Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_08_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 18, 1999, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Absent: Jillian A. Martin Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel Kevin T. Moore, Assistant Building Inspector Michele DiEdwards, Public Stenographer 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 8:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed those present that one member of the Board will not be present this evening. There are regularly five members of the Board present. The Board will be happy to hear each case. In order for an action to be approved or denied, three out of the five members have to vote for the motion for it. If the applicant would rather have his or her case heard at the next meeting when all five members will be present, it will be done without prejudice. Mr. Gunther also informed those present that the following application has been adjourned from several prior meetings. A letter was received this date, requesting another adjournment to the September meeting, as the Pressman residence has been sold: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2352 (adjourned 3/17/99;4/28/99;5/26/99;6/23/99;7/21/99) Application of Eugene Pressman requesting a variance to legalize an existing pillar. The pillar as constructed has a height of 7 ft. 3.5 in. where 6 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52B for a pillar 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. William Maker, Jr., the attorney for Mr. Miralia, said he understands the Board just received the above- mentioned letter and asked what exactly does it mean. Ms. Gallent said she expects to hear whether or not the new owners want to pursue this application and awaits instruction. Mr. Miralia thanked Ms. Gallent for her response. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously Zoning Board August 18, 1999 © Page 2 RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2352 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the September, 1999 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gunther called the next matter, case #2357. The Secretary said that the applicant had requested an adjournment, a copy of which was included in the Board packets. Mr. Gunther proceeded to read the letter into the record. On a motion made by Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of following case, #2357, be, and hereby is, adjourned to the September, 1999 Zoning Board meeting: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2357 (adjourned 6/23/99 to 8/25/99) Appeal of Byron Place Associates/Hoffmann of a determination of the Building Inspector that the current use of the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132,Lot 410 is not a legal non-conforming use, or in the alternative,an application for a use variance to permit light industrial use in an R-7.5 Zone District. The Secretary read the next application as follows: © APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2360 Application of Dennis P. Tortorella requesting a variance to construct a one-story kitchen and dining room addition. The one-story rear addition as proposed has a total side yard of 23.7 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); a lot coverage of 38% where a maximum 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 61 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 526. Dennis Tortorella, along with his wife and two sons, appeared. He stated he has resided at 61 Fernwood Road to sixteen years and have lived in the Town for his entire life. Both he and his wife work locally. He is before the Board this evening in hopes of getting the requested variance on the small first floor addition. Mr. Wexler said the application states a total side yard is 23.7 ft. where 25 ft. is required, but there is a wood deck that has a dimension of 9.1 ft. and asked if that should also be in the variance request. After some discussion, it was stated he was referring to an old survey and that there is a current survey whereby Mr. Wexler withdrew his question. Mr. Winick said on the left of the property the site plans shows a stucco garage that will be in line with the deck Mr. Tortorella is proposing to build. Mr. Tortorella said yes it is. Mr. Winick said looking from the deck at a right angle to the property line, Mr. Tortorella will be looking at the garage. Mr. Tortorella said yes, but he cannot see it as there are Hemlocks shielding it. Zoning Board August 18, 1999 O Page 3 Mr. Gunther asked if there is any further encroachment on the side lot line other than what currently exists. Mr. Tortorella said that is correct. Mr. Winick said on the site plan there is something within the 11.1 ft. on the right side of the plan to the right of the relocated deck and asked if that is a staircase coming up. Mr. Tortorella said yes, but the deck is going to be dismantled. Mr. Winick referred to the relocated deck, as shown on page 3 of 3 of the drawings submitted, and asked if the staircase is being placed in that side yard. Mr. Tortorella said the staircase is being placed in the back toward the rear property line. A discussion ensued regarding the existing retaining wall and steps. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked a technical questions about section A-A, page 3 of 3,on the drawings submitted. There is no way of venting, there are no soffits. He asked if Mr. Tortorella has a contractor for this project. Mr. Tortorella said he does not have a contractor. ® Mr. Wexler said the estimated $30,000 cost is a very low value, and asked how he arrived at that figure. Mr. Tortorella said he is going to build it. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to Westchester County. It had no comment. 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. Winick, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Dennis P. Tortorella has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story kitchen and dining room addition. The one-story rear addition as proposed has a total side yard of 23.7 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); a lot coverage of 38% where a maximum 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 61 Femwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 526; 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 240-37B(2)(b), Section 240-37F, Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Dennis P. Tortorella submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board August 18, 1999 O Page 4 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor a detriment to nearby properties created. The addition as proposed is similar to and smaller than many of the additions that have been added to homes on that street in recent years and does not increase the lot coverage beyond what is customary in the community. Given the placement of that addition, it is blocked by a garage on one side and screened on the other, there will be no undesirable change or detriment to the adjoining properties. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which doesn't involve an area variance for lot coverage and width. The house is built to the maximum height permitted under the fire code. Any addition would have to be out back and could not be narrower, without effectively making the addition unusable. ® C. The variance is not substantial given the requirements for that size lot, nor for eq the reasons stated regarding an undesirable change. Nor will the variance have any impact at all on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. D. This is not a self-created difficulty. The lot is approximately 7500 sq. ft., a substandard lot in an R-10 zone, which is causing the difficulty that is being sought. It is a house from the 1910's/1920's. The applicant inherited the difficulty and lot size. E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. Zoning Board August 18, 1999 Page 5 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4- CASE 2361 Application of Ray Catena Lexus requesting a variance to erect a wood stockade fence. The stockade fence as proposed has a total height of 8 ft. 6 in. where a maximum 6.