Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_01_10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK January 10, 1996, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman IIN Patrick J. Kelleher •j" Nina Recio �► 4 ` Arthur Wexler isi . Absent: J. Rene Simon '11111 111 Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel ISalho William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Lori Fletcher, Public Stenographer Kazazes & Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther prefaced the meeting by stating that one of the Board members was unable to attend the meeting, and there are only four Zoning Board members present. For an action to occur, three out of the four Board members have to vote in favor. If when your case is called you wish to hold your case over until all five members are present, that option is yours. The chairman read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2200(adjourned 11/29/95; adjourned 1/10/96 to the February calendar) Application of Barry & Susan Weisfeld requesting a variance to construct a new 6 ft. fence at the front which exceeds the 4.0 ft. height allowed pursuant to Section 89-44D for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 109 Griffen Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 305 Lot 903. The chairman read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2205 (rescheduled per request to February, 1996 calendar) At this point, Mr. Gunther set the February Zoning Board meeting for February 28, 1996. The chairman read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2206 Application of Mr. & Mrs. J. Zuckerman requesting a variance to construct a swimming pool and deck with a rear yard of 14.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14-48A-2; the accessory deck structure is 0.0 ft. where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14-48A-1 and the 4 ft. chain link fence on the retaining wall would be 8.0 ft. at the highest where 4.0 ft. is the maximum height allowed,pursuant to Section 89-44D, as required for a Residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Zoning Board January 10, 1996 Page 2 Marbourne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334 Lot 45. Karen Shopis, the landscape architect working with the Zuckermans, presented for the applicants (also present). Ms. Shopis presented a letter from five neighbors of the Zuckermans to the Board stating, they have no objection to the construction of the swimming pool and deck nor the granting of the variance to enable the construction. Ms. Shopis said the applicant is proposing to remove part of the existing wood deck, keeping the under structure, and remove the railing and upper decking making the deck smaller. The applicant will use that as the access area from both door of the house down to the lower yard where the applicants would like to construct a swimming pool with a spa and a small seating area which will be within the 15 ft. site setback line. Because the foundation of the house sets down, a drainage problem exists creating the need to move the pool closer to the rear face of the house. The applicant is proposing to move the deck out to the back space and put in a small retaining wall with a drain behind it,to pull all the water coming from underneath the house into a dry well. The grade does not have to be changed, because the siding is so low. There is screening from the neighbors. Saxon Woods Park is also behind the premises. Ms. Shopis gave a detailed explanation regarding the grade change from the house,which is 3-1/2 ft. Ms. Shopis also said no trees will be removed from the area. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Shopis to address the accessory deck structure. Ms. Shopis stated that because of the rear property, the applicant does not have the area to move the pool back any farther. In reference to the chain link fence on the retaining wall,one of the reasons the applicant would like the fence as a railing on the top of the wall for safety of the children. Mr. Wexler asked how the applicant will fence in the pool. Ms. Shopis said the fencing will start at the corner of the house, go across and down the property line and on top of the wall, and then down across the property behind the trees on the property line on an angle. Mr. Jakubowski asked if the back wall was a shear stone wall or a stacked stone wall. Ms. Shopis said it was a railroad tie wall. The stone wall on the plan was an existing wall. Mr. Gunther asked the physical height of the fence. Ms. Shopis said it was 4 ft. on top of the retaining wall. Mr. Wexler asked about the impact on the neighboring Saxon Woods Park. Mr.Jakubowski said the area is pretty much left native,there are some trails downhill from the applicants' property and Mr. Jakubowski does not feel there would be any impact on the Park. Mr. Wexler asked about drainage problems. Ms. Shopis said there is not a drainage problem at the present time, but by making the area flat then there would be drainage problem. That is why the pool is being brought out leaving the grade as exists and putting a drain in to pull the excess water. Mr. Wexler asked about the 15 ft. requirement for the accessory deck. • • Zoning Board January 10, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Jakubowski said the requirement was for the pool deck and the house. The problem occurs along the stair line as 0.0 ft. regarding the new deck to the house itself. The new pool deck has to be 15 ft. away from the wood deck. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was 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. Recio, and unanimously approved, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Zuckerman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a swimming pool and deck with a rear yard of 14.