HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_04_30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
APRIL 30, 1997, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Patrick B. Kelleher 4
Jillian A. Martin `3
J. Rene Simon 4
Arthur Wexler4,
RECEIVED 1
4
Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel " $ V97
William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector
manna N
Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer •
Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd.
49 Eighth Street bit
New Rochelle, New York 10801
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m.
11!�r. Gunther informed the Board that application#6, Chris and Amber Marano, has been withdrawn. Mr.
Gunther also said representative Valerie O'Keeffe, from the Town Board, will not be in attendance this
evening due to illness.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gunther said the approval of the previous Minutes will be discussed at the end of the meeting.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2258
Application of Paul Eckstein requesting a Certificate of Occupancy on the premises located at 33 Country
Road for the deck and addition as constructed 13.75 ft. from the side line where 15.0 ft.had been granted
in March, 1991 and where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(a)in an R-15 Zone District
on the premises located at 33 Country Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 315 Lot 102.
Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant was present. There being no one present at this time, the matter was
held over until later in the evening.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2259
Application of Jill and Scott Robertson requesting a variance to construct two 1-story additions to rear and
side of existing structure; modifications to existing deck to rear to enclose hot tub; the addition as proposed
would have a side yard of 1.7 ft. where 8.0 ft. is the minimum required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);
k
1
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 2
and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 38 Deane Place and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 364.
Scott Robertson, the owner, appeared.
Mr. Gunther asked if the Board members received a copy of a letter from the Coastal Zone Management
Commission (CZMC) stating recommendations, to which they said they had. Mr. Gunther proceeded to
read the contents of the letter for the benefit of the applicant, which is a part of the record.
Mr. Robertson said that his architect had been in contact with the DEC, and a wetlands permit is not
required. Mr. Robertson then proceeded to explain the additions, stating they are set back from the front,
back and side as required. The variance is needed because the existing house and deck as currently exists,
are too close to the neighbor, Judy Silo, on one side of the house. The variance requested is to build on
the other side of the house, to correct an existing condition.
James Fleming, the architect for the project, of 11 Alden Road, Larchmont, appeared and stated the
applicant is present because of the existing location of the house and deck on the lot which are too close
to the neighbor, Judy Silo, on one side. The addition is in the plane of the nonconformity of the existing
house. Although the addition and the side yard and total side yard are the same, there is a nonconformance
from an existing deck and the house itself, about 41/2 ft. and 1.7 ft. for the deck. The deck is at grade and
at some points below grade. Anything that is done to the house would require a variance, because of the
nonconformity. The applicant is trying to keep the addition within certain boundaries, the CZMC has
reviewed it, and the DEC has said no permit is necessary for the location. The applicant is trying to take
advantage of the beautiful view in the back. The one story lower portion is downhill, behind the new
addition. The house is very small, and the applicant is basically doubling its size with two one story
additions. The addition itself is conforming to zoning on the front, side and rear yards, but because of the
existing structure it must be legalized at the same time.
M`r. Wexler questioned the need for a variance, citing applications that had come before the Board
regarding conforming and nonconforming side lot lines, variances, and building as-of-right, at which time
a detailed discussion ensued. This matter will be discussed with the Building Department, at a later date.
Ms. Martin asked about the space from structure to structure, stating that because of the elimination of the
current garage the entire area will now be closed off visually.
Mr. Robertson said the existing garage is a separate building and instead of looking between the garage
and the house an individual will now look on the other side of the house. It will be as open or more open
on that side of the house.
Mrs. Robertson said the garage will be free standing, and when moved over there will be a nicer lawn on
either side.
Mr. Fleming then demonstrated on the plans before the Board the elevations from the street, and the
proposed entry door. Mr. Fleming said an individual would be able to see more with the proposed
addition.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public.
Judy Silo, of 42 Deane Place, appeared and said she is on the side where there is an undersized, non-
conforming side yard. Ms. Silo has lived in her house for 24 years and that has always been the condition.
