Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991_02_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 27, 1991, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOS"TON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 4 Present: Joel Negrin, Chairman RECEIVED Thomas E. Gunther 47 21 Patrick B. Kelleher PA 1991 J. Rend Simon =' R(4 DiCf Arthur Wexler A,4MJ O NECKCCIO Also Present: Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. Counsel William E. Jakubawski, Building Inspector Barbara Terranova, Public Stenographer Carbone, Kazazes & Associates 225 Mount Pleasant Avenue Mamaroneck, NY 10543 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Negrin at 8:21 PM. NEXT MEETING Due to conflicts in several members' schedules, the next meeting will be Thursday, March 28, 1991. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 1012 Mr. Hoffman read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. J. Faivre requesting a variance from Section 89-31 B(3) to reduce the rear yard from 40.0 feet required to 37.0 feet to retain a side screened porch and a rear Florida Room which increases the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57, in an R-20 Zone District, on the premi'-c: located at 1036 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 346 Lot 256. Sam Watkins appeared on behalf of the applicants. He stated that the Faivres had bought the house in 1989 and had not known the screened porch and Florida Room were non-conforming. One side of the structure is 37' from the line and the other is 38.9'. The structures are 20 years old, and a financial hardship would be incurred to correct the non-conformity. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or February 27, 1991 -2- corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQ . On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were unanimously approved: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. J. Faivre have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to retain a screened porch and Florida Ronan on the premises located at 1036 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 346 Lot 256; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 89-31 B(3) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Faivre submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The non-conforming structures were pre-existing to purchase and not known to the owners to be in violation to the Code. 2. The structures have been in place for 20 years. 3. Retention of the structures would not increase the degree of non-conformity. 4. The setback of the structures for which application is made is essentially the same as a one-story portion of the house for which a Certificate of Occupancy had previously been granted. 5. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. February 27, 1991 -3- 6. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and 7. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance granted by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Sections 89-31 B(3) and 89-57 of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the retention of a side screened porch and a Florida Room on the premises located at 1036 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 346 Lot 256 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and any conditions set forth in these resolutions, provided that the applicants comply in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and, in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance, the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law ***** APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 1013 Mr. Hoffman read the application as follows: Mr. and Mrs. W. Scott requesting a variance from Section 89-35 B(1) to reduce the front yard from 30.0 feet required to 16.4 feet for the proposed construction of a side addition which would increase the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57, in an R-6 Zone District, on the premises located at 11 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 65. Edmund Purves, attorney, and Gus Worirnith, architect, appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Purves stated that the house is 80 years old and laid out in an awkward way. The addition is the most efficient and attractive way to accomplish the applicants' needs and is consistent with the line of the house. This plan also preserves a large oak tree in the side yard. Mr. Purves submitted five favorable letters from neighbors. February 27, 1991 -4- On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SE QRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. W. Scott have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a side addition on the premises located at 11 Hillerest, Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 65; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to fly with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 89-35 B(1) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Scott submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The addition will be no closer to the front property line than the building as it presently exists. 2. This addition conforms with the design of the house and to the neighborhood. 3. The addition could be added to the side where a variance would not be needed but which would require the destruction of a large oak tree. 4. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. 5. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general pvrpoccs and intent of this Ordinance and will not be February 27, 1991 -5- injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance granted by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Sections 89-35 B(1) and 89-57 of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a side addition on the premises located at 11 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 65 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and any conditions set forth in thee resolutions, provided that the applicants comply in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and, in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance, the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law ***** APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 1015 Mr. Hoffman read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. C. Mueller requesting a variance from Section 89-33 B(3) to reduce the rear yard from 25.0 feet required to 17.0 feet for the proposed construction of a raised rear patio terrace which would increase the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57 in an R-10 Zone District, on the premises located at 82 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 103. Chris Mueller appeared on behalf of his application. He stated that he and his wife wanted to extend an existing patio seven feet farther back into the yard. The yard slopes as does that of his neighbor so that the neighbor's roof is all that is seen from the Muellers' back yard. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Negrin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or February 27, 1991 -6- corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. C. Mueller have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a raised rear patio terrace on the premises located at 82 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 103; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 89-33 B(3) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Mueller submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The land slopes. No one beyond the rear yard can see into this yard. 2. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. 3. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and 4. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance granted by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Sections 89-33 B(3) and 89-57 of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a raised rear patio terrace on the premises located at 82 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Lot 103 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and any conditions set forth in these resolutions, provided that the February 27, 1991 -7- applicants comply in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that the following condition shall be attached to the variance: After construction of the patio, earth shall be mounded along the exterior edges at a slope of approximately 30% to blend the edges of the patio into the ground. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Toren Clerk and, in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance, the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ***** APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE NO 1016 Mr. Hoffman read the application as follows: Application of Sts. John and Paul Church requesting variances to replace an existing structure. The replacement of a nonconforming structure must be done in conformity with Zone Regulations, Section 89-35A-E. The replacement structure proposed for 11SP again as a one family dwelling is not an accessory use permitted under Section 89-20 (C) and the structure is proposed to have a 5.0 feet rear yard where 25.0 feet is required and 5.0 feet side yard where 8.0 feet is required, both pursuant to Section 89-35 B(2) (a) & (3) for residences in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 280 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 1. Appearing were Msgr. Boyd, pastor of the church, and Anton Schramm, who is in charge of maintenance. The custodian for the church/school has lived in a substandard house on the church property. It is important to the church and school that he be on hand at all times. The house, at least forty years old, has been judged not worthy of repair. The new house will be prefabricated and will be placed at almost the same location. ( It will be five feet from the property lines rather than 1; feet.) There is no other suitable place on the property to place the residence. Geoffrey Young, attorney, appeared on behalf of abutting neighbor, Margaret Dawson of 4 Mardon Road. He asked that the house be sited farther away from the property line, wondered whether the new house would cause a towering effect with a second floor larger than the first floor, had concerns about the possibility of machines going onto his client's property during construction and asked that the dividing fence be reconstructed. February 27, 1991 -8- Mr. Schramm assured Mr. Young and Mrs. Dawson that no damage would be done during construction, that the the fence would be constructed along all of the property line and that a much more attractive house would be the result of construction. It was decided that the church would plant evergreens on the neighbor's side of the fence to soften the view of the new house. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SDQPA. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Sts. John and Paul Church has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to replace an existing structure on the premises located at 280 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 89-35 A-E, 89-20 (C) and 89-35 B(2) (a) & (3) and WHEREAS, Sts. John and Paul Church submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The replacement structure will have a slightly larger setback than the current house. 2. There is no other appropriate place to put the house. 3. The replacement structure is an improvement to the property. February 27, 1991 -9- 4. The existing building is not safe for habitation. 5. It is at least desirable and possibly necessary that a maintenance custodial person live on the premises because of extensive, continuous activities there. 6. Placement elsewhere would decrease the parking available for a building ill-equipped with parking to meet its present needs. 7. The use of the structure for a custodian is similar to permitted accessory use under Sections 89-20 C and 89-21. 8. The variance granted is the minimum that would alleviate the practical difficulties detailed in the application. 9. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpoecs and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and 10. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town Code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance granted by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Sections 89-35 A-E, 89-20 (C) arxi 89-35 B(2) (a) & (3) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a replacement structure on the premises located at 280 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217 Lot 1 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and any conditions set forth in these resolutions, provided that the applicants comply in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following conditions shall attach to the variance: 1. The replacement fence shall be placed along the entire property line. 2. Five evergreens, 6 feet tall, shall be planted, reasonably spaced, behind the fence at the new structure facing the house at 4 Mardon Road. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town February 27, 1991 -10- Clerk and, in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance, the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ***** APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 1017 Mr. Hoffman read the application as follows: Application of Dr. and Mrs. K. Brumberger requesting variances for the proposed construction of a gazebo, garage and basketball court. The unattached garage, the gazebo and the area for uuP. as a basketball court are located in a side yard with a setback of 56.8 feet and not on the rear one-third of the lot as required pursuant to Section 89-31 B(3) (b) , the paved area of the court for basketball and parking would be 1.0 feet where 5.0 feet is required from the side property line pursuant to Section 89-44-A and Section 89-67 and the garage would be a two story structure as defined in Section 89-3 where only one story unattached accessory structures are allowed pursuant to Section 89-31 B(3) (b) , in an R-20 Zone District, on the premises located at 10 Marbourne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334 Lot 35. Steve Frenkel, architect, and Keith Brumberger appeared on behalf of the application. The applicants want to build a third garage which will also provide storage for outdoor equipment. Should the garage have been