Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_09_13 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 13, 1995, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick J. Kelleher Nina Recio 4001 J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler • 4 Also Present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel RFCE1\QED Cw William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector IV 5 1195 Lori Fletcher, Public Stenographer PNlh RKC10 ONF1rK Kazazes &Associates \''`, 't• 1.14 250 East Hartsdale Avenue N so Hartsdale, NY 10530 = n ^ Absent: Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Gunther read a request by Mrs. Coakley to hear her application first due to personal family reasons and requested and received concurrence from other applicants to move this item to #1 on the evening's calendar and read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2192 Application of Dana and Sean Coakley requesting a variance to maintain an enclosed porch. The enclosed porch, as constructed, has a side yard of 7.9 feet where 10.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 89-34B- (2)(a); the total of side yards is 17.4 feet where 20.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 89-34B-(2)(b)and further, the porch enclosure increased the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 residential Zone District on the premises located at 42 Hillside Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128, Parcel 136. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicants were present. Mr. Fleming appeared stating he was representing Mrs. Coakley. Ms. Recio asked that the record reflect that she is acquainted with the applicant, and that will have no bearing on her ability to make a decision. Mr. Fleming stated Mrs. Coakley contacted an architect to take care of items on the house which were not recorded with the Building Department over the years, and one the enclosed porch was not recorded as enclosed in the permit. It was enclosed sometime in 1950. Mrs. Coakley said her neighbors have been in the area for two generations, and said the porch has always been enclosed. A detailed discussion followed. Mr. Fleming stated he hoped the porch can be retained, as the house is under contract for sale. Pictures were in the file that show the porch. Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 2 After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Dana and Sean Coakley have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to maintain an enclosed porch. The enclosed porch, as constructed, has a side yard of 7.9 feet where 10.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 89-34B-(2)(a); the total of side yards is 17.4 feet where 20.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 89-34B-(2)(b)and further, the porch enclosure increased the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-7.5 residential Zone District on the premises located at 42 Hillside Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128, Parcel 136; 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-(2)(a), Section 89-34B-(2)(b), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Dana and Sean Coakley 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 fmds 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 fmds as follows: 1. The porch has existed a long time. 2. There is no increase in footprint. 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 Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 3 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. Mr. Gunther read the application, adjourned from August 23, 1995, as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2179 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 stated this case was adjourned from August 23, 1995 for decision only. The Public Hearing was closed at our last meeting. The Board Members said they had read the materials. Prior to any other discussion by the Board Member, Mr. Gunther made the following motion. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Nina Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. Attorney Kirkpatrick stated the Public Hearing is closed, so there is no further input from the public, but from the Building Inspector there are copies of the Building Code which is referenced in the Zoning Ordinance and passed out copies to the Board Members and members of the public and asked Mr. Jakubowski to explain the handout. Mr. Jakubowski stated the first sheet is the cover of the 1945 Fire Prevention,Building&Plumbing Code. The reason this came into notice was today Ms. Recio questioned a footnote on 89-44, and page 3 of the document is 89-44 of the Zoning Ordinance. On the bottom of that page there is an editor's note for Chapter Fourteen Building Code, Article 21 for additional provisions concerning fences. The Building Code that the Town currently uses was adopted in 1985,so there really is no provision for the Article XXI. The only time this has been used in the past, the referral was back to the Building Code, and when this was referred to there was no Article XXI, and this book had not been available to Mr. Jakubowski previously. It came in with papers found in storage. The editor's note at the time seemed extraneous and irrelevant to this part, since his previous experience had no chapter fourteen in it. He did not know how much effect it has on the case in particular, but Mr. Jakubowski thought it important for the Board to see the information because it implies that from 1945 until 1959, when the Zoning Law was changed and Zoning took control of fencing, there was a provision in that article which basically allowed fences above Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 4 4 ft. not exceeding 10 ft. if the height above the 4 ft. was not more than one quarter solid. In essence, 25% solid 75% open, similar to chain link or widely spaced pickets. It establishes how fences such as Mr. Miralia's and Mr. Pressman's existed, assuming they were both after 1945, and he has not been able to find any Building Code prior to 1945. It does indicate that prior to 1959 for all districts, commercial and residential, fences in excess of 4 ft. were allowed. In 1959 the Code restricted fences to 4 ft. height in any residence district. Attorney Kirkpatrick stated that in 1985 the Town Building Code was eliminated,because all municipalities in the State must use the State Building Code. The effect is that the Zoning Ordinance refers to an Ordinance that doesn't exist anymore, the Town Building Code. The Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive than the Town Building Code and overrides it. Prior to 1959, there was no zoning fence requirement, so the Town Building Code would have set the height limit. Though this is not relevant to either the Miralia or Pressman application tonight, it answers the question as to how a fence over 4 ft. might have been erected in the past. The