Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995_01_04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes :41T—Ac.4ripEir: CEIp �, 41" Y� 6 95 1) () r � MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE c9 MAMRNCK A. ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 4, 1995, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 2 -, 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Nina Recio Patrick J. Kelleher Arthur Wexler Absent: J. Rene Simon Also present: John Kirkpatrick, Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector 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 wished everyone a Happy New Year and explained that the meeting was the December one. Mr. Gunther 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, 172 Dillon Road, adjourned from November 22, 1994. Martin King, Esq. appeared with Mr. and Mrs. Doherty. He reiterated the reasons for granting a variance as stated in Otto versus Steinhauler, and restated his argument of figuring the value of the house on its replacement value. Mr. Wexler pointed out that there are many things to consider with real estate such as depreciation, tax advantages and losses against income, and Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the applicant had to convince the Board of real financial loss. Mr. King stated that there was very little guidance from the court concerning residential financial records. He stated that there are many multi-family houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther took a straw poll. Mr Kelleher was in favor of the application; Ms. Recio, Mr. Gunther and Mr. Wexler were all opposed. Mr. Gunther asked that a draft resolution be prepared and carried over the application. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -2- NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be January 25, 1995 at 7:45 PM. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2137 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of John Eckes and Penny Rosenberg requesting variances from Sections 89-35 B (2) (a) and 89-35 B(2) (b) to construct a side addition with a side yard of 4.0 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required and a total side yard of 15.6 ft. where 18.0 ft. is required. Further, the addition increases the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements pursuant to Section 89-57, and a variance is requested from Section 89-67 B for the required off-street parking space which would be 13.43 ft. from the front lot line where 25.0 is required for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 60 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Lot 423. John Weiss, the applicants' builder, requested an adjournment to the next meeting as every member was not present. Mr. Gunther adjourned the item with no prejudice. ***** APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2142 Application of Edith Frater, 1 Nancy Lane, adjourned from November 22, 1994. Natalino Iamicela, architect, appeared with the Fraters. He had presented new drawings which showed the interior renovations, planned to allow Mrs. Frater's family to move in and maintain some privacy. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, the following resolutions were proposed and adopted unanimously, by a 4-0 vote. RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -3- 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 Ms. Recio, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOrrry unanimously, by a 4-0 vote. WHEREAS, Edith Prater has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a rear deck on the premises located at 1 Nancy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402 Lot 23; 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 89-36 B(3) ; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Frater 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 applicant is hindered by a corner property with two front yards. 2. A deck 24-30 inches high is not particularly cumberscgne. 3. The rear of the house, and the deck, faces a commercial nursery. 4. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 5. The variance is the minimum to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicant 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 4, 1995 -4- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Edith Frater for a variance from Section 89-36 B(3) for a deck with a rear feet on the premises located at 1 Nancypremyard of 11.0 known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of theTownses of being Mamaroneck as Block 402 Lot 23 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. More screening shall be added to the Palmer Avenue side of the lot. 2. The deck shall be no higher than 30 inches, at the building line, from the ground. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. ***** APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2143 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Tony Cusumano requesting a variance from Section 89-32 B(3) to maintain a rear deck with a rear yard, at its closest Point, of .1.7 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required and from Section 89-57 to increase the, extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements for a residence in an R-15 Zone District on the premises located at 48 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213 Lot 495. Valerie Cusumano appeared. She stated that when the house was bought in 1978 the deck was there and that the Building Inspector had inspected it in 1983. The wood has given out; and when her contractor the deck, it was discovered that a Permit was needed. an to replace Mrs. Cusumano agreed that a jog could be cut out of the deck so that State compliance would not be needed. Mr. Wexler commented that the deck nestles into the site and that it is hard to see from the street. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -5- 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 havingno si impact on the environment as determined9nificant corresponding local law, therefore, requiring� New York St ate or Ste, no further action under On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED unanimously by a vote of 4-0. WHEREAS, Tony Cusumano has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain a rear deck on the premises located at 48 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213 Lot 495; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such the grounds that the plans submitted failed topermit on Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with comply tots thei Town of 89-32 B(3) and 89-57; and particular reference Sections WHEREAS, Mr. Cusumano 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 variances sought are granted and also finds as follows: 1. There is considerable distance to the neighboring structure behind this house and its rear deck. 2. The deck is low and unobtrusive. 3. The house is burdened by its topography as the rear yard slopes down. 4. 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. 5. 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, gfety and welfare of the community. 6. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -6- the land and/or building, and the variances granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, ACRE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Tony Cusumano for variances from Sections 89-32 B(3) and 89-57 for a rear addition and deck with a rear yard of 3.0 feet at its closest point on the premises located at 48 Stoneyside Drive said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213 Lot 495 be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall remove that portion of the deck closer than 3.o feet to the rear lot line. 2. 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. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. ***** APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2144 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Jean D. Putnam requesting a variance from Section 89,-34 B(2) (a) to maintain a deck with a side yard of 7.05 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required and from Section 89-57 to increase the extent by which the building fails to meet such area requirements for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 56. Mrs. Putnam appeared. She stated that her deck been built in error and apologized to the Board. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, 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; 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 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -7- corresponding local law, therefore, requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED unanimously by a vote of 4-0. WHEREAS, Jean D. Putnam has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an existing deck on the premises located at 10 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 56; 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) and 89-57; and WHEREAS, Ms. Putnam 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 variances sought are granted and also finds as follows: 1. The deck is small and does not encroach upon the rear, side-lot line any closer than the house does itself. 