Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_06_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 23, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Absent: J. Rene Simon Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Michele DiEdwards, 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 7:55 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed those present that one of the Board members, Mr. Simon,is ill and unable to attend. There are only four out of the five members present. For an action to be approved, three members must vote in favor of that application. The Board will be happy to hear each case. When your case is called if you would like it held over until the next meeting when a full Board will be present, it will be done without prejudice. Mr. Gunther said if anyone is present to hear application#4,case 2357, that case will not be heard as the attorneys for that matter have requested an adjournment to the August Zoning Board meeting. DUE TO A MALFUNCTION OF THE TAPE RECORDING SYSTEM USED TO RECORD THE MEETING,THE PUBLIC STENOGRAPHER'S TRANSCRIPT,AS ATTACHED,WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THIS RECORD. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2352 (adjourned 3/17/99;4/28/99;5/26/99) Application of Eugene Pressman requesting a variance to legalize an existing pillar. The pillar as constructed has a height of 7 ft. 3.5 in. where 6 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52B for a pillar in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417 Lot 107. After a lengthy presentation as transcribed by the public stenographer and attached, on a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously Zoning Board June 23, 1999 Page 2 RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2352 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the July 21, 1999 Zoning Board meeting to allow counsel to prepare an appropriate resolution to be voted on at that meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2355 (adjourned 5/26/99) Application of the Gertrude Friedmann Family Trust requesting a variance to legalize an existing deck. The deck to be legalized has a side yard of 8.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(2)(a) for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 209 Lot 232. The presentation is included in the public stenographer's transcript, as attached. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. 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. Winick, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, the Gertrude Friedmann Family Trust has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing deck. The deck to be legalized has a side yard of 8.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(2)(a) for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 209 Lot 232; 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 240-36 B(2)(a); and WHEREAS, the Gertrude Friedmann Family Trust 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 fords 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 the testimony of the applicant and personal observation, the Board finds that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties created. The unusual configuration of the property and the location of the house on the property, the deck, which would normally be in the back of the house and is in fact in the side yard, has been constructed on the house. It has been there for an indeterminate but long period of time without any detriment to nearby Zoning Board June 23, 1999 Page 3 properties. The adjacent property in the rear, the side yard in this case, is open land that has no houses on it that would be detrimentally impacted by the proximity of the deck; B. There is no reasonable alternative other then tearing the deck down,which under the circumstances does not appear to be a reasonable alternative; C. It is not a substantial variance, given the size of the property itself and the location of the house on the property; D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, as it has been in existence and has not had an adverse impact up until now; E. Although this may be a self-created difficulty in terms of the ignorance of the applicant or the predecessor in constructing this deck originally, it is not determinative; 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. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board June 23, 1999 Page 4 APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2356 Application of Jorge and Miriam Correa requesting a variance to construct a second floor master bedroom and bath. The second floor addition as proposed has a front yard of 23.92 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); a side yard of 5.60 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(a); and further, the second floor 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 10 Winthrop Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410 Lot 28. The presentation is included in the public stenographer's transcript, as attached. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. 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. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Jorge and Miriam Correa have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor master bedroom and bath. The second floor addition as proposed has a front yard of 23.92 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);a side yard of 5.60 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); and further, the second floor 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 10 Winthrop Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410 Lot 28; 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(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Jorge and Miriam Correa 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. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created. The applicant is squaring off the house and is essentially adding inside the existing footprint. It will increase the appeal of the house from the curb, will add value to the usage of the house and given that the footprint already exists there will not be a detriment to nearby properties created because there is somewhat more volume created within the same footprint; Zoning Board June 23, 1999 Page 5 B. The applicant cannot achieve its goals via a reasonable alternative that does not involve the necessity of an area variance because the property is nonconforming. While there is a possibility that the proposed work can be done in the back at the expense of the availability of deck space given the overall tenor of the project and what is proposed to be accomplished there is not an alternative that would not involve the necessity of a variance. The changes are quite reasonable and can be done inside where the house encroaches on the lot line from its original construction. C. The variance is not substantial for the same reasons. There is an increase in volume on the existing footprint of the house, but the proposed work does not further encroach into the required yards. In this case, given the architecture of the house and the character of the neighborhood the increase in volume will look at least as appropriate as the house now does, if not more so. It does not create any visual impact. It is not substantial given the circumstances of this application. Fortunately on the side of the property there is a large setback from the adjoining properties. There have been no objections voiced from the adjoining properties, which have been notified of this request. D. For these same reasons and factors noted, there is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. There is obviously no self-created difficulty,because the house was constructed before the zoning code and as a consequence all the property owners did was develop the property without conditions. 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. Zoning Board June 23, 1999 Page 6 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther reiterated that application#4,case 2357 was adjourned to the August Zoning Board meeting, as requested. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2357 Appeal of Byron Place Associates/Hoffmann of a determination of the Building Inspector that the current use of the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 410 is not a legal non-conforming use, or in the alternative, an application for a use variance to permit light industrial use in an R-7.5 Zone District. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2358 Application of Deborah and Bill Walters requesting a variance to construct a 21/2 story rear addition and front entrance vestibule and porch. The 2' story rear addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.4 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); a total side yard of 14.5 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b); the front vestibule and porch as proposed has a side yard of 6.4 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); a front yard setback of 20.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and further, the rear front and rear addition increase 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. After a lengthy discussion as transcribed by the public stenographer and attached, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2358 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the July 21,1999 Zoning Board meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the Minutes of April 28, 1999 were unanimously approved, 4-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on July 21, 1999. ADJOURNMENT On a motion of made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Margueri oma, Recording Secretary i x PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK x Mamaroneck Town Center 740 Boston Post Road Mamaroneck , New York 10543 June 23 , 1999 7 : 45 p . m . • 49 0 /c t z TERRANOVA, KAZAZES & ASSOCIATES , LTD . Michele Nieto , Reporter 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle , New York 10801 ( 914 ) 576 - 7431 py 2 1 APPEARANCES : 2 3 4 5 THOMAS E . GUNTHER , Chairman 6 PAUL A . WINICK , Board Member MR . A . WEXLER , Board Member 7 JILLIAN A . MARTIN, Board Member MR . J . RENE SIMON, Board Member 8 (ABSENT) 9 RONALD CARPANETO , Consulting Engineer JUDY GALLENT , Town Attorney 10 MARGUERITE ROMA, Recording Secretary 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings 3 • 1 MR . GUNTHER : I call the 2 meeting to order . I ' m sorry about 3 the slight delay, the high school 4 graduation is going on and I had 5 some difficulty finding a place to 6 park . 7 I would like to start the 8 meeting by noting one of our Board 9 Members , Mr . Simone , is ill and as a 10 result we will only have four out 11 the five Board Members present . 12 We ' ll be happy to hear your case • 13 this evening , however , for an action 14 to take effect you will need three 15 members voting in favor of a 16 resolution . If you decide that 17 you ' d like it held over until the 18 next meeting when the full Board is 19 expected to be here , just let us 20 know and we ' ll be happy to do that . 21 If anyone is here for 22 Application Number 4 , Case 2357 , the 23 Appeal of Byron Place , the attorneys 24 for this matter have requested that 25 it be held over until the August Proceedings 4 1 meeting . Is there anyone here for 2 that application? No , okay . 3 Then we will move forward 4 with Application Number 1 , Case 5 2352 , which was adjourned from 6 several prior meetings . Please read 7 the application . 8 MS . ROMA : Application of 9 Eugene Pressman requesting a 10 variance to legalize an existing 11 pillar . The pillar as constructed , 12 has a height of 7 feet 3 . 5 inches , 13 where 6 feet is permitted pursuant 14 to Section 240 - 52B for a pillar in 15 an R- 50 Zone District for the 16 premises located at 209 Hommocks 17 Road and known on the Tax Assessment 18 Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as 19 Block 417 lot 107 . 20 MR . GUNTHER : Is the 21 applicant present ? 22 MR . AMODIO : Yes , Michael 23 Amodio for the Pressman family . I 24 believe we have submitted to the 25 Board a letter dated last November Proceedings 5 1 1998 . Did every Member of the Board 2 get that letter? 3 MR . GUNTHER : November? 4 MR . AMODIO : The letter , the 5 copy of the letter dated November 6 24th . 7 MR . GUNTHER : I have a letter 8 from Pirro from December 3rd , 1998 . 9 MR . AMODIO : That ' s probably 10 it . Basically it sets forth in that 11 letter our application and sets 12 forth our interpretation of the 13 reasons why the application should 14 be granted . 15 MR . GUNTHER : The three 16 pages ? 17 MR . AMODIO : Yes . 18 MR . GUNTHER : I don ' t know 19 that it ' s necessary for you to 20 review the letter again the Board is 21 well aware of it . 22 MR . AMODIO : That ' s fine , . 23 then I won ' t . 24 MR . GUNTHER : I guess your 25 here to answer any questions if Proceedings • 6 1 there are any . 2 MR . AMODIO : Yes , such that I 3 can . 4 MR . GUNTHER : Are there any 5 questions from the Board Members on 6 this application? No , okay . 