to make, as it would be redundant. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Maker to give a two-minute summary to the Board on what he is looking for. He will then ask the building inspector to give a summary. Mr. Maker said the application is for an interpretation of one of the sections of the Zoning Ordinance, the one that defines the term structure. Mr. Maker then quoted Section 240-4 of the Town of Mamaroneck code pertaining to that issue. There has been a series of one-way correspondence between himself, the Board and Ms. Gallent. Four cases were found with this definition of structure, with a slight variation on the theme, in certain ordinances throughout the state, all of which dealt with cases in which anything located on the ground was considered a structure as it was located or attached on the ground and of a Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 6 permanent nature. Mr. Maker is asking the Board to make a determination that the central air conditioning units at the next door neighbors' house, owned by Mr. &Mrs. Hamblet, are structures. The next step will be to ask the building department to enforce the setback requirements that apply to that district. Mr. Carpaneto said no other information has been found in the files pertaining to this issue. Mr. Gunther asked what kind of research was performed. Mr. Carpaneto said a report was sent to the Supervisor on information received from different towns. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Carpaneto or someone in the department reviewed the records of other towns' zoning ordinances and asked if the definition of structure was any different than the Town of Mamaroneck's definition. Mr. Carpaneto said the definition varies somewhat. Some towns had no definition of structure, some towns did regulate structures and some did not. Some towns regulate air conditioning units by noise, or setbacks relating to accessory structures. Mr. Carpaneto gave a report on the various towns investigated-- Dobbs Ferry, Bronxville, Scarsdale, Hastings, Harrison and Pelham Manor. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Gallent about the research she had performed on case law. Ms. Gallent said there were no cases other than the cases submitted by the applicant. Mr. Gunther asked how the definitions of "structure" in the rases cited by the applicant compare to the Town's? Ms. Gallent said the cases cited by Mr. Maker all involved definitions of "structure" almost identical to the Town's. Mr. Gunther asked about the other cases cited. Ms. Gallent said she has prepared a memo regarding the other cases cited by the property owner. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members for the applicant. A discu:lion ensued regarding the reference made to the Jacoby application at the previous meeting. After some discussion, Ms. Gallent said it is not relevant because apparently the pool equipment at issue was treated as part of the pool, not independently. Mr. Gunther read aloud Section 240-4 of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code and said that based on the broad language of the code, one can consider air conditioning equipment to be a structure. Mr. Wexler said assuming it is determined to be a structure, given the configuration of the small lots in the community where there are a lot of substandard size side or rear yards if air conditioning is wanted and the units have to be placed outside, they would have to come before the Board for a variance. What are the mitigating things that would reduce the impact of that on the neighbors, especially the noise? Ms. Gallent said that is not the issue. A discussion ensued and Mr. Wexler withdrew his question. Ms. Martin agrees it is a problem, but by including this within the Board's interpretation of the term structure it will create a problem when it is a noise issue. Ms. Gallent said it is not for the Board to be concerned about on this appeal. Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 7 A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the statutes, noise ordinances and interpretations. Ms. Gallent said the Town can amend the definitions if it is dissatisfied with the Board's interpretation. Ms. Martin asked if the Board can recommend this be done. Mr. Gunther said yes, it can be done. He then said Sections 192.1 and 192.8 of the Town code indicate wading pools are not allowed in a side yards unless they meet the required setback. He mentions that fact because it is one indication where the Town said nothing shall go in a setback area. If the code was written in such a broad manner that structures means anything constructed or erected, it is incumbent upon the Board to consider an air conditioning unit as a structure as well. A discussion ensued regarding what constitutes a structure. Mr. Wexler asked about fences. Mr. Gunther said under the definition, fences are identified as structures. A discussion continued regarding fences and how it relates to "structure", references being made to page 24011, definitions and various sections of the code, §240-52. Mr. Gunther said the Board should note the definition of fence was added in 1996. If the Board goes through the Town Zoning Code they will find in a number of areas where alterations and additions have been made due to changes in lifestyles, the size of houses, etc. There is nothing in the code about air conditioners, as it was not an issue at that time. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. Steven Halperin, of Halperin & Halperin, the attorney representing the respondents, the Hamblets, appeared. Mr. Halperin said a letter was submitted to Ms. Gallent on November 20, 1998. The Hamblets position is that the law, as written, is so open-ended it includes anything sitting on the ground. Mr. Halperin thinks it is within the Board's power to take the law and interpret it as narrowly as possible under the circumstances, and asks that the Board takes that into consideration when making a determination. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Chris Renson of 1088 Palmer Avenue appeared. Because of the previous discussions, he asked if mailboxes, birdbaths, etc. had to meet the setback requirements. There was some discussion on this question regarding whether its location is on the ground or attached to something. Ms. Gallent said the Board is not asked to render an interpretation as to those objects. Mr. Gunther said he would like to close the public hearing on the matter, if the Board has no objections. He then asked counsel to draft a resolution based upon the discussion the Board has had in favor of including the definition of structure for the Board's review. Mr. Gunther and asked if there was any other discussion from the Board members. After some discussion, Mr. Wexler said when one looks at the code and reads the words, the air conditioning section falls into the structure definition. Zoning Board January 12, 1999 ® Page 8 Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Simon for his comments. Mr. Simon said at this point in time he has no comment, as there are many houses in the area with the same conditions. Ms. Gallent reiterated that this is a request for an interpretation. Mr. Wexler said there are accessory structures, primary structures and the whole area has to be clarified. Mr. Winick said when looking at the definition of structure the issue of concern is where it stated constructed or erected which requires location on the ground. In this case, an attachment to something having location on the ground is the house. Mr. Winick referred to the case People v. Fells, which is a part of the record, and continued with his comments regarding same. Mr. Wexler said it is part and parcel to the use of the house, part of the primary use of the house. The discussion continued regarding the air conditioning units and pool filters. Ms. Martin agrees with her colleagues on the literal interpretation, but prefers this be handled in a form where the entire issue can be studied including all the aspects of the problem, as she has a similar problem at her residence. Mr. Wexler said the issue has never been raised, but in this instance, the installation has caused a discomfort to someone. +. Ms. Martin feels it would be better handled by the Town Board, where all aspects of the problem including the noise, etc., can be addressed in a legislative manner. Mr. Gunther said legislation is up to the Town Board. Mr. Wexler said the Board has had other definitions come before it, i.e. Bonnie Briar. Mr. Winick said it is within the power of the Town Board to amend the law. The Board's interpretation crystallizes the issue. Under the current statute given what interpretation there is, requires this finding and the Town Board can do it. This matter cannot be deferred, because this problem is before the Zoning Board now. Mr. Gunther said if there are no other questions from Board members, he would like to adjourn application #2, case 2332, and remind all that the public portion of the hearing has been closed for counsel to draft a resolution. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2332 be, and hereby is closed, and the matter adjourned to the February 24, 1999 Zoning Board meeting to review and discuss counsel's draft resolution on this matter. A five minute recess was taken at this time, 9:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board January 12, 1999 ® Page 9 APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2335(adjourned 11/24/98 to 1/12/99) Application of Christopher J. Renson requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for the rear deck. The deck as built has a rear yard of 23.95 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B (3)(a). The side yard is 9.89 ft. where 25.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(2)(a); and further, the fence below the deck has a height of 6 ft. 6 in. where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A; and the deck, steps and platform increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-A Zone District on the premises located at 1088 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 1. Mr. Simon recused himself from the meeting. Mr. Carpaneto informed the Board that when writing its disapproval he added the section about the fence being a height 6 ft. 6 in. where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed, which was previously granted in 1992. Chris Renson of 1088 Palmer Avenue, adjacent to the entrance of Central School, appeared. Mr. Renson said a variance was granted to build a deck to be 10 ft. from the property line. The builder was not as precise, and the deck is 9.89 ft. from the property line, approximately an inch closer to the property line than intended. Mr. Renson hopes this will be forgiven and the Board will grant a variance for the 9.89 ft. The more significant issue is that it is the back yard, the builder was not as careful as he should have been and hit giant boulders. The architect had marked where it was supposed to be, and the foundation rather than 12 ft. is 13 ft. from the house. Mr. Renson said clearly it was not done on purpose. There are extenuating circumstances. The deck is covered, it is screened properly from the neighbors by a series of vines that grow up well above the 6 ft. fence and stairs of the previously existing deck as shown in the pictures submitted to the Board. The deck cannot be seen from the neighbor's property in the back. The other consideration is that Elkan Park houses are attached, something unique in the community. Mr. Renson's driveway extends 5 ft. beyond the property line and is a common driveway. When measured from the deck to the end of the property it is 28 ft, even though technically he does not have 25 ft. to the property line. Mr. Renson submitted letters from the two immediate neighbors, marked exhibit 1, in support of the request. Mr. Gunther asked who was the builder. Mr. "enson said Douglas Streeter. After further discussion among Board members, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public on this matter. There were none. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and there was no comment. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Christopher J. Renson has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for the rear deck. The deck as built has a rear Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 10 yard of 23.95 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-42B (3)(a). The side yard is 9.89 ft. where 25.