Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_11_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 29, 1995, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick J. Kelleher Nina Recio Absent: J. Rene Simon '` f Arthur Wexler Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector ea Amy Tocci, Public Stenographer Ka7a7i s & Associates �• ��" 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 44141 11 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2198 Application of Mr. &Mrs. Shori requesting a variance for a side addition with a side yard of 5.6 ft. where 10.0 ft. is the minimum required pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(a) and a total side yard of 12.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(b) and further; the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 740 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 Lot 28. Mr. Gunther prefaced the meeting by informing all applicants present that only three board members are present. A quorum is present and each case can be heard. For action to occur for approval or denial, the vote must be unanimous, 3-0. All applicants have the option to have their case heard this evening or held over to the next meeting. Mr. Frank Ambrosia, the architect representing the applicant for case#2198, stated he will proceed with the action. Mr. Ambrosia stated the variance was for an addition of 1.4 ft. side yard of the existing structure, the existing setback is 7 ft. and 7.5 at another point,which would decrease to 5.8 ft. and 6.0 ft. facing the left side of the house. The applicant wants to enclose an existing porch which is very narrow, about 9.6 ft., and make an entertainment room. Mr. Gunther asked whether the applicant had pictures, and pictures on file were presented to the Board for their review. Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Gunther asked how close the next existing structure was, and Mr. Ambrosia stated probably 7 ft. to 8 ft. to the next property line, similar to what exists in the area. Mr. Gunther stated on the Notice of Disapproval the variance was listed as 5.6 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required and wondered whether Mr. Ambrosia was disallowing for .2 ft. Mr. Ambrosia said it was probably an error on his part. Mr. Jakubowski passed around the Town Assessment Map to the Board members, showing the placement of the house in relation to the lot line. Mr. Gunther asked about the grade of the property. Mr. Ambrosia said the house sits on top of a hill,and from the street to the front door it is probably 15 ft. The back yard slopes down towards the back of the yard. The grade difference is probably about 6 ft. from the back of the house to the rear yard. Mr. Gunther asked if there is shrubbery, and if it will remain on the side of the addition. Mr. Abmrosia said on all sides there is shrubbery surrounding the property, detailing same on the plan. On either side of the fence, there is shrubbery about 4 ft. high. Mr. Kelleher stated on the side of the house where the proposed extension would be is already nonconforming and the extension would make it more nonconforming. Mr. Ambrosia agreed. There being no further comments from the public or the Board, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Shori have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance for a side addition with a side yard of 5.6 ft. where 10.0 ft. is the minimum required pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(a) and a total side yard of 12.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(b) and further; the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 740 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 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 89-33 B(2)(a), Section 89-33 B(2)(b) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Shori submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 3 WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. This is the minimum action that could be done to make the space suitable for the use. 2. The nonconformity is consistent with many of the lots in the neighborhood,based on the examination of the tax assessors map. 3. The side of the house where the construction will occur is screened with shrubbery. 4. The unusual topography of the plot makes it difficult for the owner to use the property. 5. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 6. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther stated that APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2199 - J. B. Tipton, requesting a variance to maintain window signs etched on the glass where the five (5) etched window glass signs as exist exceed the one permanent sign allowed pursuant to LL #2-1994, Section 11 E(1) for a Business Use located in a B Zone District on the premises located at 1420 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 131 had been withdrawn by the applicant. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2200 Application of Barry&Susan Weisfeld requesting a variance to construct a pool spa and alter existing patio where the existing patio will be altered to be 7.0 ft. from the side line where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14-48A(1) and the patio will be 0.0 ft. from the principal building where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14-48A(1)and further; a 6 ft. high fence at the pool extends into the required side yard where prohibited, pursuant to Section 14-48E; and a new 6 ft. fence at the front exceeds the 4.0 ft. height Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 4 allowed pursuant to Section 89-44D for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 109 Griffen Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 305 Lot 903. Mr. Gunther asked the applicant if they would like to proceed knowing there are only three of the five board members present, and the applicant stated he will proceed with the action. Mr. Weisfeld and Mr. McKenna, the architect, referred the board members to the map before them stating the applicant has withdrawn the jacuzzi from the application having gone to the CZMC and the Planning Board. Pictures were presented to the board, which Mr. McKenna explained stating the pictures were of the existing patio which goes up to the house now, and basically are trying to make it conforming. Mr. McKenna said he didn't know whether the patio had a permit previously,and Mr. Jakubowski said the pool had a permit. Mr. McKenna said presently the pool is within 15 ft. of the house, before it was 10 ft. from the patio and wasn't legal when Mr. Weisfeld bought the property. Mr. Gunther said the Notice of Disapproval was written stating that the existing patio will be altered to be 7.0 ft. from the side line where 15.0 ft. is required and the patio will be 0.0 ft. from the principal building where 15.0 ft. is required, and asked Mr. McKenna if that was what he was asking to do. Mr. McKenna said that was correct. Mr. McKenna then discussed the 6 ft. fence, and stated if he understood Mr. Jakubowski correctly, the applicant was allowed to have a 6 ft. fence within up to 25 ft. from the pool. Mr. McKenna then discussed that fact that the lot was a 2.5 acre lot and there was going to be another house with a driveway located right past the pool. Mr. Weisfeld would like to put a 6 ft. fence in that area and 8 ft. trees similar to others placed in the area which was part of a tennis court permit and a landscaping plan basically for privacy. Ms. Recio asked Mr. Jakubowski to read the rule regarding a fence. Mr. Jakubowski stated that when a fence is no further than 25 ft. from the edge of a pool, it can be up to 6 ft. high. Mr. Jakubowski used a marker to detail the discussion on the map with Mr. McKenna. Mr. McKenna said the applicant has a 4 ft. fence connecting the tennis court, and the applicant wants a 6 ft. fence from that point and around the front. Mr. Gunther said a 6 ft. fence is permitted from the house to the corner of the house in a semi-circle around to the side lot line. Ms. Recio asked what the linear footage of fence is beyond the 25 ft. limit at the particular arc. Mr. Jakubowski stated 15 ft. to 20 ft. Mr. Gunther asked what would be in front of the fence, whereby Mr. McKenna said 8 ft. arborvitaes for privacy. Ms. Recio said that on the site she was told 4 ft. to 5 ft. azaleas would be planted in front of the fence and at least 6 ft. arborvitae on the side to insure privacy. Mr. Gunther asked about the footage from the fence to the front of the property, and Mr. McKenna stated it was over 200 ft. Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 5 Ms. Recio said that the number of feet that would be in the arc that would exceed the 25 ft. radius is 15 ft. to 20 ft., and asked how many linear feet of fence would be needed on the side line. Mr. Jakubowski said a minimal amount of less than 10 ft. Mr. McKenna stated that the existing fence is actually over the property line. Mr. Gunther said the 6 ft. high fence at the pool extends into the required side yard. Mr. Jakubowski said the fence goes beyond the 25 ft. and into the side yard area. The section of 10 ft. on the side is referred to by Section 14-48E. When installing a regular fence you are only allowed 4 ft. The pool ordinance relates to side yard where the pool has to be and that portion of the fence in the front, the arc, refers to Section 14.48 D and the other portion to 14.48E. Mr. Gunther asked about the portion of the fence that extends into the setback. Mr. Jakubowski said it is not the setback, it's the front yard. Mr. Gunther asked if there was a piece of fence that went over the property line, and Mr. Weisfeld said that at the very corner of the existing fence the applicant was granted a permanent easement because of the way the property was subdivided. A detailed discussion followed regarding the fencing around the pool and the pertinent Sections noted. Mr. Weisfeld said it was their desire to replace an old fence and get exactly the same look. Mr. Jakubowski said the fence issue predates the original construction of the house, which is about eight years old. Mr. Gunther asked why, if the applicant has a 200 ft. setback from the front lot line, another 6 ft. fence would be needed. Mr. Weisfeld said the fence was for privacy, because of the Griffen Avenue road which is set up higher than the house. Ms. Recio asked how many linear feet of fence was in question, and Mr. McKenna said approximately 45 ft. Mr. Jakubowski said it was about 65 ft. with the strip across the front. Mr. Gunther then addressed the second part of the application, the existing patio will be altered to be 7.0 ft. from the side line where 15.0 ft. is required. Mr. Jakubowski said the tax assessment map doesn't show the subdivision, only the prior house. Ms. Recio asked when the property was subdivided, and Mr. Weisfeld said the approval for subdivision was last February, 1995. Mr. Gunther asked when the patio was built, and Mr. Weisfeld said he believed when the house was constructed but did not know as a permit was not taken out at the time. Mr. McKenna said the applicant is trying to legalize the patio. Mr. Weisfeld said when and if a house is constructed on the subdivided property, the area on the other side of the fence would be their property and part of the driveway. It wouldn't be as if the patio was being built right up to where someone was residing. Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 6 Mr. McKenna said the applicant is not asking for anything more than the prior owner already had. Mr. Weisfeld said he wants to legalize the situation. Mr. Gunther asked what fencing material was going to be used, and Mr. McKenna said a 6 ft. wrought iron fence, and a 4 ft. chain link fence around the pool where a cedar wood fence is right now. At this point Ms. Recio said the only problem she has is with that portion of the application that deals with the cedar fence, and would have no problem voting on the motion for all the rest of the application. The applicant has indicated that there is established foliage in the area where the cedar fence is, and it seems that the privacy being sought is the basis for requesting 65 ft. of 6 ft. fence which can be obtained another way with greenery. Mr. Weisfeld said that Griffen Avenue is an extremely well-traveled road, the elevation of the road looks straight down upon the property and was just trying to install a replacement fence with an enhanced beauty rather than have a dilapidated fence. As a compromise, the applicant is willing to remove the entire fence perpendicular to Griffen and just have 40 ft. of fence parallel to Griffen Avenue. Ms. Recio asked if the applicant had any pictures of that particular section of the property, and the applicant said he did not. Mr. Gunther said he was generally not in favor of 6 ft. fences, but in light of the amount of traffic on Griffen Avenue it is a difficult situation without having another look at the property. Mr. Weisfeld said it happens to be a large house with cars stopping to observe and would like to insure their privacy. They also have the Sheldrake River running through property prohibiting any planting or putting anything within 100 ft. of the wetlands, so trees or fencing could not be put in that area. Ms. Recio would like to see the property again, and suggested the applicant include pictures of what is proposed. Mr. Gunther said the Board should move ahead with the first two issues, and adjourn the 6 ft. fence at the front for the next Board meeting. After review, on motion of Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On an amended motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Ms. Recio,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Barry and Susan Weisfeld have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a pool spa and alter existing patio where the existing patio will be altered to be 7.0 ft. from the side line where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14- 48A(1) and the patio will be 0.0 ft. from the principal building where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14-48A(1) and further; a 6 ft. high fence at the pool extends into the required side yard where prohibited,pursuant to Section 14-48E;and a new 6 ft. fence at the front exceeds the 4.0 ft. height allowed pursuant to Section 89-44D for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 109 Griffen Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 305 Lot 903; and Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 7 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 14-48A(1), Section 14-48E and Section 89-44D; and WHEREAS, Barry and Susan Weisfeld submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The patio already exists. 2. The 6 ft. fence at the pool extends into the required side yard for a very short distance and the variance is deminimis, and will be covered by extensive landscaping. 3. The overall plan will be a great improvement of the property. 4. 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. 5. The variance is the minimum 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. 6. 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 request for a 6 ft. fence at the front is adjourned, and that the remainder of the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscaping as shown as part of the application will be properly maintained. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Conditions: Owner will maintain landscaping as designated on Plan. The Secretary read the application as follows: Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 8 APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2201 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tricarico requesting a variance to maintain an existing deck where the deck as constructed has a front yard of 10.33 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required, pursuant to Section 89-33 B(1); a side yard of 9.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(a); a total side yard of 19.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 (2)(b); and further the deck increased the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 771 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 35. Mr. Tricarico appeared and stated that when he moved into the house in 1969 he found the deck existing. Mr. Tricarico embellished the deck over the years because of the sharp drop off, a wall was built and there is no exit from the house on that side. The deck affords an exit on that side. Pictures were presented to the Board for their perusal, and Mr. Tricarico pointed out the particulars on the deck. Mr. Recio asked the applicant to clarify the section added, and the applicant demonstrated that it was behind the existing kitchen which is shrubbed and hidden from view. Mr. Gunther asked if the plans submitted by Mr. Widulski indicate that portion of the high deck as nonconforming. After some