7 Are there any questions from 8 the public regarding any new 9 information , new information only? 10 I realize we ' ve discussed this 11 matter several times because it is 12 held over from several other • 13 meetings . 14 MR . MAKER : William Maker . 15 am the attorney for the Moralias who 16 are the neighbors who live across 17 the street . The only thing that I ' d 18 like to add , because we have gone 19 over and over this again , is at the 20 last meeting the implication 21 statement was made by not Mr . 22 Amodio , Mr . Games who said that this 23 is nothing but a personal fight 24 between them . That ' s not what is 25 going on here and in an attempt to Proceedings 7 1 try - - 2 MR . GUNTHER : Mr . Maker , if I 3 might interrupt you just for a 4 second . If you have any new 5 information we would love to hear 6 it . We are not here to cover 7 material that has already been 8 covered . I ' d rather save everyone ' s 9 time . 10 MR . MAKER : Then I would like 11 to give the Board three letters 12 signed by three of the neighbors 13 within the vicinity of the property . 14 MR . GUNTHER : Thank you , 15 would you start with the secretary . 16 Are the letters new? 17 MR . MAKER : Yes , they are . 18 MR . GUNTHER : The letters are 19 from the residents at 205 Hommocks , 20 212 Hommocks and 220 Hommocks . They 21 read in part ; Dear Members of the 22 Board , we reside at such and such a 23 place . As a resident of Hommocks 24 Road , I am offended on the site of 25 the pillars that abut the Reserve Proceedings 8 1 Strip , and particularly at the 2 mounds of dirt which are at the base 3 of the downhill pillar which appears 4 to extend well onto the Reserve 5 Strip in an apparent attempt to show 6 a continuous grade . 7 As I understand the facts , 8 the pillars were constructed between 9 the September of 1995 meeting of 10 this Board whereby an oral vote , the 11 building permit to construct the 12 pillars was revoked , October 25 , 13 1995 which the resolution revoking 14 the permit was adopted . The 15 applicant then filed an Article 78 16 proceeding against this Board which 17 ended in 1997 before the Appellate 18 Division of the Supreme Court with 19 the height of the pillars being 20 declared illegal . 21 The applicant did not respond 22 to the Court mandate until May 1998 23 when , under pressure from the Town , 24 he lowered the pillars somewhat but 25 not to the maximum height permitted Proceedings 9 1 by the zoning code . In particular , 2 the lower or eastern most pillar was 3 camouflaged to mask its true height . 4 The applicant ' s solution was not to 5 reduce the pillars ' height , which 6 would be the correct and anticipated 7 remediation , but to surround the 8 pillars with mounds of dirt and 9 argue that raising the ground around 10 the pillars was the same as lowering 11 them . By a resolution , dated 12 November 4 , 1998 , this Board 13 rejected that solution with respect 14 to the easterly pillar to the 15 Reserve Strip , which stands further 16 away from Hommocks Road . 17 The Director of Buildings 18 gave the applicant additional time 19 through the early winter of 1998 - 99 20 to comply voluntarily . When 21 compliance was not forthcoming the 22 Director issued a violation on 23 January 25th , 1999 which is still 24 pending . Throughout this time all 25 that applicant needed to do was to Proceedings 10 1 lower the higher pillar to the same 2 height as its companion pillar , 3 which this Board found to be at a 4 correct height to achieve 5 compliance , symmetry and harmony . 6 Instead , after constructing the 7 pillars in violation , the applicant 8 asks for a variance . 9 All along the applicant has 10 flaunted the resolutions of this 11 Board, first by constructing the 12 pillar in 1995 barring the period 13 when this Board was waiting to enact 14 its formal resolution revoking the 15 building permit . Second , by piling 16 dirt , and in a most visually 17 offensive manner , around the base of 18 the pillar and arguing that raising 19 the ground around the pillar is the 20 same as lowering its height . What 21 is even more egregious is the fact 22 that this artificial mound has been 23 constructed not upon the applicant ' s 24 property, but within the Reserve 25 Strip to a distance of more than 6 Proceedings 11 1 feet from the common boundary 2 between the applicant ' s property and 3 the Reserve Strip . Not only is this 4 a trespass , but it also changes the 5 grade of the Reserve Strip . 6 To grant a variance under 7 these circumstances , in essence , is 8 to condone the applicant ' s behavior 9 and to set a dangerous precedent for 10 anyone else in our neighborhood , 11 indeed in the entire Town , who might 12 ignore the zoning laws , construct 13 what they want and then expect the 14 Board to excuse his actions through 15 the granting of a variance . 16 I request that this 17 application be denied and that the 18 Building Department immediately 19 enforce the notice of violation , 20 dated January 25th, 1999 , for the 21 removal or the appropriate lowering 22 of the pillar . And these letters 23 are signed Gail Hoffman , Shelley 24 Littens (ph) , and Sidney Litter (ph) . 25 They should be marked Exhibit 1 . Proceedings 12 1 MR . MAKER : Also , I know that 2 the Board and the Director of 3 Buildings has to take certain 4 measures and I ' m sure that ' s been 5 done . I just have an array of 6 photographs taken by Mr . Moralia 7 which I ' d like to submit . One of 8 them was taken of the tape measure 9 that extends from what at one time 10 was the grade before the mounding . 11 It indicates that the pillars are 91 12 inches , which I believe makes them 7 13 feet . How does one go about getting 14 that measurement of how tall it is ? 15 MR . WEXLER : Well , what is in 16 here now is 87 and a 1/2 . 17 MR . MAKER : Okay . 18 MS . GALLENT : That ' s the 19 official measurement . 20 MR . MAKER : I understand . I 21 just wanted to say that from at 22 least that one side it comes to 91 23 inches , at least from that one side . 24 Finally, I think I need to 25 remind the Board , I suppose , that I Proceedings 13 1 believe that the granting of a 2 variance in light of the factual 3 pattern that occurred , I won ' t go 4 into that again because we ' ve 5 covered that 100 times , I will say 6 that this could lead to a very 7 dangerous precedent . Something 8 which will come up from time to time 9 when other people might do similar 10 things and then you ' ll have to 11 explain away why it is that on this 12 particular variance it was feasible 13 to do so . For the sake of your 14 precedents you should be very 15 cautious and not grant a variance to 16 a person who caused his own problem . 17 MR . MAKER : Do you have 18 anything to say? 19 MRS . MORALIA : Peggy Moralia , 20 210 Hommocks Road . The application 21 that you basically have been 22 listening to has been from my 23 husband over the past couple of 24 years . I want to make a note to the 25 Board , even though Mr . Pressman has Proceedings 14 1 asked for a variance he has not 2 lived at this home since last summer 3 and it is now under contract to be 4 sold shortly , I believe for between 5 seven and eight million dollars . 6 I think that this makes a 7 difference in the variance because 8 it ' s usually for a hardship and that 9 they plan on making this their home , 10 not leaving it to the new people 11 that are going to be purchasing the 12 home . I think that would be a 13 important thing for this Board to 14 know, and you should know that the 15 closing is supposed to be happening 16 sometime this summer . Thank you . 17 MR . GUNTHER : You ' re welcome . 18 MR . MORALIA : My name is Mr . 19 Moralia and I live at 210 Hommocks . 20 I will be brief . Just to repeat 21 what my wife said the reason we hope 22 you will turn down this request for 23 a variance is because the house is 24 being sold . You should keep the 25 violation which is now pending and Proceedings 15 1 activate it and make them comply 2 with it . You have an opportunity as 3 a Board to make a difference in the 4 law right now . 5 On the other hand how will 6 the title be cleared if there is a 7 violation on the record? That 8 problem will be passed on to the 9 next owners . We ask that you remedy 10 that by making your decision . It is 11 a unique moment . Thank you . 12 MR . GUNTHER : Are there any 13 questions from the public on this 14 application or comments ? Any 15 questions from the Board? 16 MR . WEXLER : Do we have on 17 file any photographs showing the old 18 pier , showing both piers ? 19 MS . ROMA : These are of the 20 singular piers . These are the old 21 ones . I don ' t know if there is 22 anything else . These were submitted 23 the last time they were here . 24 MR . WEXLER : This is just one 25 pier . Proceedings 16 1 MS . MARTIN : Same one here . 2 MS . GALLENT : Do we have any 3 photographs showing both of them? 4 MR . WEXLER : What is the wall 5 that is looking at these piers on 6 the Reserve Strip? The pier that ' s 7 on the left , the one that is - - what 8 is on the other side , is there a 9 wall on the other side? 10 MR . CARPANETO : That ' s the 11 wall that goes down to the front of 12 the property . 13 MR . WEXLER : What height is 14 that wall ? 15 MR . CARPANETO : Five feet . 16 MR . WEXLER : So the pier now 17 is one foot above the wall ? 18 MR . CARPANETO : That ' s 19 correct . 20 MR . WEXLER : So in essence 21 the wall is fine it ' s the cap or the 22 pediment or the top piece of masonry 23 that ' s on this wall that is the 24 problem? 25 MR . CARPANETO : Correct . Proceedings 17 1 MR . GUNTHER : Counsel , I have 2 a question for you with regard the 3 application . Town Law 267 has the 4 Board weighing the factors for 5 granting the variance as to whether 6 the benefit to the applicant is 7 exceeding the detriment , health , 8 safety and welfare of the community . 9 In the case where the applicant has 10 gone in the face of prior 11 resolutions in terms of requesting 12 action to be taken or action not to 13 be taken and done their own thing , 14 do those same set of standards need 15 to be applied? 16 MS . GALLENT : Absolutely, 17 those factors and the self - created 18 hardship factor . 19 MR . GUNTHER : What is the 20 ruling on the self created hardship? 21 MS . GALLENT : What do you 22 mean? 23 MR . GUNTHER : What does it 24 require? 25 MS . GALLENT : It is relevant Proceedings 18 1 for consideration in an area 2 variance , but not determinative . 3 You use it if you suspect a 4 self - created hardship for the area 5 variance . It ' s something that 6 you ' re entitled to take into 7 consideration , but it is not a 8 determining factor . You may find 9 that the hardship is indeed 10 self - created , but that does not 11 mean - - you may consider it . 12 MR . GUNTHER : Are there any 13 legal implications for the Reserve 14 Strip , for the owners of the Reserve 15 Strip because there was no mention 16 of the Reserve Strip other than it 17 being aggrieved by a mounding of 18 dirt against the pillar? 19 MS . GALLENT : I don ' t know if 20 this is what you mean , but if I know 21 what you ' re saying I assume that it 22 is trespass . 23 MR . WEXLER : Let me ask you a 24 question , this was determined to be 25 seven feet ? Proceedings 19 1 MR . GUNTHER : Seven - - 2 MR . CARPANETO : Seven feet 3 and three and a half inches . 4 MR . WEXLER : And the 5 measurement was taken at the top to 6 the theoretical base of the column? 7 MS . GALLENT : It could be an 8 order to be removed . 9 MR . WEXLER : If a variance is 10 granted to let this pillar remain , a 11 condition to that variance could be 12 to remove the offensive part , 13 correct ? 14 MS . GALLENT : The variance 15 would permit the entire pillar from 16 below the dirt so that that dirt 17 would no longer be necessary . 18 MR . WEXLER : Well , they took 19 a measurement of 91 inches and the 20 other measurement is 87 . 5 inches . 21 There is an average to that and I 22 think there is a way to relieve the 23 offensive irregularity of the 24 mounding of the earth . 25 From my point of view we can Proceedings 20 1 get this cleared up . I think when 2 you look at these two piers as a 3 pair and one of them is on the 4 left -hand side as it adjoins the 5 existing stone wall , man-made 6 existing stone wall , at this moment 7 in time it looks right . It ' s on the 8 other side where the land stems off 9 and you cannot look at that pier as 10 being left by its lonesome . 11 I feel that the two piers are 12 at the same height and are in proper 13 relationship to that wall . The two 14 piers not the same height , I ' m 15 giving you my analysis , and 16 aesthetically I don ' t think it 17 affects the health and I don ' t think 18 it affects the welfare of the 19 environment . It ' s not a lonely 20 structure and it ' s not out of 21 character with the structures that 22 are there on that street , which are 23 reminiscent of a time that has long 24 gone past . 25 MR . GUNTHER : I will make a Proceedings 21 1 motion that this is a Type - 2 action 2 with no further action being 3 required . Is there a second? 4 MR . WEXLER : I will second . 5 MR . GUNTHER : Would anyone 6 like to make a motion? 