HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_09_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Patrick B. Kelleher
J. Rene Simon
Arthur Wexler
Absent: Nina Recio111.44
4
Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel REu
William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector l!
w►
•
Sue Sturino, Public Stenographer 44
Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd.
49 Eighth Street
New Rochelle, New York 10801
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Gunther said before calling the first application, that effective 3:00 p.m. today one of the Board
members, Nine Recio, resigned. The Board wishes Ms. Recio much luck and happiness in other
endeavors that she may pursue, and thanked her ever sincerely for all of her time and effort in serving on
the Board. Mr. Gunther said the Town Board will seek and select another member for the Zoning Board.
Mr. Gunther said all applicants should note, therefore, that there are only four out of the potential five
members present this evening, and for an action to occur there has to be three members voting in favor
of an application.
The Secretary read the application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2238 (adjourned 9/4/96)
Application of Mr. & Mrs. Zuckerman requesting a variance to construct a rear retaining wall with 3 ft.
fence 65 ft. in length. The wall and fence would be 3 ft. to 14 ft. in height where a maximum of 5 ft. is
allowed for fences and walls in a rear yard pursuant to Section 240-52A(formerly Section 89-44D)for a
residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Marbourne Drive and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334 Lot 45.
Joseph Zuckerman, the applicant,appeared along with Richard Hein of 44 Sheldrake Avenue, the architect.
Mr. Hein said the Board had requested the Zuckermans' presence at the last meeting regarding the
continuity of the original approval that had been granted under another architect's application to the Board.
The issue was the actual field condition, creating a retaining wall higher than initially approved. Mr.
Hein's application last month represented that due to the field conditions not evident on the original
approval, there would have been no way the pool could have actually been constructed with anything less
than what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Hein presented photographs to the Board to show the different
positions and a discussion ensued. Mr. Hein said his office did actual field measurements of the built wall
and the actual topography to establish the difference between the initial approval and what the actual
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 2
condition was. Discussed last month was the elimination of a 4 ft. high fence on top of the retaining wall,
to eliminate the added insult to the initial approval of a 4 ft. high fence.
Mr. Wexler said a 3 ft. high railing is shown on the drawing, and asked where the railing comes in.
Mr. Hein said what is being proposed is the terminology of wall being separated from the terminology of
fence. Mr. Hein said fencing around a pool is usually an opaque or a maximum 4 in. opening. It is Mr.
Hein's understanding that the code would permit a railing which would prevent a child from falling over
the retaining wall, and would require less in the way of an opaque surface which would require horizontal
cross bars at the 3 ft. height above the top of the wall without the 4 in. vertical spacing, like a pipe rail.
The applicant is looking to reduce the amount of built form on top of the wall, recognizing the Board's
concern. The other thought offered to the Board for consideration would be weeping plants that would be
growing on the top of the wall, cascading over the face of the wall into the woodlands to soften the look.
The planting bed would also serve to create a warning strip to the occupants of the grounds to prevent
children from being injured and falling off the wall. The applicant recognizes the actual field conditions
have exceeded what the Board approved, but is looking for the Board's consideration due to the hardship
of the actual field condition. Mr. Hein said the pool as approved could have never been created with the
actual 4 ft. wall and 4 ft. fence as initially applied for by the previous architect.
Mr. Wexler said the photographs of the area are much further developed than what is shown.
Mr. Hein said the area is much further developed than what is shown, but the applicant has a building
permit and has been proceeding. The issue of the retaining wall that is being addressed is structurally
holding up the pool.
Mr. Wexler asked when the applicant noticed that there would be a need for another variance from what
was originally granted.
Mr. Hein said about one month after his office became involved he spoke with Mr. Gerety and they both
addressed the problem during a construction meeting,at which point Mr. Hein's office made the application
for the variance to the Board.
Mr. Wexler asked if the proposal is keeping the retaining wall as is and not setting anything closer to the
pool to relieve the need for an additional variance.
Mr. Hein said that is the proposal, but the applicant would be willing to compromise in some other way.
Mr. Wexler suggested that if the fence was moved in 4 ft., it could go up another 4 ft. A discussion
ensued regarding an option of complying without the need for an additional variance.
