Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993_08_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 1( i} I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 25, 1993, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman ECE{��En Patrick E. Kelleher SFP 1F 1993 J. Rene Simon PATRICIA A Arthur Wexler MO/CLERK0����CCIO Rr 1"4,G,? N.Y. CK Absent: Nina Recio Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel Michelle Bonsteel, Assistant Building Inspector C. Alan Mason, CZMC Laurie Fletcher, Public Stenographer Kazazes & Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Bonnie M. Burdick, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 8:17 PM. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2071 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Santina Pittera for an interpretation pursuant to 89-77 B(1) that the premises have been used for 5 or more units prior to the time of the adoption of or any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance prohibiting such usage, and resolving that 5 and no more than 5 units will hereafter exist on the premises; OR alternatively for an interpretation that when a use exists and an addition or modification is made thereto that the Zoning Ordinance provisions only apply to such addition or modification and do not require the legalization of the existing use or structure; OR alternatively for variances as follows: from Section 89-56 A to add 1 dwelling unit to the existing nonconforming 4 dwelling units; from Section 89-34 A(1) to allow a lot area of 2,105 sq. ft. per dwelling unit where 7,500 sq. ft. is required; from Section 89-34 B(5) to allow open space of 300 sq. ft. per dwelling unit where 1,200 sq. ft. per unit is required; from Section 89-67 A to allow off-street parking for 2 vehicles where 8 spaces are required; and from 89-67 B to allow a 4.0 ft. setback for one of the provided parking spaces where 25.0 ft. is required for an unenclosed off-street parking facility and to allow vehicles to back out into a public street for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Lot 128. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -2- Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the new State law enables the ZBA to act in an appellate way. Donald S. Mazin, attorney, appeared with Sandi Longhi, the applicant'.s daughter. Also appearing were Ann Pittera and Mary Iacavelli, long-time residents of Lester Place. Mr. Mazin stated that the house is in an unusual part of the Town and demonstrated pictures of nearby businesses, the dump and the Thruway. He claimed that up to eight families had lived in the house and that the assessor had taxed for up to eight families. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that this is an Unlisted Action requiring no coordination with other agencies and thus the Board is solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Action will have 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. Simon, the following resolutions were defeated by a vote of 2 - 2, Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Wexler opposed. WHEREAS, Santina Pittera has requested an interpretation that the premises have been used for five (5) or more units prior to the time of the adoption of or any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance prohibiting such usage and resolving that five (5) and no more than five (5) units will hereafter exist on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Bloc 130 Lot 128; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has ruled that the building does not qualify for said use; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pittera submitted an application to overrule such interpretation of the Building Inspector 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the request for the interpretation pursuant to 89-77 B(1) be granted for the following reasons: 1. Certifications from prior ZBA decisions make mention of at least five units. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -3- - 6 ' 2. While not determinative, it is indicative that the Tax Assessor was aware of more than 5 units. 3. Testimony of a relative of the applicant stated that a former Building Inspector knew that the premises included five or more units. Failing to obtain the necessary majority of the members to overrule his decision, the interpretation of the Building Inspector is therefore confirmed. Mr. Mazin reiterated that the file was replete with evidence that the ZBA had verified the house as a five-family one. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that this is an Unlisted Action requiring no coordination with other agencies and thus, the Board is solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Action will have 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. Wexler, the following resolution was adopted unanimously 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Santina Pittera has requested an interpretation that when a use exists and an addition or modification is made thereto that the Zoning Ordinance provision only apply to such addition or modification and do not require the legalization of the existing use or structure; and ' WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has ruled that legalization of the existing use or structure is required; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pittera submitted an application to overrule such interpretation of the Building Inspector 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the request for the interpretation pursuant be denied for the following reasons: . The issue is a matter of broad application more appropriately addressed by the Town Board as a zoning amendment. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -4- Failing to obtain the necessary majority of the members to overrule his decision, the interpretation of the Building Inspector is therefore confirmed. Since the Board had heard an application for a nearby property which caused many neighbors on Lester Place to complain about parking, the Board questioned the statement that parking was no problem. It was felt that some more spaces could be placed on the premises. Mr. Mazin, with Mrs. Longhi's consent, agreed to submit additional information regarding the parking aspects of the variance application indicating alternatives. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, by a vote of 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 unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Santina Pittera has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to add one dwelling unit to the existing nonconforming four dwelling units, to allow a lot area of 2,105 square feet per dwelling unit; and to allow open space of 300 square feet per unit for the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Lot 128; 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 Sections 89-56 A, 89-34 A(1) and 89-34 B(5); and WHEREAS, Mrs. Pittera submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. Certifications from prior ZBA decisions make mention of at least five units 2. While not determinative, it is indicative that the Tax Assessor was aware of more than five units. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -5- 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Santina Pittera for variances from Section 89-56 A(2)(a) to add one dwelling unit to the existing nonconforming four dwelling units, from Section 89-34 A(1) to allow a lot area of 2,105 square feet per dwelling unit and from Section 89-34 B(5) to allow 300 square feet of open space per dwelling unit to maintain a five-family house located at 30 Lester Place, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Lot 128 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. A complete set of "as-built" drawings shall be submitted to the Building Department. