HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_05_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
MAY 22, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
"' if 'e
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Patrick B. Kelleher C�
Nina Recio
J. Rene Simon fa,
Arthur Wexlermipvi
�•�I
Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel
William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector
Erica Rizzi, Public Stenographer
Carbone & Associates, Ltd.
111 N. Central Park Avenue
Hartsdale, NY 10530
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2222 (adjourned from 4/23/96)
Application of Mr. Ira Fisher requesting a variance to construct a new one family dwelling,two story,with
detached one car garage with a front yard setback of 15.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section
89-35B(1)and the garage would have a 15.0 ft. setback where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-
35B(3)(b) and further the accessory garage would not be in the rear one-third of the lot as required
pursuant to Section 89-36B(3)(b) all for residence structures in an R-6 Zone District on the premises
located at 71 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 112 Lot 16.
Mr. Gunther said this case was adjourned from the prior Zoning Board meeting and that two members that
were not present at the last meeting are present this evening, i.e. Mr. Gunther and Ms. Recio. Mr.
Gunther asked if Ms. Recio had reviewed the documents, and she said that she reviewed the documents
and read the previous Minutes. Mr. Gunther said he also read all the documents, reviewed the Minutes
as well and visited the site as all the other Board members have done.
Jeff Meighan, the attorney representing the applicant appeared, along with Mr. Fisher and the architect,
Larry Gordon. Mr. Meighan apologized for not being present at the meeting last month, due to the fact
that the applicant thought the meeting was going to be on Wednesday, April 24, 1996 but the meeting was
on Tuesday, April 23, 1996. Mr. Meighan said after reading the Minutes from last month's meeting, he
wanted to clear up a few issues that were discussed. Firstly, Mr. Fisher is the owner of the property, and
took title in March, 1996. Mr. Fisher received a bill from the Town of Mamaroneck for cleanup of the
property. Mr. Fisher does not intend to reside in the proposed house, but will construct a house and sell
it on the open market. Mr. Gordon, the architect, will show that a house can be built on the property with
an attached garage as-of-right. What the applicant is asking for is three (3) variances, i.e. front setback
on the house and garage and locating the garage not in the rear one-third of the property. The applicant
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 2
is convinced it would be a better use of the property and better planning which will be explained. Another
issue raised at the last meeting was the concern about water. Mr. Fisher hired an expert who examined
the water problem, and a report is being submitted by Howard Lieberman, the result of which states there
is no water problem. If a dry well is installed there will be less runoff after the house is built and the dry
well installed than there would be now. Mr. Meighan also presented to the Board an updated survey to
show the condition of the property in front of the property line. Mr. Meighan then handed out three plans
of the property, Plan B which is the application, Plan A which is as-of-right and Plan C.
Mr. Gunther asked if all the plans have the same setback.
Mr. Meighan said Plan C has a lesser front setback, Plan A is the as-of-right and has a 30 ft. setback, and
Plan B has a 15 ft. setback.
Lawrence Gordon, the architect, then appeared and said that because the property is a corner lot, there are
two possible building envelopes to work with. Scheme A-1 is a smaller envelope, with less than 700 sq.
ft. required for a two story dwelling. Scheme A is a house that can be built over the 700 sq. ft. and
discussed the type of house and the setback which would only be 8 ft. from the neighbors property line in
the rear. Mr. Gordon schematically designed a colonial house,which allowed the applicant to get a setback
in the rear yard to give the neighbor a feeling of privacy. The garage was then placed to line up with the
existing garage which is adjacent to the proposed garage, which necessitated the need for a zoning variance
15 ft. more than is required. Because of the 15 ft. and approximately 17 ft. to the edge of the pavement,
there is a fairly large setback on that corner. This also allows saving a few trees. There is one other
possibility of pushing the house further back onto the property, which would also need a zoning variance
and would be close to the rear yard of the neighbors. The applicant feels the best solution for this property
® is the one proposed to the Board this evening.
Ms. Recio asked Mr. Gordon which Scheme the application is based upon.
Mr. Gordon said the application is based upon Scheme B.
Mr. Gunther stated with regard to Scheme A, which is as-of-right, there are two variations.
Mr. Gordon said yes, there are two variations because it is a corner lot, and the applicant can designate
which is the side yard and rear yard.
Mr. Gunther said he has some questions in clarifying what the zoning law permits the applicant to do. The
applicant has chosen are two different alternatives, one with a garage on the Daymon Terrace side and the
other with a garage to rear of the property towards the school. In both instances, the size of the house is
less than 700 sq. ft.
Mr. Gordon said in Scheme A-1 the size of the house is less than 700 sq. ft., and Scheme A will conform
as-of-right and it has over 700 sq. ft. A detailed discussion followed regarding the square footage and
design of the house.
Mr. Wexler asked what the reasons are for not proceeding with building as-of-right.
Mr. Gordon said one reason is because there would be no rear yard, and secondly, the house would not
look as well designed as the colonial.
Mr. Wexler asked if the house would be deficient in square footage.
Mr. Meighan said in Scheme B, the scheme in which the applicant is looking for approval, has more square
footage and is more marketable. Mr. Meighan then discussed the relation of the house and the garage on
the various schemes to the neighbors' property.
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
® Page 3
Mr. Gunther said looking at Scheme B it states 1,942 sq. ft. versus 1,440 sq. ft.
Mr. Meighan said the square footage of the property is 6,900 sq. ft. A 2,300 sq. ft. house can be built
as-of-right, creating less bulk for the neighbors.
Mr. Kelleher said in Mr. Gordon's opinion he stated that Scheme B would be more marketable. Would
that mean it would sell more rapidly and easily, would it command a higher price, or all of the above.
Mr. Gordon said probably all of the above.
Mr. Gunther asked what the basic differences are in the size of the house between Scheme C and Scheme
B.
Mr. Gordon said the house is the same size, the setback would be less.
Mr. Meighan presented a copy of the tax map showing the corner of Murray and Colonial and the corner
of Daymon Terrace, stating the structure is 13 ft. away from Colonial Avenue. The frontage would
conform on both houses. The sight line coming down Daymon, which is a one way street, is overgrown.
If the house is constructed as proposed, the sight line presents no problem with the safety factor and the
driveway on Colonial rather than the corner of Daymon Terrace.
Mr. Gunther asked which plan would allow for less trees to be removed.