Mr. Hein said you then get into a geometry that restricts the actual walking area.
Mr. Wexler said there is a 20 ft. setback from the coping to the retaining wall, there are steps going down
6'h ft. off the property line, the problem can be resolved without a variance, but the applicant is trying to
maximize the horizontal dimension.
Mr. Hein said there is a hardship because there may have been an error on the initial application to the
Board by the previous architect, because when calculated there is no way a pool could have been built on
the property as approved without at least a 10 ft. high retaining wall. After the permit was issued and
during construction there was a rock condition that had to be remedied. Mr. Hein is asking the Board to
consider the alternative of the railing to minimize the physical presence of the fence, and to consider
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 3
weeping junipers that would be developed along the entire top run of the wall to cascade and match the
woodlands condition in a year or two and appeals that the Board see this as a hardship.
Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Hein if he did a drawing that would cross elevation A and would show how much
Mr. Hein is varying from the approval that was granted. A discussion ensued with Mr. Hein stating he
would like to remove some of the burden by suggesting that the fencing be removed from the initial
consideration and considered as a horizontal rail only, that will be planted with veritcals every 10 ft. on
center adding vegetation to compensate for the presence of the wall. Mr. Hein said he would plant
Procumbens (Nana) Juniperus, which will trail 4 ft. to 5 ft. downward, at the edge and direct the growth
over the wall. The plant material will cover the face of the retaining wall, and within one year it will
cover 3 ft. of the vertical face. Mr. Hein can specify one that will stay as low as 4 in. above and simply
cascade down or specify one that gets 12 in. or 18 in. high and cascades down. To mask the wall the
Procumbens (Nana) would be the lowest format and will trail vertically downward over the base of the
wall. The applicants will also landscape the railing with various perennials that would give a soft natural
feeling to the edge. There will be no tall plant material that would create more of a barrier, but would be
within the 3 ft. height.
Mr. Wexler said the variance that was originally granted was 8 ft. high to the top of the rail, and there is
an enormous difference of impact.
Mr. Hein said there is a 16 ft. wide range where the wall exceeds the total 8 ft. height, that is why he is
trying to separate the fence issue from the wall.
Mr. Wexler said the Board was very specific in granting the first variance that in no point should the top
of the rail be greater than 8 ft. above grade.
Mr. Hein said the finished pool elevation per the approved architectural plans and permit states that the
finished pool elevation is 21/2 ft. below the finished first floor of the building. If you place the beam of
the pool 21/2 ft. below the first floor of the building, there is no way the condition in the field would ever
represent what was approved at the zoning approval.
Mr. Wexler said at some point while building the pool, someone must have realized the applicant was way
beyond what the variance was granted.
Mr. Hein said when he saw the condition, he knew there was a problem. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Wexler said the area could have been terraced down.
Mr. Gunther asked if there was any concern on the part of the owner about having a 3 ft. fence and 10
ft. of drop immediately over it.
Mr. Hein said the proposed railing will have three cross members, one every foot, so that a child would
not be able to enter. The applicant will provide a 24 in. planting strip on the upland side.
Mr. Wexler suggested Mr. Hein bring the fence in 24 in. and put the planting strip on the other side, so
that there will be no need for a greater variance. Mr. Wexler said 4 ft. back, the applicant can go up
another 4 ft. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Hein said that would be a reasonable thought.
Janet and Joseph Zuckerman appeared. Mr. Zuckerman said the issue is for safety and the visual effect
from the park side is non-existent, as the area referred to is not an active part of the park. Having a fence
or railing with planting enhances the area. A discussion ensued.
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 4
Mr. Wexler said the applicant has at one point an 11 ft. high vertical wall, and now is proposing to put
a 3 ft. high fence on top of that and plant it heavily. Mr. Wexler is suggesting bringing the fence back,
if the applicant is planting heavily, as there is no different impact to the applicant's use to the horizontal
plain. Mr. Wexler said the applicant is creating a potentially bad condition for himself by having a 3 ft.
rail with an 11 ft. drop.
Mr. Zuckerman continued presenting his thoughts about safety and his lack of architectural understanding
and the need for a variance and said now there is problem with the engineering.