7 MR . WEXLER : I will make a 8 motion on the merits of application 9 case 2352 , the application of Eugene 10 Pressman requesting a variance to 11 legalize the existing pillar . The 12 pillar as constructed has a height 13 of 7 feet 3 . 5 inches where 6 feet is 14 permitted pursuant Section 240 - 52B 15 for a pillar in an R- 50 Zone 16 District on the premises located at 17 209 Hommocks Road . I move that it 18 be approved based upon the fact that 19 the benefit to the applicant out 20 ways the health , detriment and 21 safety of the neighborhood . 22 I would like to point out 23 that as a test that I feel that the 24 granting of this variance will not 25 create any undesirable change in the Proceedings 22 1 character of the neighborhood or 2 that any detriment to the nearby 3 properties will be created . I feel 4 that there is no other way that the 5 applicant can achieve their goal 6 without the necessity of an area 7 variance . 8 MS . GALLENT : Did you already 9 pass the first factor? 10 MR . WEXLER : I felt that it 11 could not - - 12 MS . GALLENT : You didn ' t 13 discuss it and you need to . 14 MR . WEXLER : The pillars on 15 the Reserve Strip exceed the six 16 feet in height . It ' s in character 17 for the Hommocks Road area and I 18 feel that the pier , as a pair with 19 the adjoining pier , should be 20 maintained at that height and 21 reducing that one foot would be a 22 detriment to the aesthetic value of 23 that Reserve Strip . 24 Whether the applicant can 25 achieve their goals by reasonable Proceedings 23 1 means without the necessity of an 2 area variance ; I feel in this case 3 that the applicant if he was to 4 reduce both of these piers would not 5 be in keeping with aesthetics of the 6 existing wall on the left -hand side 7 in relationship to the pier and to 8 that wall . 9 MS . GALLENT : But we ' re only 10 talking about reducing just the one 11 pier , that ' s what is at issue here . 12 MR . WEXLER : I think they 13 should be - - my point is that 14 because the piers , in this instance , 15 are a statement of an entry, even 16 though it ' s not the primary entry to 17 the site , I feel it should be 18 symmetrical in height and reducing 19 that one pier would break that 20 symmetry and in my mind would cause 21 a detriment . 22 As to whether the variance is 23 substantial ; given the size of the 24 property they have and given the 25 size of the variance that is being Proceedings 24 1 requested I feel that this is not a 2 substantial variance that is being 3 requested . In the scope of the 4 environment , the variance will not 5 cause an adverse physical or 6 environmental condition to the 7 neighborhood . And I feel that there 8 will be no adverse physical or 9 environmental condition of the 10 district . 11 MR . GUNTHER : Why? 12 MR . WEXLER : For the reasons 13 that I mentioned . I feel that the 14 piers - - I know that there are piers 15 on this street and in this community 16 and they are this height if not 17 larger . 18 There is , I think , some 19 self - created hardship , a bit , but I 20 don ' t think given the extent of the 21 walls that were built and how you 22 would solve that pier in relation to 23 the other pier that exists and even 24 though there is some self - created 25 hardship , I feel that it ' s the right Proceedings 25 1 solution for that condition based 2 these piers as an entry statement . 3 I would like to make a 4 condition that the applicant remove 5 the mounding and return the Reserve 6 Strip to its natural topography in 7 that area and remove the intrusion 8 that this would create on the 9 Reserve Strip on this property and 10 restore the grade . 11 MS . GALLENT : Restore the 12 grade to what ? 13 MR . WEXLER : As best as they 14 can to within the natural grade . I 15 don ' t want 18 inches of mounding of 16 earth . 17 MR . GUNTHER : What I would 18 like to do to get this moving 19 forward is to get a sense of the 20 Board as to whether it is acceptable 21 to them and then Counsel can 22 appropriately draft the words to be 23 sure that we covered all of our 24 bases as required by 267 . I know 25 what your sense of it is . Proceedings 26 1 MS . MARTIN : I agree that 2 aesthetically it would be preferable 3 to have the two columns at the same 4 height , however , I haven ' t 5 necessarily been persuaded by the 6 evidence of anyone in this case that 7 there was a need to put a gate or 8 fence or something here . There is 9 no evidence that such a gate or 10 fence existed or was planned which 11 in my mind would make the equal pier 12 more necessary . 13 MS GALLENT : What do you mean 14 when you say gate or fence? 15 MS . MARTIN : Between the two 16 piers and I do see that there is 17 something there . I ' m a bit troubled 18 by the self - created aspect of this 19 case and I would require that the 20 applicant reduce the height of the 21 pillar . 22 MS . GALLENT : So you would 23 deny the variance? 24 MS . MARTIN : Yes . 25 MS . GALLENT : You would not Proceedings 27 1 vote in favor? 2 MS . MARTIN : No . 3 MR . WINICK : I ' m thinking - - 4 frankly I ' m concerned , I understand 5 what the case law tells us that the 6 fact of whether or not there has 7 been a self - created difficulty it is 8 not supposed to be determinative to 9 the factor . 10 However , I ' m inclined to look 11 at this in a different way , which is 12 if I mean to deny the resolution 13 because the sense is that there is a 14 great impact on the community or the 15 impact such as it is is wholly 16 adverse to the community . If the 17 pillars were not specifically 18 aesthetic and I guess what one has 19 to do is to go back and say if this 20 was in front of us what would we do , 21 without the variance how much is 22 this thing over the permitted 23 height ? 24 I won ' t vote for this I think 25 it is too extreme . First of all , I Proceedings 28 1 have to say that I would not vote 2 for this and they broke the 3 ordinance and I suppose it ' s up to 4 the Town Board what they want 5 litigate . My feeling is that there 6 is no pressing need for this because 7 it is essentially entirely an 8 aesthetic concern . Again , this is 9 extreme and I would not have 10 presented it with a wall in the 11 first place . The wall and the 12 pillar combination are not justified 13 under the ordinance and I think , 14 Tom , I don ' t think I will go for it . 15 MR . WEXLER : Early, before 16 you were on the Board , early on this 17 case the elevations that were 18 presented to us for were for much 19 higher walls . The way you generally 20 solve the differential of grade , 21 when you have a sloping and the 22 building of wall , is you would step 23 the wall on the other side . The 24 wall would come like this and the 25 pier makes the natural transition Proceedings 29 1 and the wall would go down here and 2 go down here . In this instance 3 since there is no - - there isn ' t a 4 wall between these two piers and 5 it ' s a freestanding element you 6 would have probably expected on the 7 other side of that pier to step the 8 pier and step on the other side to 9 start your wall down . 10 You ' re looking at this 11 application as one lone item . This 12 was before for us for four years , 13 which is incredible and when you see 14 the long elevation you might change 15 that attitude . I do see it in 16 context by which it ' s not some lone 17 item and he did not come to us which 18 is unfortunate . If you would have 19 seen this you might have taken a 20 different approach . 21 It ' s presented to us as a 22 single pier , but the fact is that 23 it ' s a continuation of a long wall 24 that wraps around to the main piers 25 of the house . It ' s really much more Proceedings 30 1 than just this in it ' s visual 2 impact . 3 MR . GUNTHER : My opinion of 4 the case is while I had originally 5 started with the thought of trying 6 to find a way to get the application 7 concluded , potentially with a 8 variance , but I think in further 9 review of the case with the 10 perspective shown here and no one 11 else has ever voiced an opinion , 12 other than the one individual across 13 the street , and the creation of and 14 the discussion of the self - created 15 difficulty I think sort of turns the 16 corner as well towards wanting to 17 deny the application . So in that 18 light I would vote against it and I 19 think we ' ll make an alternative 20 application , alternative resolution 21 to deny the application . 22 Do we need similar findings ? 23 MS . GALLENT : Absolutely . 24 MR . GUNTHER : Can I borrow 25 your cheat sheet . The standards are Proceedings 31 1 the benefit to the applicant versus 2 the detriment to the health , safety 3 and welfare - - Counselor , does it 4 matter if the applicant , if it is 5 determined that he was selling the 6 property does that have any bearing 7 on the application? 8 MS . GALLENT : The variance 9 has to do with the language and not 10 the identity of the owner . 11 MR . GUNTHER : Which is the 12 undesirable change in the character 13 of the neighborhood or detriment to 14 the community , while I don ' t believe 15 that there will be a detriment to 16 the nearby neighbors , there is a 17 detriment specifically noted in a 18 Reserve Strip which is owned by the 19 surrounding neighbors and shared by 20 the resident of the Hommocks Road 21 area as noted in Exhibit 1 presented 22 by three different neighbors . 23 Second , can the applicant 24 achieve their goals without 25 reasonable hardship ; that is a Proceedings 32 1 definite yes by merely reducing the 2 size of the pier which was 3 originally requested . 4 Whether the variance is 5 substantial ; one might conclude it 6 is substantial when compared to what 7 is specifically required . 8 MS . GALLENT : Can I just 9 interject , the case law on that 10 factor as to whether it is 11 substantial is purely mathematical , 12 whether it ' s 50 percent , whether 13 it ' s 100 percent . That is what the 14 Court needs . It is done as a 15 qualitative one . When the Court 16 says look at the impact it means if 17 the impact is great than it ' s 18 substantial . 19 MR . GUNTHER : The impact is 20 moderate . 21 MS . GALLENT : Then it ' s 22 moderate . It seems tied into the 23 fact that it ' s not qualitative as 24 opposed to the quantitative 25 judgment . Proceedings 33 1 MR . GUNTHER : Must all of the 2 five factors be totally conclusive? 3 MS . GALLENT : No . They all 4 should be in the end more heavily in 5 the favor one way or the other . 6 MR . GUNTHER : For instance , 7 you could say it is not substantial 8 and still have the variance . 9 MS . GALLENT : Yes , you could 10 because it ' s a totality sort of 11 approach . 12 MR . GUNTHER : Maybe when it 13 comes down to the drafting of the 14 actual resolution in terms of the 15 findings you could do the 16 appropriate wording to get the point 17 across that because of the totality 18 of the sizes of the nearby 19 properties it may not be a 20 substantial element since the 21 properties are large . However , by 22 the location and impact into the 23 Reserve Strip it is moderately 24 substantial . 25 Whether the variance will Proceedings 34 1 have an adverse impact on the 2 physical or environmental condition 3 of the community or neighborhood or 4 district ; yes , it will have an 5 impact by its position on the 6 Reserve Strip . 7 And whether the difficulty 8 was self - created ; well , I believe 9 that it was self - created in that the 10 applicant had due notice before and 11 after as to what was required , a 12 substantial notice as to what was 13 required within the Town Zone . 14 Is there any discussion? 15 MR . WINICK : I would just 16 observe that I think that the 17 standard that Ms . Gallent has stated 18 would have substantial impact I 19 think if you measure it from where 20 Mr . Carpaneto measured it . That ' s 21 an awful lot of pillar and that ' s 22 what I say , physically it is 23 imposing compared to what is 24 permitted as of right . There is a 25 substantial physical difference Proceedings 35 1 which will bear on the people 2 visually from the Reserve Strip . 3 Obviously, it ' s not this whole thing 4 this is just - - 5 MR . GUNTHER : It ' s a three 6 percent enlargement . 7 MR . WINICK : So I take the 8 mathematics of it . 9 MR . WEXLER : Interestingly in 10 that Reserve Strip on Hommocks Road 11 there are piers that are bigger , 12 taller , broader and more massive 13 than that pier and more visual to 14 the general public and they are 15 there in the community and in a 16 funny way they make that community 17 because the original pillars are 18 much bigger than what we build today 19 in every aspect of the massing of 20 it . 21 MR . WINICK : But it ' s as to 22 the environmental impact , you can ' t 23 Say it ' s not out of character . It 24 doesn ' t matter what they look like . 25 We can ' t say it ' s not out of Proceedings 36 1 character with the environment . 2 MR . GUNTHER : Any comments on 3 the resolution? Would you be in 4 favor of it ? Was the change too 5 substantial in its nature ? 6 MS . MARTIN : Yes . 7 MR . GUNTHER : Can we instruct 8 you to prepare an appropriate 9 resolution? Do you think it ' s 10 appropriate to hold off the vote 11 until then? 12 MS . GALLENT : Absolutely , you 13 have to vote on the resolution . 