Mr. Gordon said Plan B would allow for less trees to be removed.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board compares Plan A and Plan B, Plan B would have the least amount of trees
removed. He then presented an updated survey showing same, and a discussion ensued.
Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant is encroaching upon the as-of-right or right-of-way of the neighbor's
property, in regard to the driveway and the curb line.
Mr. Meighan said it is possible, but the neighbor doesn't own it either.
Mr. Wexler asked if it was normal when someone goes across the right-of-way that the driveway would
go in front of someone else's property? There could be a potential problem.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said it is not normal.
Mr. Meighan said it is a 60 ft. right-of-way, and the driveway could be curved.
Mr. Fisher said they will accommodate any issues, and sent a letter to the neighbors asking them to attend
a meeting to discuss any concerns.
Mr. Kelleher asked if Mr. Fisher had any opinion or estimate of the differential in selling price between
Scheme A and Scheme B.
Mr. Fisher said he did not make any detailed study of selling prices, but a guesstimate for sale of a house
under Plan A would probably be in the low$300's whereas a house under Plan B would probably sell in
the high $300's maybe $400's.
Ms. Recio asked about the cost of the property.
Mr. Fisher stated the property was purchased at a tax foreclosure for $40,000.
Mr. Wexler said Mr. Fisher would make a handsome profit on the as-of-right house.
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 4
Mr. Fisher said he hoped the venture would be a profitable situation, but the problem with the cost of
construction on the as-of-right plan is the angles, particularly with the excavation, as well as the general
construction which was not costed out before purchasing. After a plan is approved, then a detailed plan
would be drawn, as opposed to the preliminary drawings which were drawn and presented. Mr. Fisher
said when the property was purchased he found out he could build as-of-right which would have limitations
as discussed, but would rather build Plan B.
Mr. Meighan said the higher the selling price the more real estate taxes for the Town,and the house would
make the neighborhood more valuable.
Mr. Gunther asked is there were any questions from the Board or the public.
Richard Corinthal, 14 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said he lives across the street from the property in
question. He was present and spoke at the prior hearing and said it is clear from the responses to the
Board's questions that the basis for this variance application is to maximize profit on a real estate venture.
He feels it is an inappropriate basis for the request, the issue has been self-created, and there is no
necessity or need. The proposed house, despite statements made, will completely distort the house lines
on the block, would be disproportionate in terms of its proximity to the street and would not be attractive.
The proposed house would also be a detriment and detraction from the neighborhood, and will not add to
the value of the neighborhood. It is not an unsightly lot, and there will be the destruction of many trees
which he and the neighbors enjoy. There is no need other than the need to make more money, which is,
in his opinion, not a valid basis for a variance under the law.
Martin Luskin, 10 Colonial Avenue appeared and said he would like to respond to a few issues Mr.
Meighan made at the outset. Mr. Meighan said he wanted to alleviate the notion that the applicant is a real
estate broker and it is irrelevant. Mr. Luskin said the reason why that is relevant is because selling the
property on spec indicates there is no hardship and no need, but merely constructing a spec house for profit
motives. Positioning the driveway closer to Murray Avenue indicates the applicant does not know the
dynamics of Colonial Avenue and how it interacts particularly with school children, drop-off times and
pickup times, and adds to the congestion, at this point already taxed, to the limit.
David Robel, 28 Colonial Avenue, appeared and he said that seventeen people were present at the previous
meeting. The fact that the people are not repeating their objections is because they are taking seriously
the Board's request that the public not repeat their objections,and asked that the Board not take the silence
at this evening's meeting to be anything other than what was previously stated.
Vivian Frommer, 16 Colonial Avenue, appeared and stated she lives directly across from the lot and
concurs with what the neighbors have stated. In regard to Mr. Fisher's statement that the house would be
no more dangerous than trees, that is not true. When cars are coming down Daymon Terrace they would
not be able to look around the corner, because you can look through trees, you cannot look through a
house. Ms. Frommer objects to Mr. Fisher stating it is a dumping ground, because it is not a dumping
ground.
Charles Dougherty, 12 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said one of his objections to the proposed house
being constructed is an on-going flooding problem in the area, and asked if the applicant will put in a cellar
wider the house or will the house be built on a slab. Mr. Dougherty also asked if anyone has made a study
of what is underneath the surface of the ground, which is a rock ledge and a brook that runs along Murray
Avenue. If the applicant digs a cellar, there will be water in the cellar which will affect all the houses on
Murray Avenue and Colonial Avenue. If the applicant is building a house and does not alleviate the
flooding, it will cause more difficulty. The Town has already spent a great deal of money putting in a
sewer on the corner of Murray Avenue and Colonial Avenue.
Mr. Wexler said it is a relevant comment, because the applicant made a point of the complexity of the
foundation of the as-of-right. If the proposed house is built on a slab on grade, it is not a complex
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 5
foundation by any means. If investigation shows there is no requirement for a cellar, then part of the
argument for the variance is voided.
Mr. Gunther said when the public is finished making their statements, he will have the applicant respond.
If any situation like the one stated occurs, it is the property owner's responsibility to deal with it as it is
not a zoning issue. What the Board is dealing with is whether or not a variance should be granted to build
a house as it is proposed.
Mr. Gordon stated there will be a basement, in answer to that question.
Mr. Gunther asked counsel for clarification with respect to the questions raised by individuals with regard
to the position of a hardship. This is not a case of hardship made by the applicant asking for a variance,
and asked and what the Town law requires for approval of a variance having to do with the benefit of the
applicant as opposed to the benefit to the community.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said the state law was changed a couple of years ago. Although an applicant must show
unnecessary hardship when asking for a use variance, it is no longer required that there be either hardship
or practical difficulty in order to obtain an area variance. The Board is supposed to balance the benefit
of the applicant against the possible detriment to the community. To make a determination the Board is
supposed to decide whether what is being requested would produce an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood and detriment to nearby properties. Is there is another feasible method for the
applicant to pursue. Is the variance requested substantial. Is there is an adverse effect on the physical and
environmental conditions. Are the variances requesting the minimum necessary, and finally, is the
difficulty self-created. If the Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, that is not necessarily
determinative, and the Board can decide whether it should be or should not be granted. In summary the
determination is whether the advantage to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community.
Mr. Gunther offered Mr. Meighan an opportunity to respond to any of the questions or points that were
raised not only today, but may have been raised at the prior meeting. As a point of reference with regard
to Mr. Dougherty's question, Mr. Meighan may want to read the Howard Lieberman report before
responding, as it may answer some of the questions that Mr. Dougherty was raising.