Mr. Wexler said it could have been resolved within the scope of the variance, if construction was stopped
when the applicant became aware of the difference, redesigned the pool and then proceeded. Mr. Wexler
said from his point of view, a variance would not have been granted if the proposed application was today
being presented. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Zuckerman said he did not make the decision when he became aware of the problem, as he thought
it was discussed with the Assistant Building Inspector who was present and he did not focus on the issue.
Mr. Zuckerman said they are in a situation, which Mr. Hein calls a hardship, with no malice of intent.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members, and then asked counsel to
give the Board a summary of the rules for an area variance as it pertains to a self-imposed hardship.
Ms. Gallent said it is not dispositive. It is relevant, but it is not determinative.
Mr. Gunther said as a point of discussion for other Board members, Mr. Gunther makes the point that he
would tend to agree and the only way he would deal with continuing the variance was after reviewing what
was originally requested in January of'96 as follows:
"to construct a swimming pool and deck with a rear yard of 14.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required and
accessory deck structure is 0.0 ft. where 15.0 ft. is required and the 4 ft. chain link fence on the retaining
wall would be 8.0 ft. at the highest where 4.0 ft. is the maximum height allowed."
Mr. Gunther said what was granted was:
"8 ft. fence topping across an existing retaining wall not above 4 ft. for a person standing in the back yard;
would present 8 ft. from the ground level on the back side to the top of the fence for a limited distance and
runs from 4 ft. up to as high as 8 ft. at its maximum on top of the wall, whereas the rest of the fence as
it would continue on the property would be a 4 ft. permitted fence."
Mr. Gunther said one point to consider might be as a safety element having some reasonable space between
the back of the pool and the end of the retaining wall that is already built, but to move the rear fence in
a reasonable distance to allow for growth of evergreens to trickle down the back to reduce the impact of
the wall and at the same time provide a safety zone with a fence on the inside as opposed to the outside.
A discussion ensued.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public on this application.
Mr. Hein asked if the Board would consider a planting strip of 2 ft. and then the fence as opposed to the
4 ft. setback for the fence/railing.
Mr. Wexler said there are two problems; the retaining wall that is 10 ft. 11 in. in height, which would
have to be a variance beyond the 8 ft.
Mr. Hein said there is a maximum width of 15 ft. in which that can be done.
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Wexler said the applicant is at a slight disadvantage because there are only four Board members
present this evening, and asked Mr. Hein to make some suggestions beyond what the applicant applied for
this evening.
Mr. Hein said the applicant would consider setting back the railing 2 ft. from the face of the wall and
creating a 2 ft. 6 in. planting bed which would hide the fence/railing from the woodlands. Mr. Hein asks
the Board's consideration of the hardship placed upon the Zuckerman's by a mathematical error in the
original application.
Mrs. Zuckerman discussed her concerns regarding gaining extra space, and is trying to understand the
balancing of needs in having something aesthetically attractive on what is a shallow lot and to make it as
deep as possible.
Mr. Wexler said a natural rock rubble was previously in that area, not a manmade vertical plain which is
wood. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Gunther said when a variance is granted it is for the life of the property, not the life of the owner.
What exists in the property behind the applicant today, may not be what exists there in the future which
is what the Board has to consider. Mr. Gunther said there are only four Board members present this
evening, and the applicant has the option to adjourn until there are five members present or proceed.
Mr. Zuckerman said he would like to proceed.
Mr. Hein said he would like to request the Board's consideration for a 2 ft. planting strip, with a 3 ft. high
railing on the interior planted with a mixture of perennials and cascading junipers.
After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed
and adopted unanimously, 4-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Zuckerman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a rear retaining wall with 3 ft. fence 65 ft. in length. The wall and fence
would be 3 ft. to 14 ft. in height where a maximum of 5 ft. is allowed for fences and walls in a rear yard
pursuant to Section 240-52A (formerly Section 89-44D) for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the
premises located at 7 Marbourne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 334 Lot 45; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-52A (formerly Section 89-44D); and
WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Zuckerman 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
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 6
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or
conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows:
1. The railing shall be set 3 ft. inward toward the house from the rear edge of the top of
the retaining wall on the rear property line.