14 MR . GUNTHER : Application 15 Number One , case 2352 is now 16 adjourned until our next meeting . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings 37 1 MR . GUNTHER : Application number 2 2 , case 2355 . 3 MS . ROMA: Application number 2 , 4 case 2355 of the Gertrude Friedmann 5 Family Trust requesting a variance to 6 legalize an existing deck . The deck 7 to be legalized has a side yard of 8 8 feet where 10 feet is required 9 pursuant to Section 240-36 B ( 2 ) (a ) for 10 a residence in the R-15 Zone District 11 on the premises located at 9 Winged 12 Foot Drive, known on the Tax 13 Assessment Map of the Town of 14 Mamaroneck as Block 209, Lot 232 . 15 MR . GUNTHER : Is the applicant 16 present? 17 MR . BRYCE : I am the attorney 18 for the Trustee of the Gertrude 19 Friedmann Family Trust . The home was 20 built in 1951 , but we don ' t know when 21 the Friedmans built the deck . We only 22 came across the problem when we needed 23 the C of 0 . 24 Mary Joe Slike (ph) along with 25 Counsel submitted to you a survey and Proceedings 38 1 if you look at the survey, you can see 2 that the deck was supposedly put in, 3 but it ' s not in the back . It ' s really 4 the only way you can put it which is 5 on the deck . There are rocks , there 6 is very little choice on how to set 7 this house on this property . 8 If you do not to permit the 9 new owners to have the deck they will 10 have to take down the deck . There are 11 few homes in the 1990 ' s that don ' t 12 have some little place to have 13 breakfast outside . This deck is only 14 11 feet by 9 feet wide, all right . 15 The problem with the variance 16 is we need 2 feet because you ' re 17 saying we need a 10-foot setback on 18 the side yard and right now there is 19 _ just an 8-foot setback . Also, behind 20 that is conservation land, beautiful 21 land . It ' s really a very small deck 22 to have breakfast on and to look at 23 the birds . To my knowledge there are 24 no neighbors there, it ' s not as if 25 they are hurting anyone, they are not Proceedings 39 1 in the view of any neighbors or 2 anything . The deck is just there for 3 quite and peaceful enjoyment of this 4 property . So based on that issue, 5 that it ' s only 2 feet, that says they 6 will not be able to have a deck . 7 Finally, for just a little 8 sympathy, the reason the house is in 9 trust is because the surviving 10 beneficiary suffered a massive stroke 11 and lives in an apartment in 12 Mamaroneck . The cost that she would 13 have in tearing down this deck will take 14 away from the substantial amount of 15 money that the sale of this home will 16 give her in generated income for her 17 for the rest of her life . She is 18 wheelchair bound and requires a 19 _ full-time aid . So this was not done 20 with any intent of offending people . 21 The deck itself is well within 22 the scale of the house, it is a very 23 tiny deck and we really hope that you 24 would grant us the variance . 25 MR . GUNTHER : Do you have any Proceedings 40 1 pictures? 2 MS . ROMA: No pictures were 3 submitted, I don ' t think . There are no 4 pictures in the file . 5 MR . GUNTHER : Are there any 6 questions from the Board Members? No, 7 okay . I ' ll make a motion that this is 8 a Type-2 Action under SEQRA requiring 9 no further action . Is there a second? 10 MR. WINICK: Second . 11 MR . GUNTHER : All those in 12 favor say aye . 13 THE BOARD : Aye . 14 MR . GUNTHER : Would anyone 15 care to make a motion on the merits of 16 this application? 17 MS . MARTIN : I would like to 18 move to make a motion that the case of 19 _ Application Number 2 , case 2355 20 regarding the premises located 9 21 Winged Foot Drive, based on the 22 testimony of the applicant and my 23 personal observation in viewing the 24 premises itself I would like to find 25 that the benefit -- I would like to Proceedings 41 1 propose that the application for this 2 variance be granted on the basis that 3 the benefits to the applicant out way 4 any detriment to the health, safety 5 and welfare of the neighborhood or the 6 community . Specifically, I find that 7 there would be no undesirable change 8 in the character of the neighborhood 9 or any detriment to the nearby 10 properties . ii Due to the unusual 12 configuration of the property, the 13 location of the house on the property 14 provides that the deck, which would 15 normally be in the back of the house, 16 is now in the side yard . Because the 17 deck has been constructed on the house 18 for an indeterminate amount of time, 19 - but for quite a period of time I feel 20 there will be no detriment to the 21 neighboring properties . In fact, the 22 adjacent property to the side yard, in 23 this case, is open land and does not 24 have any housing on it that would have 25 any detriment due to the proximity of Proceedings 42 1 the deck . Also, it is not reasonable 2 to tear the deck down and under the 3 circumstances it ' s not a substantial 4 variance given the size of the 5 property itself and the location of 6 the house on the property . 7 There is no adverse impact on the 8 physical or environmental condition in 9 the neighborhood or district and the 10 deck has not had an adverse impact up 11 until now. 12 Although there may be a self 13 created difficulty in terms of the 14 ignorance of the applicant or the 15 predecessor in constructing this deck 16 originally, I don ' t find that the deck 17 can go anywhere else, so I would move 18 to allow the deck . 19 - MR . GUNTHER : Is there a 20 second? 21 MR . WINICK : Second . 22 MR . WEXLER : Can I ask a 23 question, this deck now is small , what 24 if the new owner in the future wants 25 to make the small deck 30 feet long, Proceedings 4? 1 can that person do that now that we established the side yard at 8 feet? 4 MR. WINICK: As long as it' s as of 5 right. 6 MR . WEXLER : Well , I want to 7 know that . 8 MR . CARPANETO : According to 9 our past experience the variance has 10 only been granted for as long you as 11 stay in the house . 12 MR . GUNTHER : So this is 9 13 feet by 11 feet . 14 MR . CARPANETO : Unless you 15 specify that it ends there . 16 MS . GALLENT : This issue is an 17 issue we have litigated every time 18 that it ' s come up . 19 - MR . WEXLER : I 'm just curious . 20 MS . GALLENT : The Court that 21 litigated the language of that 22 resolution does not sufficiently give 23 the holder of the variance that . Any 24 change at all to that side yard 25 requires an additional variance so we Proceedings 44 1 have to change the language to avoid 2 that interpretation of the Court . 3 MS . MARTIN : Should we put in 4 the interpretation . 5 MR . GUNTHER : No, it ' s standard 6 in everyone, the only thing this 7 covers are the specific details in the 8 application that was presented and no 9 other . 10 MS . GALLENT : So the answer 11 is , no, they could not . They would 12 have to file another application . The 13 language now reads any construction, 14 any other construction requires a 15 variance . 16 MR . WEXLER : So there is a 17 safeguard . 18 MS . GALLENT : We thought the 19 _ other was a safeguard, the Court found 20 that it wasn ' t . 21 MR . GUNTHER : There was no 22 vote, all those in favor say aye . 23 THE BOARD : Aye . 24 MR . GUNTHER : Are you voting? 25 MS . MARTIN : It was my Proceedings 45 1 resolution . 2 MR . GUNTHER : So . 3 MS . MARTIN : Aye . 4 MR . GUNTHER : Please read 5 Application Number 3 . 6 MS . ROMA: This is the 7 Application of Jorge and Miriam 8 Correa requesting a variance to 9 construct a second floor master 10 bedroom and bath . The second floor 11 addition as proposed has a front yard 12 of 23 . 92 feet where 30 feet is 13 required pursuant to Section 14 240-39B ( 1 ) ; a side yard of 5 . 6 feet 15 where 8 feet is required pursuant to 16 Section 240-39B ( 2 ) ( a) ; and further the 17 second addition increases the extent 18 by which the building is nonconforming 19 - pursuant to Section 240-69 for a 20 residence in an R-6 Zone District on 21 the premises located at 10 Winthrop 22 Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment 23 Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 24 410, Lot 28 . 25 MR . GUNTHER : Hello . Please state Proceedings 46 1 your name and address for the record . 2 MR . SCARLATO : John Scarlato, 57 3 Valley Terrace, Rye Brook, New York, 4 S-C-A-R-L-A-T-O . 5 MR . SCARLATO : We are bringing an 6 application for a variance because we 7 are adding a bedroom and a bath 8 because the house itself does not 9 conform in the set backs of today ' s 10 codes with the existing one-car garage 11 and family room that already exist . 12 And all we are going to do to the 13 Dutch Colonial is extend it over the 14 existing garage and family room which 15 are located at the front yard because 16 the house is actually lined up with 17 the street . 18 We are going to take the existing 19 _ house and create another dormer in 20 order to make it look like a full 21 Colonial . We feel that by doing this 22 to this house we will enhance the 23 neighborhood and make it look like the 24 other houses in the area . 25 So we are actually only looking Proceedings 47 1 for a variance for an ear of the lot, 2 we are not changing the size of the 3 house or anything . The house is 4 actually small for the size of the 5 lot . When the house was built in the 6 1920 ' s they built houses closer to the 7 road and closer to the set backs then 8 it would be today . So we ' re already 9 nonconforming . We are only here 10 because the house basically is not in 11 the right position as if it would have 12 been built today . So that ' s basically 13 why we are here tonight . 14 MR . GUNTHER : Where did you just 15 say the house is? 16 MR . SCARLATO : As of today, in the 17 front yard or the side yard because 18 it ' s too close to the road . Even 19 _ though the house does not conform to 20 the lot the footprint will not be any 21 different than the house is now. We 22 are just basically going over the 23 envelope, we are not changing 24 anything, there will be no change, 25 we ' re just making the house bigger . Proceedings 48 1 The house, as far as the area for the 2 lot, is actually undersized and even 3 with the addition we ' re not really 4 asking for a variance . 5 MR. GUNTHER: Five other houses on t h e 6 same side of the street are closer to 7 the front lot line than this house, 8 and all but two of the houses on the 9 other side of the street are closer to 10 the front lot line . 11 MR . SCARLATO : Correct, it ' s an 12 area of Town that predates zoning . 13 Does anybody have any questions? 14 MR . WINICK: There is a 15 substantial deck in the backyard if I 16 remember correctly . 17 MR . SCARLATO : That ' s as of right, 18 we are allowed to do it . The only 19 _ variance we are asking for is just to 20 align the house and make it a full 21 Colonial . We are using the same exact 22 same footprint, so we are just filling 23 in, we ' re not changing anything . We 24 don ' t need the area variance for 25 anything else, it ' s just that we are Proceedings 49 1 to big for the lot, we are here 2 because it doesn ' t conform. 3 Therefore, we are redoing the house . 4 MR . WEXLER: There is a structure 5 in the back of the property what is 6 that? 7 MR . SCARLATO : That ' s an old 8 garage, it ' s basically a shed . I 9 guess originally it was a one car 10 garage . 11 MR . WINICK: It ' s set on the 12 property line . 13 MR . SCARLATO : I guess the 14 previous owners ahead of them had 15 added a garage and a family room and 16 just left the garage there . 17 MR . GUNTHER : Any other questions? 18 MR . WINICK: I have none . 19 _ MR . GUNTHER : Any questions from 20 the public on this application? 21 MR . GUNTHER : I ' ll make a motion 22 that this is a Type-2 action and 23 requires no further action under 24 SEQRA. Is there a second? 25 MR . WINICK: Second . Proceedings 50 1 MR . GUNTHER : All those in favor 2 say aye . 3 THE BOARD : Aye . 4 MR . GUNTHER : Motion is carried . 5 MS . GALLENT : This application was 6 sent to the Westchester County 7 Planning Board because we are required 8 to under the State law, and the 9 Westchester County Planning Board 10 reviewed it and declined to comment . 11 MR . GUNTHER : Does anyone care to 12 make a motion on this application? 13 MR . WINICK: I ' ll make the motion 14 on Application Number 3 on case 2356 . 15 This is the application of Jorge and 16 Miriam Correa requesting a variance to 17 construct a second floor master 18 bedroom and bath . 19 _ This application should be granted 20 on the following basis; I find that 21 there would not be an undesirable 22 change to the character of the 23 neighborhood or a detriment to the 24 nearby properties . I think here that 25 the applicant is engaged in the great Proceedings 51 1 sport of Larchmont and of Mamaroneck 2 which is the squaring off of their 3 house and adding essentially inside to 4 the existing footprint . It will 5 essentially, as per Mr . Scarlato ' s 6 statement, probably increase the 7 appeal of the house aesthetically from 8 the curb and it certainly will add 9 value and it will add to the usage of to the house . The footprint is already 11 there and there will be no detriment 12 to the community . This way they will 13 have some more volume within the same 14 footprint, so that there will be no 15 undesirable change at all . 