Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_10_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 25, 1995, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER, 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 3 g Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick J. Kelleher 4 Nina Recio 1 CEIVED J. Rene Simon BY Arthur Wexler tit 1995 Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel P llerWe CLERK to �? MAMARYNEC William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector �',� N• (it/ ` Lori Fletcher, Public Stenographer Kazazes &Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said a motion to approve the Minutes would take place at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2179 (adjourned from 8/23/95& 9/13/95) Application of Lauren Miralia, 210 Hommocks Road, requesting an interpretation of the 4-foot height limitation on fences and walls in Section 89-44D as it applies to columns, piers, posts,pillars,capitals and gates which are part of those fences and walls and requesting a reversal of the Building Department's approval of April 21, 1995 of the columns at the Pressman residence located in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417 Lot 107. Mr. Gunther said the public portion has been closed, hearing has been held and the order of business with regard to concluding this application is the final resolution which was discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Gunther asked if all of the Board members had had a chance to review the draft resolution and stated he had a few minor modifications which he read. A detailed discussion followed regarding columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates standing alone without connection. They would not be considered as a fence or wall. Mr. Kirkpatrick pointed out that they would also not then be allowed in a yard, as fences are. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mrs. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 5-0. Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 2 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, Lauren Miralia has submitted an application requesting an interpretation of the 4-foot height limitation on fences and walls in Section 89-44D as it applies to columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates which are part of those fences and walls and requesting a reversal of the Building Department's approval of April 21, 1995 of the columns at the Pressman residence located in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 417 Lot 107; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the materials submitted, 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 as follows: 1. This application and appeal was made within 60 days of the April 21, 1995 Building Department approval complained of, and is therefore timely. 2. This Board lacks legislative authority and may only interpret the meaning of the words of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates when connected together into a fence constitute an inseparable part of such a fence or wall. 4. If columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates which are connected together by a fence or wall were determined not to be subject to the height restriction for fences and walls in Section 89-44D of the Zoning Ordinance, then there is no height restriction on such features and this Board is without authority to fix a limit(see paragraph 2 above). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows: 1. The restriction on height of fences or walls contained in Section 89-44D of the Zoning Ordinance applies to columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals, gates and similar features when connected together into a fence or wall. 2. The Building Department approval of April 21, 1995 of the fence columns at the Pressman residence must therefore be and it hereby is REVERSED. 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 application as follows: Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 3 APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2182 (adjourned from 8/23/95 & 9/13/95) Application of Eugene & Bonnie Pressman requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to construct one 7.0 ft. pedestrian gate and two 10.0 feet gates (a main and a side gate) where 4.0 ft. is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417 Lot 107. Mr. Gunther said the public portion has been closed, hearing has been held and the order of business with regard to concluding this application is the final resolution which was discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Gunther asked if all of the Board members had had a chance to review the draft resolution and stated he had a few minor modifications which he read. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. 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 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Eugene and Bonnie Pressman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to construct one 7.0 ft. pedestrian gate and two 10.0 feet gates (a main and a side gate) where 4.0 ft. is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 417 Lot 107; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-44 D; and WHEREAS, Eugene and Bonnie Pressman 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 and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any benefit to the applicant if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. Other than the statements of Mr. Larsen, there is no record of any security issue; 2. The applicant's arguments have been based solely on aesthetics, with no practical need demonstrated; 3. The applicant's aesthetic arguments have not taken into account the adverse aesthetic impact on the neighborhood; Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 4 4. Assuming that there may be at the minimum a perceived issue of security, the requested variances do not represent the minimum necessary for even such a perceived problem. Furthermore, the applicant has resisted any suggestions to amend the application and request lesser variances; 5. The requested variances are of a substantial nature and will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, creating an undesirable change and a detriment to nearby properties. There are no other gates of a similar size within this area of the Town; 6. The requested interpretation, that the proposed gates may be constructed to the proposed heights without a variance, has been covered fully in Case No. 2179 - Miralia. The decision in that case is equally applicable and binding in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows: 1. The subject application be and the same is DENIED; 2. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2170 (adjourned from 7/19/95 & 8/23/95) Application of Robert and Ann Caserta requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to maintain a fence measuring 5.0 to 6.0 feet and a fence/wall in the southeast corner of 9.0 feet in height where 4.0 feet is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 5 Birch Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116 Lot 679. Mr. Caserta appeared. Mr. Gunther said the Board had heard part of this case when it was first adjourned in July of 1995, held over in August, 1995 and adjourned in September, 1995. Mr. Caserta said that probably 25 to 40 ft. of the back yard is at an elevation which is about a 4 ft. drop- off to the neighbors yard. Due to the fact that he has children ages 7, 5 and 3 they decided to install a fence for the safety of the children. It was supposed to be a 4 ft. fence, but the contractor misinterpreted what was discussed and installed a 5 ft. fence. Mr. Caserta spoke to all his neighbors prior to installing the fence, and no one objected. Mr. Gunther asked is there is a drop-off from the applicant's property to the adjoining property. Mr. Caserta said there was about 4 ft. drop-off at the left rear of the property. A discussion followed regarding any other drop-offs between the applicant and any other property, and the applicant said on the west right-hand side there was another 4 ft. to 5 ft. drop-off and the fence was continued. The Board reviewed pictures submitted. Mr. Caserta said the actual height of the fence was 4 ft. 8 in. to 5 ft. and Mr. Caserta had applied for the variance because one of the children had had an incident falling off the wall, and Mr. Caserta decided the fence was needed for a safety measure. Mrs. Recio questioned when fence was installed, due to the fact that it was on the Public Notice in July, August and September. Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Caserta said the fence was constructed before that time. Mr. Jakubowski said the original application was dated April 26, 1994. Mr. Gunther questioned the line drawn on the survey submitted, and Mr. Caserta noted that there was an existing chain link fence between the properties. A detailed discussion followed including the facing of the fence, especially on the Chatsworth Avenue side. Board members expressed great reluctance to approve a five foot fence on top of a retaining wall, and Mr. Caserta offered to reduce it to four feet. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert and Ann Caserta have submitted an application together with plans to the Building Inspector requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to maintain a fence measuring 5.0 to 6.0 feet and a fence/wall in the southeast corner of 9.0 feet in height where 4.0 feet is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 5 Birch Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116 Lot 679. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-44 D; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Caserta submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The site has a potentially dangerous topography to it along the east property line and the south property line as the applicant has young children. 2. Any fence lower than a 4 ft. fence at that location will not solve the problem of the children easily reaching over the fence. 3. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 6 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 5 ft. fence shall be reduced to a 4 ft. high fence as shown on the site plan. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2188 - (adjourned from 8/23/95) Application of Peter Moran requesting a variance to maintain an enclosed porch with a rear yard of 10.2 feet where 11.0 feet had been allowed pursuant to a variance granted March 6, 1964. Said variance expired September 7, 1964 and a new variance is required for a permit and Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for the alteration pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3)which requires a rear yard of 25 feet to a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 3 Daymon Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 486. Mr. Moran said the original variance allowed Mr. Moran to extend from the existing property 11 ft. A discussion followed. Mr. Jakubowski said the structure was shown as 11.2 ft. on the survey and on the original application the structure was shown as being 11 ft. x 4 ft. deep. Board members concluded that the request is mostly administrative. After review, on motion of Mrs. Recio, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, 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. Kelleher, seconded by Mrs. Recio, the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 7 WHEREAS, Peter Moran has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to maintain an enclosed porch with a rear yard of 10.2 feet where 11.0 feet had been allowed pursuant to a variance granted March 6, 1964. Said variance expired September 7, 1964 and a new variance is required for a permit and Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for the alteration pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3) which requires a rear yard of 25 feet to a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 3 Daymon Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 486. 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 89-35 B(3); and WHEREAS, Peter Moran submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The requested variance is mostly administrative and the actual physical issue is deminimis. 2. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 4. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 8 APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2195 Application of Robert and Kristy McKeon requesting a variance to maintain 138 linear feet of five-foot high fence in a designated front yard. The five(5)foot fence exceeds the four(4)foot maximum height allowed pursuant to Section 89-44D for a fence in an R-6 Residence Zone District on the premises located at 2 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 362. Mr. Gunther noted for the record he is acquainted with the applicants, but has no financial or other dealings with them and feels he can render a fair decision in this type of action. Mr. &Mrs. McKeon appeared. Mr. McKeon stated that construction was started on the fence which is 5 ft. high and covers the entire back portion of the property and about one-third of the side yard that faces Orsini Drive. The back portion borders the neighbors driveway. While the fence was being constructed the applicant was informed that a variance was needed for a 5 ft. fence and construction was stopped. The irregular shape on the drawing was made at the request of their neighbors for access to their driveway. Mr. McKeon stated the primary reason for the fence is for the safety of his four children and for privacy, due to the fact that previously someone was watching their house which was reported to the police. Pictures were presented to the Board for their review. A detailed discussion followed. Mr. McKeon said it is a corner lot, very well traveled. Mrs. McKeon said the main concern is for the safety of the children and privacy. A report is on file with the police department regarding the above incident. Around Memorial Day, Mr. Jakubowski informed the McKeon's that the fence was in violation and construction was stopped at that point. Mrs. Recio said that there are many more things that can be done for screening with shrubs rather than a 5 ft. fence. There were quite a few letters received in opposition to the fence. Mrs. Recio also stated the McKeon's had been before the Board in 1993 and in that instance had completed the work and then applied for a variance. Mr. Gunther read letters in opposition from the following people; Patricia Flint, 22 Orsini Drive, Peter R. O'Flinn, 14 Homer Avenue, Laurence G. Bodkin, Jr., 9 Homer Avenue, Lois Anne Katz, M.D., 18 Orsini Drive and Charles and Mary Waring, 21 Orsini Drive. Mrs. Robson, North Chatsworth Avenue, appeared in opposition, stating it's an ugly fence and restricts views. Mrs. McKeon requested that if no once objects, they will take fence down to a 4 ft. level on Orsini Drive but can the 5 ft. level be put in the rear of the house for privacy where there is presently a 4 ft. fence which is falling down. Mr. Jakubowski stated that currently the application is for approximately 140 linear ft. of 5 ft. high fence. What the McKeon's are looking for is about 60 linear ft. of 5 ft. high fence starting at the north corner of the property and following along the line adjacent to the house on Orsini Drive to a point about 40 ft. back from the street. Mr. Simon asked about greenery. Mrs. McKeon said they cannot afford the greenery at this time. Mr. Kelleher said he would not be in favor of conditioning an approval, and if the applicant would like to come back with a different layout of a fence that should be the subject of a new application so that neighbors can understand what an alternate application will look like regarding the 4 ft. and 5 ft. fence. Mr. McKeon said there are neighbors that support the fence issue. Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Waring appeared stating the McKeon's made an accommodation to his problem in backing the car out of the driveway, because you are absolutely blinded from the sidewalk and from the street the way it was originally installed. The caddy corner upon experience has mitigated the view from being absolutely zero to a problem that if children are there and a neighbor or anyone else is backing out of my driveway, myself included, they will go on to the sidewalk. This is only after the fact when the fence was installed and I had experience backing out of my driveway. Even if you turn the car around and I was forced to back in and come out frontwards, I have a problem with the solid fence. After review, on motion of Mrs. Recio, 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert and Kristy McKeon have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to maintain 138 linear feet of five-foot high fence in a designated front yard. The five(5) foot fence exceeds the four(4) foot maximum height allowed pursuant to Section 89-44D for a fence in an R-6 Residence Zone District on the premises located at 2 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 362; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-44 D; and WHEREAS, Robert and Kristy McKeon submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The property is a level piece of property and the fence affords the applicant privacy from the rear of their house. 2. That the area of contest within the 40 ft. from Orsini Drive is legal and will require no variance. 3. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 4. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 10 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. That the portion of the fence that is in the front yard along Orsini Drive and continuing along the west property line, in this case the rear property line and continuing to a point on the survey labelled "stone" be 4 ft. then be allowed to be 5 ft. for the remainder of the rear lot line. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-44D of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2196 Application of Douglas and Eleanor Millar requesting a variance to maintain a rear deck addition as constructed with a rear yard of 24.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3) and further; the addition to the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming,pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 28 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 80. Mrs. Millar appeared and stated she replaced a step from the deck and extended it to the sun room because the door from the sun room was too high to get down to the patio. It exceeds the limit in one corner. After discussion and review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mrs. 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 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. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Douglas and Eleanor Millar have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to maintain a rear deck addition as constructed with a rear yard of 24.1 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3) and further; the addition to the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming, pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 11 an R-6 Zone District and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Lot 80; 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 89-35 B(3) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Douglas and Eleanor submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The matter is basically deminimis in nature. 2. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 4. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2197 Application of Louis S. and Ellen A. Dennig requesting a variance to construct a two story rear addition with a rear yard of 23.75 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34 B(3); a side yard of 7.6 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required, pursuant to Section 89-34 B(2)(a) and further; the addition increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 52 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501 Lot 448. Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Fred Groen,architect, appeared with Mr. Dennig explaining that the work is on the rehabilitation and addition to the house, rehabing what is presently a family room in the back which was converted from a porch to interior space and at this point is leaking, air driven and not a very pleasant space, and adding a bedroom on the second floor. The neighbors have been informed and there have been no objections. After discussion and review,on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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. Kelleher, seconded by Mrs. Recio, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Louis S. and Ellen A. Dennig have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two story rear addition with a rear yard of 23.75 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-34 B(3); a side yard of 7.6 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required, pursuant to Section 89-34 B(2)(a) and further; the addition increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 52 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501 Lot 448; 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 89-34 B(3), Section 89-34 B(2)(a) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Louis S. and Ellen A. Dennig submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The lot on which this proposed construction would take place is irregular, a small size that doesn't really leave much of an option to accomplish what they want to accomplish. It's apparently the minimum necessary to accomplish their objective. 2. The dimensional magnitudes of further encroachment towards the property lines are small. 3. It is no closer to the side lot line than the existing house. 4. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 5. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. • Zoning Board October 25, 1995 Page 13 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 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. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 29, 1995. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther made a resolution to approve the Minutes of May 24, 2995, June 28, 1995, July 19, 1995 and August 23, 1995, which was unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary