HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992_11_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes O
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
NOVEMBER 24, 1992, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN CENTER
• 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Joel Negrin, Chairman Rtceivt0
Thomas E. Gunther DE 3 1992
Patrick E. Kelleher AATOWNCL RKCC��
J. Rene Simon MAMA,30�+ECK
Arthur Wexler NY
Also Present: Nancy Rudolph, Counsel
Michelle Bonsteel, Assistant Building Inspector,
Marci Dustin, 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 Negrin at 8:27 PM.
APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2025
The Secretary read the application as follows.
Application of Mary Ellen Colabella Bambace requesting variances from
Section 89-34 A(2) to create a lot including an existing house with
53.63+ ft. frontage (75 ft. required) and from Section 89-34 A (1) to
create said lot with 5,363.0 sq. ft. (7,500.0 sq. ft. required).
Further, for the proposed, subdivided, empty lot, variances are requested
from Section 89-34 A(1) for a total area of 5,934.0 sq. ft. (7,500 sq.
ft. required), from Section 89-34 A (2) for frontage of 69.37 ft. where
75 ft. is required and from Section 89-34 A(3) for an average depth of
85.4 ft. (100 ft. required) in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises
located at 6 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town
of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Lot 38.
Donald Mazin, attorney, and Fred Kellogg, Professional Engineer, appeared
with Mrs. Bambace. Mr. Mazin stated that when Mrs. Bambace bought her
house in 1968 she was told by the realtor that her house included an
extra lot and that three houses of Mediterranean style had been built on
a four-lot subdivision. He also demonstrated with colored tax maps the
many houses in the neighborhood with below-code frontages.
Mr. Mazin claimed that the variance was not substantial and that Mrs.
Bambace would sell her house and build a new house on the subdivided lot.
Mr. Negrin stated that one lot would he 79% of the required size; the
other would be 71.5%.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 24, 1992
-2-
David Birch, 67 Edgewood Avenue; George Gold, 8 Leafy Lane; Paul Sciacca,
69 Edgewood Avenue; and Sheldon Haffer, 65 Edgewood Avenue appeared in
opposition. They felt that the Board should reject the application
because of the undersized lots that would evolve. Mr. Sciacca, in
particular, objected as his house, an old carriage house, is very close
to the rear property line; and a house on a subdivided lot would cut out
light and air and would have a severe impact. It was suggested that Mrs.
Bambace could seek certiorari relief for her high taxes.
With the Thanksgiving holiday coming up, it was decided to take a
consensus on the applications, have the counsel and secretary prepare
resolutions and vote at the next meeting.
Mr. Gunther, with Mr. Kelleher seconding, proposed denying this
application. Four members agreed; Mr. Simon did not.
On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, this matter was tabled.
APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2026
The Secretary read the application as follows.
Application of Mr. and Mrs. Robert R. Thomma, 1122 Palmer Avenue
adjourned from October 28, 1992.
Mr. Thomma appeared and reiterated his mistake and details of his
request. Several neighbors, Howard Brounstein, Daniel Ferrara and
Margaret Joyce, accompanied him.
After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the
following resolution was proposed and adopted 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;
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. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Negrin, the following
resolutions were adopted with a vote of 3 - 2, Messrs. Gunther and Wexler
opposed.
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Robert R. Thomma have requested a Certificate
of Occupancy for an existing shed on the premises located at 1122
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 24, 1992
-.-
Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 406 Lot 319; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such
certificate on the grounds that the shed as constructed fails to
comply with the variance granted on October 24, 1990 with particular
reference to Section 89-34 B (3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Thomma submitted an application for 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;
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 require additional storage space to make
full use of their property.
2. The lot in question is long and narrow. There is no more
appropriate area to install a storage shed.
3. On October 24, 1990, the Board had granted a variance to
construct a shed to be within 2. 12 of the side property
line.
4. Subsequently, in construction the shed was placed in error
within .8 feet of the side property line.
5. The error appears to have been accidental and a minor
deviation from the earlier variance granted. Although the
shed is now closer to the garage of the side yard
neighbor, it is farther from the garage on the applicant's
property and, therefore, does not increase the feeling of
congestion in the area.
6. The rear yard neighbor is the playing field at Central
School, and the shed will help screen the applicants' rear
yard from the playing field. The School District did not
object. The side yard neighbor supports the application.
7. It would impose an undue economic hardship upon the
applicant to move the shed to conform to the earlier
variance.
8. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not
be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental
to the public welfare.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 24, 1992
-4-
9. 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.
10. 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
RESOLVED, that an application to the Board by Mr. and Mrs. Robert
Thomma for a variance from Section 89-34 B (3)(b) so as to allow to
remain a shed with a side yard of 0.8 ft. on the premises located at
1122 Palmer Avenue, said premises being known and designated on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Lot 319 be
•
and the same is granted, subject to the following condition.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in
Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2031
The Secretary read the application as follows.