16 As a result of the work being 17 applied for, I do not think that the 18 applicant can achieve his goals via a 19 - reasonable alternative which does not 20 involve the necessity of an area 21 variance simply because the property 22 is not nonconforming . If you look at 23 the application and the work as a 24 whole -- what I 'm saying is I don ' t 25 think that the work could be done in Proceedings 52 1 the back because that would cut into 2 the available deck space which is also 3 part of this project . I don ' t think, 4 given tenor of the project, that there 5 is an alternative that would not 6 require the necessity of a variance . 7 I don ' t see how this construction on 8 this property could be done anywhere 9 else without the house encroaching on 10 the lot lines . 11 From the original construction I 12 don ' t think the variance is 13 substantial . Again, for the same 14 reason it is not a substantial 15 increase in the volume of the existing 16 footprint on the house without further 17 encroaching at all into the lot 18 restrictions . 19 - MR . GUNTHER : Would you just 20 elaborate on that particular point 21 because to qualify that by merely 22 saying it is not a substantial increase in 23 volume by increasing the footprint of 24 the house is not enough . And it is a 25 substantial increase in the volume . Proceedings 53 1 MR . WINICK: Well , this may be , 2 but mathematically it ' s not 3 substantial . 4 MR . GUNTHER : In this case, 5 because^-- 6 MR . WINICK: Simply because given 7 the architecture and given the 8 character of the neighborhood that 9 sort of increase, that value is at 10 least minimul . The house, in my view, 11 from looking at the surrounding 12 community will look more appropriate 13 than it does or at least the same . 14 This will not create any sort of 15 sufficient impact . And I would not 16 have to consider it to be a self 17 created difficulty given the 18 circumstance of this application and 19 _ simply for the -- 20 MR . WEXLER: If we could entertain 21 that the property to the left of the 22 house is 20 to 25 feet away from the 23 property as opposed to the required 10 24 or 8 feet, whatever it is , to the 25 existing open space -- Proceedings 54 1 MR . WINICK: Fortunately, there is 2 a larger set back with the adjoining 3 property over here and we have no 4 adjoining property holder because, of 5 course, we would have noticed them in 6 the ordinary course of business as to 7 when this application would be heard. 8 For the same reasons that I ' ve stated 9 I would find that there is no adverse 10 impact on the physical or 11 environmental condition in the 12 neighborhood or the district . 13 This is obviously not a 14 self-created difficulty because this 15 nonconformance was from before the 16 zoning code and they brought the 17 property in that condition and it was 18 certainly nothing that they did, they 19 - did not create the difficulty . So on 20 those grounds I move to grant the 21 variance . 22 MR . WEXLER : I don ' t think that 23 before the zoning code that there was 24 a garage in the back in of this 25 driveway . This was built somewhere, Proceedings 55 1 this was built before the garage was attached to this house . MR . CARPANETO : The house is old . 4 MR . WEXLER : You couldn ' t get to that garage way? You ' re saying that that ' s the original way of getting into that driveway, along the side of 8 the house to the left and that the a room above that was there before the 10 enactment of our zoning? 11 MR . CARPANETO : I would have to 12 assume so . 13 MR . WEXLER : It was between that 14 period of time when the changes were 15 done to the house before the zoning 16 enactment? 17 MR . WINICK : For for all those 18 reasons I would move that we grant the 19 _ variance for the reasons I have 20 stated . 21 MR . GUNTHER: Is there any other 22 discussion? No, okay . I ' ll second 23 the motion . All those in favor say 24 aye . 25 THE BOARD : Aye . Proceedings 56 1 MR . GUNTHER : Application Number 2 4 , Case 2357 the appeal of Byron Place 3 Associates is adjourned to our August 4 meeting . Please read Application 5 Number 5 , Case 2358 . 6 MS . ROMA: Application of Debra 7 and Bill Walters requesting a variance 8 to construct a 2 1/2 story rear 9 addition front and entrance vestibule 10 and porch . The 2 1/2 story rear 11 addition has a side yard of 6 . 4 feet 12 where 10 feet is required pursuant to 13 Section 240-38B ( 2 ) (a) ; a total side 14 yard of 14 . 5 feet where 20 feet is 15 required pursuant to Section 16 240-38B (2 ) (b) ; the front vestibule and 17 porch as proposed has a side yard of 18 6 . 4 feet where 10 feet is required 19 _ pursuant to 240-38B ( 2 ) (a) ; a front 20 yard setback of 20 feet where 30 feet 21 is required pursuant to Section 22 240-38B ( 1 ) ; and further, the rear 23 front and rear addition increase the 24 extent by which the building is 25 nonconforming pursuant to Section Proceedings 57 1 240-69 for a residence in an R-7 . 5 2 Zone District on the premises located 3 at 197 Murray Avenue and known on the 4 Tax Assesment Map of the Town of 5 Mamaroneck as Block 113 , Lot 318 . 6 MR . GUNTHER : Are you ready, sir? 7 MR . BRYCE : I 'm John Bryce, I 'm 8 the architect for this project, 9 B-R-Y-C-E . 10 I just want to go through what we 11 are proposing and then the owners can 12 speak about some of the reasons of the 13 things that they are asking for . Do 14 you all have copies of the plans? 15 What I would try to do is show you 16 what we ' re doing . 17 I ' d like to correct one thing on 18 the application, which we have already 19 - agreed to, which is the front entrance 20 vestibule which was originally part of 21 the application has been omitted . 22 MR . GUNTHER : That was deleted 23 from the original plan? 24 MR . BRYCE : That was shown on the 25 original application . Proceedings 58 1 MR . GUNTHER : For clarity sake , so 2 everyone is on the same page, the 3 front addition, the front vestibule 4 and porch that was proposed is no 5 longer proposed and will not occur . 6 MS . GALLENT : So there is no front 7 yard setback? 8 MR . GUNTHER : So this application 9 we are looking as proposed is for the 10 setback in the back and the side? 11 MR . BRYCE : On the side, correct . 12 MR . WEXLER : The addition is in 13 the back too, but the variance is not, 14 it ' s for the side . 15 MR . BRYCE : That ' s correct . The 16 current house is a two-bedroom house 17 that ' s really very small . We are 18 proposing to extend the house along 19 _ the back in this zone and above the 20 family room here, which is the 21 existing family room, this is what you 22 would call the main dining room and 23 the two story portion here, in order 24 to gain a three-bedroom house with a 25 new kitchen and family room Proceedings 59 arrangement . MR . GUNTHER : Mr . Bryce, can I 3 just ask you to swivel that a little bit this way so the people in the 5 public can see what you ' re planning . r MR . BRYCE : Okay . 7 MR . GUNTHER : If anyone can ' t see move up . 9 MR . WEXLER : Can I have you to go 1�_t back to the variance on the other 11 side . 12 MR . BRYCE : There is currently^-- 12 we are adding a small portion on to 14 this area here which is part of the 15 existing kitchen . 1 ,. MR . WEXLER : So it ' s a variance on 17 both sides . 18 MR . BRYCE : So we are adding to 19 - the ground floor what will result in 20 the kitchen and a family room and a 21 living room and a dining room with a 22 powder room with a pantry and a small 23 study . On the second floor what will 24 result is three bedrooms ; in this 25 portion of the second floor will be the Proceedings 60 1 master bedroom which is being added on the 2 second floor and a laundry room and a 3 bathroom. And this is the third floor 4 which is currently not really 5 occupied, and which we will just 6 continue calling it a game room. 7 Currently there is a very large 8 deck which extends along the kitchen 9 aligning with the existing house and 10 it extends quite deep . We will be 11 removing that deck in order to build 12 this addition . In fact, the deck is 13 quite a bit further out than the 14 addition would be . Currently from the 15 rear wall this kitchen is about 12 16 feet out the from the existing rear 17 wall, the deck is about 20 feet out in 18 terms of the appearance of the house . 19 - This is the existing house here, 20 and as you can see from the photo this 21 is a small family room, which is 22 currently where the family room exists 23 on the second floor . In a very 24 similar fashion of the existing house 25 we plan to fill out the corners on the Proceedings 61 front side and this no longer is the front entrance . MR . GUNTHER : So the existing door 4 today will remain the same? 5 MR . BRYCE : Door and stoop, yes . 6 The side will certainly not be 7 extruding out fran the second floor. So that 8 on the side it will look virtually the 9 same as it looks now, with these 10 applied gables at the end here and in 11 the back . 12 This is second floor addition on 13 top with the family room that comes 14 out and this is the kitchen extension . 15 So in short, what we are proposing 16 today is a house along the lines of 17 the existing house which has an 8 foot 18 setback and we are building on top of 19 _ the existing family room to create a 20 bedroom up here and we are creating a 21 master bedroom and bath on the second 22 floor, and a new family room. I hope 23 that ' s all clear . 24 MR . GUNTHER : Would you just point 25 out on the side elevations , right and Proceedings 62 1 left primarily, as you look at the house on the right-hand side the 3 windows, where any new windows would 4 be? 5 MR . BRYCE : There are new high windows in the living room which you see here . MR . GUNTHER : Are there windows 9 there now? 10 MR . BRYCE : In fact there is a 11 large area of glass block currently in 12 the family room, which will be removed 13 and clear story type windows will be 14 installed . 15 MR . GUNTHER : At what height? 16 MR . BRYCE : I think somewhere 17 about 5 feet, 4 1/2 feet up here . 10 MR . GUNTHER : If you were here 19 - they would be at approximately here 20 you would be able to look outside . _'_1 MR . BRYCE : I would say that ' s 22 approximately correct . 23 MR . GUNTHER : You ' re replacing the 24 windows now with less window surface . 25 MR . BRYCE : Absolutely . Proceedings 63 1 MR . GUNTHER : Okay, please 2 continue . 3 MR . BRYCE : These are the two new 4 family room windows here , which are 5 not existing, they are new windows in 6 the new family room where the existing 7 dining room had been which are being 8 removed on that side . We are removing 9 from the existing dining room, here, 10 those two windows where the new 11 addition is being built . 12 MR . GUNTHER : So the windows , if 13 you just move that down, those are the 14 new windows that you just pointed out 15 to me? 16 MR . BRYCE : These windows are 17 replacing this window right here and 18 these two windows , I guess you could 19 _ say, will be replacing those windows . 20 MR . GUNTHER : At least on the 21 first floor of the house, is that 22 maybe only one window towards the end 23 of the house? 24 MR . BRYCE : This is actually in 25 the vestibule which is not being done . Proceedings 64 1 MR . GUNTHER : This is to the 2 right? 3 MR . BRYCE : That ' s correct . 4 That ' s part of the bay window in the 5 back . 6 MR . GUNTHER : And on the second 7 floor obviously that area doesn ' t 8 exist . 9 MR . BRYCE : Right, correct . So 10 that would be on the second floor 11 where we are adding two small windows 12 in the back of the master bedroom. 13 MR . GUNTHER : Okay . 14 MR. BRYCE: Which is here . 15 MR . GUNTHER : I just have a second 16 question for you and that has to do 17 with shadows . It appears from the Tax 18 Assessment Map of the Town that the house 19 _ is almost situated facing due west . 20 So hence, the shadows would only be 21 created either in the front of the 22 house or the rear not to the right or 23 the left? 24 MR . WEXLER : No, the house sits^-- 25 let me get my map out . This is the Proceedings 65 1 north arrow, this is the north arrow 2 and the sun moves like this , it goes 3 from east to west . 4 MR . GUNTHER : It rises in the east 5 and sets in the west . 6 MR . WEXLER : The shadows are on 7 this neighbor, this house at 201 ; is 8 that correct? 9 MR . BRYCE : We haven ' t done a sun 10 study . 11 MR . WEXLER : Your transverse 12 access of the house is north\south . 13 MR . GUNTHER : Okay, that was my 14 question . Any other questions from 15 Board Members? 16 MR . WEXLER : Have you looked at 17 any other alternatives? 18 MR . BRYCE : Well , we looked at a 19 - number of alternatives , many 20 alternatives . However, we felt that 21 on the whole this solution had the 22 least amount of impact and the least 23 degree of variance that we could have 24 and still achieve all the extras. 25 Obviously, making the rooms narrower, Proceedings 66 1 they ' re already fairly narrow so we 2 didn ' t want to make them narrower . 