Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_01_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 25, 1995, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK4'• Present: Th e s E. Gunther, Chairman ESE ��P Nina �v Ep J. Rene Simon4177? Arthur Wexler jO ��,c,0 k, MaMq C(&RK C/0 Absent: Patrick J. Kelleher NRyNECK Also present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Valerie Moore O'Keeffe, Town Board Liaison Lisa Parilla, Public Stenographer Kazazes & Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Bonnie M. Burdick, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:49 PM. He stated that for an action to occur three of the four members present had to agree and that any applicant could ask for an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2132 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Betty Doherty requesting variances from Sections 89-21 A(1) , 89-35 A(1) , 89-35 B(5) , 89-67 B and 89.9 to legalize a two family dwelling where a two-family dwelling is not allowed with 2500 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit where 6,000 sq. ft. per unit is required and with 375 sq. feet of usable open space where 1200 sq. ft. is required. The required off-street parking space for the second dwelling unit would be set back 10.0 ft. from the front property line where 25.0 ft. is required, and alteration of an existing conforming one-family use to a nonconforming two-family use is prohibited for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises known as 172 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 11. Martin King, Esq. appeared with Mrs. Doherty. She showed a chart of the many multi-family houses in the neighborhood and submitted 28 petitions supporting her application. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted by a vote of 4-0. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that this is an Unlisted Action requiring no coordination with other agencies and thus Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -2- the Board is solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Action will have no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolution was proposed and adopted by a vote of 4-0. WHEREAS, Betty Doherty as Executrix of the Estate of Olga Lapolla has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to legalize a two-family dwelling on the premises located at 172 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 11; 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 89-21 A(1), 89-35 A(1), 89-35 B(5), 89-67 B and 89.9; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Doherty submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds as follows: 1. The applicant has set forth in the application and admitted in the record that the dwelling has been an illegal three-family house since its construction; 2. Testimony by both the applicant and the Town Building Inspector in the record indicate that the property is not unique in the sense that there are several other two-family and multi-family dwellings, both legal and illegal, in the immediate vicinity; 3. Section 89-1 of the Mamaroneck Code calls for the protection and conservation of the value of buildings, and this proposal would have the opposite effect on neighboring properties; • Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -3- 4. The applicant has not demonstrated to the Board of Appeals the unnecessary hardship required to be demonstrated by State Law in order to grant these variances; 5. The applicant has not demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that she cannot realize a reasonable return; 6. The record demonstrates that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is not unique, and in fact applies to a substantial portion of the neighborhood; 7. The application will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood in that it will further undermine existing single-family residences; 8. The record indicates that the alleged hardship is in part self-created, in that the proliferation of multiple occupancies in the neighborhood has reduced the value of single-family homes and the applicant by its admitted 34 years of illegal occupancy has participated in the creation of the very problem complained of; 9. The proliferation of multiple occupancies in the neighborhood argues for legislative change to address the issue of proper zoning, such as comprehensive rezoning of the neighborhood; suggests that any variance is therefore improper where legislative action is needed; and precludes this Board finding that this applicant's circumstances are unique; 10. In the real estate market of the last few years, many properties have suffered a decline in value from the purchase price paid and therefore a variance granted to this applicant would set a precedent which this Board, having no differentiating factors, would be obligated to follow; and 11. The applicant has only demonstrated that the proposed purchaser has the personal difficulty of being unable to afford this dwelling, at the price asked if it is to be used as a two-family dwelling; the applicant has shown no lack of reasonable return for the value of this dwelling as a one-family dwelling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Betty Doherty for variances from Section 89-21 A(1) to allow a two-family dwelling where it is not allowed; from Section 89-35 A(2) to allow a lot area of 2500 square feet per dwelling unit where 6000 square feet is required; from Section 89-34 B(5) to allow 375 square feet of open space per dwelling unit where 1200 square feet is required; from Section 89-67 B to allow a required off-street parking space 10.0 feet from the front property line where 25.0 feet is required and from Section 89.9 to alter an existing one-family use to an non-conforming two-family use to legalize a two-family house located at 171i Dillon Road, said premises Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -4- being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 11 be and the same is DENIED. ***** APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2137 (and 2140) The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of John Eckes and Penny Rosenberg, 60 Hillcrest Avenue, adjourned from January 4, 1995. John Weiss, the builder, appeared and requested another adjournment which was granted. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be February 15, 1995. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2146 The Secretary read the application as follows. Amended application of Eugene and Bonnie Pressman for an interpretation of Sections 89-44 D and 89-20 B that the stone fencing and the stone and wire link fencing existing on the site may be replaced as of right, all in stone, to heights of eight (8) feet and seven (7) feet, respectively, without a need for a variance; OR alternatively, that: the proposed fencing may be granted under a Special Permit. The applicant also seeks an 'interpretation that the wall along Hammocks. Road is actually composed of a retaining wall section and a fence section and that the three-foot-high fence section will not require a variance; OR alternatively for variances as follows: For a variance from Section 89-44 D to allow the construction of a stone wall with an average height of eight feet and a length of 150 feet along Hammocks Road and a variance from Section 89-44 D to allow the replacement of seven-foot-high, 380-feet-long, existing wire link and stone fencing with a seven-foot-high solid stone fence along the southwesterly side on the premises located at 209 Hammocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417 Lot 107. Albert Pirro, attorney, appeared with Douglas Larson, architect, and Mr. Pressman. Mr. Gunther stated that Mr. Pirro's most recently submitted brief had arrived late the night before and that this Board was accustomed to receiving material a week before a meeting. Mr. Pirro apologized and stated that he was seeking a different interpretation of zoning. He claimed that the wall was merely being restored using different materials; and, therefore, it could be the same height as currently. One neighbor, Richard Hoffman, had been upset about traffic safety. Mr. Pirro submitted a traffic study. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -5- Mr Larson stated that the wall at the reserve is crumbling. It must be reinforced. He stated that planting installed in the past had not been appropriate for the salt-water atmosphere and was dying. Mr. Larson showed a chart with the neighborhood walls on it. He was reminded that the highest wall is in Mamaroneck Village and concluded that the average wall height for the neighborhood was 3 feet 6 inches to 4 feet. Mr. Larson stated that the width of the reserve varied from 60 feet at the Sound to 30 feet at the street. He stated that the topography of the Pressman's lot varied from 31° to 0° at sea level. Mr. Pressman stated that there was a steady stream of people using the reserve in the summer and that he does not have privacy in his yard as a result. Ms. Recio commented that he had opened himself up to such a problem by buying a house, on such an easement. Mr. Wexler stated that there were many ways to deal with the problem. It was his opinion that the process was much more that merely repairing a wall. He felt that the wall was being ripped down and rebuilt. Mr. Wexler stated that the Town residents are forced to live with the Zoning Board's decisions. He felt that Hummocks Road has a very special, country quality to it that would be changed considerably with an eight-foot wall. Ms. Recio did, not recall any recent applications for stone walls or unusually high fences. Mr. Jakubowski cited recent decisions for fences higher than four feet. Nearly all were for unusual situations of topography or safety. He stated that the fences in question would have been wooden, stockade ones. Mr. Wexler wondered how many seven or eight-foot fences or street fences over four feet had been denied during the same time period. Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that some of the wall along the reserve had foundation in the reserve and wondered whether the applicant had the right to use those foundations. Mr. Jakubowski explained that it was possible to build a wall without having the foundations within the reserve. William Maker, Jr., attorney, appeared representing Lauren Miralia of 210 Hammocks Road. He stated that the request for an interpretation was not valid until proof of when the wall was built was obtained. A variance would be necessary under Section 89-56 B. Mr. Maker stated that the wall would not be repaired; a new wall would be built. He reiterated that the wall would have a visual impact for his client and wondered whether the problem could be solved in some other way. Mr. Maker stated that personal taste is not a zoning issue and requested information about fence-height variances that were turned down. Mr. Miralia appeared. He stated that it was not the wall itself that he was opposed to, but its sheer magnitude. He was also concerned about flooding. Mr. Miralia suggested the installation of an iron gate at the entrance to the reserve. He stated that all of the improvements that the Pressmans have done have been excellent. Mr. Miralia explained how his view of the Sound would be effected by the wall and submitted photos. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -6- Mr. Pirro stated that he was trying to obtain an earlier survey of the property. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gunther called a recess at 9:55 PM and re-opened the meeting at 10:04 PM. Mr. Gunther read into the record a letter from Richard Hoffman, the Pressman's adjacent neighbor. He suggested an adjournment of the matter to give Board members another chance to revisit the site and to review the recent papers submitted. Mr. Gunther stated that the adjournment would give the neighbors a chance to consult also. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, Case 2146 was unanimously adjourned to the February 15th meeting. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2147 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Dr. and Mrs. Michael Quittman, 35 Marbourne Drive, adjourned from January 4, 1995. Dr.. Quittman appeared. He reiterated the arguments for his case and stated that he wants to leave the driveway where it is. At the meeting his wife had with Dr. Trottman to explore swapping property, Dr. Trottman had agreed to a swap if the Quittmans paid for the two surveys and $74A00. Dr. Quittman stated that the mistake had occurred because the properties were in different developments and the surveys had varied. Dr. Trottman stated that the Quittmans had the attitude that everyone should take the burden of their mistakes. He was worried that they would not respect his boundaries or his fence and felt that the Quittmans should move their driveway. Mrs. Quittman stated that the mistake was inadvertent and that they were being sued by Dr. Trottman. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. 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, miring no further action under SEQRA. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -7- On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOY1D by a vote of 3-0-1, Mr. Wexler abstaining. WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Michael Quittman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for a driveway on the premises located at 35 Marbourne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330 Lot 350.11; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-67 A; and WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Quittman submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The lot is irregularly shaped; it is a flag lot. 2. It also has unusual topographic features. 3. An existing water meter and water line is very close to the driveway and constricts its location. 4. The driveway is on the applicants' own property. 5. No construction is possible on the immediately adjacent property due to front yard requirements. 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 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -8- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Dr. and Mrs. Michael Quittman for variance from Sections 89-67 A for a Certificate of Occupancy for a driveway 0.9 feet at its closest point and an average of 2.2 feet from the northerly property line on the premises located at 35 Marbourne Drive, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330 Lot 350.11 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. ***** APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2148 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Josephine Acocella requesting variances from Sections 89-20 A, 89-33 A(1), 89-33 D(1) and 89-66 A to legalize a three-(3) family dwelling where a 3-family dwelling is not allowed; where the 3 dwelling units have 15,904 square feet where 30,000 square feet is required; where the building is 3 stories high where 22 stories is the maximum allowed and where 3 parking spaces are shown where 5 spaces are required for a multiple dwelling for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises known as 31 Rockland Avenue and known as Block 223 Lot 297. Edward Davidson, attorney, appeared with the applicant and her family and Howard Lieberman, engineer. He stated that a letter his client received from the Building Inspector was the first notice that the house, purchased in 1949, was illegal. At the time of the purchase, the Department of Housing was aware of the apartments on the second and third floors. Mr. Davidson asserted that assessment records in 1918 listed the house as a three-family residence. Mr. Davidson stated that the family had counted on the house as one-half of its retirement income. He stated that the house was set back more than 95 feet from the street and was beautifully maintained and shrubbed. Mr. Davidson stated that the house made no impact on the neighborhood and that there was no record of complaints against the house. Mr. Jakubowski stated that the Building Permit was issued in 1923 for a one-family residence and that as the assessment records were done in pencil, his department never relied on them. He has relied on WPA cards in the past. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -9- Mr. Kirkpatrick commented that it might be valuable to have financial records. Mr. Lieberman stated that the apartments had good comfortable living space, not what would have been built in 1918. The space has been modernized. Many neighbors, including Edward Clarke, 67 Rockland Avenue; Bruce Sherer, 25 Rockland, Mr. and Mrs. William King, 1 Crest Avenue; Helen Zeek, 33 Rockland; John Legette, 24 Rockland; Mr. and Mrs. Arnold Silver, 27 Rockland; Mark Sherer, 3 Highland Road; Simon Sanders, 5 Hudson Place; and Frank Levitan, 4 Crest, appeared. They all claimed to be willing to allow Mrs. Acocella to live there but not willing to have the house remain a three-family one upon her. departure or death. They commented that no account had been made for the worth of the house. During the course of the neighbors' comments, it was discovered that the house is currently listed for sale. Ms. Recio said that she found this action somewhat disingenuous and that it caused reservations about the integrity of the application for her. Mr. Simon requested a list of the monthly expenses excluding ones personal to the applicant such as nurses. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Recio, the matter was unanimously adjourned. (Mr. Davidson indicated that he would not be able to bring the matter again before March.) ***** APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2149 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Mr. and Mrs. Howard McMichael requesting variances from Section 89-33 B(2) (a) and 89-33 B(2) (b) to maintain an enclosed porch with a side yard of 8.0 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required and total side yards of 14.8 ft. in their least dimension where 25.0 ft. is required. Further, the addition increases the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises known as 14 Rouken Glen South (a/k/a South Drive) and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 323. Mr. McMichael appeared. He stated that about 10 years ago he had enclosed a porch without benefit of a Building Permit and was trying to rectify the situation now. He stated that 16-20 bushes plus a rock pile separate his house from his neighbors' house. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -10- After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. 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; FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were adopted unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Howard McMichael have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an enclosed porch on the premises located at 14 Rouken Glen South (a/k/a South Drive) and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 323; 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(2) (a), 89-33 B(2) (b), and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. McMichael submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The enclosure of this porch does not increase the side encroachment. 2. The footprint of the house has not changed. 3. In this neighborhood there are many non-conforming houses. 4. There is no question of privacy concerning the adjacent house as the porch faces its garage. 5. The porch also faces a rock pile and is well screened by shrubbery. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -11- 6. The granting of these variances 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 variances are the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserve and protect 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 and/or building, and the variances granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Mr. and Mrs. McMichael for variances from Section 89-33 B(2) (a) , 89-33 B(2) (b) and 89-57 for a side yard of 8.0 feet and total side yard of 14.8 feet located at 14 Rouken Glen South (a/k/a South Drive) , said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Lot 323 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. ****** APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2151 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of John and Valerie O'Keeffe requesting variances from 89-34 B(2) (a) and 89-34 B(2) (b) to enclose a porch and to legalize a one-story addition. The addition has a side yard of 5.52 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required, the porch has a side yard of 6.27 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required and the total side yard would be 11.79 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required. Further, the enclosure and addition increase the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises known as 11 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 620. Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -12- Mrs. O'Keeffe left the meeting, and Ms. Recio stated that she knew the applicant but that such friendship would not influence her decision. James Fleming, architect, appeared with Mr. O'Keeffe. He stated that the room in question matches the house and is well-screened. Such an extension is not atypical for the neighborhood. The O'Keeffes want to enclose a roofed porch on the right side rear. They will remove the stairs. After review, on motion of Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. 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; FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolutions were adopted unanimously, by a vote of 4 - 0. WHEREAS, John and Valerie O'Keeffe have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to enclose a porch and to maintain a one-story addition on the premises located at 11 Dante /Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 620; 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 89-34 B(2) (a), 89-34 B(2) (b) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. O'Keeffe submitted an application for variances 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; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant and the special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted and also finds as follows: 1. The applicants seek to legalize a pre-existing condition. 2. The enclosure makes no change to the footprint of the building. i Zoning Board of Appeals January 25, 1995 -13- 3. The granting of these variances is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 4. The variances are the minimum. to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land and/or building, and the variances granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by John and Valerie O'Keeffe for variances from Section 89-34 B(2) (a) , 89-34 B(2) (b) and 89-57 for a side yard of 5.52 feet for the addition and 6.27 feet for the porch and total side yard of 11.79 feet located at 11 Dante Street, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 620 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 3. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 AM. Bonnie M. Burdick I I