Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989_04_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF'MAMARONECK APRIL 26, 1989, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK R. Present: EO Joel Negrin, Chairman EtE1V Thomas E. Gunther R 1 1��9 Patrick B. Kelleher J. Rene Simon ?er gq 0. NE Arthur Wexler MAM O Also Present: Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Marci Altman, Public Stenographer Carbone, Kazazes & Assocaites 225 Mount Pleasant Avenue Mamaroneck, NY 10543 Bonnie M. Burdick, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Negrin at 8:22 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the minutes of the meeting of March 1, 1989 were unanimously approved. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the minutes of the meeting of March 22, 1989 were unanimously approved. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 888 Application of Fort Madison Associates requesting variances from Section 89-41 A (3) to increase building coverage from 25% permitted to 67%; Section 89-41 C to allow an increase in the maximum floor area from 50% permitted to 67%; Section 89-66 (A) to reduce the number of required off-street on site parking spaces required for a proposed new lot from 26 to 0; and for approval of the Zoning Board pursuant to' Sections 89-66 (C) and 89-67 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance to provide 26 parking spaces on a lot within 500 feet of the presently existing, nonconforming restaurant building, all in connection with an application to subdivide property designated as Block 409, Parcel 131 on the Town of Mamaroneck Tax Map into two (2) lots, thereby separating what is now Casey's Restaurant from a residence known as 11 Alden Road. Edmund S. Purves and Andrea Kremen, attorneys, appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated that the 11 Alden Tenants Corporation had joined the application. Ms. Kremen had submitted a statement to the Board prior to this meeting setting forth details of the case and the reasons for granting a variance. April 26, 1989 -2- Said statement will become a part of the record. Ms. Kremen stated that the application was for a use variance, not an area variance. She also stated that the 12 outdoor parking spaces near the restaurant had historically been part of the spaces for the apartment dwellers. Said spaces were reserved by the sponsor of the cooperative. However, as part of the settlement of the litigation between Fort Madison and 11 Alden, the spaces are now reserved for use of 11 Alden. The owner of Ecco Leasing, Robert Flinn, has declined to make a permanent arrangement concerning Ecco's leasing of spaces for parking for restaurant clientele. Mr. Flinn and the restaurant (as well as the predecessor restaurants) have had an oral agreement on a month-to-month basis for twenty-five years. The Board considered a conditional variance for a specific term. However, the property would be subdivided as a result of the conditional variance and, it could not be re-merged should the conditions no longer be met. Mr. Negrin stated that he felt that the Board was being asked to approve a self-imposed hardship which Fort Madison had caused by converting the building to cooperative apartments, selling the parking spaces with the apartments and then relinquishing 12 additional parking spaces following the litigation. It was noted that were the variance denied, there would be a status quo - the restaurant would operate as before. 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. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously 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. Wexler moved to grant the variance. There was no second to the motion. Therefore, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, with Mr. Wexler abstaining, the following motion was passed: WHEREAS, Fort Madison Associates has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to increase building coverage from 25% permitted to 67%; to allow an increase in the maximum floor area from 50% permitted to 67%; to reduce the number of the off-site spaces required for a proposed new lot from 26 to 0; and to provide 26 spaces on a lot within 500' of the presently existing, nonconforming April 26, 1989 -3- restaurant building all in connection with an application to subdivide property on the premises known as 1420 Boston Post Road and 11 Alden Road and known on the tax map as Block 409, Parcel 131; 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 89-41 C, 89-66 (A) and (C) , 89-67 (A) ; and WHEREAS, Fort Madison Associates 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 hereby denies the application on the following grounds: 1. The structuring of the cooperative arrangement and the settlement of litigation which included ceding control of the 12 parking spaces next to the restaurant were in the nature of a self-imposed hardship created by the applicant. 2. The Board did not recognize a need to create a subdivision. 3 . There was no tangible indication presented of the availability of parking for the restaurant within 500' . There were only statements that an oral agreement has existed on a month-to-month basis. 4. The application is for a use variance, and the applicant must demonstrate both a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship. 5. There is no indication that the applicant cannot receive a resonable return on the use of its property absent the granting of the variance. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. April 26. 1989 -4- APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 902 Application of Melvina Raukx, Executor/Estate of L. Summers, continued from the meeting on March 22, 1989. Mr. Simon recused himself from the case as he had personal knowledge of the applicant and might have a conflict of interest. He had also recused himself from this case when it was presented at the March 22nd meeting. Peter E. Mosher, attorney, and his associate, Gladys E. Ullmann, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the building was owned in a corporate name and that the case would be presented in two parts. Argument would be presented that use as a two family house should continue as there exists a prior nonconforming use, and then a presentation would be made for a variance. Mr. Mosher reiterated many of the facts given by Mrs. Raukx and her sisters at the previous meeting: the house had housed two families prior to the passage of the Zoning Ordinance in 1922; the family's laundry business had been moved to the site from Murray Avenue at the time of the construction of the school; the laundry building had been attached to the house at a later date; and, currently, the second dwelling unit is above this part of the house and completely separate from the rest of the house making remodeling expensive; and, there is a card in the Assessor's office indicating that the house has been taxed as a two-family house since 1915. Mr. Mosher stated that there are many other multifamily houses in the neighborhood - four of the six houses on Baldwin, for instance. Mr. Hoffman told the Board that it was his opinion that the Board could consider that the property had been taxed as a two-family house but said taxation did not create a binding estoppel against the Zoning Board. Mrs. Ullmann had prepared a packet of information for the Board. It included affidavits from the Summer's children who had lived in the house - one since 1914; 11 letters from neighbors who knew the house to be a two-family - one letter stating knowledge back to at least 1910; and a petition signed by 23 neighbors in favor of the application. Said packet will become a part of the record. The Board raised questions about the addition of the second-story addition over the laundry. There are records available in the Building office for construction dated after 1922, but none exist for this addition which is the current location of the second dwelling unit. Mrs. Ullmann, arguing the variance aspect, cited the severe economic hardship which the family would suffer if the house could not be sold. She stated that use of the house for two families :\piil 9, 1989 -5- would not change the character of the neighborhood or have a detrimental impact on its safety or stated that there are two general welfare. Mrs. Ullmann a ark and nt nearby, Many of the neighbors were oints,the paudience ain sup ort the application. prt of ADJOURNMENT Mr. Negrin declared a brief adjournment at 10:40 PM and reopened the meeting at 10:55 PM. Peter Perciasepe, 96 Myrtle Boulevard, stated that the area is not predominantly a two-family one. He presented a color-coded tax map with a legend indicating use of the houses. He explained, house-by-house, in many instances, the history of the house and told the Board that plans for a gas station and for a grocery store had been denied on Myrtle Blv'd at or near Baldwin Avenue. Some houses had been moved to sites in the area and remained two-family houses when they were moved. Mr. Perciasepe reminded the Board that it had denied Carl Tortorella's request for a two-family dwelling in November, 1988. Said house is 150' from the Summers' house. Mr. Perciasepe stated that he agreed that the Summers family had used the house for two families and that many houses had become two-family houses through use rather than with permission, particularly during the Depression. There is a lot of traffic on Myrtle Blvd, and no parking is allowed, he also stated. Mr. Perciasepe stated that he had removed the second kitchen from his house and that he felt that nonconforming two-family houses in the area should be returned to use as one-family houses. Neighbors in the audience who spoke in favor of this application and leaving houses as they are used were Marie Martinson, 20 Baldwin Avenue; and Linda Hartington, 85 Myrtle Blvd. A former resident of the Summers' house, Frances Clark, was present and stated that she and her family had lived in the house, together with the Summers family, around 1930. Mr. Perciaseppe stated that he was not suggesting changing existing two-family houses back to one-family ones but that he was not in favor of allowing one-family houses to become two-family dwellings. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted by those voting, 4 to 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 April 26, 1989 -6- 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. Negrin, the following resolution was adopted by those voting, 3 to 1, Mr. Kelleher opposed: WHEREAS, Malvina Raukx, as Executrix of the Estate of L. Summers, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to use the premises as a two-family dwelling where only one family use is permitted; to allow two dwelling units on a 6,000 square foot lot where 12,000 square feet are required on the premises located at 8 Baldwin Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 414. 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) and 89-35 A(1) , and WHEREAS, Mrs. Raukx submitted an application for a determination that the use of the premises as a two family house is a pre-existing, non-conforming use pursuant to Section 89-54 of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance; 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 building has existed as a two-family house prior to 1922 when the Zoning Ordinance was enacted. 2. The affidavits and statements presented to the Board document the use of the house by two families prior to 1922. 3 . Records in the Assessor's Office exist, bearing a 1915 date, indicating that the house has been taxed as a two-family house for many years. April 26, 1989 -7- FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the premises located at 8 Baldwin Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 414 is a pre-existing, non-conforming use as a two family use under Section 89-54 and said premises and structures thereon shall be maintained within strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and any conditions set forth in this resolution, 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 Certificate of Occupancy within 6 months; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk. Mr. Kelleher left the meeting after the completion of this part of the agenda at 11:40 PM. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 904 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Hull requesting variances from Section 89-33 B(2)(a) to reduce the side yard from 10.0 feet required to 3.0 feet, Section 89-33 B(2)(b) to reduce the total for both side yards from 25.0 feet required to 9.0 feet, in an R-10 Zone District, for the proposed enclosure of an existing screened porch for living space on the premises located at 9 Woody Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224 Parcel 198. Richard Fleming, architect of Remodeling Consultants, represented the applicants. He stated that the Hulls wanted to enclose an existing side porch a more livable space for the family is needed because Mrs. Hull is six months pregnant. The proposed construction would be on the existing footprint. The side of the house is currently three feet from the property line. April 26, 1989 -8- On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: 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 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. Simon, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Hull have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to enclose an existing side porch for living space on the premises located at 9 Woody Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224 Parcel 198; 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) and (b) ; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Hull 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. There will be no extension from the existing structure. 2. The property is irregularly shaped with large outcroppings of rock causing a practical difficulty because an addition to the house in any other part of the house would be awkward or very expensive. April 26, 1989 -9- 3. No open space currently exists on the side of the house in question. 4. The personal situation of the applicant - anticipation of a new baby - causes a practical difficulty. 5. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. 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 89-33 B(2)(a) and (b) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified _so as to allow the enclosure of an existing porch on the premises located at 9 Woody Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224 Parcel 198 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 April 26, 1989 -10- APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 905 ' The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Dr. Danne Lorieo requesting a variance from Section 89-30.1 D(2) for the proposed construction of a storage shed which would not be located on the rear one-third of the lot being only 50.0 feet from the front lot line where a distance of 143 .0 feet is required, in an R-30 Zone District, on the premises located at 693 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Parcel 54. Dr. Lorrieo appeared on behalf of his application. He stated that he wanted to build an accessory structure for his swimming pool to house the vacuum cleaner and chemicals for the pool. The pool is sunk below ground. Dr. Lorrieo stated that the proposed shed would not be visible to the street or to his neighbors because of the grade at the proposed placement, a 10' to 12' outcropping and the pool's landscaping. Between the pool and the greenhouse is a sweeping lawn. Dr. Lorrieo stated that the visual vista of the back yard would be broken up by placing the proposed shed in the area. Mr. Simon agreed that the place planned for said shed was the only good place and admired Dr. Lorrieo's landscaping. Dr. Lorrieo showed the Board a picture of the shed he intended to construct. Said picture will become a part of the record. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the Board unanimously adopted the following resolutions: 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 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. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. Danne Lorieo has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to build a storage shed on the premises located at 693 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Parcel 54; and April 26, 1989 -11- 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 89-30.1 D(2) ; and WHEREAS, Dr. Lorrieo 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 storage shed will be placed at an unobtrusive location on the property not seen from Weaver Street or by neighbors. 2. The variance is the least infringement on the Zoning Ordinance which will alleviate the applicant's particular need. 3. The shed will be contiguous to the use to which it will be applied. 4. The irregular shape of the yard with the outcropping of rock and extreme grade makes the placement of the shed as planned the most practical and esthetic. 5. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. 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 April 26, 1989 -12- FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Section 89-30.1 D (2) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a storage shed on the premises located at 693 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Parcel 54 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. 5 - CASE 906 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. Thomas Pirzinger requesting variances from Section 89-33 B (3) to reduce the rear yard from 25.0 feet required to 21.85 feet, Section 89-33 B(2)(b) to reduce the total side yards from 25.0 feet required to 21.5 feet, in an R-10 Zone District, for the proposed construction of a rear addition and deck which will increase the extent by which the existing structure fails to meet said requirements pursuant to Section 89-57 on the premises located at 21 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221 Parcel 54. Michael Gismondi, architect, appeared with Mr. and Mrs. Pirzinger. He explained the drawings to the Board and stated that the applicants wanted to increase an extremely small family room by adding 3 .5 feet to it. Also, the applicants want to build a deck as an addition to the first living floor which is one-story above the ground. Mr. Gismundi stated that the Sheldrake River encumbers the Pirzinger's property and affects the use of the back yard by flooding at times. The house is already nonconforming with respect to the side yard, and therefore, the design is planned to keep the side yard intrusion to a minimum. The addition complies with the existing ordinance April 26, 1989 -13- During the course of the discussion it became apparent that the application needed to go to the Planning Board as the Zoning Board should not be the Lead Agency and environmental findings would be ' necessary. On motion of Mr. Negrin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the case until its next meeting when it will be first on the agenda. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Board will be May 24, 1989. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 AM. ltJt�2/yLGei / G 6L Bonnie M. Burdick