3 MR . WEXLER : On the first floor or 4 the second? 5 MR . BRYCE : Both . 6 MR . WEXLER : The variance you ' re 7 asking for is basically a two-foot 8 variance on the side? 9 MR . BRYCE : Correct . 10 MR . WEXLER : You can build this as 11 of right 10 feet from the property 12 line . 13 MR . CARPANETO : 10 and 10 . 14 MR . WEXLER : So it ' s 6 feet on the 15 side? 16 MR . CARPANETO : 10 and 10 . 17 MR . WEXLER : Not 20 together? 18 MR . CARPANETO : No, anything 19 _ within the 10 feet . 20 MR . WEXLER : So the impact is 2 21 feet? 22 MR . BRYCE : That ' s correct . And 23 looking at these, which we d i d earlier o n, 24 you know, the family room is now 12 , 25 almost 11 feet, it ' s about 11 feet 10 Proceedings 67 1 inches or so . 2 MR . WEXLER : But your kitchen is 3 14 by 13 feet, you have an island 4 here^-- what is that? 5 MR . BRYCE : A seating area . 6 MR . WEXLER : So you have about 5 7 1/2 feet here, so you could move it 8 over a little bit . 9 MR . BRYCE : On the second floor 10 it ' s a new wall . 11 MR . WEXLER : Not a new wall . 12 MR . BRYCE : We tried to look for 13 the impact . What is shown is -- 14 bedroom number two on the second floor 15 is built above the existing family 16 room, above the existing garage 17 section . 18 MR . WINICK: What is the width of 19 - the bedroom, the master bedroom? 20 MR . BRYCE : Well , it ' s essentially 21 the same as -- it ' s about 11 , 11 feet . 22 MR . WEXLER : Close to it . 23 MR. GUNTHER : Any other questions? 24 No, okay . Are there any questions 25 from the public on this application? Proceedings 68 1 MR . BRYCE : The owner would like 2 to make a statement as well . 3 MRS . WALTERS : My name is Deborah 4 Walters , I live at 197 Murray Avenue . 5 I would just like to tell you what 6 sort of hardship we would have if this 7 isn ' t granted and why it ' s so 8 important to us . We ' ve be in the 9 neighborhood, in this house, for 10 almost 10 years and we are very much a 11 part of the Larchmont community and 12 I ' m very involved in the community and 13 my husband is very involved in the 14 local sports with the kids and a 15 million other things . We vote on 16 every issue, we are just a very 17 intrinsical part of the community . 18 We have looked at other houses , 19 _ however, moving within Larchmont is 20 not feasible because of the market . 21 We have looked at real estate and we 22 have gone and we have looked at other 23 communities , but there is just so 24 little out there right now. We are a 25 growing family of four and this house Proceedings 69 1 is simply not big enough for a growing 2 family of four . We have had one set 3 of neighbors that has changed three 4 times already in the time that we ' ve 5 been there and we don ' t want it to be 6 a transient neighborhood, we want it 7 to be a permanent neighborhood . 8 We want to have a permanent home 9 for us and we can ' t do that if we 10 can ' t do this , and we have looked at 11 many different ways of trying to do 12 this and this is the only way that it 13 just makes sense for our family . We 14 are not doing a tremendous project, we 15 just want it be so we don ' t have to 16 move . If we did have to move we would 17 have to look in Connecticut because 18 there is just nothing right here and 19 _ our kids would have to change school 20 systems and all that, which is really 21 something we don ' t want to do at all . 22 We love this community and we want to 23 stay here . 24 Also, we do think that it ' s going 25 to be done tastefully and it ' s not Proceedings 70 1 going to offend the integrity of the 2 neighborhood and it will upgrade the 3 value of the immediate neighborhood . 4 I think that ' s it , thank you . 5 MR . GUNTHER : You ' re welcome . 6 MRS . WALTERS : We also have a 7 couple of people here who are in 8 support of it, neighbors and friends 9 that just know us and they got the 10 notice so they' re here . 11 THE AUDIENCE : I ' d like to speak 12 on behalf of the Walters . 13 MR . GUNTHER : I ' ll call each 14 person one at a time . But the lady 15 over here had her hand up first . 16 THE AUDIENCE : My name is Rob 17 Miginty and I reside at 201 Murray 18 Avenue which is the property that is 19 - directly to the right of 197 . We are 20 directly north of it and we are the 21 property that would probably be most 22 affected by this addition . 23 And you can see the Walters are 24 proposing to -- they are adding a 2 25 1/2 story addition to this house that Proceedings 71 1 will run pretty much the entire length 2 of the existing house all the way to 3 the back and very close to our 4 existing deck in the back of the 5 house . 6 So as Mr . Bryce explained they ' re 7 going to be going up above the den and 8 plus go up 2 1/2 stories . What is 9 going to result is a narrower lot . 10 It ' s a 50 foot lot, and what is going to 11 result for us is we will then have a 2 12 1/2 story addition looming over our 13 outdoor living space as well the 14 indoor living space . This addition, 15 I think, is going to be approximately 16 6 feet from the property line and our 17 setback isn ' t much more . So from our 18 deck and outdoor living space we -- 19 _ I 'm almost able reach over and touch 20 this building . 21 Mr . Wexler pointed out that there 22 will be shade . But the addition is 23 also going to result in a tremendous 24 loss in the quality of the life that 25 we now enjoy out there . We are Proceedings 72 1 definitely going to loose some of our 2 view and the openness of the air flow, 3 the light, the space is going to have the 4 same effect to the inside of the 5 house . 6 On that same side of the house is 7 our den which is actually a sunroom, 8 it ' s all windows so it enjoys all the 9 sun, it has a view of the backyard, 10 it has air and light which we could 11 potentially lose that in the house, as 12 well as the same for the bedrooms . 13 Just so we understand this 2 1/2 story 14 structure is going to be very close to 15 this house . The lots are 50 feet wide 16 and they ' re small houses . 17 Secondly, the addition is going to 18 make it necessary to remove a tree, either 19 - 100 or 200 years old, I don ' t know, 20 but it ' s about 100 feet tall and it 21 shades the house and it shades our 22 deck . Obviously, I think trees are 23 importan , the Town chooses to display 24 them right here, it ' s just going to 25 result in another loss for what we Proceedings 73 1 currently enjoy . 2 MR . WINICK: Whose property is the 3 tree on? 4 MR . MINGINTY : It ' s on the 5 Walters ' property, but again the tree 6 is going to have to be removed . One 7 of the best things about this house, 8 because it ' s a small house, our house, 9 was the yard and the deck, the outdoor 10 living space which as you probably all 11 know is hard to find in this Town . So 12 this will definitely result in a 13 tremendous , tremendous loss to the quality 14 of life that we currently enjoy. 15 I ' ve lived in this community my 16 whole life, I ' ve grown up here and 17 when it came time for us to purchase a 18 house we wanted to stay in this 19 _ community . When we purchased this 20 house we expected to continue to enjoy 21 everything that is there now. But 22 it ' s completely out of character for 23 this Town to allow this monster to be 24 built on such a small piece of 25 property . Proceedings 74 1 I don ' t know how I can stress this 2 enough, but I think 2 1/2 stories of a 3 flat walled surface looming on top of 4 our outdoor living space is going to 5 result in a tremendous , tremendous 6 loss to us . Where now we have a 7 beautiful yard we are going to be 8 looking at a building within 6 feet of 9 us , the side of a house, which is why 10 they placed the windows where they 11 did, they ' re up high becuase the 12 properties are so close . 13 Would you like to say anything? 14 MRS . MIGINTY : I guess the 15 emphasis should be when you ' re in our 16 bedroom, when your in our bedroom and 17 you look out the window there is an 18 open space and that would be a loss to 19 _ us . Like Robert said I ' ve lived in 20 this Town since 7th grade, I ' ve lived 21 here for the majority of my life, 22 except when we were in Yorktown . 23 We purposely brought this house 24 because we wanted to give our young 25 children the same gifts we were given Proceedings 75 1 growing up . Parking here today, 2 tonight we walked that same platform 3 we did many years ago . 4 We too like the Walters love this 5 community and I totally like my 6 neighbors . This is the last place I 7 wanted to be, I 'm not looking to make 8 trouble between us , but I feel it ' s 9 not in our best interest to grant this 10 variance . The Town has these laws to 11 protect our community . There is a 12 limited amount of space there now and 13 I 'm not looking to have that be 14 different . 15 Two things that the Walters ' 16 family brought up tonight that I 17 disagree with is the windows they ' re 18 thinking about putting in the dinning 19 - room right over here what currently 20 exists there, although it ' s a larger 21 window area today, but what it is is a 22 solid block of glass so there is no 23 noise coming through . And in terms of 24 two families living close together I 25 think this would lessen the privacy, Proceedings 76 1 if that makes sense . They also 2 represented their home currently as a 3 two-bedroom house and to the best of 4 my knowledge, having visited it, it ' s 5 a three-bedroom home . And when they 6 did consider selling the home it 7 certainly wasn ' t presented as a 8 two-bedroom home, so I disagree with 9 that point . 10 And although you ' re not here to 11 think about a tree, the tree is 12 heartbreaking to me because it ' s so 13 beautiful . It ' s as high as the sky 14 and as wide and provides us with 15 beauty and coolness and shade and I 16 don ' t want to lose those qualities , 17 but I ' m trying to focus on what is 18 important because I know your time is 19 - valuable . So thank you for your 20 time . 21 MR . MIGINTY : May I just ask one 22 more question, earlier it was stated 23 that the variance was for 2 feet when 24 it is actually for 3 feet 6 inches . 25 MR . GUNTHER : It ' s stated in there Proceedings 77 1 what it is and that is all we will 2 consider is whatever it states . 3 MR . WEXLER: there are two side 4 variances ; there is the side that is 5 facing your house which needs the two 6 foot variance from your house . It 7 should be 10 feet, but it ' s probably 8 going to be 8 feet . You really should 9 check that . 10 THE AUDIENCE : The survey says -- 11 MR . WEXLER : It ' s going to be 12 closer to the property line , what is 13 the accurate measurement on that? 14 MR . MINGINTY : It ' s not our side 15 yard with the 6 . 4 ? 16 MR . WEXLER : 6 . 4 is where they are 17 putting a small addition and windows 18 and where they need a 3 . 6 foot 19 _ variance . 20 MS . MIGINTY : We thought that 21 referred to our side . 22 MR . WEXLER: No, it doesn ' t the 23 majority of the construction -- 24 THE AUDIENCE : Is the variance 25 they ' re asking for between these two Proceedings 78 1 properties , what are they asking for? 2 MR . WEXLER : The space that exists 3 now it probably looks , it looks like 8 4 feet 1 inch and probably about, 5 probably about 16 feet between the 6 houses where 20 feet would be 7 required . 8 MR . CARPANETO : Between the two 9 houses? 10 MR . WEXLER : I 'm looking at the 11 Tax Assessment Map, it looks like it ' s 12 about the same setback . 13 You have to realize, too, for a 14 moment keep this in mind, they have as 15 of right a right to build 10 feet from 16 the property line a house 2 1/2 17 stories high . So the impact is what, 18 two feet . I don ' t think it ' s a 19 - minimal impact, but they have a right 20 to build 10 feet from the property 21 line 2 1/2 stores high . The question 22 is how do you soften the impact if it 23 was built within 10 feet or even at 10 24 feet becuase they ' re not required to 25 get a variance and that is what you Proceedings 79 1 would have to look at . 2 MR . MINGINTY : But considering the 3 width of the property which is only 4 50 feet I think would make it -- 5 MR . WEXLER : they are allowed to 6 build 10 feet from the property line 7 whatever the impact . 8 MR . MINGINTY : But again that ' s 9 right in front of -- that building 10 will be right in front of our outdoor 11 living space . 12 MR . WEXLER : We can only look at 13 this in the context of what the 14 request is . 15 MR . MINGINTY : If you would like 16 to see what I am talking about we have 17 photographs? 18 MS . MARTIN : Sure . 19 _ MRS . MINGINTY : The ones that are 20 foggy are what it is like to look out 21 of our window. 22 MR . GUNTHER : As soon as they ' re 23 marked in the record we will be happy 24 to pass them around . 25 MRS . WALTERS : Can I see those? Proceedings 80 1 MR . GUNTHER : Are you finished? 2 MR . MINGINTY : Yeah . I just ask 3 that you, I plead with you not to 4 grant this variance . Thank you . 5 MR . GUNTHER : Is there anyone else 6 in the public who would like to speak? 7 THE AUDIENCE : Yes . 8 MR . GUNTHER : Sir, if you ' re the 9 owner I ' ll come back to you last . 