discussion of the plan, Mr. Jakubowski said the whole house was originally constructed closer to the street than it should have been and believes it is nonconforming. Essentially the whole upper high deck is within the front 30 ft. setback. Mr. Recio asked about the square footage of the property, and Mr. Tricario said it was about 70,000 sq. ft. In the rear year you have the drop, the deck, then a large stretch of land, the river and empty land behind it. Mr. Tricarico said the property referred to was the Badger Sports Club. There being no further questions from the Board or the public, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Frank Tricarico have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to maintain an existing deck where the deck as constructed has a front yard of 10.33 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required, pursuant to Section 89-33 B(1); a side yard of 9.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(a); a total side yard of 19.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 (2)(b); and further the deck increased the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 771 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 35; and Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 9 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 89-33 B(1), Section 89-33 B(2)(a), Section 89-33 (2)(b), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tricarico submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The unusual shaped property with its steep topography limits the use of the land. 2. It is a pre-existing condition and although it is a highly elevated deck on the side, there is a great amount of vegetation and shrubbery that shields it from the neighbors. The rear of the house backs up to the Badger Sports Camp. 3. 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. 4. The variance is the minimum 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. 5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2202 Application of Mrs. Emma De Esso requesting a variance to maintain an existing roofed porch which as exists has a rear yard of 24.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3); the side yard Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 10 is 6.3 ft. where 8.0 ft.is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(2)(a)and further;the roofed porch increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 122 Harmon Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 215 Lot 132. Mr. Anthony De Esso appeared for Mrs. Emma De Esso who was out of town. Patricia Guadagnolo, a next door neighbor representing Mr. DeEsso stated the applicant would like a permit for the back porch that has been in existence for twenty-three(23) years because they eventually are going to sell. Mr. Gunther asked how long the applicant lived in the house, and Mr. DeEsso said approximately twenty- three (23) years. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Emma De Esso has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an existing roofed porch which as exists has a rear yard of 24.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3); the side yard is 6.3 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(2)(a) and further; the roofed porch increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 122 Harmon Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 215 Lot 132; 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 89-35 B(3), Section 89-35 B(2)(a) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Emma De Esso submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The porch has existed for approximately twenty (20) years. 2. The variances requested are not substantial. 3. 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. Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 11 4. The variance is the minimum 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. 5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution and then with due process, get your Certificate of Occupancy; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2203 (originally Case No. 2161) Application of Mr. &Mrs. James Burr requesting an extension of a variance granted on March 29, 1995 to construct a rear addition having one side yard of 6.86 ft. and a second side yard of 6.38 ft. where a minimum side yard of 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89.35 B(2)(a); the total side yard would be 13.24 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(2)(b); and, further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 5 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 642. Ms. Clara Klapper, associate of Barry Bronfman the architect, appeared for the applicant. Ms. Klapper said that the applicant had been granted a variance last spring to accommodate their handicapped son. The Burr's needed to regroup economically in the interim, and are now ready to go forward and are thereby requesting an extension of the variance granted. Mr. Gunther asked if Ms. Klapper foresees any great delay in proceeding in a timely fashion,whereby Ms. Klapper said the Burr's are ready to go forward immediately. Mr. Bronfman is going to revise the plans, as requested by Mr. Jakubowski. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Burr have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting an extension of a variance granted on March 29, 1995 to construct a rear addition having one side yard of 6.86 ft. and a second side yard of 6.38 ft. where a minimum side yard of 8.