2. The area between the 3 ft. high railing and the retaining wall shall be planted with a
combination of evergreens and deciduous plant material; part of the evergreen plant
material shall be such that it will cascade over the face of the retaining wall and be
maintained.
3. The applicants find themselves in this situation due to severe rock outcroppings on their
property and an error in the engineering plans for the construction of their pool that were
previously approved for a prior variance.
4. The property is burdened with a retaining wall at the rear of the property and a sloping
ground level.
5. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this
Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
6. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the
applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this
Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution;
2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit;
3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
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 next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2239 (adjourned 9/4/96)
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 7
Application of Richard F. Hein requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition, front porch,
addition to the garage and conversion to a family room and install a new side patio. The second floor
addition would have a side yard of 9.16 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)
(formerly Section 89-33B(2)(a)); the addition at the garage Would have a side yard of 7.2 ft. where 10.0
ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a) (formerly Section 89-33B(2)(a)); the front porch would
have a front yard of 13.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)(formerly Section
89-33B(1)); the proposed patio to be installed in the side yard would be 3.0 ft. from a side line where 5.0
ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-50(formerly Section 89-44A);and, further the additions as proposed
would increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 (formerly
Section 89-57) for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 44 Sheldrake Avenue
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221 Lot 305.
Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant was present.
Mr. Hein appeared.
Mr. Gunther said a letter was received from Mr. Hein asking for the application to be adjourned until the
next meeting. Mr. Gunther said he understands Mr. Hein has been conferring with one of his neighbors,
former Zoning Board member Nina Recio, concerning the extent of the variance that will be sought. Mr.
Gunther emphasized that the ultimate outcome of those discussions or negotiations (i.e. whether they are
successful in gaining the neighbor's support for the application)will in no way effect the deliberations of
this Board in connection with the application for a zoning variance. The variance application, whatever
its ultimate form, will receive a fair hearing and be judged impartially by this Board. Mr. Gunther
explained that the applicant is under no obligation to continue those discussions if he does not wish to do
so. Ms. Recio's position with respect to Mr. Hein's application when it comes before the Board, whatever
it may be, will be treated the same as any other neighbor's position. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Hein had
any questions.
Mr. Hein said as a first time applicant before the Board, he was not aware the conditions just stated would
be afforded to him and is now confident that they will be. Mr. Hein said the design as originally submitted
to the Board and his position as an owner an architect, will allow Mr. Hein hopefully to come up with an
alternative that is satisfactory to all the neighbors.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Hein if he would like the application held over until the next meeting.
Mr. Hein said he would appreciate the application held over until the next meeting. Mr. Hein said based
on his outside conversations the application will change in format and he will resubmit.
Mr. Gunther said if what Mr. Hein will be asking for is more than what was originally in the application,
a new Public Notice will be needed. If what Mr. Hein is asking for is less than the original application
in terms of a request for variance, the application does not have to be renoticed but can be placed on the
next calendar. Mr. Gunther asked what the filing time is for the next meeting.
Ms. Roma said the cutoff date is the Tuesday before the third Thursday of the month for the following
month's meeting.
Ms. Gallent said Mr. Hein should look at the above issue carefully, because if Mr. Hein does come before
the Board and it turns out that one of the variances requested is actually greater than what had been
requested, the Board will not be able to go forward. The application will then have to be renoticed.
Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Hein that if he has new plans that meet the original application or less, the
plans have to be submitted to the Building Department ten (10) days before the meeting.
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 8
Mr. Gunther made a motion to adjourn case #2239 until the next meeting, which was seconded by Mr.
Simon, and unanimously approved, 4-0.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2241 (formerly #2234/withdrawn 6/24/96/adjourned 9/4/96)
Application of Robert/Renee Brissette requesting a variance to construct a 5 ft. fence and 3 ft. high
retaining wall. The total height of the fence and wall as proposed would be a maximum height of 14.0 ft.
4 in. where a maximum height of 5.0 ft. is allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in a residence
in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 42 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Lot 446.
Robert Brissette, the owner of 42 Hillcrest Avenue and his wife, Renee appeared. Mr. Brissette circulated
various materials to the Board. In summary, Mr. Brissette said the applicants are trying to build a patio
area and wood lattice fence behind their house as a safe recreational area for their child. Mr. Brissette is
concerned about a 7 ft. 4 in. retaining wall.