Mr. Meighan said the Lieberman report says that the runoff due to creating impervious ground is minimal
and that the additional runoff from either scheme presented can easily be handled by a precast dry well
approximately 6 ft. 6 in. in diameter and 4 ft. high. The dry well is larger than what is required for the
100-year storm and would result in actually a reduction of flow from the property under all conditions up
to and exceeding the 100-year design storm. A percolation test had been performed and drainage
calculations prepared in accordance with the Town of Mamaroneck Erosion Control Ordinance. The 100-
year storm is the required bench mark. This ordinance requires that there be no additional runoff from
the property under those conditions opposed by the 100-year storm. Under all conditions less severe than
the 100-year storm, there will be less storm runoff from the property than now exists.
Mr. Gunther asked, then in providing development on the property including dry well, there would be less
runoff on the property as exists now?
Mr. Meighan said the applicant would be taking away some of the current runoff, and there would be less
runoff then there is as the property exists now.
Mr. Gunther then asked Mr. Meighan if he would address some of the other concerns the neighbors had.
Mr. Meighan pointed out that the frontage on the proposed site and the next door neighbor's property is
a triangular shaped property. In 1986 the Board granted a variance for an 11 ft. setback. This applicant
is asking for a 15 ft. setback.
Mr. Wexler said he believed the variance was granted for a deck, not a house, and it was irrelevant.
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Meighan concurred it was for a deck and said it is relevant. It is not a matter of how much money
Mr. Fisher will make, but that there will be a house built on the property because the applicant has shown
that a house can be built as-of-right. The question is how best to develop the property. Is it best to
construct a house that is not as well designed, sits closer to the neighbors, creates less privacy and takes
down more trees? Wouldn't it be better, considering that a house will be built, to have a house better
designed, better laid out on the property, with a better traffic pattern, save some trees, and give privacy
to those folks who live on Murray Avenue, putting the house closer to a playground.
Mr. Gunther asked the audience to give each speaker the courtesy that they will be extended, when they
are acknowledged.
Mr. Meighan said under the applicant's proposal there would be more privacy for the residents of Murray
Avenue. It is not a detriment to the neighborhood as compared to the house that can be built as-of-right,
which should be kept in mind.
Martin Luskin said to answer counsel's question of which development is the more appropriate one, a
better design or whatever other factors he mentioned, the glove doesn't fit. Take the best most beautifully
designed house presented, it doesn't fit in the neighborhood. A house with a 15 ft. setback where the law
requires 30 ft. is not an appropriate home. Further, to illustrate the lack of knowledge of the dynamics
of community, is the statement about the school yard. Hundreds of children are in the school yard all the
time, weekends and Monday through Friday. Did the report say that the larger house is more beneficial
from the runoff point of view than the smaller house?
Mr. Meighan said from either scheme there would be less runoff.
Mr. Luskin asked, if you build the as-of-right home would there be less runoff than there is now?
Mr. Meighan said there would be less runoff with a house built than with no house.
David Robel, 28 Colonial Avenue, said you cannot build a viable house on that lot without a zoning
variance. It is not the job of the Board to help people like Mr. Fisher who comes before the Board with
the intention of making more profit than anyone rightfully deserves by abusing his privileges and asking
for a variance he is not entitled to, i.e. 15 ft. where the setback is 30 ft., a 50% variance which is an
extreme.
Mr. Morganstern appeared and said Mr. Fisher proposes to put a garage and driveway where there is now
grass, bushes and trees. It will have a direct impact on the value of Mr. Morganstern's property
aesthetically for this reason. It will not enhance the environment nor enhance the value of the neighboring
property.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Fisher if he was asking for two variances, not just the setback but also bringing
the attached garage closer to the property line than what the code requires.
Mr. Fisher said technically three variances are being applied for, the garage has a double variance. A
discussion followed regarding the rear yard requirements and garage. Mr. Fisher then continued with
comments regarding reapplying for another variance, should the one requested not be granted. Mr. Fisher
then discussed the trees marked on the survey, the shrubs and overgrowth, the driveway and safety, stating
the entire Murray Avenue school is surrounded by homes with driveways. The proposal is just another
home with a driveway. The proposed plan shows the driveway in the center of the block into the
neighboring house at 186 Murray Avenue, instead of being at a corner. The safer plan is the proposed
plan. After reading the Minutes of the prior meeting, Mr. Fisher was surprised at the opposition, as he
can build a house as-of-right. When you consider the issue of the detriment to the community, the
proposed plan is more appealing. In response to the question that the property is not a dumping ground,
if there is any doubt two days after the property closing Mr. Fisher received a bill dated October 12, 1995
from the Town for services rendered to clean property for the above-referenced lot with the tax bill. Mr.
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 7
41)
Fisher later learned that a neighbor had complained about the condition of the property and took
photographs of the property which were presented to the Board. Before purchasing the property Mr.
Fisher had a discussion with the building inspector about the property and was advised that a house would
be beneficial because it was a notorious dumping ground. The proposed house is a 1,940 sq. ft. house in
keeping with the community. As far as the issue of the cellar and flooding,the Lieberman report has put
everything in perspective. As far as the garage is concerned, having the garage in the front will result in
less impervious area due to a shorter driveway and installing brick pavers rather than blacktop. If the
Board requests a gravel driveway, Mr. Fisher will oblige and will do anything reasonable. The real issue
is, is there a real detriment to the community? The people in the area do not want the property developed.
Plan C is just as good as Plan B, but has a lesser encroachment by 1-1/2 ft. and the exact same house.
Lastly, there is in the front of the property line approximately 13 additional feet to the inside of the
sidewalk, so the effective setback at the curb would be 28 ft.
Valerie O'Keeffe said as a point of information after having read the Minutes of the last meeting at which
she was not present, she was wondering whether this situation calls for a referral under SEQRA with
respect to the fact that there is and "underground stream" in front of 188 Murray Avenue and the proposed
house next to it. A sewer pipe was installed,but there is an instability in the two other houses and she was
wondering if that has been addressed.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said if the Board believes it is necessary in consideration of this application, it can be
referred to the Town Engineer for an independent report.
Mr. Wexler said with respect to SEQRA a single family house is automatically a Type II action having no
negative impact.
COMr. Kirkpatrick said it is automatic in a Type II action with respect to SEQRA. There is no possibility
of an impact statement, but there is nothing to stop the Board from referring it to the Town Engineer.
