HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991_10_30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes ft
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
OCTOBER 30, 1991, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER ���
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD IlEtqp
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK4,
T
}
Present: Joel Negrin, Chairman RECEIVED
Thomas E. Gunther = ppR 2 1992
Patrick B. Kelleher
PATRTOWN 10
CLERK�
J. Rene Simon MAMARONECK
Arthur Wexler N.Y.
Also Present: Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Counsel
William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector
Marci Dustin, Public Stenographer
Kazazes & Associates
250 East Hartsdale Avenue
Hartsdale, NY 10530
Bonnie M. Burdick, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Negrin at 8:18 PM.
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 1068
The Secretary read the application as follows:
Application of Mr. Anthony Buccini requesting a variance to construct a
shed which would not be located in the rear one-third of the lot as
required by Section 89-33 B(2)(c) in an R-10 Zone District on the
premises located at 56 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of
the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 257.
Anthony Buccini appeared. He stated that he had constructed his shed
this summer and that there was no other place on his property to erect
it. The back of his property is covered with rocks. Mr. Buccini stated
that his house had been built in the twenties and that his garage was
insufficient for his car let alone his outdoor tools. His basement is
undersized also.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and
solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may
have a significant impact on the environment; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no
significant impact on the environment as determined by New York
State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further
action under SEQRA.
October 30, 1991
-2-
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions
were unanimously adopted.
WHEREAS, Anthony Buccini has submitted an application to the
Building Inspector, together with plans, to erect a shed on the
premises located at 56 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 257; 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.-33 B(2)(c); and
WHEREAS, Mr. Buccini submitted an application for a variance to this
Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary
hardship for the reasons set forth in such application; and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application
and has heard all persons interested in this application after
publication of a notice thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are special circumstances
and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is
sought on the following grounds.
1. The lot is burdened with irregular topography and large
rock outcroppings.
2. It would be impractical to place the shed on top of the
three-foot-high wall in the rear yard.
3. Only one-quarter of the yard is usable space.
4. On the north side of the property, this shed is adjacent
to a shed in. the adjacent yard, making this property
consistent with other properties on the street.
5. The one-car garage is unusuable for the storage of tools
and the small basement space is not sufficient for a
typical homeowners equipment
6. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the
practical difficulty detailed in the application.
7. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will
October 30, 1991
-3-
not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
8. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town
Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use
of the land and/or building and that the variance granted
by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Section
89-33 B(2)(c) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to
allow the construction at a location other than in the rear one-third of
the property on the premises located at 56 Dillon Road and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 257 in
strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and any
conditions set forth in these resolutions, provided that the applicants
comply in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code
of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit
within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk
and, in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six
months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it
is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as
• provided in Section 267 of the Town Law.
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 1069
The Secretary read the application as follows:
Application of Mr. and Mrs. James Dixon requesting a variance to retain a
converted garage. Said conversion has caused the location of the
required parking space to be less than 25 ft. from the front property
line as required by Section 89-67B in an R-7.5 Zone District on the
premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 300.
Marilyn Reader, attorney, appeared. She stated that Mr. and Mrs. Dixon
had bought the house seven years ago with the garage converted to a
playroom/family room. This room is important to the family as the house
is a small one. Mrs. Reader stated that the driveway appears much longer
as there is an unusually wide right-of-way from the curb to the property
line. The Dixons wanted to be able to use the driveway for parking 2
cars as others do on the street, and Mrs. Reader stated that there would
be no interference with traffic.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and
solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may
have a significant impact on the environment; and it is
October 30, 1991
-4-
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
resolutions were unanimously adopted.
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. James Dixon have submitted an application to
the Building Inspector, together with plans, to retain a converted
garage on the premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
118 Lot 300; 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
89-67B; and
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Dixon submitted an application for a variance
to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or
unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application;
and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application
and has heard all persons interested in this application after
publication of a notice thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are unique and special
circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the
variance is sought on the following grounds.
1. The garage was converted to a room prior to the Dixon's
purchase of the house, making the floor area of the house
more consistent with other houses in the neighborhood.
2. The setback of the house from the street line is
significantly more than the actual setback from the
property line, softening the visual effect of the
variance.
3. The position of the house on the property does not allow
alternative access for cars.
4. The variance would not negatively impact the
neighborhood.
5. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the
practical difficulty detailed in the application.
6. The granting of the 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.
October 30, 1991
-5-
7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town
Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use
of the land and/or building and that the variance granted
by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Section
89-67B of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow
the required parking space within 10 feet of the front property line
on the premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot
300 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application
and any conditions set forth in these resolutions, provided that the
applicants comply in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance
and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit
within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town
Clerk and, in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the building permit shall be void if construction is not started
within six months and completed within two years of the date of
said permit; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as
provided in Section 267 of the Town Law.
AAAAA
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 1065
The Secretary read the application as follows:
Application of Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Lancaric requesting a variance to
construct a second-floor addition which would have a front yard of 19.74
ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 84-35 B(1) and,
further, the addition increases the extent by which the structure is
non-conforming pursuant to Section 89-57 in an R-6 Zone District on the
premises located at 49 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125 Lot 142.
Ivan and Genevieve Lancaric appeared with their architect, Ethelind
Coglin. They stated that the interior stairway to the second floor was
narrow, twisting and dangerous. When the Lancarics came back to their
house from abroad, they were forced to remove a window to transport
furniture upstairs. Several alternative plans were devised. Ms. Coglin
stated that the one presented to the Board was the most feasible but that
the plan resulted in a major reduction of bedroom space. Therefore, the
Lancarics also sought to enlarge the master bedroom. The proposed design
for a master bedroom would allow insulation for the kitchen, which gets
very cold in the winter. Mr. and Mr. Lancaric have elderly parents
regularly in residence and three children.
Ralph Bennett of 51 Edgewood Avenue accompanied the Lancarics and stated
that he had no objection to the addition.
October 30, 1991
-6-
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and
solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may
have a significant impact on the environment; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no
significant impact on the environment as determined by New York
State or corresoponding local law, therefore requiring no further
action under SEQRA.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following
resolutions were unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Lancaric have submitted an application to
the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a
second-floor addition on the premises located at 49 Edgewood Avenue
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 125 Lot 142; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on
the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town
of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections
84-35 B(1) and 89-57; and
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Lancaric submitted an application for a
variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or
unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application;
and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application
and has heard all persons interested in this application after
publication of a notice thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are special circumstances
and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is
sought on the following grounds.
1. The house is 80 years old. The interior staircase is
inadequate and may be unsafe.
2. The proposed addition is on the second floor and will be
no closer to the front property line than a previous
first floor addition.
3. The applicant has considered alternative designs.
4. If the addition were placed in another logical place, it
would encroach into the side yard.
•
5. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the
practical difficulty detailed in the application.
October 30, 1991
-7-
6. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will
not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town
Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use
of the land and/or building and that the variance granted
by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Section
89-35 B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to
allow a second floor addition with a 19.74 front yard setback and
Section 89-57 of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as
to allow a further non-conforming use on the premises located at 49
Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 125 Lot 142 in strict conformance with the plans
filed with this application and any conditions set forth in these
resolutions, provided that the applicants comply in all other
respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of
Mamaroneck; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit
within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town
Clerk and, in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the building permit shall be void if construction is not started
within six months and completed within two years of the date of
said permit; and it is
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as
provided in Section 267 of the Town Law.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Negrin declared an adjournment at 9:30 PM and re-opened the meeting
it at 9:47 PM.
APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 1065
The application was noticed as follows:
Application of Ten Grand, Inc. , 1330 Boston Post adjourned from the
meeting of October 3, 1991.
Donald S. Mazin, attorney, appeared with Richard Rheaume, SAIC engineer;
Jack Riordan, Finast architect; Fred Coleman, consulting architect to Ten
Grand, Inc. ; Pat Brown, Finast's director of operations for Westchester;
and John Salcito, store manager. Mr. Rheaume explained the applicant's
most recent submission and addressed the areas of concern previously
expressed by members of the Board. The lights will be recessed in the
canopy so that they do not shine into neighboring houses and will be
extinguished after closing of the store. Those in the parking lot will
October 30, 1991
-8-
have timers; and after the store closes at night, the interior lighting
will be reduced 50%. Store hours will remain the same: 7AM - 11 PM each
day. The representatives of the applicant would not agree that the store
hours could be a condition of the variance. Truck deliveries will be
between 7:30 AM and 5 PM; and Mr. Salcito, the current manager, indicated
consent to making delivery times a condition of approval. (Drivers of
Finast-refrigerator trucks turn off the compressors in the lot. ) Mr.
Kelleher stated that it was possible to construct gates and fences at the
loading dock with electronically controlled locks and suggested that the
applicant consult with the Building Inspector concerning access for the
Fire Department and delivery trucks for the restaurant.
Mr. Rheaume's company recomputed the parking lot use and found very
similar figures. In the instances he cited, there were variances of one
to two numbers from his previously submitted chart. He pointed out that
the different stores in the shopping center have different peak parking
hours. The Weaver Street entrance to the parking lot will be
reconstructed to discourage left turns onto Weaver Street.
Mr. Coleman, the coordinating architect for Ten Grand, Inc. , presented a
landscape plan, a rendering of the center and demonstrated the building
materials. He stated that the corporation is seeking to coordinate by
design the two developed pieces of its property at this site ("Finast"
and the former car dealership). The plan indicated 28 trees and 230
shrubs planted throughout the parking lot and as buffers between
properties. The shopping center, to be called Ferndale Shopping Center,
will have a red mansard roof, will be constructed of off-white brick;
will have larger-diameter columns of concrete and dryvit; and will be
faced with off-white aluminum siding.
The majority of the lettering for the signs for the renovation will be
red. One sign, which will list the names of the stores in the shopping
center will have a green tree, as a logo for the shopping center. It
will be placed on the mansard-shaped roof and face the Post Road. There
will be another sign on the food store with the Finast logo in stylized,
red, lower-case letters. This sign will face Weaver Street.
Mr. Mazin enumerated justifiable reasons for granting the variance. The
irregularly shaped lot causes problems. It was stated that there is no
other similarly shaped lot in the zoning district. Expansion to a second
floor is impractical for a food store. Mr. Mazin submitted a list of
food stores in the vicinity with their square footage; said list will
become a part of the record. He also gave a history of small food stores
in the area. Some stores have closed and others have moved to
increasingly larger sites. Also submitted by Mr. Mazin was an appraisal
prepared by Doern Associates.
The new interior plans were presented by Mr. Rheume and Mr. Brown. The
aisles will be wider; there will be more areas for food reception, food
storage and food preparation. Five check out counters will be added.
This plan meets all standards for disabled workers as well as handicapped
shoppers.
October 30, 1991
-9-
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Negrin temporarily adjourned the meeting at 11:25 PM and reopened it
at 11:35 PM.
Neighbors and interested residents appearing were Robert Lunde, 2
Ferndale Place; James Hemmert, Ferndale Place; Steven Kronenberg, 66
Howell Avenue; Gordon Oppenheimer, 50 Howell Avenue and Paul Donohue, 67
Sherwood Drive. They continued to question the necessity to enlarge the
store; to disbelieve statements representatives of Finast made concerning
truck-delivery hours and resulting noise, complain about lights and
speculate about the legality of the use of the paper street. It was
stated that the houses on Ferndale would depreciate in value and that
moving the store entrance closer to that street will move the noise and
air pollution closer to those residences. An objection was made that a
representative of Doern Associates was not available for questioning.
After the residents had spoken, Mr. Mazin pointed out that the leadership
of the Howell Park Association had, on the record, expressed its approval
of the plans for the shopping center when the applicant received SEQRA
approval at the Planning. Board.
A majority of the Board was not ready to vote on the variance, and Mr.
Negrin sought a list of questions so that the applicant could answer at
this meeting while so many of its experts were present, or prepare for
the next meeting of this Board. In its brochure submitted to the Board,
SAIC had enumerated points by numbered sections. Mr. Wexler sought
elaboration on the argument presented on Page 10-3. Mr. Negrin wanted
time to study the submissions presented at the meeting and requested
further information concerning the difficulties in using the other space
in the center.
Mr. Gunther had several questions. He wanted more information about the
operation of the trash compactor and its noise level, more information
about the use of the parking lot in the summer compared to October, and
quantifiable data concerning the claim of the unprofitability of the
market. He sought either present numbers, as opposed to projected gains,
and information concerning traffic volume and turnover. Mr. Gunther also
felt that the information about the local markets was insufficient; data
concerning markets in Harrison or Rye may not apply to Mamaroneck Town.
With the consent of Mr. Mazin, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr.
Wexler, this matter was adjourned to the next meeting of the Zoning
Board, for which it will need a new notice.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals will be Wednesday,
December 4, 1991.
October 30, 1991
-10-
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:50 AM.
Bonnie M. Burdick