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. srir*** ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gunther temporarily adjourned the meeting at 9:58 and re-opened it at 10:08 PM. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2073 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mary McGee requesting variances from Section 89-34 B(1) to construct a rear addition with two front yards with 25.0 ft. setbacks where 30.0 ft. is required, from Section 89-34 B(2)(a) for a side yard of Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -6- 7.91 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required, from Section 89-34 B(2)(b) for a total side yard of 17.91 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required, from Section 89-34 C(3) for a third floor dormer where 22 stories are allowed and from Section 89-57 to increase the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 40 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 46. Robert Stanziale, architect, appeared before the Board. He stated that the McGee's were now financially able to add to this house and wished to stay there. The McGees are burdened by two front lots. The dormer is only for storage. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, by a vote of 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; 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were adopted unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Mary McGee has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together-with plans to construct a rear addition and to extend the third-floor dormer on the premises located at 40 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 46; 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 Sections 89-34 B(1), 89-34 B(2)(a), 89-34 B(2)(b), 89-34 C(3) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mrs. McGee submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -7- 1. The house is burdened by two front yards. 2. The proposed additions do not encroach into the side yard. 3. The proposed additions do not encroach beyond the current setbacks. 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Mary McGee for variances from Section 89-34 B(1) for a front yard at the rear of the building of 25.0 feet, from Section 89-34 B(2)(a) for a side yard of. 7.91 feet, from Section 89-34 B(2)(b) for a total side yard of 17.91 feet, from Section 89-34 C(3) to allow a third-floor dormer and from Section 89-57 located at 40 Vine Road, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 46 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within thirty (30 days of the filing of this Resolution with the-Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. 3 - CASE 2074 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Paul Egley requesting variances from Section 89-33 B(2)(a) to maintain a rear concrete deck and enclosed unheated sunroom with a side yard for the deck of 6.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required and a side yard of 9.15 feet for the sunroom where 10.0 is required and from Section 89-33 B(2)(b) for a total side yard for the sunroom of 15.15 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required. Further, both alterations represent increases in Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -8- the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 39 Lansdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Lot 346. Mr. Egley stated that his sunroom was heated. However, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that such a noticing mistake was minor and did not matter. Mr. Egley has owned the house since 1964, and the porch was in place at that time. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, by a vote of 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; 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 unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Paul Egley has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain a rear deck and enclosed heated sunroom on the premises located at 39 Lansdowne Drive known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Lot 346; 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 Sections 89-33 B(2)(a), 89-33 B(2)(b) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. Egley submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variances sought are granted and also finds as follows: 1. The deck and sunroom have been in place since 1964. 2. The structures are consistent with the design of the house. 3. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -9- t 4. The granting of these variances 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 5. Tne variances are 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 i= : Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the r= land and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board r1 will enable such reasonable use. :_. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Paul Egley for variances from Section 89-33 B(2)(a) to maintain a deck with a side yard of 6.0 feet and a sunroom with a side yard of 9.15 feet, from Section 89-33 B(2)(b) for total side yards of 15.15 feet and from Section 89-57 located at 39 Lansdowne Drive, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Lots 346 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) ,;:; months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not {' " started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) _> . y\:,;: 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. r, :cx*x* .i APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2075 The Secretary read the application as follows. . Application of Dr. and Mrs. M. Freilich requesting variances from Section '% 89-34 B(2)(a) to construct a kitchen addition with a side yard of 7.0 ft. , ,. where 10.0 ft. is required. Further, the structure increases the extent t ' by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Glen Eagles Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the ', Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 1. (:::; Dr. and Mrs. Freilich appeared. They stated that seven years ago they had gotten similar permission which they had not acted upon and that this variance is the only one which allows an extension of their small kitchen. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 • -10- After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, 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 day have a significant impact on the environment; 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 unanimously, 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Mark Freilich have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a kitchen addition on the premises located at 1 Glen Eagles Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108Lot 1; 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 Sections 89-34 B(2)(a) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Freilich submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variances sought are granted and also finds as follows: 1. A variance for this addition had been granted September 24, 1986 by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the applicant had not built the addition at that time. 2. The proposed addition matches the architectural style of the house and uses similar building materials. 