Mr. Gunther said a short form environmental assessment was provided by the applicant with the application
as is required. Mr. Gunther's opinion is to keep it as a Type II action, considering the fact that other
applications have come before the Board this evening and have been dealt with in the same manner.
Madeline Berg, the liaison from the Coastal Zone Management Committee in the Town appeared, and said
although it is a Type II action for a one family home, the Board could ask for an advisory opinion of the
Coastal Zone Management Commission.
Nathaniel Adam, 20 Colonial Avenue, appeared and said he objects to Mr. Fisher referring to the property
as a dumping ground. It is a pleasant piece of greenery, and when the driver showed up to clean out the
property he couldn't find it. Having lived in the area for 32 years and the property having never cleaned
before, when the driver took the trash away there had to be an accumulation of 32 years worth of material.
Mr. Morganstern, 188 Murray Avenue, appeared and said he wanted to respond to Mr. Fisher. He said
he appreciates the submission of the water study but has a house on the neighboring property which sunk
2 ft. because of problems caused in the underground soil. After an investment of$5,000. to repair the
house and he was assured by the company that repaired the house there would be no further leakages. At
the last excessive flooding in the area, Mr. Morganstern had 2 ft. of water throughout the entire basement.
There are major water problems in the area and the study as presented could be scientifically sound.
However, the prevailing circumstances may prove otherwise.
Mr. Gunther said if there were no other comments from the public,he will close the public hearing on this
matter. There being no other comments, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board
members. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the
following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0.
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 8
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. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Mr. Ira Fisher have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with
plans to construct a new one family dwelling, two story, with detached one car garage with a front yard
setback of 15.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35B(1) and the garage would have a
15.0 ft. setback where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35B(3)(b) and further the accessory
garage would not be in the rear one-third of the lot as required pursuant to Section 89-36B(3)(b) all for
residence structures in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 71 Colonial Avenue and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 16; 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(1), Section 89-35B(3)(b)and Section 89-36B(3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ira Fisher 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 detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood far outweighs the benefit to the applicant for the special circumstances and/or conditions
applying to the land and the variance sought is DENIED and also finds as follows:
1. A potential undesirable change to the neighborhood will be caused by construction of the
house as proposed.
2. Many neighbors on the surrounding streets took their time to come and express their
opinion at the previous meeting and this meeting and have been unanimous demonstrating
detriment to the neighborhood and a lack of advantage over construction by right.
3. The applicant has a viable solution as-of-right, as stated by the applicant.
4. The requested area variance is substantial as set forth in the test the Board must use to
balance the application in granting or denying it.
5. This is a self-created hardship. The applicant is in the real estate business and knew or
should have known the limitations of the property as a purchaser.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED. This decision shall be
filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
•
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 9
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2225
Application of Permits Unlimited requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy for a greenhouse
constructed with a rear yard of 12.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(3) for a
single family residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 110 North Chatsworth Avenue
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113 Lot 254.
Cheryl Cicero, Permits Unlimited,representing the applicant Mr. &Mrs. Sonnenborn appeared requesting
an area variance for an existing greenhouse. Pictures were presented to the Board for their review. Ms.
Cicero then proceeded to state the following. The house was constructed in 1924, and the house was
purchased 45 years ago. On March 5, 1949 a building permit was issued to construct a one family
residence and one car garage, no rear yard. On May 21, 1965 a building permit was issued to construct
a greenhouse in the rear yard. On June 15, 1966 a building permit was issued to construct a bay window
in front of the house. On May 22, 1975 a building permit was issued to enclose the porch on the side
yard. After meeting with Mr. Gerety, the assistant Building Inspector with submission of an updated
survey, Mr. Gerety indicated the subject property is located on a corner lot and must have two rear yards
with a minimum of 25 ft. Mr. Cicero said she can only assume it was an oversight of the Building
Department to issue a building permit for the greenhouse on May 21, 1965 because the rear yard setback
has not changed. Mr. & Mrs. Sonnenborn are a retired couple, are in the process of selling their home
and must obtain the required Certificate of Occupancies for the open building permits mentioned. The
greenhouse is not visible to the side and rear yard properties. The rear yard is well screened with six to
seven foot evergreens approximately four feet on center, and the garage secludes the greenhouse on the
side. Mr. & Mrs. Sonnenbom must obtain a variance for the greenhouse. To demolish the greenhouse,
previously permitted thirty years ago, would cause financial and unreasonable hardship to the Sonnenboms
and Ms. Cicero respectfully request the Board's approval of the application and will comply with any
requirements.
Mr. Gunther asked if an estimate was secured to demolish the greenhouse.
Ms. Cicero said no estimate had been secured.
Mr. Wexler said a permit was issued to build the greenhouse, and a Certificate of Occupancy was never
obtained. A discussion followed.
Ms. Cicero said permit number 5938 was issued for the greenhouse.
Mr. Gerety said the Sonnenborns received a variance for a one story glass enframed addition on the side
because they did not have 25 ft. in the rear. At one time they could have elected that to have been the side
yard because it is a corner lot. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said what Mr. Gerety is saying is that in a previous variance request the applicant elected
that portion to be the rear yard, and for some reason no one noticed at that time that the glass sun room
was already existing and had a lesser rear yard then what they were requesting a variance for.
Mr. Gerety said it could have been oversight of the building inspector at the time, as there wasn't any
survey at the time. The applicant has provided an updated survey.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public and the Board. There being none,
after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed
and adopted unanimously, 5-0.
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
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 10
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 resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Permits Unlimited have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together
with plans requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy for a greenhouse constructed with a rear
yard of 12.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(3) for a single family residence in
an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 110 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113 Lot 254; 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 89-34B(3); and
WHEREAS, Permits Unlimited 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 greenhouse has been on the site for thirty(30) years.
2. The greenhouse is shielded by six (6) or seven (7) tall evergreens.
3. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this
Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
4. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also
preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the
applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this
Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution;
2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit;
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 11
•
3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the
Town Law.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2226
Application of Mr. & Mrs. David Krenkel requesting a variance to construct a 2-1/2 story addition with
a side yard of 7.2 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a); and would have a total
side yard of 14.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b);and the addition increases
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57; and, further the widening
of the driveway would provide an unenclosed parking space within 25.0 ft. of the front property line, at
7.5 ft. from the front line and 2 ft. 0 in. from a side lot line where 5.0 ft. is required, both pursuant to
Section 89-67B for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Hillside Road and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 240.