10 Take notes on anything that you hear 11 and we will let someone else talk, we 12 will go around the room to see who 13 else will be affected, and who has an 14 opinion to state and then lastly I 15 will come back to you and your 16 architect . We ' ll take the lady in 17 blue next . 18 THE AUDIENCE : My name is Mary 19 _ Hargrave and we live across the street 20 from the Walters . I wanted to say 21 that we ' ve been in the neighborhood 22 for about 30 years and we know the 23 houses are small , we had to add on to 24 our house, we added a den . Our next 25 door neighbors, right next door to us Proceedings 81 1 the Mooks (ph) last year or the year 2 before have added a second story . I 3 think they ' ve enhanced the house, so I 4 find it really difficult -- I think 5 there is an inconvenience for anybody 6 when somebody adds on to their house . 7 I know we were within our variance 8 limit, but you have a neighborhood 9 with small houses and when we added 10 our garage and we were within our 11 rights , but you can ' t do something 12 without bothering some people . 13 I understand the situation with 14 the Walters , they have growing 15 children and I have been in the house 16 and it ' s a very small house and I do 17 know that we all have to live as 18 neighbors and this neighborhood is 19 - very nice, it ' s a great neighborhood . 20 So I am very much in favor of them 21 being granted the addition . I think 22 it would enhance their house and they 23 are very nice neighbors and we would 24 hate to loose them. 25 MR . GUNTHER : What is your Proceedings 82 1 address , please? 2 MS . HARGRAVE : 6 Colonial Avenue . 3 MR . GUNTHER : Thank you . 4 THE AUDIENCE : My name is Mark 5 Stein, I 'm a friend of the Walters 6 and a resident of the Town of 7 Mamaroneck . I 'm here because I care 8 about these people and I care about 9 this issue . These are exactly the 10 kind of people that this community 11 and this Town should be looking, 12 driving to find and keep within this 13 community . They are good neighbors , 14 they participate in all the positive 15 ways you would want to have citizens 16 of the Town participate, they are just 17 charitable people . I hope that these 18 are the types of things that this 19 _ community is looking for as they' re 20 facing this very emotional and 21 important moment in their lives , 22 because it ' s going to determine their 23 future . 24 I have seen them struggle with 25 this issue and it ' s been an emotional Proceedings 83 1 one . They have looked for a way to 2 try to find a way to stay in their 3 house with a minimal amount of impact . 4 They are the last people in the world 5 to do something to affect their 6 neighbors unnecessarily and they have, 7 they felt they had found a way to stay 8 in the house with a minimal amount of 9 impact . I care about this issue 10 because to me it appears to be so 11 technical . 12 As the last speaker said we all 13 have to find ways of making our houses 14 livable and if I was doing 15 construction and asking for a variance 16 because my construction exceeded, by a 17 small amount, what the zoning called 18 for I would hate to be turned down 19 _ under those conditions . I think, 20 frankly, it ' s unfair to consider or 21 dwell on, for example, the cutting 22 down of a tree which is fully within 23 their right to cut down or to talk 24 about a 2 1/2 foot -- 2 1/2 story 25 addition when what we are talking Proceedings 84 1 about is 2 feet as I understand it . 2 And as a citizen of this Town I don ' t 3 want to see that 2 feet will get in 4 the way of the joy and happiness of 5 this family and that they won ' t be 6 able to stay in this house . 7 This whole thing appears technical 8 to me and I don ' t think that this is 9 the message to send to the residents 10 of the Town . So I strongly urge this 11 committee to grant the variance and 12 allow these fine people to continue 13 with their plans . 14 MR . GUNTHER : Mr . Stein, what is 15 your address? 16 MR . STEIN : 25 Huegenot Drive . 17 MR . GUNTHER : Thank you . Are 18 there any other comments on this 19 _ application? 20 MR . WEXLER : You mean from the 21 public? 22 MR . GUNTHER : Do you have any 23 questions? 24 MR . WEXLER : You said any more 25 comments . Proceedings 85 1 MR . GUNTHER : I was directing it 2 out there . Mr . Walters , you wanted to 3 say something . 4 MR . WALTERS : I am Bill Walters , 5 her husband . I don ' t know what to say 6 when people like Mark -- Mark did a 7 great job and I thank you for that . 8 By the way, I think if you ' re familiar 9 with the area and you go to 197 Murray to Avenue you will see that any kind of 11 changes can never ever be described as 12 towering and looming . We had a 13 conversation with our neighbors about 14 what we are doing and we love our 15 neighbors and it ' s really unfortunate 16 that we are here having this 17 discussion . 18 We did have a discussion with them 19 _ and at that time they told us they 20 could -- that they had thought about 21 the changes and they could live with 22 them. The tree did upset them. So we 23 felt like we didn ' t have any problems 24 with our neighbors . 25 We have been going over these Proceedings 86 1 plans for a year and a half with our 2 architect because we wanted the house 3 to fit in with Murray Avenue . We went 4 over the house that we have planned 5 and all the materials that are used on 6 the street and some of the appeal of 7 the other houses . Murray Avenue is a 8 very, very noisy street, but what I 9 like best about our house is the 10 backyard . You can ' t get a backyard 11 like this unless you spend hundreds of 12 thousands of dollars or a million 13 dollars anywhere right now, but we 14 have a patch of land in the back -- we 15 are happy to have a small house with a 16 nice little piece of land in the back . 17 And we have spent the last year and a 18 half to have some kind of balance . 19 _ I live in a house with three girls 20 and we thought we could grow into this 21 house . We don ' t want a big house with 22 no backyard, and we have looked for a 23 house . We have only one bathroom and 24 we have struggled for a balance, we 25 don ' t have a bathroom upstairs and we Proceedings 87 1 feel we have an unusable basement , we 2 don ' t have a family room and bathroom 3 upstairs . We can live with some of 4 that, but not all of that . 5 I think a lot of the proposed 6 changes that we are setting forth, if 7 you really look at some of the 8 dimensions, they are not outrageous 9 and I think if you look at that you 10 will see what I 'm talking about . What 11 we are doing in the backyard, first of 12 all , if we went so far back we would 13 ruin the view and they are wrong, 14 they ' re saying basically that we would 15 ruin their view. The backyard is just 16 as important to us as it is to them. 17 Unfortunately, because of the side 18 areas that we have that doesn ' t afford 19 _ us a lot of room. And there is, in 20 essence, a block of glass in our 21 dinning room which enforces a little 22 bit of privacy . That happens to be 23 one of the rules of living in one of 24 these houses , we have accepted the 25 fact that you loose a little bit of Proceedings 88 1 privacy . We are very, very happy in 2 this community and we don ' t think 3 these changes are outrageous and we 4 hope you grant the variance . Thanks . 5 MR. GUNTHER : Your welcome . Yes , 6 Ma ' am? 7 MRS . MINGINTY : If I could add 8 something . I live at 201 Murray 9 Avenue and just as Bill stated -- 10 MS . ROMA: Come over here by the 11 microphone . 12 MRS . MINGINTY : As Bill stated we 13 live in very small homes . My house is 14 a crummy little house, but the 15 backyard is the best part of the house 16 and for me to be sitting next to a 17 wall is going to be a lot less 18 enjoyable . Bill also mentioned that 19 _ he has three girls in the house, 20 three growing girls , I don ' t think 21 that Debbie counts , it ' s two growing 22 girls . I just don ' t think she should 23 count as one of the growing family 24 members . 25 MRS . WALTERS : We have been saying Proceedings 89 1 a family of four all day . 2 MR . GUNTHER : Are there any other 3 questions from the public? 4 MRS . WALTERS : Just one quick 5 thing, I 'm Debbie Walters . In terms 6 of the beauty of the backyard, just as 7 Bill said, that ' s one of the reasons 8 that we want to stay. You have a view 9 all throughout the backyard and our 10 neighbors the fact that they say they 11 will be looking at this tall looming 12 structure that ' s not accurate because 13 they still will have the beauty of the 14 entire backyard, all of the trees and 15 the lush greenery is still going to be 16 there . This is not going to change 17 the quality of the land back there , 18 otherwise we wouldn ' t want to do this . 19 _ MR . GUNTHER : I have a question 20 for the Director of Buildings , with 21 regard to tree removal do they need 22 anything from the Town to do that? 23 MR . CARPANETO : If the lot is 20 24 feet by 20 feet square they probably 25 would not be required by the Town to Proceedings 90 1 get a permit to remove that tree . 2 MR . GUNTHER : I ' ll repeat that 3 answer for those who didn ' t hear . I 4 was questioning the Director of 5 Buildings with regard to the removal 6 of the tree . The response was if the 7 lot is 20 by 20 square feet a permit 8 is not required to remove a tree . 9 MR . CARPANETO : Correct . 10 MR . GUNTHER : Do any of the Board 11 Members have any questions? 12 MR . WINICK : I have a question for 13 the architect, maybe you can help me 14 because I don ' t have a scale here, 15 what is the current depth of the 16 backyard and what is it going to be 17 after the the proposed addition? 18 MR . WEXLER : It ' s a big backyard . 19 _ MR . WINICK: That I got . 20 MR . BRYCE : The lot depth is 120 21 by 50 feet, there is a 30 foot 22 proposed deck which is approximately 23 41 feet from the property line . The 24 lot depth is 120 feet and there is a 25 30 foot proposed deck which is Proceedings 91 1 approximately 41 feet from the 2 setback . Which is at least 3 approximately 80 feet . 4 MR . WINICK: From the end of the 5 proposed new construction? 6 MR . BRYCE : Approximately 79 and a 7 half . 8 THE AUDIENCE : And what is it now? 9 MR . BRYCE : From the deck? 10 MR . WEXLER : Probably about 12 11 feet more than that . The deck however 12 is approximately 10 feet less . The 13 deck is quite -- it ' s almost the 14 entire length of the house, it ' s very 15 large . 16 MR . WEXLER : You finished? 17 MR . WINICK: Um-hum. 18 MR . WEXLER : This is not very 19 - different from -- these circumstances 20 are similar from ones that we ' ve had 21 in the past a couple of times . 22 MR . GUNTHER : Several times . 23 MR . WEXLER : And we also seemed to 24 accept one case which was after the 25 fact . We seem to come up with Proceedings 92 1 solutions that got the applicant the 2 space that they required and which 3 minimized the impact on the neighbors . 4 I think in a couple of instances this 5 is not much different than that . From 6 my point of view, again as a member of 7 the Board, the applicant has the right 8 to build 10 feet from their side yard . 9 They ' re asking for a two foot variance 10 which would be 8 feet in the side yard 11 because they are going to build a 2 12 1/2 story structure . The actual space 13 that you ' re claiming that you need is 14 from the second floor ceiling down not 15 above . 16 I think you have an opportunity to 17 get what you need spacewise and 18 restucture the addition in the sense 19 _ of the roof structure to minimze the 20 impact that will result and the 21 structure will have less of an impact 22 than that with a building 10 feet from 23 the property line 2 1/2 stores high . 24 If you want me to do this pictural 25 terms I can if you want, do you mind? Proceedings 93 1 MR . BRYCE : Please . 2 MR . WEXLER: You ' re building out 3 the back, you have a gable that ' s on 4 the lower right-hand elevation, go to 5 your scale and stay in that plane and 6 go to the ridge beam of that gable 7 and eliminate it so that the front 8 elevation -- there are two ways you 9 can do this, eliminate this gable edge 10 in that elevation, first you can make 11 the eve line clean across , you can 12 leave it just like with a clean line 13 and make a hip, or you can express 14 the gable on the front . I mean there 15 are couple of solutions on how to do 16 it that will keep less of an impact 17 than if you build it as of right at 18 that point . I can be wrong, but I 'm 19 _ just talking from my experience and 20 the way the sun moves . Do you 21 understand what I 'm trying to say? 22 You can take what you see at 10 23 feet from the property line and they 24 can do that and you ' ll be confronted 25 with only 34 feet, 33 feet from the Proceedings 94 1 main ridge line . 2 MR . BRYCE : That would be a 31 3 foot wall . The other way you ' re 4 confronted with a sliding back . 5 That ' s a tremendous reduction in 6 impact because when you ' re standing 7 there you ' re going to see the sky, 8 you ' re not going to see the house . It 9 allows for the same mostly, not 10 entirely, but mostly it will be the 11 same space . 12 MS . MARTIN : What gets eliminated? 13 MR . WEXLER : What is eliminated is 14 the third floor . 