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 52C for a fence in a Business District: B Zone District on the premises located at 1435 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411, Lots 249 and 280. Frank Williams, the general manager for Ray Catena Lexus, appeared. Mr. Gunther asked why Ray Catena needs such a large fence. Mr. Williams said the neighbors in Flint Park are unhappy with the lighting and feel that the 8'h ft. fence will eliminate that problem. Ray Catena Lexus is willing to go along with the neighbors. Mr. Gunther said it is to accommodate those neighbors that are in back of the premises to provide shielding from view and asked if 8'h ft. is a mutually agreed upon height. Mr. Williams said yes. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Williams has brought this matter before the Board of the Village of Larchmont. Mr. Williams said no. Mr. Gunther said he asked that question as he is familiar with the history of all the discussions that have occurred and is trying to determine why the 8'h ft. fence is being sought. Mr. Williams said the attorney is present that requested that height and can answer that question. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked if the fence is outlined on the site plan with the "x's" across it,with which Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Williams has an area map that relates to this matter, asked where Flint Park starts as one backs into the property and where the street lies in relationship to the proposed fence. Stanley Futterman, the attorney representing the neighbors who live in the Flint Park area that Mr. Williams is referring to, addressed the Board. Mr. Futterman pointed out on previously submitted area map, the Volvo Dealership, Flint Park, Birch Road in the Village of Larchmont, Locust Avenue and various houses in that area. After further discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public. Mr. Futterman said that Mayor Lewy has been involved in this matter, is watching steps taken and that she previously wrote two letters to Ray Catina Lexus to improve the screening. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Futterman supports this application as a solution to the existing problem. +�rwti Zoning Board August 18, 1999 O Page 6 Mr. Futterman said absolutely. Two years ago more lighting was improved,conditioned upon efforts being made to improve screening. It will enhance the neighborhood. At that time, the Mayor sent letters which the Board received. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Williams said he agrees to install the fence, but wants a release from Mr. Futterman and those he represents. Ms. Gallent said that is a private matter between Mr. Futterman and Mr. Williams. Ms. Gallent also said this matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC). Unfortunately, the CZMC does not meet until August 24, 1999. Therefore, the Board cannot vote on this matter this evening, until CZMC comments are received. The applicant can get a sense of the Board. Ms. Gallent stated the Board should make its SEQRA, a determination of significance, after it gets the CZMC's comments. Mr. Gunther stated that the referral was made to the CZMC on July 29, 1999. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions. There being none, he asked for a sense of the Board regarding this matter. Mr. Gunther, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Winick and Mr. Simon all had no objection. Mr. Gunther said four out of five Board members approve this application, as one member is absent. Once the comments are received from the CZMC, the matter can be continued. He also informed the applicant that he does not need to attend the next meeting. Ms. Gallent said the applicant will receive a copy of the resolution, once approved. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2361 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the September, 1999 Zoning Board meeting awaiting comments from the CZMC. Mr. Futterman asked when the CZMC meets. He was informed to call James Athey, the Environmental Coordinator, at which time the secretary said that the CZMC meets on the fourth Tuesday each month. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2362 Application of Jesse B. Grove, III requesting a variance to construct a roof over an existing deck. The roof addition as proposed has a front yard setback of 23.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the roof addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 484 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222, Lot 279. Jesse Grove addressed the Board. He said he wants to improve and upgrade the looks of the deck. Mr. Wexler said the sides of the deck are open, with which Mr. Grove agreed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Winick said he wants to establish that this does not change the footprint of the deck and that there is no additional encroachment on the property in any direction. Lor Mr. Grove said the roof gutter on the small corner of the deck increases the encroachment minimally. The problem being he has two front yards, but the deck is in the back of the house and he needs the setback that is required. Zoning Board August 18, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Wexler said Mr. Grove has a physical problem related to zoning. Mr. Grove said if it was not considered a front yard, a variance would not be needed. After further discussion regarding the length of the lot and prior intention to have a turnaround area, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning and that the matter is not jurisdictional in their view. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, 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, Jesse B. Grove, III has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a roof over an existing deck. The roof addition as proposed has a front yard setback of 23.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);and further, the roof addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 484 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222, Lot 279; 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 240-37B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Jesse B. Grove, III submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character or neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties created, since the deck presently exists 23 ft. from the rear property line which is a front property line based on zoning setbacks. The enclosure will be no closer to that property line than as the deck presently exists. In addition, looking at this deck from the rear to the right of the property,which is Town property, it is heavily wooded and will be protected from people who use the Leatherstocking Trail. The house on the other side of the property is closer to their property line than this house presently is and will be in keeping with the character in relation to Brookside Place. Zoning Board August 18, 1999 O Page 8 B. The applicant cannot achieve its goals via a reasonable alternative, since the applicant's goal is to shield the deck from vertical rain. There is no way of doing that without covering the deck. C. It is not a substantial variance in this instance. The variance is 7 ft. at only one point and diminishes as it goes along the proposed roof. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, on the same basis as stated in "A". E. It is not a self-created difficulty but a necessity and something that needs to be built, as the deck was in place prior to the purchase of the house. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. © NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the Minutes of the June 23, 1999 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved, 4-0. After some discussion and corrections noted,on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Amended Minutes of the July 21, 1999 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved, 4-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 23, 1999. Zoning Board August 18, 1999 © Page 9 ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Margu to Roma, Recording Secretary O C