Mr. Wexler said he is-abstaining from this case, as he knows the applicant and the neighbor next door that
is complaining about the case.
Ms. Recio said she also knows the applicant, but does not feel that will be a problem.
Mr. Gunther said he also knows the applicant as well, but will be able to hear the case impartially.
Frank Ambrosio,architect,appeared representing the applicant,Mr. &Mrs. David Krenkel. The applicant
{ is filing for a variance for a side yard setback and also a variance for the front driveway to park. The
applicant is proposing to add a second floor addition to an existing structure which is on the first floor.
There is no change in the setbacks or the footprint that is in existence,just a proposal for an addition to
what is now an open porch. The addition does not go past the rear line of the building. The roof line is
the same. The applicant is looking for an additional parking space in the driveway, because there is only
a single car garage.
Mr. Ambrosio presented some photographs to the Board for their review.
Mr. Gunther asked when the house was built.
Mr. Ambrosio said the house was built in 1928.
Mr. Gunther asked if the garage and sun room were built at the time of construction.
Mr. Ambrosio said he believed the sun room was built at the time of construction of the house.
Mr. Gunther asked what is on top of the second story.
Mr. Ambrosio said on top of the second story is a roof and attic space above the roof.
Mr. Gunther asked what the head room is in the attic, and asked if the applicant planned the attic to be
habitable space.
Mr. Ambrosio said the head room is approximately 7.6 ft. or 8 ft. at the ridge, but was not quite sure,and
the space is not planned to be habitable space.
Mr. Gunther asked if any other part of the third floor is habitable space.
Mr. Ambrosio said there is existing habitable space on the third floor,but did not have a floor plan to show
an existing bedroom and utility room.
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 12
Mr. Gunther then asked Mr. Ambrosio to reiterate the parking space, and asked about the size of the
existing garage.
Mr. Ambrosio said the garage is a single car garage, approximately 12 ft. x 20-22 ft., basically below the
existing family room.
Mr. Kelleher asked Mr. Gunther if the letter addressed to the chairman of the board had been read.
Mr. Gunther then read the letter to the Board from Edward Z. Jacobson, A.I.A. architect. "My wife and
I live at 15 Hillside Road. We have received notice that our neighbors at 21 Hillside Road have made
application for a zoning variance, Case 2226, to construct a 2-1/2 story addition to their house at 7.2 ft.
from the side yard line, and further to widen the driveway to provide an unenclosed parking space 2 ft.
from the side yard line. On Friday, May 17, 1996 I reviewed the plans for this work at the Building
Department. We wish to advise you and the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals that we oppose in
the strong possible terms the granting of a variance for the above work. If permitted, the proposed
construction of the 2-1/2 story high addition would stand within 20 feet of our house at a height of possible
35 ft. to the ridge of the roof. As viewed from the windows of our bedroom which face toward the
addition,due to its width and height the addition would appear massive and block out our view of the sky
and limit the sunlight which reaches the east side of our house. The 2nd floor windows of the proposed
addition would be immediately opposite those of our bedroom and significantly reduce what visual privacy
exists now. Moreover, during the season when we will enjoy having our windows open, there will be no
sound privacy. If this addition were permitted,the resulting relationship between our two houses with their
living spaces facing one another across such a short distance, would be inconsistent with any other pair of
dwellings on this street. We believe that this is not only detrimental to us, but also to the character of the
street. In the same vein, the widening of the driveway to park a car 2 ft. from the side yard line and 7.5
ft. from the front property line not only will be visually unpleasant to us sitting on our front porch, but is
inconsistent with other driveways on this street which are generally only one car width wide. The prospect
of setting a precedent for widening driveways on Hillside Road is not a positive direction for the visual
aspect of the street. From my inspection of the drawings and the site, it appears that his driveway
widening will jeopardize the root system of a fine and very old tree which stands in the way. The loss of
this tree could be an unhappy consequence of the need for more convenient parking. As an architect who
has reviewed and fully understood the proposed construction, I believe that if the variance were granted,
the result of this work would be oppressive to us and wrong for Hillside Road. My wife and I wish to
thank the Board for consideration of our position."
Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any other questions from the Board members.
Mr. Kelleher said the applicant's architect indicated that he has seen the letter from Mr. Jacobson
previously, and said he would be interested to hear whether the applicant or architect has any thoughts
about the objection that Mr. Jacobson has.
Mr. Ambrosio said basically Mr. Jacobson's concern is obviously privacy, which Mr. Ambrosio does not
believe the addition will affect. There are existing trees to separate the addition. There are two windows
that face the side yard, the photographs show the location of the house, the trees and the windows next to
it which are an issue at this point. The trees will remain. The applicant has had someone look at the tree
in question and to determine where the root system is located, and they felt that there was no problem with
the addition of the driveway in that area. As far as losing privacy because of noise, right now the deck
is an open deck. If it was an enclosed room, it might be a lot more quiet.
Mr. Kelleher said that in the second paragraph of Mr. Jacobson's letter he advised the Board that he and
his wife had received notice of the application and would be interested to know whether the applicant,other
than the required notice that is sent from the Building Department, ever discussed the proposal with Mr.
Jacobson.
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 13
David Krenkel responded by stating he actually had a conversation with Mr. Jacobson sometime ago and
asked if Mr. Jacobson would like to undertake the project. It was Mr. Krenkel's opinion that Mr.Jacobson
had undertaken the project then stopped, and said Mr. Jacobson was quite aware of what the Krenkels were
proposing.
Mr. Kelleher then said, previously counsel recited the balancing act required of the Board in a previous
case before the Board this evening that the burden is on the applicant to persuade the Board that the benefit
to the applicant in the granting of a variance outweighs the detriment and negative impact to the
neighborhood or the neighbor and asked for Mr. Krenkel's comment regarding same.
Mr. Krenkel said he understands the Jacobsons'concern, but the Krenkels are trying to get additional room
that is needed at this point. The Krenkels do not have any intentions of creating problems for the
Jacobsons, do not intend to build something that is aesthetically unpleasant, and feel the application is not
an unreasonable request.
Ms. Recio asked if there are any other houses on the block that have an additional cut-out driveway with
respect to the expansion of the parking.
Mr. Ambrosio presented some photographs to the Board of houses in the area which do have similar
situations, one on the block across the street from the house.
Mr. Gunther asked how many feet the house in the photograph to the left is from the lot line? There is
a patio between the house.