The addition has no bearing on her lot, because the proposed addition is going in the opposite direction.
Mr. Wexler asked if the deck was not in that area, would the applicant still need a variance.
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 3
Mr. Fleming said yes, and that he clarified same with the building inspector.
Mr. Wexler asked if the deck is legal.
Mr. Robertson said there is a Certificate of Occupancy on the house, now with the deck.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, 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. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Jill and Scott Robertson have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct two 1-story additions to rear and side of existing structure; modifications
to existing deck to rear to enclose hot tub; the addition as proposed would have a side yard of 1.7 ft. where
8.0 ft.is the minimum required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further, the addition would increase
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6
Zone District on the premises located at 38 Deane Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 364; 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(2)(a) and Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Jill and Scott Robertson 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 outweighs any detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this
conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. The variance will not cause a detriment to the character of the neighborhood,
because the addition will increase the visibility of the brook from the street. In
addition,there is no further encroachment into the side yard than already exists.
B. There is no reasonable alternative to accomplish what the applicant has applied
for.
C. 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.
D. 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, and is not considered a
substantial one.
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 4
E. 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 recommendations as presented by the CZMC in their letter dated March 24, 1997
to the Building Inspector be adhered to.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution;
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit;
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther said the motion is carried, the application is approved and the applicant should go the building
department during regular business hours for a permit.
Mr. Gunther asked if Paul Eckstein, application#1, case 2258, was present. There was no response.
The Secretary read the next application as follows: •
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2260
Application of Richard Mintzer requesting a variance to construct a rear addition with a front yard of 13.0
ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37-B-(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-10 Zone
District on the premises located at 74 East Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212 Lot 129.
Richard Mintzer of 74 East Brookside Drive, Larchmont, New York 10538 appeared, along with Vincent
Galbo, of 8 Clark Place, Port Chester, New York, the architect for the project.
Mr. Mintzer proceeded to pass out a survey, marked as exhibit 1, stating he is asking for a front yard
variance. The house was purchased in 1994 at an estate sale, and the house is in extremely old condition.
The house was constructed in 1925 with a very small kitchen, breakfast room, dining room, and no
bathroom on the ground floor. The applicant is trying to develop a more rational layout on the ground
floor for his family of four. Mr. Mintzer said he tried to work within the envelope, which was difficult.
A hardship is caused by the location of three old growth pine trees, 90 to 100 ft. tall, located to the east
of the house about 10 ft. from the corner of the den. Mr. Mintzer explained that the yellow color on the
survey is a grape arbor approximately 25 years old, that the applicant asked the Board to review the
pictures filed with the application. Mr. Mintzer stated he would like to preserve the grape arbor which
is an interesting landscaping feature. The grape arbor lies precisely where the extension could be built as-
of-right,but the applicant does not want to build too far to the east or too close to the pine trees, because
the applicant does not want to disturb the tree roots. This caused the extension to be moved more towards
Little Farms Road. The lot is 100 ft. wide, the addition could be moved to the other side, and the applicant
would not need a variance. Mr. Mintzer said the house was originally built in 1925, the extension as
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 5
shown on the survey was built three years later. Architecturally, it is not feasible to put the addition onto
the extension, as aesthetics is an important consideration. Mr. Mintzer said aesthetics is the reason why
the architect is proposing a small second floor over the extension. Mr. Mintzer said a less valid hardship,
but a hardship nonetheless, is that the property is a corner lot with two front yards. The locations of the
existing trees is important, hence the architectural consideration for putting the extension on the Little
Farms Road side of the house. Mr. Mintzer then talked about those who would be affected, said there is
vegetation between the houses, and if built as-of-right the addition would be closer to the neighbor. The
other party that might be affected is across the street, and Mr. Mintzer said he had gone through the plans
with them and they are reasonably comfortable with what is being proposed. The two considerations
offered to those who might be aggrieved are, Mr. Mintzer wants to make the final product architecturally
complete so it will not be obvious, he has planted a row of arborvitae from the driveway north about 30
ft. which are now over 6 ft. tall, and will screen the addition with the same type of arborvitae or some
form of vegetation to provide the proper screening.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board members.