designed to be attached to the house, Mr. Frankel stated that it would disturb the light in a bedroom next to the existing garage; and Mr. Jakubowski stated that said garage would have to be 25 feet from the side line. Mr. Negrin stated that the detached garage would be only 5 feet from the neighboring property line and 20 feet fran the house on such property, placing a burden on the neighbors and presenting a large, blank facade to them. That neighbor, Michael Costello of 2 Jenny Close objected to the construction which he would see from his kitchen and family roan. He stated that there would be a tunnel effect with the building in place. Joseph Zuckerman of 7 Marbourne Drive also objected to the construction and referred to the loss of sight lines and open space. He stated that currently he has a view of the pool and a distant house. The proposed garage would adversely effect the enjoyment of his house, he stated. Mr. Zuckerman did not object to Dr. Brumberger having a third garage and wondered whether there would be another way to achieve that purpose. Several members of the Board stated that the height of the proposed garage is extreme. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may February 27, 1991 -11- 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. Mr. Negrin polled the Board informally to determine member's opinions concerning this application. Every member indicated he would vote against the variance. There were no negative opinions expressed about the driveway, gazebo and basketball court. At the request of Dr. Brumberger and on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously decided to adjourn this application to the meeting of March 28, 1991. Dr. Brumberger indicated his consent to the adjournment. ***** APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 1018 Mr. Hoffman read the application as follows: Application of Mr. F. Vernier requesting a variance from Section 89-35 B(2) (a) & (b) to reduce the side yard from 8.0 feet required to 6.6 feet and the total side yards from 18.0 feet required to 14.8 feet for the proposed construction of a two level deck which would increase the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 89-57, in an R-6 Zone District, on the premiscs located at 7 Edgewater Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 180. Edward Lieberman, attorney, appeared with Mr. Vernier. He stated thathe had been counsel to this Board more than two years ago and is now free to appear before it. Mr. Negrin stated that Mr. Lieberman had represented him a year ago but that they have had no further personal or professional association that would effect his ability to make a disinterested decision on the application. Mr. Lieberman stated that the Verniers wish to build a deck because their yard is sloping, and they would like to have a safe place for their small children to play. He stated that the deck will not be any closer to any side yard line than the house. He also stated that the proposed deck is consistent with other decks in the area and that sane neighbors have non-conforming decks and other features that do not have proper Town approvals. Also, the height of the deck is necessary because the applicant wants to be able to use a basement door under it. The lot is substandard and, because of the nature of the driveway, the deck is placed in a location that will require a variance. Bruce Campbell of 5 Edgewater Place and Richard Warren of 9 Edgewater Place appeared. They felt that the deck would impede their views of open space and have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and their hares, becalls.P. the proposed deck is too high and too large. February 27, 1991 -12- On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEXRA. Mr. Kelleher moved to deny the application. There was no second, and Mr. Kelleher withdrew his motion. Several Board members indicated that the deck was to high, too deep and too large, not the minimum necessary to accomplish the desired result, and insufficiently screened. At the request of the applicant and on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously decided to adjourn this application to March 28, 1991. Mr. Vernier indicated his consent to the adjournment. ***** APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 1019 Mr. Hoffman read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. S. Brettschneider requesting a variance from Section 89-44D to construct a six (6) foot high fence (four [4] foot height maximum permitted) , in an Residence Zone District, on the premi^r-, located at 2 Winding Brook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 226 Lot 258. Mr. and Mrs. Brettschneider appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Brettschneider stated that a four-foot fence would not provide enough privacy frcan Fenimore Road. When Mrs. Brettschneider sits at the pool, cars honk horns at her. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is 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 SEXPA. February 27, 1991 -13- On motion of Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. S. Brettschneider have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a six-foot high stockade fence which would exceed the four-foot height limit allowable; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VIII Section 89-44 D which would exceed the four-foot height allowance on the premises located at 2 Winding Brook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Taan of Mamaroneck as Block 226 Lot 180; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Brettschneider submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this board finds there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. There will be a minimal impact on the surrounding property as the location of the fence is approximately 60 feet from Fenimore Road, is not close to neighboring properties and will have a natural design and appearance. 2. The pool on the property is constructed at an elevated location. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpocco and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and 5. There are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstance and/or conditions have not resulted fran any acts of the applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from and that strict compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will not alleviate applicant's practical difficulty. February 27, 1991 -14- FUI IHER RESOLVED that the following conditions shall attach to the variance: 1. The finished side of the fence shall be installed facing Fenimore Road. 2. The finish shall be unstained. FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VIII Section 89-44 D be varied and modified so as to allow the erection of a six-foot fence on the premises located at 2 Winding Brook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 226 Lot 258 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant camplies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FIRMER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance, the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ***** ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 AM. Joel Negr'