Mr. Ambrosio said there is a brick patio, and basically there is a fence separating the two properties.
Mr. Gunther thanked Mr. Ambrosio for responding to a question in reference to a house next door to the
applicant.
Mr. Ambrosio showed some photographs within the area of similar additions done almost the same as the
one requested.
Mr. Gunther asked if the photographs submitted were legal situations with variances granted or just
situations on the street.
Mr. Ambrosio said the later was a correct assumption, as he did not research the matter.
Mr. Simon asked Mr. Ambrosio if he had spoken to Mr. Jacobson about the 35 ft. high Oak, and asked
why the proposed addition could not be a flat roof due to the fact that the attic is not going to be used for
living area.
Mr. Ambrosio said the idea was to keep the proposed addition in context with what currently exists and
referred to a photograph of a flat roof which is somewhat unattractive. He stated that to build a flat roof
due to one persons' opposition because of the height of the proposed construction does not seem feasible.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members and the public.
Edward Jacobson appeared, along with his wife Amy, and presented and explained to the Board a
photograph enlargement made with the addition superimposed, to give the Board some idea of the massing
of the house in relation to his house. In responding to some of the comments made by applicant's
architect, Mr. Jacobson said the significant problem is that the mass of the proposed addition towers over
the Jacobson house because of the height of the ridge and breadth of the addition. The distance between
the two houses would be approximately 19 ft. which is extremely tight, and the addition would block out
sunlight and reduce privacy. The detrimental affect on the Jacobsons would be very significant. Mr.
Jacobson said he didn't know if any of the Board members had been to the site to review the property, at
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 14
which time the Board members said they had. As far as sound privacy is concerned, the applicant's
architect made a point that at present there is an open porch above the first floor room. In the Jacobsons
experience, that porch has never been used. The applicant also made the point that the project was
discussed with Mr. Jacobson and the applicant felt Mr. Jacobson was on board to do the project and then
declined. The project was discussed at which time Mr. Jacobson invited Mrs. Krenkel to come in and look
across at the where the proposed addition would be, and Mr. Jacobson then declined the project because
it was truly overwhelming.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Jacobson, because he is an architect, what he would propose if the house was his
house and he needed the space.
Mr. Jacobson said he does not know how to add another room onto the applicants' house without doing
exactly what the applicant is proposing. In so doing, it has a negative impact on Mr. Jacobson's property
without question. Mr. Jacobson does not know how to do the addition in a way that would ameliorate that
factor.
Mr. Simon asked Mr. Jacobson if he would object if the applicant constructed a flat roof.
Mr. Jacobson said he didn't think the roof situation could be isolated. At the level of the Jacobsons
bedroom the breadth of the house is very wide, and would not be affected in a positive way by changing
the roof.
Mr. Gunther asked if the applicants' house is to the north of Mr. Jacobson.
Mr. Jacobson said the applicants' house is to the east. A discussion followed regarding the position of the
sun and the results of the position of the sun.
Amy Jacobson appeared and addressed Mr. Kelleher's question about the Jacobsons being informed. The
Jacobsons were informed that this was a proposed idea, and the last contact with the Krenkels occurred
when Ms. Krenkel was invited to the Jacobsons'house to look out the window and see where the proposed
addition would be. The Jacobsons were never shown plans and never received a letter, until notice was
received from the Zoning Board. Ms. Jacobson said they have lived in the house for 20 years, and the
most serious problem is that the proposed addition faces the bedroom, it's really close, 19 ft., and the
sound privacy will be gone. In regard to the parking space, it is 2 ft. from the property line and it is
potentially dangerous to have a parking space that close to the property line. It is close to the brick path,
which leads to their back yard, which is used all the time. The Jacobsons supported a variance for 21
Hillside before the current applicants moved in for a deck. This case would devalue the property.
Mr. Gunther said he empathizes with Ms. Jacobson, but at the same time is trying to find an approach to
try to alleviate the problem. If there were no windows in that room, would that make a difference.
Ms. Jacobson said that she wouldn't be happy with the proposed structure, but without windows it would
probably be better.
Mr. Jacobson said a point was made earlier that zoning variances are very serious matters of consideration
and there needs to be some public benefit for the tradeoff, and certainly no harm done to adjacent
properties. The Jacobsons feel there is harm done, and do not see corresponding public good.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public,and asked Mr. Ambrosio if there was
anything else he would like to add.
Mr. Ambrosio said he understands there are issues regarding privacy and understands the proximity of the
house cannot be changed. There are windows in existence now facing the Jacobsons' house, but there are
fairly large evergreens separating the properties which supply adequate screening to accommodate privacy
at this point in time. The applicant has no intention of removing the trees. The photographs submitted
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 15
show the proximity of the trees, the amount of trees existing and the amount of coverage. There is no
other place to add room that is needed, and there are no other options.
Ms. Recio asked Mr. Ambrosio if the applicant would be inclined to consider any modifications to the
design in a discussion with the neighbors, i.e. roof line, windows, hemlocks?
Mr. Ambrosio said there is a possibility that the windows could be removed to afford more privacy, and
will discuss it with his client. The existing shrubbery will not be removed. A discussion ensued regarding
the type of shrubbery and current diseases affecting them.
Mr. Jacobson said the trees that exist between the houses have high branches, the second floor branches
are sparse, and there is no screening afforded whatsoever.
Amy Jacobson said she has a question about the windows. If a variance were granted without windows,
is there anything that would prevent someone else from being allowed to install windows at a future time?
Mr. Gerety said that would be a structural modification,it would be subjected to a building permit process,
and it would be noted on the certification if a variance is granted that windows would not be allowed.
Mr. Krenkel said there are existing windows, and he does not see the proposal as changing the situation
that exists. The removal of the proposed windows can be discussed.
Mr. Gunther said the Board has two different courses of action, and will leave it up the applicant to make
a determination as to how the Board should proceed. The Board could either hold the application over until
the next meeting to allow the parties involved to discuss the options and come to some modified conclusion
as to what may be acceptable to both, or the applicant and his neighbor can spend a few moments to try
to come to some conclusion if that is possible.
After a short discussion, Mr. Krenkel said he would like to proceed.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public. There being none,.
the public hearing was closed.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed
and adopted 3-1, with 1 abstention (Mr. Wexler).