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42B(2)(a); and the deck, steps and platform increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-A Zone District on the premises located at 1088 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Lot 1; 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 240-42B (3)(a), Section 240-42B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Christopher J. Renson 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 or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on personal observation and ongoing interest in the property (this has been a project followed by the Board over a long period of time), it is a very attractive installation and there is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties by granting these modest variances. The applicant is requesting the variance due to a mistake in the construction of the deck that was minimal, and the variance will have a diminimis impact; B. There is no reasonable alternative in this instance. Tearing the deck down and rebuilding it is not a reasonable alternative given the diminimis nature of the variance requested; C. It is not a substantial variance, a few inches in one case and approximately a foot in the other; D. The variance has no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It is simply to approve a condition that already exists. There are no additional noise, traffic or other concerns resulting from the variances; E. The self-created aspect of this difficulty is not outweighed by the other factors; 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 January 12, 1999 Page 11 H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther acknowledged that the next case will be heard at the January 27, 1999 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2336(adjourned 11/24/98 to 1/27/99) Application of Mr. & Mrs. Michael Mollerus requesting a variance to construct a deck at the rear of the house and a one-car detached garage in the rear yard. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 21.2 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); the garage as proposed has a side yard of 1.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(c) and a rear yard of 1.4 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)(b) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 136. This application was adjourned. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2339 Application of Suzanne&John Swaine requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition to the right rear side and deck. The one-story addition and deck as proposed has a side yard of 5.4 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a), a total side yard of 19.4 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b), a rear yard of 10.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3);and further, the addition and deck 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 100 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 287. Jim Fleming, the architect for the project, appeared along with Suzanne and John Swaine, the owners of the property. Mr. Fleming explained that the applicants would like to extend the kitchen and add a deck as shown on the plan. He presented pictures to the Board for their review. The back yard and side yard are narrow, Zoning Board January 12, 1999 v Page 12 because of the condition of the lot. The back of the lot is also complicated, as shown on the survey with the submission. The applicant would like to build a 9 ft. extension to the kitchen, similar to that shown on the top row of pictures submitted of the neighbor's house, marked exhibit#1. They have adjoining driveways and have a similar situation. It is unfortunate that the lots are narrow and there is very little possible room for extension anywhere, as part of the house is already nonconforming towards the north. The deck and the addition both have created side yard shortages of yards and in the rear it is obvious that it cannot be done anyway. They have some structures in that location, the basement scuttle and a patio. They would like to create and do what is in line with the neighborhood,extend the kitchen from the narrow hallway and build a deck in the back of the house. It is unfortunate that the applicant's lot is smaller than the rest, and nothing can be done without a variance. The other side is impractical, because of the front porch and the living room. Mr. Fleming feels the application is straight forward. Mr. Wexler said in looking at the site plan the house has a large front yard, 35 ft. where 30 ft. is required, which reduces the back yard dimension. Ms. Martin asked if the applicant has had any conversations with the neighbors to the rear. Mr. Swaine said he has had no conversation with the neighbors. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and there was no comment. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Suzanne and John Swathe have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story addition to the right rear side and deck. The one-story addition and deck as proposed has a side yard of 5.4 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a), a total side yard of 19.4 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b),a rear yard of 10.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further, the addition and deck 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 100 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 287; 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(2)(a), Section 240-38B(2)(b), Section 240-38B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Suzanne and John Swaine 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 January 12, 1999 Page 13 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 or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The construction of the one-story addition in the back and the deck, will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood given the size, the irregular shape and the oversized front yard of the lot; B. The applicants cannot achieve their goals by any reasonable alternative. Given the configuration of the floor plan of the first floor, the relationship of the garage and all the elements on the site, it is the most logical alternative presented; C. While the reduction is substantial in the side yard and rear yard, the solution as presented does not involve a substantial variance given the proximity of the adjoining houses and the configuration of the house. It appears to be the minimum necessary to alleviate the applicant's difficulty to properly use the space; D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, since all of the homes in the area have two property lines that have created a variety of substandard yard conditions, and this is not out of line with it; E. It is not a self-created difficulty, since the lot existed prior to the applicant's purchase of the house. The configuration and size of the lot are creating the problem; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The one-story addition shall remain a one-story addition and shall not be allowed to be increased to a two-story addition in this location without reappearance before the Zoning Board. 2. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 14 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. 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. 5. 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. APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2340 Application of Larchmont Chrysler Jeep/Donald S. Mazin requesting a variance to utilize a lot for the sale of used cars which is not part of the lot on which the principal conducts business as a new car dealer. The proposed use of the lot is not permitted pursuant to Section 240-31A(3)for a business in a Service Business District on the premises located at 2517 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 101. Mr. Gunther said a note was received from Mr. Carpaneto informing him this case has been withdrawn. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carpaneto to shed some light on the matter. Mr. Carpaneto said the applicant had gotten approval from the Board of Architectural Review for signage. There was some discussion on the use of the property. Mr. Carpaneto's first interpretation was that if the lot was to be a used car lot, it would have to a part of the principle. He was advised at a later date that the application is scheduled for new and used cars, which is a permitted use as of right. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2341 Application of Linda Hanway requesting a variance to construct a one-story dining room addition to the right side of the house. The one-story dining room addition as proposed has a front yard setback of 15.18 ft.where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);the addition would enlarge the nonconforming use pursuant to Section 240-68; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 3-5 Locust Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 145. Jim Fleming, the architect appeared, along with Linda Hanway. Mr. Fleming said the applicants would like to build a dining room, referring to a photograph of the existing ledge on the property and spoke about the topographic conditions on the site. It is an unusual condition, since the ledge comes to the house. There is no other place to extend in the rear. Mr. Gunther asked the size of the dining room. Mr. Fleming said it is approximately 12 ft. by 23 ft., with a pantry area that backs into the kitchen. Mr. Gunther asked if there is a sufficient side yard setback. Mr. Fleming said yes. Zoning Board s January 12, 1999 Page 15 0 A discussion ensued regarding taking 15 ft. off the proposed addition and the fact that there is more space on the right-hand side. Mr. Fleming said there is a tree on that side that the applicant would like to maintain. Mr. Wexler said in looking at the area map that it is in line with all of the houses, plus or minus a minimal amount. Mr. Fleming said the ledge drops off about one-third of the way down from the sun porch on the front. Mr. Gunther said it curves from the front of the enclosed porch. Mr. Fleming said the concrete cap is for the sidewalk. Mr. Wexler said from a conservation point of view with energy and the type of construction, it is beneficial to have a structure that is utilizing the existing structure for one wall and coming out 12 ft. as it will lessen exposure of the structure. If it went out in the other direction, it will be three-sided and its underside an exposed structure. Mr. Fleming said it is the minimum when working with the narrow width and that he was trying to avoid the tree. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Linda Hanway has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story dining room addition to the right side of the house. The one-story dining room addition as proposed has a front yard setback of 15.18 ft. where 30.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); the addition would enlarge the nonconforming use pursuant to Section 240-68; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 3-5 Locust Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 145; 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 240-68, Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Linda Hanway 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 111,40 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 16 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 or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created. The project was designed in keeping with the character of the neighborhood with the facade evenly placed with every other house on the block all of which share a common geophysical character; B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals by a reasonable alternative, that would not involve the necessity of an area variance; C. The request is modest for the intended use. Based on the record before the Board, there is no reasonable alternative to get the square footage for the proposed addition based upon the size of the site; D. It will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. It is not a self-created difficulty, given the site conditions and the geographical feature; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Zoning Board January 12, 1999 Page 17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the Minutes of October 28, 1999 were unanimously approved, 5-0. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Minutes of November 24, 1998 were unanimously approved, 5-0. Mr. Gunther said the public session of the meeting is now closed. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 24, 1999. ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the meeting was adjourned to Executive Session to discuss pending litigation at 10:05 p.m. Mar 'te Roma, Recording Secretary