3. The proposed addition is relatively small. 4. The granting of these variances 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 variances are the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -11- 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Dr. and Mrs. Mark Freilich for variances from Sections 89-34 B(2)(a) and 89-57 for a kitchen addition with a side yard of 7.0 feet at 1 Glen Eagles Drive, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 1 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 2076 Application of Jean-Pierre Jabart requesting variances from Section 89-35 B(2)(a). to construct a garage extension with a side yard of 6.2 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required, from Section 89-35 B(2)(b) for a total side yard of 14.3 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required and from Section 89-57 to increase the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements. Finally, a variance is requested from Section 89-35 B(3)(b) for the existing woodshed with a rear yard of 1.4 ft. and a side yard of 1.6 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises at 29 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 258. Mr. Jabart appeared with his architect, Frederick Jestadt. They stated that the garage extension was necessary to store larger cars and that the shed was in place when the Jabarts bought the house. The shed is not visible from adjacent properties. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, by a vote of 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; Zoning Board of Appeals • August 25, 1993 -12- 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were adopted unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Jean-Pierre Jabart has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an existing garage extension and shed on the premises located at 29 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 258; 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 Sections 89-35 B(2)(a), 89-35 B(2)(b), 89-35B(3)(b) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. JabArt submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The garage extension is no closer to the side lot line than the existing structure. 2. The small shed is tucked neatly into a rear corner and is shielded from its neighbors. 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 z -13- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Jean-Pierre Jabart for variances from Section 89-35 B(2)(a), from Section 89-35 B(2)(b) and from Section 89-57 to maintain a garage extension with a side yard of 6.2 feet and a total side yard and for a variance from Section 89-35 B(3)(b) to maintain ,a shed with a rear yard of. 1.4 feet and a side yard of 1.6 feet located at 29 Maple Hill Drive, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 258 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within thirty (30 days of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 read a letter from the Speilmans, of Application No. 6, requesting an adjournment to September. APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE NO. 2078 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Mr. and Mrs. David Brown requesting variances from Section 89-33 B(2)(b) for a total side yard of 16.6 ft. where 25.0 feet is required and from Section 89-57 to increase the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises at 81 West Hickory Grove Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 746. Robert Marino, architect, appeared for the Browns. He stated that the only place to add to his clients' house was onto a porch that had been previously granted a variance. The neighbors had been contacted; no one objected. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, 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; 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. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -14- On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were adopted unanimously, 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. David Brown have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 81 West Hickory Grove Drive, West and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 746; 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 Sections 89-33 B(2)(b) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Brown submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variances sought are granted and also finds as follows: 1. The proposed addition is no closer to the side lot line than is that part of the structure constructed as a result of a previously granted variance. 2. The proposed addition does not extend the footprint of the house. 3. The proposed porch is in harmony with the house and the community at large. 4. The topography of the rear yard could potentially limit construction. 5. The granting of these variances 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 variances are 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -15- NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Mr. and Mrs. David Brown for variances from Sections 89-33 B(2)(b) and 89-57 for an addition with a total side yard of 16.6 feet on the premises located at 81 West Hickory Grove Drive, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 746 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. 8 - CASE NO. 2074 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Alfredo Gulla requesting variances from Section 89-41.1 C to construct a new automobile dealership with a lot coverage of 25.18% where 25% is allowed; from Section 89-41.1 B for a 10.0 ft. rear yard where 25.0 ft. is required, for a 2.0 ft. buffer zone where 10.0 ft. is required, for a dumpster and enclosure located within the buffer zone which is prohibited, and for a 0.0 rear yard setback for said dumpster and enclosure; from Section 89-67 D for 2 parking spaces within a residence zone which is prohibited, and from Sections 89-70A and 89-3 to eliminate the required dedicated off-street loading space for a business in an (SB) Service Business Zone District on the premises known as 2543 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lots 1 and 134. Walter DeVivo, architect, appeared. He stated that Hyundai cars would be sold from this site and that only new cars will be sold. The Board urged Mr. DeVivo to redesign his plans so that the buffer zone could be inviolate. He was also instructed to notify the neighboring property owners in New Rochelle as the Town's Building Department cannot do so. Nick Dino, a neighbor of the dealership appeared and complained that no neighbors living in New Rochelle were notified. James Raboy of 2500. Boston Post Road, the Saturn used-car dealership, stated that his company would approve of the application. Elinor Davidson, 2 Locust Avenue, Larchmont, appeared. She recommended a 25-foot buffer and stated that the neighbors on Chester Place would find that their quality of life would be impaired by the dealership. Zoning Board of Appeals August 25, 1993 -16- On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Board found that the Planning Board should be the Lead Agency and that this matter is an Unlisted Action. With the applicant's approval, this matter was adjourned to the September meeting and was referred to the Planning Board for further SEQRA compliance and to the CZMC for comment. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be September 22, 1993. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the minutes of July 28, 1993 were approved. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 AM. Bonnie M. Burdick