• Application of Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Eddy requesting a variance from
Section 89-33 B(2)(a) to construct a rear addition with a side yard of
8.92 ft. where 10.0 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 located at 68 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map
of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Lot 439.
David Burde, architect, appeared with Mr. Eddy. He stated that the Eddys
wanted to enlarge their kitchen. He submitted favorable petitions from
neighbors.
Mr. Negrin noted that an addition to the South or West would not be as
satisfactory and that the encroachment was only 6 to 7 square feet
Mr. Wexler, with Mr. Gunther seconding, proposed granting this variance.
All the members were in favor.
On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, this matter was tabled.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 24, 1992
-5-
APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2032
Application of Mr. and Mrs. Thierry Hasse requesting variances from
Section 89-34 B(2)(a) to construct a two-story addition with a side yard
of 6. 7 ft. where 10.0 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-7.5 Zone District on
the premises located at 44 Glenn Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map
of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114 Lot 520.
Howard Raabe appeared with Mr. Hasse. He stated that this house has
become very crowded for a family with three children with another
expected. Its ground floor has only 773 square feet; the second has 675
square feet.
Mr. Wexler, with Mr. Simon seconding, proposed granting this variance.
All of the members were favorable towards it.
On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Gunther, this matter was
tabled.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Negrin briefly adjourned the meeting at 10:15 PM and reopened it at
10:22 PM.
APPLICATION NO 5 - CASE NO. 2033
The Secretary read the application as follows.
Application of Mr. and Mrs. Mark Jurish requesting a variance from
Sections 89-33 B(2)(a) and 89-37 B(2)(b) to construct a rear deck and a
terrace with side yards of 7.72 ft. and 6.32 ft. respectively where 10.0
ft. is required and with a total side yard of 12.56 ft. where 25.0 ft. is
required. Further, the additions increase 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 located at 91
Lansdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 219 Lot 399.
James Waldon, architect, and Gloria Gouvia, code specialist, appeared
with Mr. Jurish. The Jurishes want to enlarge their deck with access
from their living room and kitchen. The property to the rear. slopes.
The drawings were confusing as no terrace was being shown although it was
on the application. Mr. Waldon will submit new drawings prior to the
next meeting.
Mr. Negrin, with Mr. Wexler seconding, proposed granting this variance.
The members agreed.
On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, this matter was tabled.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 24, 1992
-6-
APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2034
Application of Francisco Pia requesting a variance from Sections 89-30.1
D(2) and 89-30. 1 B(1) to construct a detached garage which is not in the
rear one-third of the lot and which would have a 2.0 ft. front yard where
50.0 ft. :is required for a residence in a R-30 Zone District on the •
premises located at 3 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313 Lot 258.
James Fleming, architect, and Joseph Bohan, attorney, appeared with Mr.
Pia. Mr. Fleming stated the plan for the garage had been changed to
reflect the neighbors' wishes. It is now placed at the stone wall and is
32 feet above Fenimore Road. Mr. Pia's current garage does not afford
maneuverability, and he has to park two cars on the street.
•
Mr. Gunther, with Mr. Kelleher seconding, proposed granting this
variance, and the other members concurred.
On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, this matter was tabled.
APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2035
At the request of the applicants, this matter was adjourned to the next
meeting.
APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2036
Application of Dr. Craig Sundahl requesting a variance from Section 89-66
A to construct a two-story building,with 10 parking spaces where 16
spaces are required for a building in an "B-MUB" Business- Mixed Use
Business District on the premises located at 3 Byron Place and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 440.
Dolores Battalia, attorney, and Lawrence Gordon, architect, appeared with
Dr. and Mrs. Sundahl.
Mrs. Battalia stated that the building will replace an eyesore and adds a
ratable to the tax rolls. She stated that the ten spaces would be
adequate for Dr. Sundahl, his staff, his patients and a second-floor
tenant. Mrs. Battalia noted that there is plenty of metered short-term
parking in the area and that the Sundahls are on the waiting list for
permit parking at Maxwell Street.
Mrs. Battalia stated that the project had been approved by the Planning
Board and the Board of Architectural Review.
Paul Hoffmann, 69 Carleon Avenue, a partner. in Hoffmann & Sons which owns
property at the end of Byron Place stated that he was delighted to see
this project. He felt that Byron Place was a neglected area with many
illegal cars parked along it during the day
Mr. Wexler, with Mr. Simon seconding, proposed granting the variance, and
the other members concurred.
Mr. Negrin suggested conditioning the use of the building, but at least
three other members vehemently disagreed.
•
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 24, 1992
-7-
On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, this matter was tabled.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:30 AN.
Bonnie M. Burdick