The secretary gave the Board pictures that were on file. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Gunther asked if any members of the public were interested in the application and viewing the
drawings which have been submitted, to which there was no response.
Mr. Brissette said in addressing the Board's concern, he would like to review the drawings with the Board
to illustrate the amendments made to the initial proposal presented to the Board to soften the back line of
the property that is contiguous to 34 Edgewood Avenue. In order to achieve the changes the Board
requested, Mr. Brissette has proposed to plant Wintercreepers which are year-round evergreens, roughly
8 in. to 12 in. when planted and grow approximately 6 in. per year. The Wintercreepers were
recommended to the Brissettes by the contractor of Vernon Hills Landscaping as the best solution to
achieve what the Board requested.
A discussion ensued regarding the how high the Wintercreepers would be when planted and the height that
Wintercreepers reach.
Mr. Wexler asked how far the upper retaining wall would be from the face of the lower retaining wall.
Mr. Brissette said approximately a 1 ft. distance. Mr. Brissette said in order to soften the view and create
an area for the plants to grow he is allowing 12 in. of earth which was recommended by the landscaper.
Mr. Wexler asked for the original submission, which was supplied by the secretary. After reviewing the
original submission,Mr. Wexler said that something was wrong as the original submission stated 6 ft. from
the patio to the end.
Mr. Brissette said it was shortened.
Mr. Gunther said the application states a 5 ft. fence and a 3 ft. high retaining wall.
Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Brissette was proposing to build a 4 ft. high fence instead of a 5 ft. high fence.
Mr. Brissette said that was correct, as the body of the fence is 4 ft.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gerety, from the Building Department perspective, what does it turn out to be in
terms of fence height.
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 9
Mr. Gerety said it turns out to be 14 ft. 4 in.
Mr. Gunther said the application was renoticed, hence the return of the revised application.
Mr. Wexler said the survey that was presented with the application shows that the back of the house is 25
ft. from the rear property line, and asked Mr. Brissette if that was correct.
Mr. Brissette said that was correct.
A discussion followed regarding the rear property line and the survey facts available to the Board.
Mr. Wexler asked if the retaining wall was on Mr. Brissette's property or the neighbors property, as it is
not indicated on the survey.
Mr. Brissette said in his estimation it is on the neighbors property. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Gunther read two letters received in support of the application into the record, one from John W.
Risner and another from Laura Cerrao and Donald Sileo.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or public. There being none, on a
motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously
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.
Mr. Gerety said he is informally scaling the survey that was presented to the Building Department and
there is a question as to the depth of the backyard and rear of the house to the rear property line which
shows approximately 20 ft. from the rear of the house to the property line. The applicant is proposing to
build a retaining wall and fence on the neighbors property. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Wexler said there is no way of knowing where the retaining wall is located from the information and
survey submitted to the Building Department.
Mr. Simon suggested the applicant obtain and submit an up-to-date survey.
Mr. Gunther asked counsel's advice, stating the Board would like to grant the variance for the applicant
to build a retaining wall and fence as shown on the applicant's property, but not on someone elses property.
Ms. Gallent said variances are granted for plans that are attached to the application to make very clear what
the variance is for. Ms. Gallent said to say it is somewhere on the property to be determined by a
surveyor is not in keeping with the Board of Appeals procedure, because it would be impossible to define
the variance granted.
Mr. Gunther asked for a sense of the Board with all things being equaled, if the Board would approve the
application.
The Board unanimously agreed with Mr. Gunther.
Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Brissette that the Board is in favor of the variance, but the questioned remained
regarding placement.
•
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 10
Mr. Wexler said as a general statement the retaining wall is a structure that is being built and asked why
it is before the Board without a licensed engineer or architect's plans. If it were, it would have been
resolved in the professional's preparation for a variance rather than being adjourned meeting after meeting.
Mr. Gerety said the decision is based on the impact and the size of the structure. At the time the
application was initially presented, there was a lot less information provided and it seemed it was below
that threshold. A discussion followed.