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89.35 B(2)(a); the total side yard would be 13.24 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(2)(b); and, further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 5 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 642; and Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 12 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 89.35 B(2)(a), Section 89-35 B(2)(b), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Burr submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. There has been no change in the physical circumstances. 2. The delay to start the project was due to the stated economic conditions of the applicant which are now ameliorated. 3. 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. 4. The variance is the minimum 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. 5. 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. An extension of time be granted so that the applicant shall have another sixty (60) days from the filing of the Resolution to secure a building permit; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2204 Application of M. Monaghan and C. Battalia requesting a variance to construct a side addition, rear deck and front open porch/vestibule with a rear yard of 22.9 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3); the rear deck has a rear yard of 18.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3)and the open front porch and vestibule would have a front yard of 22.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 13 pursuant to Section 89-35 B(1)and further; the additions and deck would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming, pursuant to Section 89-57 for a one family residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 59 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 135. Mr. Maker appeared for counsel Dolores Battalia whose husband is ill in Florida, with the applicants,M. Monaghan and C. Battalia. Mr. Maker summarized the three items on the application stating in order to do the proper architectural job, a variance regarding setbacks must be approved. There is a sizeable side yard, but due to the architectural nature of the house, large rock outcrops and relevant cost factors, variances are still needed. Mr. Maker then discussed the major addition on the plan before the Board. The easterly wall will be taken down and moved out 7 ft. all within the setback. The only part that infringes is the area depicted on the survey as wood deck with stairs. When compared with neighborhood as shown on the tax map, very few houses sit back as much as 32 ft. A petition was presented to the Board signed by the neighbors in favor of same, together with a copy of the tax map. Pictures were presented to the Board by Mr. Monaghan, who then explained in detail the rock condition and imbalanced nature of the house. Mr. Gunther asked if the open front porch would not be altered, and Mr. Monaghan said it is an enclosed sun porch which would not be touched. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Jakubowski about the Notice of Denial which states an open front porch and vestibule would have a front yard of 22.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required and asked if that was an existing condition. Mr. Jakubowski then discussed and reviewed page 1 of the plans with the Board clarifying the issue, and stated the setback would not change from the existing one. Mr. Monaghan said the two structures would end up being united under a single roof if approved. Mr. Makes said the applicant is asking the Board to allow them to square off the property. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, M. Monaghan and C. Battalia have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a side addition, rear deck and front open porch/vestibule with a rear yard of 22.9 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3); the rear deck has a rear yard of 18.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3)and the open front porch and vestibule would have a front yard of 22.0 ft.where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(1) and further; the additions and deck would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming, pursuant to Section 89-57 for a one family residence in an R-6 Zone District on the Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 14 premises located at 59 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 135; 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 89-35 B(3), Section 89-35 B(1), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, M. Monaghan and C. Battalia submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The topography and significant bedrock limit the ability of the owner for the placement of building additions. 2. The front porch addition will not encroach any further than the existing enclosed porch area. 3. The record reflects the support of the neighborhood. 4. The tax assessment map indicates that from their house heading toward Justin Street, a rather large number of houses have a nonconforming front yard setback, and the application is consistent with the line as you look down the block on Justin Street. 3. 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. 4. The variance is the minimum 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. 5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; Zoning Board November 29, 1995 Page 15 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther made a motion to approve the Minutes of September 13, 1995 and October 25, 1995, which was seconded and unanimously approved,3-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 10, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Oha Margue ' Roma, Recording Secretary