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 Ms. Recio, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. David Krenkel have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a 2-1/2 story addition with a side yard of 7.2 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required
pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(a); and would have a total side yard of 14.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required
pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(b); and the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57; and, further the widening of the driveway would provide an
unenclosed parking space within 25.0 ft. of the front property line, at 7.5 ft. from the front line and 2 ft.
0 in. from a side lot line where 5.0 ft. is required, both pursuant to Section 89-67B for a residence in an
R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map
of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 240; and
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 16
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 89-34B(2)(a),Section 89-34B(2)(b), Section 89-57, and Section 89-67B; and
WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. David Krenkel 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 detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood far outweighs the benefit to the applicant for the special circumstances and/or conditions
applying to the land and the variance sought is DENIED and also finds as follows:
1. The house at present is only 7.2 ft. from the side lot line and a total of 19 ft. from the
adjoining house.
2. The house at present has total side yards of only 14 ft.
3. There will be a detriment to the adjoining property in that the proposed structure due to
sidewall massing and will loom over the house to the south and will inhibit light and air.
4. No showing was made that there is an alternative.
5. Mitigation of the addition such as landscaping was not demonstrated to be feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED. This decision shall be
filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
Mr. Gunther announced a ten minute recess.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2227
Application of Thomas Kearns requesting a variance to construct a new masonry garage with a setback of
110.0 ft. from the front lot line where 140.0 ft. is required for the garage in the rear 1/3 of the property
pursuant to Section 89-43B(2)(c); and further the side yard would be 1.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required
pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(c) and the driveway would be 4.0 ft. from the side yard line where 5.0 ft.
is required pursuant to Section 89-67B for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located
at 54 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
122 Lot 15.
William Maker, Jr., of McMillan, Constable, Maker et al., appeared for the applicant along with Elsie
Kearns one of the applicants and Robert Stanziale, architect. At this point in time, Mr. Maker
congratulated the Board on its recent success before the Westchester County Supreme Court on the
Pressman case.
Mr. Maker then said the issue regarding this case is dealing with a dilapidated garage in existence for sixty
or seventy years, the house having been built in 1910. The intention of the applicant is to replace it with
a concrete block garage instead of a wood garage currently existing affording more safety from fire hazards
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 17
and providing some security due to the fact that the existing garage is such that no door can be installed
without demolishing what exists. The proposal is to build the garage in the same location as the existing
garage. The existing garage encroaches on the neighboring property by about 1 ft., and the proposed
application will correct that issue. In addition, the garage currently accommodates one and one-half cars,
and the applicant would like to construct a two car garage.
Robert Stanziale appeared and proceeded to discuss replacing the existing garage with the proposed garage
stating it will be 1 ft. off the side yard property line which corrects the situation where the existing garage
is 1 ft. over the property line. The garage will be sided to match the existing house. The existing garage
is approximately 16 ft. x 18 ft., and the proposed garage will be 20 ft. x 24 ft. which would comfortably
accommodate two cars allowing for a rear storage area. The difference between the present garage and
the proposed garage is that it will be projecting over a retaining wall. A concrete wall will be constructed
in the back with a footing to pick up 3 ft. to 4 ft. behind the existing retaining wall. There is a problem
moving the garage closer to the house, i.e. aesthetically it will close in an area between the two houses,
and there is a 10 ft. distance separation requirement between the accessory structure and the main house
as well. Additionally, there is a large rock ledge at the end of the street bed, and the applicant will
probably have to remove a portion of it in order to accommodate the proper driveway. The garage will
not go beyond the existing window on the adjoining house.
The Board reviewed pictures on file.
Mr. Maker said that Mr. Kirkpatrick had stated, the Town Law has been amended to set forth criteria for
area variances which is a balancing test between the benefit to the applicant and detriment to the neighbors.
Mr. Maker then said there will be no undesirable change, as the proposed garage will be built virtually on
the footprint of the existing garage and there will not be much of a difference other than a new and
improved garage. There is no other feasible method to pursue, other than applying for a variance. Mr.
Maker then submitted photographs Mrs. Kearns took so the Board can get a sense of the topography,and
proceeded to discuss the presentation regarding the grade and placement on the Edgewood Avenue side of
the house. The question as to whether the variance is substantial, the applicant has a nonconforming,
preexisting garage in the same spot and there is certainly not much issue of the variance being substantial.
The next criterion is whether it will have an adverse environmental effect, and this is not an environmental
issue. The next issue is whether the problem is self-created. The garage is a legal nonconforming use that
goes back seventy or eighty years and was not created by the applicants. Mr. Maker stated he believes
the applicant satisfies all the criteria of 267-B of the Town Law, and respectfully requests that a variance
be granted.
Mr. Wexler asked if, for the record, the applicant is increasing the garage by 40%.
Mr. Stanziale said the garage is being increased by approximately 30%.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed
and adopted unanimously, 5-0.
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. Simon, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Thomas Kearns has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with
plans to construct a new masonry garage with a setback of 110.0 ft. from the front lot line where 140.0
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 18
ft. is required for the garage in the rear 1/3 of the property pursuant to Section 89-43B(2)(c); and further
the side yard would be 1.0 ft. where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34B(2)(c)and the driveway
would be 4.0 ft. from the side yard line where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-67B for a
residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 54 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 15; 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 89-43B(2)(c), Section 89-34B(2)(c), and Section 89-67B; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Kearns 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 parcel is an irregularly shaped lot with topography slopping down and away with a
retaining wall to the rear which makes it very difficult to locate the garage in the rear
one-third of the lot.
2. It is a unique piece of property with the access of the road coming into the center of the
property on the side as opposed to a traditional lot which has the road close to the
driveway.
3. The new garage is in almost the same location as the old.
4. It is in proximity to the house with relation to the setback from the side yard lot line.
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;
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 19
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 Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2228
Application of Frank and Antoinette Auricchio requesting a variance to operate a vehicle storage yard as
the use of the outdoor parking area as a vehicle storage area is prohibited pursuant to Section 89-28.1A(8)
which requires storage businesses to be conducted within enclosed buildings in a Service Business (SB)
Zone District. Further, the need for parking spaces required pursuant to Section 89-66A for the other
business uses has not been addressed, and the use for storage of vehicles may reduce the available parking
to require variances for the vacant spaces on the premises located at 5 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 609.
