HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_01_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
JANUARY 23, 2002, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
DUE TO A MALFUNCTION WITH THE TOWN'S RECORDING MECHANISM, THE COURT
STENOGRAPHER'S TRANSCRIPT IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THE
RECORD.
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Linda Harrington
Jillian A. Martin
Arthur Wexler
Paul A. Winick ��'
q
Also Present: Kevin Healy, Counsel C�`� .
Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building 't+ 00
%0
Nancy Seligson, Liaison pub ,
en\ SRIGO'GtVa.
QA
Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer �' -ko y Ztsv:
Carbone &Associates, LTD.
111 N. Central Park Avenue
Hartsdale, New York 10530
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Gunther said before we start with preliminary business, he'd like to introduce a new member and
welcomed Linda Harrington. We are happy to have you here.
Mr. Gunther said one other note to make mention is that Paul Winick, one of our other Board members,
is due shortly. We would be happy to move ahead. When your application is called, if you'd like to wait
until he is here, we will be happy to hold your application over until Mr. Winick arrives. If not,we'll be
happy to start with your application. Only three members need to vote in favor or against for a motion
to carry.
Mr. Gunther read application#1, case No. 2481, which was adjourned from our last meeting, as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2481 (adjourned 12/19/01)
Application of Carol Smith requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence in the side and rear yards
on the premises located at 36 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 555. The fence as erected has a total height of 9 ft.+- where 5 ft. is
permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed
and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0.
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 2
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Winick,opposed by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was
ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Carol Smith has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with
plans to legalize an existing fence in the side and rear yards on the premises located at 36 Valley Road and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114,Lot 555. The fence as
erected has a total height of 9 ft.+-where 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in
an R-7.5 Zone District;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 240-52A;and
WHEREAS,Carol Smith 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 in part
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. The variance application is DENIED with respect to the fence along the rear
property line at a height of 6 ft.and is APPROVED with respect to the portion
of the fence that runs from the rear property line to the garage at the same
horizontal plane as a reduced 5 ft.rear fence and is APPROVED with respect
to the better quality fence that runs along the side line to the approved height of
6 ft.
B. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created by the granting of an
area variance. In relationship to the rear yard,rear fence,the height of 6 ft.as
requested, would be a detriment to the adjacent neighborhood; it is out of
character with the height that would have existed between neighbors;it is a
fence that has been constructed with the unsightly side of the fence presented to
the neighbor;that being the case,it is magnified and a solid wall that one would
not like to look at,as represented by the affected neighbor.
C. Dealing with the 6 ft.high fence that is on the side property line,this fence is
a form of attractive fence;the solid portion of fence is approximately 4.4 ft.or
4.5 ft.high with a lattice work attached to it;it is a fence that is a much higher
quality,a fence that is far more substantial and a fence that is finished on both
sides. This fence is not out of character with the type of architecture that we
have in our community. It allows the passage of air and site above the 4.4 ft.
elevation.
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 3
D. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method
feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the necessity of a variance. This
again requires that the portion of the variance request relating to the rear fence
be DENIED and the portion of the stockade fence that returns to the garage be
APPROVED. This portion of the fence can remain on the same horizontal
plane as a reduced 5 ft.rear fence. The applicant requests a privacy screen
from the rear property. A 5 ft.fence can accommodate this need.
E. With respect to the side fence,whether the benefit sought by the applicant can
be achieved via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of
an area variance;this fence is a sectioned fence that steps down and that has the
appearance of being a statement that is harmonious with that area. To cut this
fence down to the 5 ft.high level,it would do great harm to a rather attractive
fence. For that reason it would not be reasonable to reduce the height of the
side fence to the 5 ft. required by code. The top lattice work of the fence
allows it to have the appearance of a lower fence.
F. Whether the requested area variance is substantial,we refer directly to the side
of the property and we feel given the design and character of the fence,given
that it's one step higher for the most part required,given the character of the
fence it is not substantial.
G. Whether the proposal will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again,it is felt that
the fence on the rear has a totally different presentation to the neighbor as the
fence on the side. The depth of the fence on the side is in character with a lot
of fences that are in the community. The neighbor to the rear,as represented
by their attorney,attested to the adverse impact of the rear fence.
H. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. The offending fence was installed
by the applicant.
I. The granting of this variance with respect to the side fence and the portion of
the fence that runs from the rear property line to the garage 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.
J. The variance as hereby approved 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.
K. 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 in part,as described
herein above,subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented with respect
to the side yard fence and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this
Resolution.
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 4
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2484
Application of Robert Stavis requesting a variance to legalize three stone buttresses at Carriage House wall
and to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall on the premises located at 211
Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417,Lot
77. The buttresses as constructed have a side yard of 29 ft.where 35 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section
240-33B(2);the pier as constructed as part of the front wall has a height of 6 ft. 3 in.where 5 ft is
permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;and further,the buttresses increase the extent by which the building
is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 Zone District.
Robert Stavis of 211 Hommocks Road,Larchmont,addressed the Board.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2484 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next
Zoning Board meeting.