zoning requirement now is 4 ft. Mr. Jakubowski stated the State Building Code on fences only applies to swimming pools and requires a minimum of 4 ft., and the Town has a reference to fences in the swimming pool ordinance which is specific to a swimming pool construction and it does allow 6 ft. high fences within 25 ft. of the pool. The reference in the clause in the zoning which says that the more restrictive code shall prevail,is Section 89-8, in the case of the 4 ft. high restriction. Mr. Gunther asked counsel to draft a resolution stating that in response to the application of Lauren Miralia for an interpretation of the 4-foot height limitation on a fence or wall contained in 89-44D also apply to columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates collectively if columns are a part of that fence or wall. After his review of the Town code, a suggested interpretation for the Town of Mamaroneck would be one that is all inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Ms. Recio wanted the record to reflect that although she was not present at the August meeting, at which there was a presentation made by both Mr. Pirro, representing Eugene Pressman, and Mr. Maker, representing Mr. L. Miralia, she has heard the tapes of that meeting in total and read all the documents and is in a position to vote on this matter. Ms. Recio questioned the use of columns as standing alone and should not be descriptive by fence or wall because it is not connected. Mr. Kelleher said the Building Department is here to determine a site specific situation and make a judgment of that particular case. Mr. Gunther then said the interpretation might read something like the 4-foot height limitation on fences and walls contained in 89-44D also applies to columns, piers, posts, pillars, capitals and gates which are part of that fence or wall. Attorney Kirkpatrick asked for a straw vote seeing that the members are in general agreement and will draft a resolution which should include a rationale and findings. Mr. Silverberg and Mr. Kirkpatrick had recommended to the Board by memo at the August 23, 1995 meeting, that this was a logical conclusion because the converse was not acceptable. Mr. Wexler stated that the Town Board should review the matter relating to fences, walls, posts, etc. Mr. Gunther asked whether the application was submitted in sufficient time under the Town Ordinance or Statute for reversal. Attorney Kirkpatrick said that question was examined. The Town Law requires an Appeal to the Board be made within sixty (60) days of the decision of the official charged with enforcement of the Ordinance, which is Mr. Jakubowski. Mr. Jakubowski had examined the matter, issued a Building Permit on a certain date and Mr. Miralia made his Appeal to this Board within sixty days of that Building Permit. Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Gunther made a motion that the application be adjourned to the following meeting for a final vote based upon presentation of a draft resolution, which was seconded by Ms. Recio and unanimously approved. The Public Stenographer was present for this application and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2182 Mr. Gunther read the application, adjourned from August 23, 1995, as follows: 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 stated the Public Hearing was started, but not complete, and asked if the applicant was present. Elaine Fronhofer appeared, a member of the law firm of Pirro, Collier et al., representing the applicant as follows: The reasons the Pressmans are seeking a gate are for reasons of security, and the design is more in line with the overall architecture of the structures that are on the property and the gates are being constructed in preexisting openings when purchased. Zoning Ordinances have been interpreted to promote aesthetics and clearly Section 89-44D was instituted to promote aesthetics, and therefore she recommends the Board consider that when deciding whether or not to grant this variance. Doug Larsen, the architect appeared, and reiterated the points brought up by Ms. Fronhofer and elaborated on the presentation. Mr. Maker, Jr., appeared representing Mr. &Mrs. Miralia. Mr. Maker addressed the issues brought up by Ms. Fronhofer as follows: Unfortunately, the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Law in the State, as counsel has so advised, is not based upon aesthetics but based on practical difficulty, which has not been shown in this case. Ms. Fronhofer wanted to clear two issues for the record. Regarding security, the gates on the Pressman property being only on two sides, one side is the sound and the other side is someone else's property. In reference to the columns that may or not be the height the Pressmans have proposed, the referral was to the height of the gate being disproportionate to the width of the opening. Mr. Larsen stated that the Board will be drafting an amendment to the Zoning Code and requested, as an architect, not to restrict architectural elements to 4 ft. in a gate and other elements regarding columns, piers, posts etc. Ms. Recio wanted the record to reflect that although she was not present at the August meeting, she has heard the tapes of that meeting in total and read all the documents and is in a position to vote on this matter. Ms. Recio stated in listening to the tapes, because in reading the papers a larger portion of the papers address aesthetics, only a smaller portion addresses security. When the first application was made, there really was no evidence of security. Attorney Kirkpatrick also stated for the record that the copy of the Building Code and that discussion on the Miralia application should be incorporated into the Pressman record. Mr. Kelleher stated that there is a good point made by counsel and the architect that the 4 ft. restrictions on this particular site is too low, but Mr. Kelleher felt 10 ft. is too high. Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 6 Ms. Fronhofer said the applicant had conferred with the architect after reviewing neighborhood gates and came to the conclusion that a 10 ft. gate would be appropriate and attractive. Mr. Simon suggested the gate be redesigned for aesthetic reasons, not for security. Mr. Gunther requested the applicant chose between two alternatives: (1) we can adjourn the application to the next meeting allowing the applicant to amend the current application, or (2) to proceed with the application as originally presented. Mr. Maker questioned how much time in advance would be required for the amended papers to be filed, so the papers can be reviewed. Ms. Fronhofer chose however to proceed and not amend the application to seek a lower impact variance. Attorney Kirkpatrick said the applicant is actually asking for an interpretation that the applicant may construct the gates as of right without the need for a variance, and then a variance. Mr. Gunther made a motion that the Public Hearing for file 2182, application by Eugene & Bonnie Pressman be closed, was seconded by Ms. Recio and was unanimously approved. Mr. Gunther made a motion that the application be adjourned until the next meeting to consider a draft resolution to be prepared by Attorney Kirkpatrick,which was seconded by Ms. Recio and was unanimously approved. The Public Stenographer was present for this application and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2189 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of James Carcano requesting variances to reconstruct and enlarge an existing deck. The deck to be extended and reconstructed has a side yard of 6.3 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 (B)(2)(a); has a total side yard of 12.7 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required, pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(b) and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Hudson Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Parcel 369. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant was present. James Carcano and Stephanie Carcano appeared. Mr. Carcano described the existing structure as dangerous and dilapidated and stated the photographs submitted to the Board should bear that point out. The Board reviewed the pictures, and Mr. Carcano proceeded to explain the situation of the bulking of the corner pieces, the separation from the building and the deck to be rebuilt with access to the rear yard. A detailed discussion ensued. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Mr. Kelleher,the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 7 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 Ms. Recio, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, James Carcano has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting variances to reconstruct and enlarge an existing deck. The deck to be extended and reconstructed has a side yard of 6.3 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 89-33 (B)(2)(a); has a total side yard of 12.7 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required, pursuant to Section 89-33 B(2)(b) and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 15 Hudson Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Parcel 369; 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)(a), Section 89-33 B(2)(b), and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, James Carcano 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 deck as presently exists is in a dilapidated state, is unsafe and needs to be reconstructed. 2. The topography of the land is such that a deck affords the applicant much better use of the premise. 3. The side yard encroachment will remain the same. 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. 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: Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 8 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. 4. That the applicant screen the rear of the deck with appropriate evergreen plantings, such as rhododendron or anything that stays green all year round. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2190 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Andrew Gutstein requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy for a deck. The deck has a rear yard of 20.0 feet at its closest point where a 21.5 foot rear yard had been granted pursuant to a variance granted April 29, 1992. The rear yard required is 25.0 feet pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3) for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 8 Addee Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Parcel 273. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant was present. Andrew Gutstein appeared and stated that when he requested a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) he found out that a small portion of the deck exceeded the original variance. He spoke to the contractor and realized that an error had been made. Mr. Gutstein submitted pictures for the Board to review. A discussion followed. Mr. Kelleher asked if the securing of the C. O. was what precipitated his presence. Mr. Gutstein wanted everything to be in order. Mr. Jakubowski said that Mr. Gutstein had been informed that his permit was expiring, he had to come in to pay a renewal fee, and before he got the C.O. another application was submitted. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Nina Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Andrew Gutstein has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance for a Certificate of Occupancy for a deck. The deck has a rear yard of 20.0 feet at its closest point where a 21.5 foot rear yard had been granted pursuant to a variance granted April 29, 1992. The rear yard required is 25.0 feet pursuant to Section 89-35 B(3) for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 8 Addee Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Parcel 273; and Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 9 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, Andrew Gutstein 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 variance requested from the variance that was granted is minimal. 2. The wet nature of the rear yard makes its use very difficult. 3. There is a 20' hill behind the house. 4. Because the house is on a cul-de-sac, the deck is invisible from the rear yards of the adjacent neighbors. 5. The lot is irregularly shaped. 6. The deck, which is 38 square feet, will have very little impact on the large rear yard. 7. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. 8. 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. 9. 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. Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 10 CO APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2191 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Kenneth and Paula James requesting a variance to construct an addition for garage and den space. The addition and alteration as proposed would have a total side yard of 41.3 feet where 50.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 89-30.1-C-(2) and further the addition increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 6 Glen Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 315, Parcel 024. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant was present. Steve Marchesani, architect, and Steven Racon, construction manager, appeared. Mr.Marchesani said basically the applicant has a legal non-conforming house,to which the applicant would like to add a family room. Pictures were submitted and reviewed by the Board. A discussion followed. Mr. Marchesani pointed out the irregular shaped property, and discussed the setback on the addition for which there was no other alternative. Mr. Jakubowski said the deck shown on the survey had been removed, and a variance was granted sixty (60) days ago. Mr. Gunther said the application was not familiar to him,because he had excused himself from the original ile application because he was also an officer of the company who had previously owned the property. Mr. Marchesani discussed and explained the plans to the Board. A discussion followed. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Kenneth and Paula James have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct an addition for garage and den space. The addition and alteration as proposed would have a total side yard of 41.3 feet where 50.0 feet is required pursuant to Section 89-30.1-C-(2) and further the addition increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 6 Glen Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 315, Parcel 024; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-30.1-C-(2)and Section 89-57; and Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 11 WHEREAS, Kenneth and Paula James 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. This is a highly irregularly shaped lot. 2. The house faces the side lot line, and because of this condition the placement of the new garage is more aesthetically pleasing. 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; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2193 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Mike Tasso,Total Fitness Corporation,requesting a variance to construct two offices in the basement on the premises located at 15 Madison Avenue. The office space of 220 square feet would require one(1)additional parking space pursuant to Section 89-66A and none(0)is provided. A previously granted variance allowed the use of the site having 52 spaces where 56 had been required. Further, the failure to provide an additional parking space, as required, increases the extent by which the building was nonconforming due to insufficient parking for a building in a Service Business (SB) Zone District, on the premises located at 15 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132, Parcel 469. Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Fleming appeared, representing Mike Tasso, the president of Total Fitness Center. Mr. Fleming stated in the on-going development of the Fitness Center the space is necessary. They would like to develop the basement space. There will be no additional people,it will just be for office use. A discussion followed regarding the site plans. Mr.Fleming presented a letter from the owner of the parking lot in the rear of the premises, Mr. Hoffman, stating parking will be available if needed, and an additional forty(40) spaces will be available if needed. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mike Tasso, Total Fitness Corporation,has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct two offices in the basement on the premises located at 15 Madison Avenue. The office space of 220 square feet would require one (1) additional parking space pursuant to Section 89-66A and none (0) is provided. A previously granted variance allowed the use of the site having 52 spaces where 56 had been required. Further, the failure to provide an additional parking space, as required, increases the extent by which the building was nonconforming due to insufficient parking for a building in a Service Business (SB) Zone District, on the premises located at 15 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132, Parcel 469; 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 89-66A; and WHEREAS, Mike Tasso 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 applicant has warranted that no additional employees will be added to the current location and no additional parking will be needed. 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. Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 13 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. Mr. Wexler pointed out to the architect that the applicant should monitor the handicap spaces which should be moved, as they are abused. APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2194 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Jonathan Polkes requesting a variance to rebuild an existing deck. The deck as exists and is proposed to be reconstructed has a rear yard of 31.8 feet where 40.0 feet is required, pursuant to Section 89.31 B(3) and further, the deck would increase the nonconformity of the existing structure pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 1173 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Parcel 1012. Ed Jacobson appeared, an architect, who is assisting Mr. &Mrs. Polkes. The Polkes are the new residents of the house, and prior to closing were notified that the existing deck on the house was illegal. The previous owner, who had occupied the house for seventeen years, indicated that a deck of sorts did exist on the house and he rebuilt the deck in the middle '80's without the benefit of a Building Permit. When both parties were notified after the title search, the previous owner contacted the contractor, and the contractor hired an architect and presented his drawing to the Board. Photographs were also submitted. The Polkes submitted a letter from their neighbor, stating that they accept the fifteen years existence of the deck. A discussion followed. Mr. Kelleher asked if the title search at closing had shown the fact that their was no C.O. Mr. Fleming stated the bank was aware and allowed the closing provided there was a small escrow. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Simon, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 14 WHEREAS,Jonathan Polkes has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting a variance to rebuild an existing deck. The deck as exists and is proposed to be reconstructed has a rear yard of 31.8 feet where 40.0 feet is required, pursuant to Section 89.31 B(3)and further, the deck would increase the nonconformity of the existing structure pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 1173 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Parcel 1012; 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 89.31 B(3) and Section 89-57; and WHEREAS, Jonathan Polkes 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 fmds 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 fmds as follows: 1. The deck in the rear yard is only 7' to 8' shorter than the maximum required. 2. The deck was previously built and was rebuilt in the middle '80's, and would not be to the advantage to the owner to change any existing structure of the deck at this time. 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; 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Zoning Board September 13, 1995 Page 15 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The approval of Minutes was held over to the next Zoning Board meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 25, 1995. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned. Marguerite ma, Recording Secretary