Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_11_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 18, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Absent: J. Rene Simon REGEWED Dig 11% Also Present: William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector PAc�p RpK(xi0 towN e1t4 Judy Perrino, Public Stenographer MAMA Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street it New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther informed the Board that the Minutes will be reviewed and voted upon at the end of the meeting. Mr. Gunther read a letter that was received from James Staudt, McCullough, Goldberger & Staudt, Attorneys at Law, requesting an adjournment of case no. 2277, Doyle, to the next meeting. After some discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing application no. 1 - case 2277, application of Mr. &Mrs. K. Doyle requesting a variance to maintain a rear deck and storage rooms finished in the cellar. The use of the premises as a legal nonconforming two family residence prohibits the enlargement or extension of the structure pursuant to Section 240-68A; therefore, the issuance of a permit for an existing deck is prohibited; further, the alteration of the cellar for separate storage rooms is an extension of the nonconforming use into parts of the building by alteration which is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-68B all for a two family residence in a one family residence R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 15-17 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 74, be, and hereby is, adjourned to the December 16, 1997 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gunther informed the public that presently there are only the four board members present to vote,and a majority vote of three will be needed to approve an application. Applicants have the option to postpone the vote on their case until the next meeting or to proceed if so desired. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board November 18, 1997 O Page 2 APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2294 Application of Peter M. Pinkowish requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition. The addition as proposed would have a front yard of 27.2 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) and a rear yard of 12.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 1. Mr. Gunther said this matter was referred to the New York State Thruway Authority and read the response received, which is a part of the record. The matter was also referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, which did not have any comment. Peter Pinkowish of 15 Lafayette Road, Larchmont, addressed the Board asking for consideration for variances for three issues. The property is a unique pie-shaped lot which does not conform with the basic rectangular square. There is no other property in the neighborhood that has that particular shape. Mr. Pinkowish explained that there is no back yard, but the side yards are considered the back yard which is a hardship that is not self-created. The extension fulfills the side yard requirement of 10 ft., but because of the technicality that it is also the back yard, that is the hardship. The addition only covers an additional 2.5% of the land. The property is approximately 7,800 ft. Mr. Wexler asked for clarification on the survey map, which Mr. Pinkowish provided. Mr. Pinkowish said currently the house and garage use 15.54% of the property. With the addition the use 40.114 would be 18.03%. The house on 15 Lafayette and 11 Lafayette do not directly face each other, they are at an angle. With the proposed addition, the angle would be maintained and there would be no obstruction. There are no other houses behind the property, and behind the trees there is a buffer area. The extension will not impact the back face of the applicant's house. The house was nonconforming as originally built, because of the shape of the land. The only area conforming is a 3 ft. square in the back yard, allowing the applicant a useable area of 5 ft., that would not maintain the character of the house. The hardship is the plot of land, and the fact that the proposed addition will not negatively impact the neighborhood,district or area. Mr. Wexler asked for an explanation of the addition,which Bill DelMazio of American Home Construction Co., of 35 Black Rock Road, Stamford, Ct. addressed. Mr. DelMazio said the proposed addition is replacing the existing wing currently on the side of the house, 8 ft. by 4 ft., behind which is a very small den, 8 ft. by 13 ft. The applicant has two children and would like to have a family room. The architect designed a plan, a copy of which the Board received, which Mr. DelMazio referred to, explaining the proposed addition,the existing shed, window alignment and shutters. The children, a son and daughter, currently are sharing a room and the applicant needs an additional bedroom. The current family room is substandard in size, 8 ft. by 13 ft. The siding, windows, shutters and roofing will all be matched to the existing and will not look like an add-on. Mr. DelMazio informed the Board that the applicant contacted the neighbors who viewed the plans and are in favor of the proposed addition and are asking for the Board's favorable consideration of approval. Mr. Wexler asked about the relationship of the existing tree that is to be removed. Mr. DelMazio said the tree has a split through it, water has gotten into it, it is hollow, it is rotted, bolts have been put through the tree to hold it from splitting further and there are metal cables connecting the branches at the top. The previous owner was also concerned about the tree splitting and coming toward the surrounding homes. An arborist looked at the tree, and it was his decision the tree should be removed. Zoning Board November 18, 1997 • Page 3 Mr. DelMazio said the applicant would like to replace that tree with a similar type tree. The landscaping on the property at this time is very mature and compliments the house and the neighborhood. Plantings in and around the new addition would be of comparable size and quality. Mr. Jakubowski said the tree removal is not subject to any tree permit rules or regulations because the lot is less than the 20,000 sq. ft. which is required for jurisdiction to apply. Mr. Gunther asked to see the tax map, which the Board reviewed and discussed. Mr. DelMazio said the 30 ft. front setback, because of the comer/curved lot, represents more than half of the space of the lot itself, roughly 4,000 sq. ft. of front setback, whereby a hardship is posed for the applicant. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. Blaine Grenwald, a neighbor of the applicants, of 2 Lafayette Road, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Grenwald reviewed the plans, said he is the representative of the neighborhood,and all are enthusiastically supportive and have voiced no objections to this application. Patricia Latona, a neighbor who resides directly across the street from the applicants, of 8 Lafayette Road, Larchmont, appeared. Ms. Latona said Mr. Pinkowish brought the plans and the map to them for their review. Ms. Latona said both her husband and herself are supportive of the application. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Peter M. Pinkowish has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story addition. The addition as proposed would have a front yard of 27.2 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)and a rear yard of 12.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further, the addition would increase the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(1), Section 240-38B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Peter M. Pinkowish 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 Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: Zoning Board November 18, 1997 • Page 4 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or detriment to the nearby properties. Neighbors have expressed their support and approval of the project; B. The applicant does not have a reasonable alternative to achieving the goals of adding an additional bedroom for his children and having a family room; C. The variance is not substantial and covers a minimum additional amount of space on the property; D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It is an aesthetic improvement to the house as it stands in the neighborhood; E. The difficulty is not self-created, given the fact that the lot was an unusual shape and size when purchased. Various side yard and back yard requirements were added on to this particular situation. F. 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. G. The variance is the minimum necessary 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. H. 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. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant the application has been approved and to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. Zoning Board November 18, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Kelleher complimented the applicant on his presentation. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2295 Application of Charles Warren/Susan Kitchen requesting a Certificate of Occupancy to occupy the altered area. The one story addition as constructed is 20.0 ft. from the rear property line where 21.0 ft. was required pursuant to a Variance granted April 23, 1996 which allowed relief from Section 240-38B(3) which required a 25 ft. rear yard; further, the additional 1.0 ft. encroachment increases the extent by which the structure is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 4 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 184. No one was present regarding this application. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Jakubowski to summarize the reason the application is before the Board. Mr. Wexler asked why this matter is not being held over until the next meeting, due to no one being present. After some discussion, Mr. Gunther said it is something that the Board previously handled, granted a variance and it appears it was an inadvertent error that occurred. Mr.Jakubowski said the general contractor did not confirm the dimensions properly prior to the completion of the work and about 4 sq. ft. of the building falls outside of the required setback area. The homeowner has made the application and there may be some litigation pending with the contractor after the hearing by the Board. It seems it was an inadvertent error on the part of the contractor. Mr. Jakubowski continued his discussion asking the Board to peruse the as-built survey currently before the Board, projecting a line to the area in question, with discussion continuing regarding this matter. Mr. Kelleher asked Mr. Jakubowski when construction is complete, as part of the close out process, is the Building Department given an as-built survey. Mr. Jakubowski said any time a variance is granted by the Zoning Board where the side yard offset cannot be determined in a simple visual section, a licensed surveyor has to give the Building Department a survey to show that it is correct. One of the policies the Building Department has introduced recently in the last eight months, is that it is written on the plans. The home owner and the contractor are advised that they would be extremely wise to have the surveyor stake out the setback line on any variance property, before the stakes are put into the ground. A discussion ensued regarding proceeding with the application due to non-appearance on the part of the applicant. After further discussion, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following deminimis matter was ADOPTED: ® WHEREAS, Charles Warren/Susan Kitchen have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together requesting a Certificate of Occupancy to occupy the altered area. The one story addition as constructed is 20.0 ft. from the rear property line where 21.0 ft. was required pursuant to a Variance granted April 23, 1996 which allowed relief from Section 240-38B(3)which required a 25 ft. rear Zoning Board November 18, 1997 • Page 6 yard; further, the additional 1.0 ft. encroachment increases the extent by which the structure is non- conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.S Zone District on the premises located at 4 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 184; 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 240-38B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Charles Warren/Susan Kitchen 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 Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The plot of land is of an irregular shape thus constraining the options. B. The area which is now going to be occupied by the expanded kitchen is presently occupied by a terrace. C. The rear property line is a rather unique property line in that it comes into the property as it comes up to the side property line as opposed to being a property line that would be straight across the back of the property causing it to create this problem for the applicant. E. 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. F. The variance is the minimum necessary 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. G. 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 November 18, 1997 Page 7 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. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Jakubowski said he will express the Board's extreme displeasure to the applicant for non-attendance at this meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on December 16, 1997. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion was made by Mr. Gunther to approve the Minutes of October 29, 1997, seconded by Ms. Martin, the Minutes were unanimously approved, 4-0. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Margo to Roma, Recording Secretary