Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_08_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 23, 1995, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick J. Kelleher J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Absent: Nina Recio Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Karen Brideau, Public Stenographer Kazazes & Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 P.M. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2170 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Robert and Ann Caserta requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to maintain a fence measuring 5.0 to 6.0 feet and a fence/wall in the southeast corner of 9.0 feet in height where 4.0 feet is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 5 Birch Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116 Lot 679. The applicants were not present. Mr. Gunther read a telephone message received August 23, 1995 stating the Caserta's were out of town and unable to attend. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher and unanimously approved, the matter was adjourned to the next available meeting. APPLICATION NO.-2 - CASE 2179 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Lauren Miralia, 210 Hommocks Road, requesting an interpretation of the 4-foot height limitation on fences and walls in Section 89-44D as it applies to columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates which are part of those fences and walls and requesting a reversal of the Building Department's approval of April 21, 1995 of the columns at the Pressman residence located in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 417 Lot 107. The applicant was not present at the start and his representative, William Maker,Jr., Esq., of McMillan, Constabile et al. of 2180 Boston Post Road, Larchmont started his presentation regarding interpretation of the Town code regarding the above-referenced application. He stated that columns were approved by the Building Department and that the ordinance was read too literally. The applicant's perspective is that the concept of the ordinance shouldn't be so limited, because they are talking about an integrated structure which includes walls and columns, and should Zuning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 2 be treated as kindred spirits. A lengthy presentation ensued regarding columns and gates that are part of a wall or fence. Mr. Maker's client has prepared a letter which has yet to be presented to the Board regarding a series of case laws indicating the courts have given a great deal of respect to zoning boards and the board's interpretation will be upheld unless its unreasonable or irrational. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Maker to clarify his request that in reading the application it basically hinged upon the application of another applicant, the Pressmans, and the apparent approval by the Building Department for fences or gates above the 4 ft. height. Mr. Maker stated that the Pressmans have now proposed a 4 ft. high wall until you come to the gateway entrances which are bounded by columns as high as 11 ft. which was approved by the Building Department, under Building Permit 12947. A lengthy presentation continued. Mr. Gunther stated the only matter he would address at this time was the request for an interpretation. Mr. Wexler stated Mr. Maker was asking for a determination now after the building permit was issued, and asking for an interpretation that would void the permit. Mr. Maker stated that under the Town law there is a time in which a person can appeal the Building Inspector's decision to this Board. Mr. Jakubowski clarified what had been approved on the permit. Mr. Miralia arrived and handed a letter to the Board supplementing the application request made in June, explaining the reason for opposition to the size and scope of the piers, posts or columns, with case law backing his position and conclusion, stressing (after surveying the neighboring communities) nothing was found similar to what Pressmans' anticipate building. There is no statement in the code that mentions specifically posts, pillars, caps or columns, but it cannot be said that means they can be thirty feet high. Mr. Miralia stated he is simply asking for an interpretation of an erroneous decision made by the Building Inspector. Albert Pirro, Esq., Pirro, Collier&Cohn, representing the Pressman in connection with opposition to this particular application. Mr. Pirro indicated that the Board should have as part of the record his affirmation submitted in opposition to this case dated July 14, 1995 which sets out the issue of columns and/or piers. The members did not have the copy of the July 14, 1994 affirmation, only the August 18, 1995 affirmation. The members will be supplied with copies of the July 14, 1995 affirmation. Mr. Pirro gave a brief overview of the affirmation saying there is no question that the Building Inspector is correct in this interpretation, and that the zoning code does not address the height of columns or piers in its definition of walls and fences, see case #2165, Renault BonMatti. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding definitions regarding rules, columns and piers. Mr. Pirro alleged that the entire case pending is barred by the Statute of Limitations,because it was on those original plans and it was part of a grant by the Board's decision, so that the Miralia appeal should have been brought within thirty days from the date the resolution was filed by the secretary of the zoning board. A revised set of plans were filed when the Pressmans filed for the walls. Mr. Pirro discussed an affidavit with pictures of Mr. Miralia's home and continued his presentation. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Pirro if a pier was not a necessary and integral part of a wall. Upon a request from Mr. Kelleher, Mr. Jakubowski summarized the procedures followed upon receiving an application regarding fences and walls. Mr. Kelleher stated that the Ordinance gives him no tools to work with. Mr. Miralia clarified that his request is for an interpretation only, on piers, columns or posts. He said that most of these in Town pre-date zoning as did the old Pressman columns, but Pressman had removed them and lost their non-conforming status. Mr. Pirro said that prior to the time the application was made to the Building Inspector, the architect indicated the piers taken down were 9 ft. high, which were taken down in accordance with Building Permit application which was granted. Mr. Gunther reiterated the application to be for the interpretation with regard to inclusion of columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates in the definition of the fences. Mr. Gunther instructed the Building Department to provide copies of Mr. Pirro's July 14, 1995 affidavit to the members of the Board and asked to adjourn the application, and close the public hearing on the application and adjourn it to the next meeting when the Board Members have had an opportunity to read both Mr. Miralia's letter and Mr. Pirro's response. Mr. Miralia and Mr. Pirro both consented to closing the hearing. Zoning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 3 On a motion made by On a motion by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to close the Public Hearing on application #2179, Lauren Miralia, for interpretation and adjourned the matter for final Board discussion and conclusion at the next meeting, September 13, 1995, which was approved 3-1, Mr. Wexler opposed. The Public Stenographer was present for this application and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2182 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Eugene & Bonnie Pressman requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to construct one 7.0 ft. pedestrian gate and two 10.0 feet gates (a main and a side gate) where 4.0 ft. is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 417 Lot 107. Albert Pirro, Esq., appeared representing the Pressmans in connection with the application to appeal the decision of the Building Inspector which denied a request for a permit to construct three new gates, the main gate on Hommocks Road 10 ft. x 15 ft., a pedestrian gate on Hommocks Road 7 ft. x 4 ft., a side gate 10 ft. x 13 ft. The finding was that these gates exceeded the 4 ft. height limit of Section 89-44 D of the zoning code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Pirro asked the Board to acknowledge and incorporate as part of the record the previous affirmation submitted dated June 6, 1995, acknowledged. He stated the request is for an interpretation of Section 89-44 D, which clearly only applies to fences and walls and does not address the height of gates. Mr. Pirro stated that any restriction on gates is in derogation of common law; if the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck has not legislated on this matter, the ZBA does not have the power to make law and cannot limit gates. The request is for a variance. A lengthy discussion ensued between Mr. Pirro and Mr. Maker, attorney representing Mr. Miralia, and Mr. Miralia regarding the height, safety and necessity. Mr. Gunther suggested a motion be made to adjourn this application until the next meeting, but to keep the Public Hearing Open. Mr. Gunther made a motion to adjourn application #3, 2182, until the next meeting, September 13, 1995. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously , 4-0. The Public Stenographer was present for this application and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2184 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Patricia D. Chapman requesting variances from Section 89-33 B(2)(a) to maintain a deck and Sun Room with a side yard of 5.9 feet where 10.0 feet is required. Further, the additions increase the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Hudson Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 221 Lot 363. Ms. Chapman appeared and requesting a "grandfathering" of the conditions that existed when the house was purchased in 1983. At time of purchase during title search, there was no indication there was any problem. Tax records indicated that enclosed porch appeared on tax records of 1969. A discussion ensued regarding various violations corrected and pictures presented to the Board showing same. Mr. Sanders, a neighbor appeared, and stated that the sun room was originally in the house since it was built, at least since 1975. Zoning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 4 After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. 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 Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were ADOPTED: 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The structures in question were existing at the time that the house was purchased by the applicant. 2. The sun porch is further away from the side property line than the house that presently exists. 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. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2185 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Joe Sparano of J&F Chatsworth Ltd. requesting variances pursuant to Local Law No. 2 of 1994, Signs, to reface an existing sign 6 ft. 2 & 1/8 in. x 8 ft. 1 in. The sign as exists and as proposed is non-conforming pursuant to Section 11-B which restricts the maximum height to 32 inches. The applicant must provide documentation and sizing for all signs on the building related to this tenancy to establish the signage does not exceed 100 sq. feet total area as required by Section 11-B. The Gulf symbol exceeds the maximum height for pictorial matter as 24 inches is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 11-B. The sign as proposed at 6 feet 2& 1/8 inches Zoning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 5 exceeds the 32 inch maximum height allowed pursuant to Section 11-B, and the removable price numbers constitute a temporary sign condition and are prohibited by Sections 7-G and 13 and definitions pursuant to Section 4. Further, the use of more than two type faces on any one sign is prohibited pursuant to Section 8-D(4), and the number of colors is not a minimum pursuant to Section 8-D(5) on the premises located in a B Zone District at I Vine Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 730. Mr. Sparano of J&F Chatsworth, Ltd. and his wife, Susan. appeared explaining the application had been amended by the B.A.R. approval to replace an existing sign to a new logo which is smaller than the existing sign to a 6 ft. round sign with all other non-conforming signage to be removed and new signage not exceeding 100 sq. ft. may be installed using a compatible type style with standard Gulf colors. The B.A.R. approval includes the sign and colors on the gasoline pumps. Ms. Sparano presented pictures to the Board. Mr. Gunther read a letter to the Board received from Mr. Wassman, Chairman of the Board of Architectural Review (B.A.R.) stating their findings at the B.A.R. August 17, 1995 meeting. Mr. Gunther stated for the record that in the notice of disapproval the Board had was an 8 ft. 1 in. wide sign which is not what was granted. A detailed discussion ensued. Mr. Nighterman of SOS Oil Corp., East Village Road, Tuxedo, NY, the supplier for J&F, and stated the company was looking forward to identifying this location and Citgo no longer wanted to supply this station and SOS want to abide by the rules of the Town. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were 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 that the approval of the application is in accord with the recommendation of the B.A.R., duly seconded, the following resolutions were unanimously ADOPTED: 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The signage as presented was not acceptable and the application was amended to be for a single round "Gulf" sign measuring six (6) feet in diameter, centered above the left garage door. 2. An appropriate compromise has been proposed and recommended by the Board of Architectural Review. 3. The sign is smaller than existing signage. 4. All other non-conforming signage is to be removed and new signage not exceeding 100 sq. ft. may be installed using a compatible type style with standard Gulf colors. The B.A.R. approval includes the sign and colors on the gasoline pumps. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 6 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 to install a single round "Gulf" sign measuring six(6) feet in diameter, centered above the left garage door and to replace all non-conforming signage with new signage not exceeding 100 sq. ft. in a compatible type with standard Gulf colors 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. APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2186 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Steven & Cynthia Landis requesting a variance from Section 89-31 B(3) to construct a second floor addition with a rear yard of 27.0 feet where 40.0 feet is required. Further, the addition increases the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 26 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Lot 326. Dolores Battalia, Stein&Battalia, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont, representing Mr. &Mrs. Landis appeared and Mrs. Wilma Bell, the owner of the property at 26 Winged Foot also appeared. Ms. Battalia presented a new survey of the property and a tax map to the Board. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the uniquely shaped parcel which is preexisting nonconforming lot and the fact that when the property was constructed in 1960 a variance was required and granted at that time. Neighbors canvassed have reviewed the plans and have no objections and perceived this as an increase of property value in the area. Robert Ciamei, the architect, was present and discussed the proposal which keeps in the style and construction technique as the house is now and gave a brief discussion of the facts. Mr. Kelleher asked who owns 26 Winged Foot now and Ms. Battalia stated Mrs. Bell and the applicant has a contract to purchase and to close on September 1, 1995, which is contingent upon obtaining variance, but when applicant came in June, July meeting was already filled. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr.Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted, 3-1, Mr. Wexler abstained. 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. Simon, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were ADOPTED 3-1, Mr. Wexler abstained: Zoning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 7 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. This is a uniquely shaped parcel, just under 16,000 ft. which lies in a 20,000 sq. ft. zone and is pre-existing nonconforming lot. 2. The house was constructed in 1960 and complies with a front yard setback, sides and rear at one portion of the house but by garage is only 18 plus ft. from property line. 3. A variance was granted at that time. 4. Adding the second story to the middle section will not increase nonconformity in that the upper floor will be 27 ft. from the property line whereas the lower level is now only 18 ft. 5. All the houses in the neighborhood are at least of equal or greater size. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2187 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Frank Lewis requesting a variance from Section 89-32 B(I) to maintain an enclosed porch with a front yard of 21.65 feet where 40.0 feet is required. Further, the enclosure increases the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106 Lot 490. Mr. Michael Lewis, 137 Riverdale Drive, NYC 10024, appeared for his father Frank Lewis and presented pictures to the Board regarding the requested variance. When house was purchased in 1950 variance was granted for porch, Zoning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 8 which was enclosed shortly thereafter, 1953-54, the original owner. In the prospect of selling house, hopefully closing in August 30, 1995, it was found that variance was granted for open porch. The actual purchaser of the house appeared and stated that he has spoken to neighbors on the street and presented a letter stating the neighbors have no objection to enclosed porch. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. 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 resolutions were ADOPTED: 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. Porch was in existence since 1953/1954 and variance granted at that time. 2. Enclosed porch is on corner lot with two front yards and limits the viable area involved and variance will grant relief from that. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals August 23, 1995 Page 9 111) APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2188 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Peter Moran requesting a variance to maintain an enclosed porch with a rear yard of 10.2 feet where 11.0 feet had been allowed pursuant to a variance granted March 6, 1964. Said variance expired September 7, 1964 and a new variance is required for a permit and Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for the alteration to a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 3 Daymon Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 486. Mr. Gunther read a letter requesting adjournment. The application will be held over to the next available date. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Simon made a motion to approve the Minutes of March 29 1995, seconded by Mr. Kelleher and approved 3-0. Mr. Wexler abstained. ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Marguee Roma, Recording Secretary