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14-48A-2; the accessory deck structure is 0.0 ft. where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 14-48A-1 and the 4 ft. chain link fence on the retaining wall would be 8.0 ft. at the highest where 4.0 ft. is the maximum height allowed, pursuant to Section 89-44D, as required for a Residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Marboume Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334 Lot 45; 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 14-48A-2, Section 14-48A-1 and Section 89-44D; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Zuckerman submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board fmds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The rear of the property abuts the densely wooded area of Saxon Woods Park,which also gives a natural screening; 2. The applicant has presented a letter signed by the surrounding neighbors that indicate they have reviewed these plans and do not have any objection to the construction of the pool and the ancillary structure; 3. The 8 ft. fence is topping across an existing retaining wall;is not above 4 ft. for a person standing in the back yard; would present 8 ft. from the ground level on the back side to the top of the fence for a limited distance and runs from 4 ft. up to as high as 8 ft. at its maximum on top of the wall, whereas the rest of the fence as it would continue on the property would be 4 ft. permitted fence; 4. The irregular topography of the rear of the property forces the applicant to set the rear addition within the setback; Zoning Board January 10, 1996 Page 4 5. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 6. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The chairman read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2207 Application of Hoke and Suzanne Simpson requesting a variance to maintain an existing deck as erected with a side yard of 7.0 ft. where 8.0 ft. is the minimum yard required pursuant to Section 89-35B(2)(a); the total side yard is 16. 0 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-55B(2)(b)and further; the deck increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 5 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 210. Hoke Simpson appeared and stated the deck was constructed twelve years ago, and at that time Mr. Simpson was not aware of the zoning requirements. The house itself was built in 1929. The west side of the house is 7 ft. from the property line, the east side of the house is 9 ft. from the property line, the total being 16 ft. Since the deck did not go beyond the already existing boundary of the house, it never occurred to the applicant that the deck was encroaching. Mr. Jakubowski said that in 1929 the side yards were 6 ft. on each side. Mr. Kelleher asked when the deck was built twelve years ago, was a building permit obtained in order to build the deck. Mr. Simpson said to his recollection a permit was not issued. Ms. Recio asked if a contractor was hired to perform the work. Mr. Simpson said his son constructed the deck, who is a builder in North Carolina. Zoning Board January 10, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Simpson was asked why he was before the Board at this time. He stated that he is planning to build a retirement home and is putting his house on the market. In order to do that, he needs a Certificate of Occupancy. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr.Wexler, the following resolution was 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. Recio, and unanimously approved, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Hoke and Suzanne Simpson have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an existing deck as erected with a side yard of 7.0 ft. where 8.0 ft. is the minimum yard required pursuant to Section 89-35B(2)(a); the total side yard is 16. 0 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-55B(2)(b)and further; the deck increased the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 5 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 210; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-35B(2)(a), Section 89-55B(2)(b), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Hoke and Suzanne Simpson submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and. has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The deck has existed for twelve(12)years and does not protrude beyond the squared off lines of the existing house built in 1929; 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. Zoning Board January 10, 1996 Page 6 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. GENERAL DISCUSSION Mr. Gunther said a memo was received from Steve Silverberg regarding the Moran case. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the judge understood that there was nothing wrong with the deck expansion without the shed. If Mr. Moran had built only the deck, there would be no zoning violation. If Mr. Moran added to the deck it would also need a variance, but because it was a corner lot which was at an angle to the lot line perhaps it didn't need a variance. Ms. Recio said that if Mr. Moran needed a variance to build the deck and expanded upon that, he was outside the parameters of the first area and therefore he shouldn't have the right to be able to expand on the variance. Mr. Jakubowski said that there was no further encroachment at that point. Mr. Jakubowski and Mr. Kirkpatrick will discuss the matter further. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any other action on the Pressman matter on Hommocks Road. Mr. Jakubowski said there was nothing to report. Mr. Kirkpatrick said there was a return date and Mr. Silverberg appeared in court to discuss the matter including settlement, which is not possible. Mr. Jakubowksi stated that the only suggestion to the judge was that the town is looking to change the ordinance regarding walls and fences and that could cause the Pressmans to seek abatement of needs through this new ordinance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments on the Minutes dated November 29, 1995 before approval. Mr. Recio said the meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. not 8:50 p.m. and approval will be carried over to the next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 24, 1996, and the February meeting is scheduled for February 28, 1996 • Zoning Board January 10, 1996 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Margueri oma, Recording Secretary As per meeting's recordings.