Mr. Kelleher said there is no way to determine the placement without survey.
Mr. Brissette said every step along the way was basically approved by the Building Department. The
survey used is the one that was on file when the house was purchased three years ago.
Mr. Simon said the survey does not show the dimension on the side yard, and does not show the retaining
wall.
Laura Cerrao, who resides at 34 Edgewood Avenue, said she purchased her house about two years ago,
had a new survey and asked if the survey would be immediately helpful to the Board. If so, she would
be willing to get it and present it to the Board.
Mr. Gunther adjourned case#2241 to continue later in the evening, to allow Ms. Cerrao to get the survey
for the Board.
The Secretary read the next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2242
Application of Richard and Kathryn Campbell requesting a variance to enclose a rear porch with a side
yard of 5.50 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) and the enclosure increases
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5
Zone District on the premises located at 11 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 334.
Rex Gedney, architect for Richard and Kathryn Campbell appeared, along with Mrs. Campbell. Mr.
Gedney said the application for relief was submitted to enclose an existing rear yard open porch, to modify
and expand the existing kitchen to provide a small eat-in area for family use and install a small powder
room which is necessary on the first floor. A current survey was submitted with the application as well
as an existing condition plan which indicates the location of the porch as well as a rear elevation showing
the area the applicant wishes to enclose. Mr. Gedney presented photographs of the property, and said a
photograph was also submitted with the application showing the area. Mr. Gedney proceeded to illustrate
on the drawings before the Board. Mr. Gedney said there will be no modification made to the footprint.
Mr. Gedney said the existing property is nonconforming in size, a unique irregular shape and the existing
side yard is also nonconforming. Mr. Gedney said the applicant is not encroaching any further, but is
working within the existing footprint. Mr. Gedney said that Mrs. Campbell spoke with the immediate
neighbor, who has no objection to the application. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gedney when the addition was made.
Ms. Campbell said probably in the '40's, but was not quite sure.
Mr. Gunther asked if there were any further questions from the Board or the public. There being none,
after review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed
and adopted unanimously, 4-0.
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 11
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Richard and Kathryn Campbell have submitted an application to the Building
Inspector, together with plans to enclose a rear porch with a side yard of 5.50 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required
pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) and the enclosure increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises
located at 11 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
115 Lot 334; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-38B(2)(a)and Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS, Richard and Kathryn Campbell submitted an application for a variance to this Board
for the reasons set forth in such application; and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or
conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows:
1. The proposed addition does not increase the footprint of the house as it presently exists.
2. The side yard, rear yard and all other yards remain the same.
3. The addition makes a better architectural statement than what presently exists.
4. The property is an irregularly shaped piece of property creating the need for a side yard
variance.
5. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this
Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
6. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the
applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this
Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following
conditions:
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 12
1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution;
2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit;
3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
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 next application as follows:
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2243
Application of John M. Coughlin requesting a variance for a permit to erect a side wall sign which is
prohibited pursuant to Section 175-11B (Business and Light Industry Districts) for an office building in a
Business B-Zone District on the premises located at 178 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 627.2.
John M. Coughlin of 35 Byron Lane appeared.
Mr. Simon said he knows Mr. Coughlin, but has no problem dealing with the application and wants to
vote, impartially.
Mr. Coughlin said he waited several years before coming before the Board, understands the law and
granting of a variance will not be creating a hardship to anyone else.
Mr. Wexler asked what the reason is for the variance.
Mr. Coughlin said if there was a street on the side of the building where he wants to put the sign he could
do so, but there is no street next to the side of the building. When the building was built and you drive
down Myrtle Boulevard approaching the corner, the sign presently on the building cannot be seen as it is
22 to 24 ft. off the sidewalk. People drive by consistently, but do not see the sign. Mr. Coughlin
proceeded to reiterate conversations with individuals concerning not seeing the sign. After receiving
numerous complaints, Mr. Coughlin showed a number of people the proposed sign and received no
objections. Mr. Coughlin then presented a picture of the area and related signs. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Lieberman the individual who worked on the signs, was also present.