15 MR . GUNTHER : The less useable 16 space of the third floor . 17 MR . WEXLER : That ' s the addition 18 to the third floor that ' s there now 19 _ which is a small price to pay since 20 they say they don ' t use it . 21 It will probably cost you less to 22 construct too, by the way, in dollars . 23 You might have to relocate your 24 fireplace in the family room where it 25 sticks out right now. It doesn ' t Proceedings 95 1 seem very difficult to do . 2 MR . WINICK: That as I understand 3 it is one alternative, 10 feet would 4 be further in and the backyard would 5 pick up two feet . 6 MR . WEXLER : I ' m looking at what 7 would be less of an impact instead of 8 a two-foot addition into the side 9 yard, with a lower heighted structure 10 than a considerably higher structure 11 if it was placed two feet further out . 12 The economies are the same and the 13 footprint doesn ' t change other than 14 the width and it ' s no closer to the 15 property line . Anything else that you 16 would build to gain space they might 17 end up not getting a variance and they 18 might go further out in the backyard . 19 _ MR . WINICK: Which presumably 20 will have a greater impact on someone 21 sitting on the deck . 22 MR . WEXLER : Potentially, it 23 depends on how it was laid out, 24 potentially . 25 MRS . WALTERS : Do you think we can Proceedings 96 1 just speak to John just for a second? 2 MR . GUNTHER : Sure . Let ' s take a 3 five minute recess . 4 (Whereupon, a recess was taken by 5 all parties . ) 6 MR . BRYCE : My clients were having 7 a little bit of trouble understanding 8 the implication of what is being 9 suggested. We have been working on 10 this for a year and a half and we have 11 worked on this a very long time and 12 they have a pretty good understanding 13 of what is now proposed . It ' s kind of 14 hard to jump ahead and see what the 15 change might potentially be . 16 It ' s clear it will take some space 17 from the third floor and while their 18 kids are still young and they are not 19 - allowed up there unsupervised . 20 MR . WEXLER : But you need to 21 enlarge the third floor in order to 22 use it and that ' s not from us that ' s 23 from the State of New York. You can 24 not use the third floor as occupiable 25 space, not useable space and not a Proceedings 97 1 bedroom. It can be everything but a 2 habitable space, it can ' t be a den or 3 a family room or a recreation room, 4 it can be anything you want to call 5 but it can ' t be maintainable . 6 MR. WINICK: That means it can ' t 7 be heated, it can only be storage . 8 MR . WEXLER : You cannot occupy 9 that because it ' s above the 10 construction, two stories of framed 11 construction . 12 MRS . WALTERS : What about the fact 13 that this -- 14 MR . WEXLER : It ' s an education 15 because not everyone would know about 16 this . You can only use it if it 17 preexists, you can ' t enlarge it . 18 MR . CARPANETO : To use . 19 _ MR . WEXLER : If you want to get a 20 variance from the State you have to 21 put up a sprinkler system, an upstairs 22 sprinkler system. Eventually the 23 State might make everyone put a 24 sprinler system in the whole house . 25 MR . WINICK: Can I ask a question Proceedings 98 1 about what you ' re saying as an 2 alternative, just because I think -- 3 my observation is that he would not 4 have presented this if he knew he 5 would be facing all of this 6 opposition . And we take all of this 7 very seriously and we understand that 8 nobody wants a delay, however, if we 9 are told to vote I ' ll vote, but I 10 really feel that I ' d like to see more 11 of what the alternatives are . It 12 sounds to me that maybe your clients 13 need to understand that also . 14 They can submit the plans the way 15 they are and we will vote on them, but 16 as an alternative, I ' d like to see Mr . 17 Wexler ' s alternative in which you 18 started changing that line that you 19 _ talked about . And if there is a way 20 so I can see how the supposed impact 21 will be lessened to the adjoining 22 property . They can certainly meet 23 some of the concerns , whether or not 24 Arthur ' s suggestions help I don ' t know 25 because this is not what I do, I don ' t Proceedings 99 1 know if there is a feasible 2 alternative . If you want to try to do 3 that on third floor you have to 4 compromise in some manner and give 5 them back some of the use of that 6 space . I have two many right angles I 7 need -- 8 MR. WEXLER : But that ' s not what 9 is in front of us . They have 2 1/2 10 stories of liveable space, but that 11 half of a story is not really 12 habitable . The two stories is not 13 what is in front of us . 14 MR . WINICK: I would have some 15 trouble voting on this matter . I 16 would rather have your responses to 17 some of the concerns here . 18 MR . WEXLER : What are they going 19 _ to do for the future devlopment? 20 MR . GUNTHER : May I make a 21 suggestion that the applicant may want 22 to accept and take an adjournment of 23 the application until our next meeting 24 and they will be the first application 25 at our next meeting and -- Proceedings 100 1 MR . BRYCE : What is the date of 2 the next meeting? 3 MR . GUNTHER : We ' ll set that in 4 just a moment, and this way you will 5 have an opportunity for you to relook 6 at your plans and the other options 7 that you have in terms of sketching 8 out other views that may soften the 9 impact of what you ' re proposing . 10 I don ' t think the Board is ready 11 to act on the application at this 12 point . I would like to take another 13 little look myself and in the meantime 14 we can ' t pass a resolution on the 15 matter based upon what we think we are 16 going to see, and we can ' t draw the 17 plans for you . You have an architect 18 and that ' s what his job is for . 19 _ MR . BRYCE : I didn ' t suggest that 20 you do that . 21 MR . GUNTHER : We did that in terms 22 of proposing something as an 23 alternative for you to consider and 24 discuss with the applicant and what 25 sometimes happens is people leave here Proceedings 101 1 and draw things and say what do you 2 think of this . We prefer that you 3 take the time and think of all the 4 types of ways to occupy the house and 5 figure out what is appropriate or not . 6 If you want to come back with the same 7 application that ' s up to you, if you 8 want to submit an alternate 9 application that ' s another approach . 10 MR . BRYCE : It would be useful if 11 the Board would give us some guidance . 12 MR . GUNTHER : I can run through 13 the Board and ask them their sense of 14 the application so you have a sense 15 of where they stand . I ' ll start off . 16 I have heard what everyone here is 17 talking about in terms of the impact 18 within a fairly close space and having 19 _ lived through this same situation in a 20 number of other applications to this 21 Board over the years I ' ve sat here and 22 heard very similar stories and 23 looked at similar properties . I know 24 there is a way to deal with it by 25 softening the impact so everybody is Proceedings 102 1 happy . This is not an easy task, but 2 maybe this can be cut maybe in half . 3 I think that is the only way that this 4 is going to happen . 5 I think you ' re fighting for 6 everything and I think there can be 7 some moderation in what you ' re 8 proposing . That ' s my viewpoint . 9 Maybe we ' ll start off at the other 10 end . 11 MR . WINICK: I want to make very 12 clear that I have not reached a 13 judgement about this application in 14 front of us . I really feel that I 15 need to, in light of what the 16 neighbors have said, take another look 17 at the property to really get a sense 18 of the space that ' s involved . I ' ve 19 _ seen other applications like this 20 since I ' ve been on the Board and I 21 live 8 feet from the neighbor next to 22 me, so I live these issues all the 23 time . 24 I think it would obviously be 25 better for the application that ' s in Proceedings 103 1 front of us , but for me I would like 2 to see that thought through, I mean I would like to see a glimmer of what Mr . Wexler was suggesting . I think that you should make the changes to your application, with our 7 suggestions , that you think are 8 appropriate . 9 MS . MARTIN : It seems that if I 10 had to choose between the two I would 11 choose the second, Arthur ' s 12 suggestion . If it was something that 13 was in front of us that would be 14 preferable to me given the concerns of 15 the neighbors . It doesn ' t solve all 16 of their concerns , but it seems to 17 solve some of them. So I ' d like to 18 see if that ' s an option for you, and I 19 _ also will go back and take another 20 look and walk the property, I ' d like 21 to do that . 22 MR . BRYCE : Okay, that ' s helpful, 23 thank you . 24 MR . WEXLER : Need I say more? 25 MR . WALTERS : We are all new at Proceedings 104 1 this game and at this point I just 2 don ' t want to leave here for a bunch 3 of reasons , but it seems to me what I 4 thought was a really good plan, 5 obviously it ' s really not because you 6 feel that we are impacting our 7 neighbors . We really thought that 8 with this two feet we would go forward 9 in planning and we hired a bunch of 10 of contractors because we thought we 11 would be able to start as of August 12 1st . We have gone to contract and we 13 have given the kitchen people money, 14 we have laid out a lot of money at 15 this point in time . We had a 16 time-table where this guy is actually 17 planning or was planning on starting 18 this project as of August 1st . 19 _ Some of this seems subjective to 20 me, however, we will sit down with 21 John and try to address some of the 22 concerns that the Board Members have . 23 My fear is because this is subjective 24 we may not be satisfying what you guys 25 are looking for . Proceedings 105 1 MR . GUNTHER : I can understand 2 your anxiety and all I can tell you is 3 that it ' s not our position to draw 4 your plans for you, but to vote on 5 what is presented to us . And we 6 would not have approved this if you 7 had pushed us to a vote . So rather 8 than putting us and you in that 9 situation my sense of the Board is 10 that it won ' t be approved . So, 11 therefore, my suggestion to you is to 12 come up with an alternative that 13 softens the impact . 14 We just wanted to give your 15 architect an sense of what we are 16 suggesting . He ' s an architect and 17 this is what he does and he can do it 18 better than I can . And if he comes 19 _ back to us with something that softens 20 the impact of what is there I will 21 vote in favor of it, generally 22 speaking . 23 MR . WEXLER : At the next meeting 24 even if you don ' t have it quite pinned 25 down, but I think your architect is Proceedings 106 1 going in the right direction and from 2 that point on the approval could be 3 done with conditions to the approval . 4 I don ' t think I should be -- I 5 shouldn ' t be saying this . 6 MR . GUNTHER : Then don ' t . 7 MR . WEXLER : I only talk for 8 myself . 9 MR . WINICK: There is a July 10 meeting and it ' s possible -- 11 MS . MARTIN : Can we set the date? 12 MR . GUNTHER : What is the fourth 13 Wednesday of July? 14 MS . ROMA: It ' s July 28th . 15 MR . WEXLER : What about doing it 16 the third one? 17 MS . MARTIN : The 21st I won ' t be 18 here . 19 - MR . WINICK : I might be in 20 Hauppauge . G1 MR . GUNTHER : Take a hotel room. 22 MS . MARTIN : Is it improper to 23 move it earlier in the month? 24 MR . GUNTHER : What is the 25 backlog? Proceedings 1!-' MR . WEXLER : How many applications do you have for the next meeting so far? 4 MR . CARPANETO : For the next meeting we sent out a couple of notices , but we haven ' t gotten anything back . MR . GUNTHER : Can we do this the week of the 21st? 10 MR . WALTERS : That is a week 11 before our proposed start date . 12 MRS . WALTERS : That will be 13 Wednesday July 21st . 14 MS . MARTIN : That is the next 15 meeting . lc MR . WINICK: It ' s a common place 17 anxiety . 18 MR. GUNTHER : Any more questions 19 - from the Board Members? No, okay . 20 Are there any more question from the 21 public? 22 MR . BRYCE : Just one more 23 technical question, by when would the 24 Board like to see the ammended plans? 25 MS . ROMA: Everything has to be in Proceedings 108 1 a week ahead of time . 2 MR . BRYCE : So by the 14th . 3 MR . GUNTHER : Mr . Bryce started 4 this so I 'm going to ask him for his 5 permission to adjourn your 6 application over to our next meeting 7 which will be July 21st . 8 MR . BRYCE : Yes . 9 MR . GUNTHER : I ' ll make a motion 10 that Application Number 5 , case number 11 2358 be adjourned to our next meeting . 12 MR . WEXLER : Second . 13 MR . GUNTHER : All in favor say 14 aye . 15 THE BOARD : Aye . 16 MR . GUNTHER : Next on the adgenda 17 is the approval of the minutes from 18 the meeting on April 28th . Do I have 19 _ a motion to approve? 20 MS . MARTIN : So moved . 21 MR . GUNTHER: All those in favor 22 say aye . 23 THE BOARD : Aye . 24 MR . GUNTHER : The time is 10 : 10 25 the meeting is adjourned . Proceedings 109 1 2 3 4 CERTIFICATION 5 6 Certified to be a true and accurate 7 transcript of the aforesaid proceeding . 8 9 10 11 l ( l�f �` !71 12 Michele Nieto, Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 - 20 21 22 23 24 25