2. This deck fits in nicely with the house and with the character of the neighborhood. 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 Jean D. Putnam for variances from Sections 89-34 B(2) (a) and 89-57 for a rear deck with a Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -8- 0 side yard of 7.05 feet on the premises located at 10 Leafy Lane, said premises being known and designated on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 56 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. 6 - CASE 2145 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of View Ltd. requesting a variance from Section 89-30 B(3) (b) © to maintain a sport court with chain link enclosure which is located 210.0 ft. from the front property line where a setback of 270.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at Premium Point Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 510 Lot 100. Kevin Carpenter appeared for the applicant. He stated that despite the fact that all other work undertaken during the extensive remodeling had been permitted, none was drawn for the renovation of the tennis court. He apologized and regretted that not all of the Board members had gained access to the site. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, 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 ADOFTED by a vote of 3-0-1, Mr. Gunther abstaining. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 WHYS, View, Ltd. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain a sport court with a chain link fence on the premises located at Premium Point Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 510 Lot 100; 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 89-30 B (3) (b) ; and WHEREAS, View, Ltd. 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, three members inspected the site, the Board 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: O1. This property is unique; it is irregular in shape. 2. The property is burdened by an enormous front yard to the detriment of all other yards. 3. The sport court appears to be hidden. 4. The court matches the character of the neighborhood. 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 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Aft. RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by View, Ltd. for a variance from Section 89-30 B (3) (b) to maintain a sport court with a chain link enclosure 210.0 feet from the front property line located at Premium Point Road, said premises being known and designated on the Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -10- Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 510 Lot 100 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 2146 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Eugene and Bonnie Pressman requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to construct 595+ linear feet of 8-foot-high stone wall where 4.0 ft. is the maximum permitted for a residence in an R-50 Zone © District 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 accompanied by Doug Larson, architect. He stated that he was there to gain a sense of the Board's feeling and was not seeking a vote that night. Mr. Pirro stated that the wall renovation was part of major remodeling being done on this large, historic house. The PressmnG wish to build a stone wall along the front of the property and along the strip of commonly-owned land called the reserve. He claimed that the neighbors were in favor of the construction and submitted two letters. Mr. Larson claimed that there was a 7-foot high fence on Hammocks Road already which Ms. Recio disputed as she could see over it. The members asked Mr. Larson to verify the height of the walls on the street. Mr. Pirro stated that the topography caused problems, and Mr. Wexler stated that the proposed wall on the reserve, in certain instances, was 10 feet high. He felt that such a high wall would have a strong impact on the neighborhood and requested that the applicants appear in person. Mr. Jakubowski pointed out that the CZMC had reviewed the application and requested the removal of the structure in the Sound. Mr. Pirro denigrated this opinion and stated that such removal would be dangerous. William Maker, Jr., attorney, appeared representing Lauren Miralia, 210 Hammocks Road, who lives directly across the street from the applicants. He stated that the applicants need to show a practical difficulty and that the proposed wall would cut off his client's view of the Sound. Mr. Maker also stated that the wall cited by Mr. Larson is actually in Mamaroneck Village. He stated that a 4-foot wall was sfficient to contain children. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -11- Mr. Miralia also appeared. He stated that several houses in the neighborhood are for sale including the Bridges which also borders the reserve. He claimed that the high wall would change the nature of the neighborhood dramatically and would created a blind traffic corner. Mr. Miralia stated that the addition of an electric fence would create a traffic buildup. Mr. Pirro stated that his clients wanted to change their appeal to an interpretation of the Building Inspector's opinion particularly as a replacement of the wall is being sought. He suggested an adjournment to review the minutes, and to seek a new interpretation which will need to be renoticed. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, this matter was adjourned to the meeting of January 25, 1995. APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2147 The Secretary read the application as follows. Application of Dr. and Mrs. Michael Quittman requesting a variance from Section 89-67 A to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for a driveway located 0.9 ft. at its closest point and an average of 2.2 ft. from the northerly property line where 5.0 ft. is required for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 35 Marbourne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 330 Lot 350.11. Mrs. Quittman appeared. She stated that their house had been completed in August and that a subsequent survey had revealed the driveway mistake. Relocating the driveway, besides creating a financial hardship, would be difficult as their neighbors have a water meter, water pipes and sewer pipes in the Quittman's hill near the driveway. Their other neighbor, to whom the driveway is adjacent, has an unbuildable lot near the Quittmans as there is a gorge with a "river" running through it. The neighbor in -g question, Bruce Trottman, MD, claimed that the Quittmans caused nothing but trouble. He stated that his property rights had been harmed, but that this will be handled in court. Dr. Trottman stated that this property was valuable; he claimed he had been offered $200,000 for it. Mrs. Quittman claimed that they had received permission from Dr. Trottman to store dirt on his property and that they had restored it. She stated that they had tried to discuss the driveway with Dr. Trottman as the two surveys differed. Mr. Kelleher suggested that the Quittmans contact their surveyor and ask him to verify the accuracy of his work. Mr. Jakubowski suggested a swap of land and discussed the matter with Mrs. Quittman and Dr. Trottman following the meeting. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, this matter was adjourned to the meeting of January 25, 1995. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 1995 -12- Mr. Gunther noted that the Town Board would be discussing changes to the Town Code and requested a motion of support from this Board to relieve it of some actions. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was adopted unanimously by a vote of 4-0. WHEREAS, at the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals the Building Inspector has proposed changes to the Zoning Code with regard to decks, fences, lot coverage, tennis court side yards, pool decks/patios and the definition of corner lots and through lots; and WHEREAS, the adoption of these proposed changes would relieve the Zoning Board of the burden of mining applications for unnecessary variances; and WHEREAS, these proposed changes have been incorporated into the proposed Town Code; NOW, FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck favors the formal acceptance of the proposed Town Code and urges the adoption of the proposed Town Code by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Recio, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 PM. Bonnie M. Burdick