Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_06_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 28, 1995, IN THE SENIOR 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: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Lori 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 7:48 p.m. The chairman stated only four out of the five board members were present and for an action to occur you need a vote for or against whatever you are requesting by at least three out of the four. We can hear your case tonight and proceed or if you wish to wait for the fifth board member it will not be until our next month's meeting, that option is yours. _APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2168 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Edward and Sandra Ikegouchi, 36 Blossom Terrace, adjourned from May 24, 1995. Mr. Wexler stated the requirement that was to be obtained was written permission from • Westchester Sanitary Sewer Commission allowing the fence to be erected on the sewer easement before they appear at the Town Board Meeting. Ms. Recio said we haven't received anything. Mr. Wexler asked, is that a requirement? Ms. Gunther asked, is the applicant present? Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -2- Mr. Gabor Szabo of 150 Old Policy Road, Ft. Lee, NJ appeared for the applicant and said they had to build the fence quickly when they purchased the house because of the noise from the train and bought a 5 ft. stockade fence, mainly for the reduction of noise. Ms. Jakubowski stated that the record should reflect that the survey submitted with zoning board application shows that the fence is entirely off of the Westchester County easement, and therefore the paragraph requiring permission from them for the fence is not necessary. After review, on motion of Mr.Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously. 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. Simon, the following resolutions were ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Edward and Sandra Ikegouchi have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 5-foot fence on the premises located at 36 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Lot 385; 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 89-44 D; and WHEREAS, Edward and Sandra Ikegouchi 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The applicants have an irregularly shaped parcel abutting the Metro North Railroad. 2. There is a steep slop of approximately 30 degrees behind the house. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -3- 3. The fence is not out of character in relation to other houses in this neighborhood which have similar conditions. 4. The yard is well screened with trees and shrubs. 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. APPLICATION NO. 2 - 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 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. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant was present. Ann Caserta identified herself. She stated that her son, 71/2, climbs over the existing fence. There is a lack of privacy and also a 5 ft. drop off in back. Pictures are submitted. Mr. Gunther said there was a technical matter in terms of the application as presented in comparison to the physical conditions relative to the application. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -4- Mr. Jakubowski asked questions regarding pictures 1,2,3. On survey retaining wall described about 40 ft. long in area noted on picture #4, S.E. corner of property fence on 5 ft. high retaining wall, approximately 50-75 ft. of wall ranging from 1 ft. to 5 ft. high. Mrs. Caserta said there had been accidents of children falling off the wall. There was a discussion on the grade of property shown on application as Chalian and Bran. Counsel was asked because of the retaining wall going through a 5 ft. height and because it is not specifically listed in the application should it be adjourned and readvertised, as technically the fence would be 9 ft. Mr. Jakubowski suggested getting some pictures from the other side of the property to see impact on neighbors. Ms. Caserta stated for a 4 ft. fence, no permit needed; matter adjourned to July 19, 1995 in order to re-notice the application. Mr. Gunther made a motion that application Case #2170 be heldover to the following meeting, was seconded by Arthur Wexler and unanimously approved. Mr. Jakubowski asked Ms. Caserta to verify her telephone number. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2171 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Tom Wessel and Margaret McTeigue requesting variances from Sections 89-35 B(2)(a) and 89-35 B(2)(b) to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for a rear deck with a side extension and relocated stairs with a side yard of 6.6 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required and a total side yard of 17.4 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required for a residence in a R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 26 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 86. Margaret McTeigue of 26 Copley Road stated that everything was approved for the deck and needed access to the rest of the property from the rear by constructing a platform and stairs. Pictures were submitted, putting stairs down to driveway. -Mr. Jakubowski stated picture #1 is a condition existing prior to getting a building permit extending deck full width of the back of the house. The original deck permit did not include platform or stairs in picture #2. The variance is for platform about 6 ft. by 3 ft. at the top of the stairs. The building permit was secured for the original installation of the deck. Ms. McTeigue said Jim Fleming, the architect, bought the plan to her before the meeting. Mr. Jakubowski stated the deck as proposed was an extension of the left side of the house to the rear maintaining 28 ft. rear yard which was required, and was slightly offset from the house maintaining the 9.4 ft. that would have been necessary in order to achieve the required side yard. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -5- 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 a motion made by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED unanimously. WHEREAS, Torn Wessel and Margaret McTeigue have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans for a Certificate of Occupancy for a rear deck with a side extension and relocated stairs at 26 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 86; 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) and 89-35 B(2)(b); and WHEREAS, Tom Wessel and Margaret McTeigue 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The site has a seven-foot differential in the rear which necessitated the stairs. 2. The platform is small compared to the size of the deck. 3. The platform is in character with the deck. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -6- 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 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 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. 4 - CASE 2172 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Angela Barbella for a variance from Section 89-44 D for 6 ft. fence within a front and rear yard where 4.0 ft. is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-6 Zone District located on 107 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125 Lot 224. Angela Barbella appeared and indicated that she needed the fence for security for her child. Her front yard opens on to Myrtle Boulevard which is heavily trafficked and is near the Metro-North Railroad parking. She stated that because of the heavy traffic in this area, she needed the fence for additional security and privacy. She further noted that she had things stolen from her yard previously. A discussion ensued. Mr. Wexler was concerned about sight lines from the driveway where the fence was proposed and recommended setting the fence back. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; Mr. Jakubowski said he had letter from Mr. Carmine Perciaseppe of 3 Wood Street objecting to it. He is immediately behind residence. If privacy is prime indicators, height can be reduced to 5 ft. Mr. Capatano stated fence facing neighbor is 25 ft. plus. There is plenty of visibility. A 4 ft. fence would not create privacy. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -7-- After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED, by a vote of 3-1, Mr. Kelleher opposed. WHEREAS, Angela Barbella has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a five-foot (where four-feet height maximum is permitted) fence; 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 89-44 D on the premises located at 107 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125 Lot 224; and WHEREAS, Ms. Barbella 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The house, located on a very busy street, is next to the Town's parking lot at the railroad station which is subject to a lot of traffic twice a day. 2. The fence is necessary for privacy and to protect a young child. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -8- 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 fence shall be constructed ten (10') feet farther back from Wood Street then shown on the plan for purposes of safety as egress from the applicant's driveway would be extremely dangerous. 2. The applicant shall move, or otherwise provide, natural screening for the fence, particularly forsythia. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (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 2173 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Kenneth N. Karpel, proposed purchaser from The Dime Savings Bank of New York, requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for a house with a side yard of 6.3 ft. and a deck with a side yard of 0.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required under Section 89-30.1 C. Further, the deck encroaches 3.4 ft. into the Town of Mamaroneck Conservation Zone where adjoining land has been improved and-cultivated. These changes are specifically prohibited pursuant to Section 17- 4 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at Six Glen Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 315 Lot 24. Mr. Gunther excused himself from hearing the application because he is an officer of The Dime Savings Bank of New York, and there will be remaining only three board members to hear the case. Kenneth Karpel stated his clients are under contract pending approval of this application, mortgage commitment pending, and the Dime Savings Bank is both owner and seller and has consented to certain extensions in time, and if application is adjourned to the next meeting might not be the best approach. The deck has been removed, presented pictures. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -9- Mr. Wexler stated that the part of the application referring to 0.0 ft where 20.0 ft. is required is no longer part of the application. What the applicant is requesting then is a house that has a side yard of 6.3 ft., as it presently exists, along the easterly corner of the property in the area located behind the garage and the kitchen. On survey dated 11/11/94 showing the Glen Lane property, the area of the wood deck which was shown intruding into the Town Conservation Zone is the side yard area. Mr. Karpel stated this property was constructed in this manner for approximately thirty years ago. The contract is conditioned upon Certificate of Occupancy being granted. There was a letter from the previous building inspector in the file dated 1985 stating, at that point in time, all requirements were conformed with for building and zoning and apparently the Certificate of Occupancy had not been placed in the file. The Fire Underwriter's approval was made and a Fire Underwriter's Certificate will be issued. All deficiencies brought to his attention by the building department have been addressed and remedied. Mr. Wexler and Mr. Jakubowski discussed a letter received from the CAC, regarding the deck, platform, footings. Mr. Jakubowski stated the plans submitted for this house are representative of what is at this location. There was a modification to the original plans and an amendment .was submitted probably at the time the house was being constructed. Mr. Wexler stated that the Town of Mamaroneck Conservation Advisory Commission has reviewed the application, and their recommendation was the property line should be delineated by moving the shrub line now encroaching into the Conservation area to within their property line and the lawn that currently extends in the Conservation area should be filled, mulched in wood chips and left to revert back naturally. The deck, flagstone terrace and path should be removed from the Conservation area. It is the intention of the seller to remove the flagstones, and the property line should be surveyed and staked, visibly marked, so there will be no confusion with future owners as to where the line is. Kevin O'Brien appeared and stated the shrubbery now existing are of no value, just blended in with the woods. Ms. Melitta Mitroff, 24 Country Road, and stated the house has been in existence for over twenty-five years. The deck had not been on the original house, but was built approximately in the last eight or ten years, and she is interested to see what happens to the Conservation area, which belongs to Westchester County and is leased by the Town. Mr. Wexler asked if there was an easement on the property. Mr. Karpel stated there is an easement of record in favor of the Town of Mamaroneck for sewer, water, etc. and an easement to Con Edison. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, 3-0. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -10- 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. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED unanimously: WHEREAS, Kenneth N. Karpel has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans for a Certificate of Occupancy for a house with an insufficient side yard and an encroachment into the Town of Mamaroneck Conservation Zone where land has been improved and cultivated for a residence located at Six Glen Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 315 Lot 24; 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 89-30.1 C and 17-4; and WHEREAS, Mr. Karpel 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 deck which encroached on the Town land has been removed and is no longer part of this application; 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 house was constructed with a Building Permit in 1961 and was occupied until 1994. 2. It would be a tremendous hardship to correct the inconsistency. 3. The house is in harmony with 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. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -11- 4. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be surveyed and staked with visible markers. 2. The property line shall be delineated by moving the shrub line now encroaching into the Conservation Area to within the house's property line. 3. The lawn that currently extends into the Conservation Area shall be tilled, mulched with wood chips and left to revert back naturally. 4. The flagstone terrace and path and any other encroachment on the Town Conservation Area shall be removed from the Conservation Area. 5. The platform and stairs presently at the side of the house shall remain at the same distance from the side yard, and a survey showing its distance from the side yard shall be provided. 7. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 8. 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; 9. 'This-decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2174 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Joann Brown requesting variances from Sections 89-34 B(2)(a) and 89-34(2)(b) to maintain a rear sunroom and deck. The sunroom has a side yard of 6.55 ft. at its closest point where 10.0 ft. is required, the deck has a side yard of 9.0 ft. at its closest point where 10.0 ft. is required and the total side yard is 15.55 ft. where 20.0 ft. 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-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 267 Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -12- Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110 Lot 35. The representative, Mr. Mustarato, said application before the Board is in regard to the sunroom and deck. The sunroom occupies an area on the house that was originally an open porch shown on the survey of 1967. The deck was added later, and the contractor, Frank Mambrini, was probably unaware of the requirements for a permit and the setback regulations and was built ten years ago. A neighbor had similar problems with the same contractor failing to obtain necessary permits needed for work performed. Olympia Rosheim, rP2ltor, said the house was exactly the same size and configuration, except for the deck, when she had listed house. Ms. Rosheim said she also lives on Rockingstone Avenue for thirty-three years and as Ms. Brown hasn't had any objections from the neighbors but simply makes the back look lovelier, that this should be considered. Ms. Brown said that she now needed a Certificate of Occupancy when house is listed for sale, and now has a contract for sale and hoped to close within a month. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously. 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. Mr. Kelleher made a motion, seconded by Mr. Simon and unanimously adopted the application No. 6 as presented be granted on the basis that the benefit to the applicant would far outweigh the negative impact to the neighborhood to include the following findings: 1. The construction was done ten years ago and has been used since with no objections. 2. The first-story sunroom as constructed appears to have been constructed on a preexisting foundation for an open porch. 3. The wood deck 9.2 ft. is relatively de minimis in nature. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -13- 5. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 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 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. 7 - CASE 2175 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Stephen Hendel requesting a variance from Section 89-32 B 3 to construct a side yard addition with a rear yard of 17.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Lot 445. Mr. Wexler said that he knows the applicant and feels it will not affect his hearing the case. Mr. Hendel introduced his architect, Jonathan Iselib, and presented his request stating he has lived in the house for thirteen years, the house was built in the last twenties, has an obsolete kitchen and garage located in the basement of the house facing the back of the property at a pitch that makes the garage unusable. Mr. Hendel discussed the survey regarding the property, at some point a wedge of the property was conveyed to the neighbors, lot 52, and will submit letters from neighbors in lot 52 and lot 50 who have no objection to this request. Mr. Hendel presented and discussed the proposed site plan with the Board. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -14- 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr.Gunther, the following resolutions were approved: WHEREAS, Stephen Hendel, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance from Section 89-32 B 3 to construct a side yard addition with a rear yard of 17.3 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Lot 445; 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 present garage is unusable. 2. The existing difficult parking situation has been a long-standing condition which the new construction will address. 3. Only a small portion of the rear yard is 17.3 ft. from the property line. The bulk of the addition is compliant. 4. The addition is tastefully done. It is in harmony with the house and those in the area. The construction requiring a variance is only a small part of a larger addition. 5. The lot is irregularly shaped. 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 helth, 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. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -15- NO W, 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 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 2176 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Richard Martin requesting a variance from Sections 89-67 A, 89-67 B and 89-3 to legalize an unenclosed off-street parking space not completely on his property 0.0 ft. at the front property line where 25.0 ft. is required and which is not 9 ft. by 20 ft. in size as required. Further, the parking space is 1.0 ft. from the south side-lot line where 5.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 70 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 289. Mr. Martin and his wife, Jill, appeared. Mrs. Martin discovered that a parking space on their property was in violation. The space was on the property when purchased ten years ago and it would create a hardship to remove the space because of the various improvements made to the property and the way the driveway is constructed, narrow and steep, and to park two cars it is difficult to get into the second car. Pictures were presented showing the difficulty, and presented a signed letter from the neighbors stating that it has been in existence for more than ten years in its present condition. 'Mr. Wexler asked about a survey, which was in the file, and stated the Martin's were parking in the right-of-way, and said the Board cannot grant a variance for a space in a public right-of- way. Mr. Gunther said the Martin's only had 34 ft. from the house to the end of the property line and anything beyond that is Town property. Mr. Jakuboswki said that the plan submitted to the Building Department with a highlighted line drawn by the applicant, the question remained as to the distance from the front of the building to the line. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -16- 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.Simon, the following resolutions were unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. Martin has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance from Sections 89-67 A, 89-67 B and 89-3 to legalize an unenclosed off-street parking space not completely on his property 0.0 ft. at the front property line where 25.0 ft. is required and which is not 9 ft. by 20 ft. in size as required. Further, the parking space is 1.0 ft. from the south side-lot line where 5.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 70 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 289; 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 89-44 D; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin 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 1. The Board cannot grant a variance to park on the right-of-way. 2. The off-street parking space currently on the Town right-of-way cannot be moved further within the lot as it would be adjacent to a stone wall with a drop to the driveway below. A dangerous egress would result. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED on the basis of the following: 1. That as presented the off-street parking area represented on the plans presented are in the Town area not on the owners property. 2. Moving the requested parking space forward, closer to the house, would position a parking area immediately adjacent to a macadam driveway sloping downward presenting a dangerous egress from anyone getting out of a car parked there. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -17- 3. There is a driveway and potential space that could be used for parking cars in the garage. A short discussion ensued regarding other alternatives the Martin's had. APPLICATION NO. 9 - CASE 2177 The Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Ramon and Lizette Rodriguez requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to construct a 157 linear ft., 5-ft. high fence, in a defined front yard where 4 ft. is the maximum height permitted for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 57 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 205 Lot 59. Ramon Rodriguez appeared appealing a denial in regard to the above application. The reason for the request for a 5-ft fence on Fenimore Road, the back of the house, is because Fenimore Road is a very highly traveled road, they have two children, one is 5 years old and an autistic 8 year old, can easily climb over a lower fence and run into the road. They had originally considered a 6 ft. fence like one of the neighbors, but decided a 5-ft. fence would be sufficient. Neighbors have no problem with the fence. The applicant just wants a barrier for protection of the children, as shrubbery would not create the barrier needed. Notice the slope of the property is such that views of other property owners will not be obstructed. The fence will be set back from the road and be screened by trees. Mr. Wexler asked if they would be facing the finished side to Fenimore Road, and the Rodriguez' said they realized that was the requirement. The construction of the fence is proposed to be approximately 25 feet in from the property line, and there will be trees in front of it. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously. 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. Gunther, the following resolutions were ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ramon and Lizette Rodriguez have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to construct a 157 linear ft., 5-ft. high fence, in a defined front yard where 4 ft. is the maximum height permitted Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -18- for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 57 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 205 Lot 59; 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 89-44 D; and WHEREAS, Ramon and Lizette Rodriguez 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 neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: _ 1. The fence is necessary to protect two children, one of whom is disabled and in need of supervision. 2. The construction of the fence is proposed to be approximately twenty-five (25 ft.) in from the property line. 3. The property is adjacent to a heavily trafficked road which presents a dangerous condition for the children. 4. There are a number of existing trees which will block any view of the fence. 5. The property slopes down, and the fence will not interfere with the views of any neighboring property. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 1995 -19- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: ti 1. The applicants should, if at all possible, plant bushes in front of the fence which shall be constructed with the "good" face out. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (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. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned. ri/'.-t-k s /I a 6?C - Bonnie M. Burdick, Recording Secretary