A five minute recess was taken at this time.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2485
Application of Mark A.Williams requesting a variance to construct a front porch on the premises located
at 51 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
125,Lot 149.The front porch as proposed has a front yard of 26.4 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant
to Section 240-39B(1),a side yard of 6.6 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and
further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a residence in an R-6 Zone District.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2485 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next
Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2486
Application of Mr.&Mrs.Michael Hollander requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition with
a wood deck and a front entry and covered porch with steps on the premises located at 52 Cooper Lane
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 482. The rear
one-story addition has a side yard of 5 ft.10 in.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);
the front entry with steps has a front yard of 19 ft.10 in.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-
39B(1);a side yard of 7 ft.3 in.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further,
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 5
the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for
a residence in a R-6 Zone District.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2486 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next
Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2487
Application of Bill and Julia Blanchard requesting a variance to construct a kitchen addition and second
floor master bedroom addition on the premises located at 8 Rochelle Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 488. The one-story kitchen addition has
a front yard of 26 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);the second floor master
bedroom addition has a front yard of 28.9 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and
further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
After review,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was proposed
and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Mr.Wexler based on the inspection of the property and the record
as presented,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Bill and Julia Blanchard have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a kitchen addition and second floor master bedroom addition on the
premises located at 8 Rochelle Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 129,Lot 488. The one-story kitchen addition has a front yard of 26 ft.where 30 ft.is required
pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);the second floor master bedroom addition has a front yard of 28.9 ft.
where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by
which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;
and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(1),Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Bill and Julia Blanchard 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:
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 6
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors:
A. The architect has been careful to maintain the character of the property,so that
it blends in with the house and the surrounding neighborhood.
B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative to the
granting of an area variance,specifically because the property itself is burdened
by two front yards and the property line itself narrows at the back of the
property. In order to maintain a reasonable structure,a small portion of the
corner of those structures do fall outside of that setback line.
C. The variance is not substantial. It is a corner under construction that is
approximately 4 ft.in the case of the kitchen addition and little over 1 ft.in the
case of the bedroom addition.
D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood.
E. There has not been any self-created difficulty.The applicants are burdened with
an unusually shaped parcel with two front yards.
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.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 7
APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2488
Application of Paul Katzenstein requesting a variance to install a central air conditioning unit on the
premises located at 25 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 128,Lot 246.The central air conditioning condensing unit has a side yard of 6.9 ft.where 10
ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the unit increases the extent by which the
building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
After review,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed
and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Paul Katzenstein has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with
plans to install a central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 25 Hillside Road and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128,Lot 246.The central air conditioning
condensing unit has a side yard of 6.9 ft.where 10 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and
further,the unit increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-69;and
WHEREAS,Paul Katzenstein 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. The air conditioning unit is tucked into a recess in the house, and as a
consequence has some positive aspects as it shields the air conditioner from
street view and the view of the neighbors. Placement on the other side of the
house would also require a variance.
B. It does not appear possible to avoid the granting of an area variance without
placing the unit squarely in the middle of the back yard,which would destroy
the utility of the back yard to a substantial degree.
C. The portion of the neighboring house closest to the air conditioning unit does not
have a great number of windows. There does not appear to be a direct sense
of noise from the air conditioner in relationship to where the living areas are
situated within the house.
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 8
D. Based on the observation of the property,the Board finds that there will not be
an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or on the neighboring property.
E. The fact that it's a self-created difficulty is not determinative here.
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.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2489
Application of Mr.&Mrs.Mark Lederman requesting a variance to construct a river wall with a fence
on the premises located at 87 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 210,Lot 328. The wall and fence as proposed has a total height of 12 ft.where
5 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-52B for a wall or fence in an R-10 Zone District.
On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2489 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next
Zoning Board meeting.
Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows:
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 9
APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2490
Application of Mr.&Mrs.Randy L.Caruso requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition on the
premises located at 4 Robbins Nest Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 271. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 25.4 ft.where 30 ft.
is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District.
After review,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was proposed
and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Randy L. Caruso have submitted an application to the Building
Inspector,together with plans to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 4 Robbins Nest
Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 271. The
addition as proposed has a front yard of 25.4 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)
for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(1);and
WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Randy L.Caruso 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. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Based on the photographs
seen tonight and the observation of the property, the affected part of the
structure is on the Palmer Avenue side of the property,up on a hill virtually
obscured from the surrounding properties.
B. There are no nearby residential properties in the direction of the encroachment
outside the envelope.
C. The applicant is using a modular form of housing which is legal in size and that
modular will not sit there without some form of area variance because here the
property is burdened by two front yards.
Zoning Board
January 23,2002
Page 10
D. The variance is relatively insubstantial given the size of the addition and will
not,for the reasons previously mentioned,have an impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
E. The difficulty is not self-created. The zoning code itself creates this issue by
defining the front lot line the way that it does.
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and
the health,safety and welfare of the community.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would
deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the
variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT
RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following
conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There was no discussion regarding open Minutes.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 26,2002.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Morgue Roma,Recording Secretary