Robert Stanziale, architect, appeared representing the applicant, and stated the applicant is in the process
of legalizing the various uses on the site for some time and new uses. At present the exterior storage area
is utilized by DeGiacomo Towing Service which operates primarily at a service station diagonally across
the street from the site. The site is immediately adjoining an existing building. To the rear of the property
is the access road to the adjoining Thruway, and about 2,000 sq. ft. of that area is an area that can
accommodate up to 18 to 20 cars. It is a use variance, and the applicant is proposing to legalize the
parking lot used by Collins Brothers Moving Service business across the street, a clothing store and other
uses.
Mr. Wexler questioned whether the parking lot is a subject of the variance?
Mr. Stanziale said no, the parking lot is not a subject of the variance,just the exterior storage. The other
uses shown are permitted uses before the Planning Board for Site Plan approval and CZMC as well.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Stanziale if he was referring to space#5 on the plan, DeGiacomo Towing Service.
Mr. Stanziale said that was correct.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Stanziale where DeGiacomo tows cars from and asked if the applicant puts cars in
that area while he works on them.
Mr. Stanziale said the applicant tows illegally parked cars from other areas.
Valerie O'Keeffe , Town Board Liaison, said DeGiacomo is one of the two approved towing services in
the Town of Mamaroneck, the other is Vincents. DeGiacomo is the only towing service in the
unincorporated area of the Town of Mamaroneck.
Mr. Stanziale said the cars are towed to the area on a short term basis, which is a fenced in area, and will
not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Stanziale said Mr. Auricchio has had a significant
problem for many years financially trying to keep the premises afloat, and does rely on rent from the
property to keep the property afloat. It is a financial hardship.
Mr. Wexler asked if you can have a 6 ft. high fence in a commercial zone without a variance.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said it is a use variance, and the applicant must demonstrate there is no other use for the
property. The applicant must show there is no way to use this property for anything else other than the
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 20
uses currently permitted. That does not seem possible and thus it would seem that this really should be
an application to the Town Board for a zoning amendment.
Ms. Recio asked how many different businesses the applicant has tried to accommodate.
Mr. Gunther said it is more than that, the applicant has to show that the financial wherewithal supersedes
doing something else and prove that case. Merely making a statement is insufficient evidence.
Mr. Wexler asked for a clarification: Is it only that area of the site for five (5) uses, or the whole site's
use?
Mr. Kirkpatrick said it applies to the whole site. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Gunther said what is before the Board is an application to operate a vehicle storage yard, not a parking
area at 5 Fifth Avenue.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said all storage uses have to be indoors.
Mr. Kelleher said the applicant has to demonstrate there is no other viable use of that property.
Mr. Gunther said the Notice of Denial from the Building Inspector reads, "the use of the outdoor parking
area as a vehicle storage area is prohibited pursuant to Section 89-28.1A(8) which requires storage
businesses to be conducted within enclosed buildings in a Service Business (SB) Zone District. Further,
the need for parking spaces required pursuant to Section 89-66A for the other business uses has not been
addressed, and the use for storage of vehicles may reduce the available parking to require variances for
the vacant spaces".
Mr. Gunther said there are a number of issues the applicant needs to address, and Mr. Auricchio needs
to present figures validating the problems.
Mr. Stanziale said on the denial as a result of the storage yard, there would be the potential removal of
other required parking spaces on the site. That is not the case, as a breakdown was shown. The property
is barely surviving, and the applicant will have to present a balance sheet and the effort made to rent the
spaces. Mr. Stanziale said Mr. Gerety, the assistant Building Inspector can attest to the fact that numerous
potential tenants have inquired about renting the property in the last six months,and the uses presented are
still proposed. Mr. Auricchio would rather rent to one tenant. Mr. Stanziale requested adjourning the
hearing to the next meeting, to produce some financial information to be presented to the Board.
Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Stanziale to be sure the applicant takes sufficient time in preparing what the
requirements are for the use variance.
Mr. Wexler said he feels it would be wise for the applicant to be present at the next meeting also.
A discussion followed regarding the proposed tenants, parking, site plan approval, etc.
Mr. Gunther made a motion that application No. 5, Case 2228, be adjourned until the next meeting,which
was seconded by Mr. Kelleher and unanimously approved.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on June 26, 1996, at 8:00 at p.m. not 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Gunther said before going on to the approval of the Minutes he had an announcement to make to the
Board. He stated that Town counsel, Kirkpatrick&Silverberg, will be leaving the Town employment after
Zoning Board
May 22, 1996
Page 21
fourteen years. The Board is sorry to see them leave, but they are leaving on a crest of success. The
Town Board is actively pursuing a replacement.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gunther made a motion to approve the Minutes of February 28, 1996, which was seconded by Mr.
Wexler and unanimously approved.
Mr. Wexler made a motion to approve the Minutes of March 28, 1996,Mr. Simon was absent, which was
seconded by Mr. Kelleher and was approved.
Mr. Wexler made a motion to approve the Minutes of April 23, 1996, Mr. Gunther and Ms. Recio were
absent, which was seconded by Mr. Kelleher and was approved.
Mr. Gunther said Rules and Regulations of the Board by Dennis Lynch was given to the Board by Ms.
Recio.
Ms. Recio said he was a attorney who gave a program on how a board should run, and it was a sample
of recommended Board Procedures that the Board should consider adopting its own rules and procedure.
Mr. Gunther asked if everyone had received a copy of the Westchester County Planning Board's "Patterns
for Progress."
Mr. Kirkpatrick said in reference to the Pressman case, the case ended up with three decisions one for the
fence, one for columns and one for the gates. Judge Colabella upheld the Board in regard to the fence.
In regard to the columns and the gates, the judge said the ordinance is unapplicable. However, the Town
has since changed the ordinance to make it clear that columns and gates are included within the term fence,
but before the Town amended the ordinance, Pressman had already started building the columns,so he gets
to keep the columns. Pressman cannot have the gates. It is a fairly reasonable decision, as Pressman had
established a vested right.
Mr. Wexler asked if Hoffmann had the same right.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said Hoffmann does not have the same right, it is a different issue.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said the judge is saying that arguably Pressman is correct that a column is not part of a
fence.
Ms. Recio asked if Pressman has appealed the other two decisions.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said Pressman has not appealed the other two decisions.
Ms. Recio asked if an appeal on the pillars should be included,as documents have to be submitted anyway.
If the Pressmans file an Appeal, a Notice of Appeal will preserve the right to address the columns which
can be withdrawn or proceeded with. A discussion followed.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said the Town will file a Notice of Appeal.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
C7-21
Margueri,,'oma, Recording Secretary