Mr. Gunther read letters from the following individuals in support of Mr. Coughlin's application; Terry
Price, John F. Reilly, Violet A. Sundin, Community Director of United Way, Alice G. LaSala, President
of Vermilion Bldg. Corp., Larry Wentz, President of Waldron Management Services, Inc., and Peter
Strand, of Peter's Stationery.
Ms. Gallent said the action is an unlisted action, a determination of environmental significance must be
made and suggested that the Board review the EAF contained with the application. Ms. Gallent said if the
Board finds that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact, the
Board would adopt a negative declaration. Ms. Gallent said if the Board finds it would, then a positive
declaration would be adopted, which would lead to an EIS.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed
and adopted unanimously, 4-0.
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 13
RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action and based upon review of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) the Board concludes that the action as proposed will not result in any significant
adverse environmental impact pursuant to SEQRA; and, therefore, a negative declaration shall be issued.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, John M. Coughlin has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together
with plans to erect a side wall sign which is prohibited pursuant to Section 175-11B (Business and Light
Industry Districts) for an office building in a Business B-Zone District on the premises located at 178
Myrtle Blvd.and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 627.2;
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 175-11B; and
WHEREAS, John M. Coughlin submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the
reasons set forth in such application; and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and
has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing
thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or
conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows:
1. Given the location of the proposed sign, the variance requested is insignificant.
2. There will be no neighborhood negative impact as a result of adding the sign; in fact, the
sign, in relieving the applicant's problem, enhances the appearance of the building.
3. Several letters were received from community leaders, neighbors and business owners
all in support of the application.
5. There was no negative decision from the Board of Architectural Review.
6. 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.
7. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
8. 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 Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 14
1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution;
2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit;
3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the
Town Law.
Mr. Gerety said a comment was not made during the discussion, that being that the Board of Architectural
Review (BAR) as an advisory to the Zoning Board discussed the application and a vote was taken at the
meeting the results of which were 2 to 2, no decision. Therefore, the BAR was neutral, there was no vote.
Mr. Gunther thanked the BAR for their advice.
Mr. Gunther then recalled Application#3 - Case 2241.
Mr. Brissette presented an application from Laura Cerrao with survey from 1994 that shows the property
line.
Mr. Wexler said the survey indicates that the retaining wall is on Mr. Brissette's property.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed
and adopted unanimously, 4-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Robert/Renee Brissette have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a 5 ft. fence and 3 ft. high retaining wall. The total height of the fence
and wall as proposed would be a maximum height of 14.0 ft. 4 in. where a maximum height of 5.0 ft. is
allowed pursuant to Section 240-52-A for a fence in a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises
located at 42 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 123 Lot 446; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans
submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to
Section 240-52-A; and
WHEREAS, Robert/Renee Brissette 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
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 15
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or
conditions applying to the land far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows:
1. The variance requested has a minimal significance in terms of height.
2. Letters were received from neighbors immediately affected by the application to the
southwest and to the rear of the property with no objection voiced.
3. The topography of the property is negatively sloping away from the house towards the
end of the property where the retaining wall is to be added,with the purpose of providing
additional level space allowing the applicant to enjoy the use of his property.
4. The rear retaining wall to be added will be at least 12 in. from the rear face of the
existing retaining wall, and will be no higher than 3 ft. as noted in the application.
5. The 4 ft. fence will be on the inside portion of the retaining wall that is on top of the rear
retaining wall.
6. Plantings as noted on the drawings provided, specifically Wintercreeper, will be added
in the space between the 3 ft. retaining wall to be added and the existing stone retaining
wall. Survey #94BT, dated June 23, 1994, of the premises at 34 Edgewood Avenue for
title number LTW94-5586 prepared by Christopher Crossland,New York License#49532
located at P. O. Box 439, Fleetwood, New York, indicates that the existing stone
retaining wall is on the Brissette property.
7. Plantings will be spaced 5 to 6 in. on center.
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 variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the
application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
10. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the
applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this
Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution;
2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and
completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit;
3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection
with this application.
Zoning Board Meeting
September 25, 1996
Page 16
4. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the
Town Law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gunther said the Minutes of previous open meetings will be held over until the next meeting, closed
the open part of the meeting and called an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 23, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
7hai
Marguerj Roma, Recording Secretary