Mr. Wexler addressed the architect stating in Mr. Mintzer's presentation, Mr. Mintzer said if he was able
to build within 30 ft. of the front yard, he can do it.
A discussion ensued with Mr. Gerety explaining the plane normal to the property line, and the
nonconformity.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on
motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted
unanimously, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On- motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Richard Mintzer has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with
plans to construct a rear addition with a front yard of 13.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section
240-37-B-(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-10 Zone District on the premises located at 74 East
Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212 Lot
129; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-37-B-(1), Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Richard Mintzer 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 outweighs any detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this
conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 6
A. The plan as presented presents a front yard that is greater than the existing front
yard.
B. The house is burdened by two front yards, and the variance will permit the
owner to expand, while keeping the structure in harmony with itself and the
community.
C. Even though there is a greater open space on the other side to allow this
construction to be built, there is natural vegetation in that area that would be
destroyed by the as-of-right addition. This would be a detriment to the
community and make the house not very functional.
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. 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. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a permit, and commended Mr.
Mintzer for the write-up submitted and his physical presentation beforehand to the Board.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2261
Application of Andrew D. Fredman requesting a variance to demolish and rebuild a one car garage and
shed damaged by weather and exposure, which may not be reconstructed unless in conformity with the side
yard requirements of Chapter 240 pursuant to Section 240-71; further, the new structure proposed to
replace the garage/shed would have a side yard of 2.9 ft.where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-
36B(3)(b) for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Howell Avenue and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 439.
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 7
Mr. Fredman, the architect and homeowner, appeared and submitted pictures of the garage entered into
the record as exhibit 1, the side view of the garage, and exhibit 2, the front view of the garage. Mr.
Fredman said the garage was in failing condition when the house was purchased and did not warrant any
financial input. Mr. Fredman said the garage will be built in the exact location as the existing garage.
The non-conformity is an existing condition. There is a current violation and a variance is being requested
because one corner of the garage is 2.9 ft. from the adjacent property. Under the code a variance is
necessary because it is more than a 50% replacement cost.
Mr. Kelleher asked what the violation is that was referred to.
Mr. Fredman said the violation is for an unsafe structure, which must be remedied.
Mr. Gunther asked why, since there is sufficient space in the area, does he not place the garage within the
normal 5 ft. setback.
Mr. Fredman said if the Board reviews the pictures it shows the rock outcropping,and he is trying to avoid
extensive blasting costs involved to rebuild the garage, which would be necessary for an as-of-right
solution.
A discussion ensued regarding the grade drop-off and the outcropping.
Mr. Fredman said only a one car garage can be put in that area without having a structural slab. Mr.
Fredman said he is trying to minimize expenses and is trying not to change the neighborhood.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Fredman if there would be a better place for the garage on the property, as he now
has that opportunity.
Mr. Fredman referred to the pictures presented, pointing out the rock outcrop which he will not be able
to-reach without blasting. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Simone asked if the one car garage will be built on the existing footprint.
Mr. Fredman saidthe proposed rebuilt garage will be on the existing footprint, and is consistent with the
development of the neighborhood as many garages are very close to the property lines.
Mr. Gunther asked to look at the tax map for location of garages in that area and pointed out the various
lots with garages located close to the property line (within the required setback). A discussion ensued.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any question from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr.
Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Andrew D. Fredman has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together
with plans to demolish and rebuild a one car garage and shed damaged by weather and exposure, which
may not be reconstructed unless in conformity with the side yard requirements of Chapter 240; pursuant
to Section 240-71; further, the new structure proposed to replace the garage/shed would have a side yard
of 2.9 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)(b) for a residence in an R-15 Zone
District on the premises located at 21 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 439; and
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 8
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 240-71, Section 240-36B(3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Andrew D. Fredman 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 outweighs any detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this
conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,
because the placement of the garage is consistent with the character of the
neighborhood(many houses in the vicinity have garages that encroach into a side
yard), and no detriment to the nearby properties will be created by the
construction of the garage, because it will remain in the location at which it has
existed for 50 years.
B. There is no reasonable alternative to achieve this goal which would not also
involve a variance for an undue hardship.
C. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood nor is it a self-created difficulty.
D. There is no reasonable alternative to this location given the topography of the
lot which slopes in the rear downward into the rock outcropping. Moving the
garage out of the side yard would require blasting.
E. 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.
F. 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 and is not considered a
substantial one given its existing condition.
G. 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;
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 9
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. 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. Wexler asked when the garage was built.
Mr. Fredman said the garage was built in 1915, and the shed in the '40's.
Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a permit.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2262
Application of Ang Lee and Jane Lin requesting a variance to construct a two story side addition with
garage with a front yard of 35.0 Ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-33B(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-50 Zone District on the premises located at 206 Hommocks Road and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416 Lot 112.
Scott Specht,of 535 Cathedral Parkway, New York, NY, the architect for the project, appeared along with
the applicants,Ang Lee and Jane Lin. Mr. Specht explained that the applicants would like to demolish the
existing two car garage and build, in the same site, the two car garage with a guest bedroom above, and
a covered porch on the north side facing towards the wetlands. When the house was last renovated in
1g89, the existing garage was shortened which made it unusable as a two car garage. Mr. Specht proposes
to-move the wall 3 ft. out to get a wider garage door. The area of the covered porch is now a stone walk
which the applicant is planning to put a roof over. Mr. Specht referred to the pictures included in with
the application, stating the existing house was built in 1951, the addition was built in 1989 and the garage
never fit into the scheme of the house. Mr. Specht said the applicants intend to reconcile the pieces into
a much better composition with the renovation matching the 1951 construction and lessening the impact
of the garage.
Mr. Wexler asked where the present entrance to the house is.
Mr. Specht said the entrance to the house is on the back side of the house, which will be left in that
position. Currently, the house is nonconforming, and the addition is being set back an additional 3 ft.
Mr. Specht said the new addition with be sided with cedar shingles.
Mr. Wexler said the house is very prominent from Hommocks Road, and the setback from the road seems
to be less than what shows.
Mr. Specht said the new design will soften the look quite a bit.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Specht to explain the variance lines on the drawings before the Board, which Mr.
Specht proceeded to do. A discussion ensued regarding the current garage, the entry on the side and the
reason for the entry on the side.
Mr. Specht said the entry on the side allows the view of the marshes, which is quite beautiful.
Mr. Lee, the owner of the house, said they have not yet moved in, but will do so after the renovation.
•
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 10
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, on
motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and adopted
unanimously, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Ang Lee and Jane Lin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a two story side addition with garage with a front yard of 35.0 Ft. where
50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-33B(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-50 Zone District on the
premises located at 206 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 416 Lot 112; 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 240-33B(1), Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Ang Lee and Jane Lin 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 and the community outweighs any
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is
granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. The addition will result in a decrease in the front yard nonconformity.
B. The applicant is duplicating the function of the existing side of the house that is
being removed and is enhancing the entry.
C. 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 and enhances the structure and neighborhood.
D. 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.
E. 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:
r-
4
•
Zoning Board
April 30, 1997
Page 11
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. 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.
As previously noted at the beginning of the meeting the following application, Case #6 was withdrawn.
No one appeared on behalf of Case#2258. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher,
it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of Case#2258,Paul Eckstein, be, and hereby is, adjourned
to the May 28, 1997 meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gunther adjourned the review of the Minutes of the March meeting until the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 28, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT
Ott a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded Mr. Kelleher, the public session of the meeting was
adjourned at 8:55 p.m. and the Board went into the Executive Session to discuss pending litigation.
72qa/Ati",?..Ar
MarguerW Roma, Secretary