Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989_01_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 25, 1989, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Joel Negrin, Chairman Thomas E. Gunther Arthur Wexler Also Present: Steven Silverberg, Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Lisa Parella, Public Stenographer Carbone, Kazazes & Associates 225 Mount Pleaseant Avenue Mamaroneck, NY 10543 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Negrin at 8:22 PM. He explained that those Board members present must decide a case unanimously for it to pass. A vote without a majority would be a non-action and could be reconsidered at the next meeting. APPLICATION NO 1 - CASE 888 The first case was as follows: Application of Fort Madison Associates requesting variances from Section 89-41 A(3) to increase building coverage from 25% 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 Section 89-66 (C) and 89-67 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance to provide off-site parking 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 Kremin, attorneys, appeared on behalf of Fort Madison Associates, cooperative sponsor, as did Leonard Lichter, one of the principals. Rick Walsh, Treasurer of 11 Alden Road Tenants Corporation also appeared. This application had been before the Board in the past and had been adjourned while the sponsor of the cooperative and the tenants association were involved in litigation. This suit has been settled. Mr. Purves and Ms. Kremin stated that Fort Madison desired to separate allow the apartment building from the restaurant. The current non-conforming use predates the existing zoning regulations. r January 25, 1989 -2- The Board felt that granting this variance could cause serious parking problems. Parking is available after 6 PM and on weekends at Ecco Management Co. , 1415 Boston Post Road. However, this arrangement is not a permanent one. Mr. Negrin stated that he saw a need for a continuous commitment for parking the cars of the restaurant patrons. The Board also had difficulty determining a hardship in this case. This application was adjourned to the next meeting at the request of the applicants in order to present more economic material and more information concerning parking. ***** APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 889 The second application was as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Swain Weiner requesting a variance from Section 89-44D to construct an eight (8) ft. high fence (four [4] ft. height maximum permitted) , in a Residence Zone District, on the premises located at 10 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Parcel 218. Mr. and Mrs. Weiner appeared on behalf of their application. They stated that they wanted to build a board and lattice style fence along the back property line. Their lot is very small, a corner one, and the adjoining neighbor's house is extremely close. Said neighbor's lot is 3i feet higher than the Weiner's. There is a patio about 2 feet from the Weiner's property on this neighbor's lot. The patio is well screened but the Weiner's lack privacy from the neighbor's house. 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 On motion by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Swain Weiner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a eight-foot high fence which would exceed the four-foot height limit allowable; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VIII Section 89-44 D January 25, 1989 -3- which would exceed the four-foot height allowance on the premises located at 10 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Parcel 218; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Weiner submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The Weiners have a hardship due to the shape and grade of their property. 2. The property to the rear is higher than that of the Weiners. 3. The Weiners seek privacy. 4. 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 5. There are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstance and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from and that strict compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordnance will not alleviate applicant's practical difficulty. FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions shall attach to the variance: 1. The finished side of the fence, should there be one, shall face the adjoining yard. 2. The fence shall not be higher than 8 feet high, or 4 feet above the grade of the neighbor's property; and shall be no more than 50 feet long in accordance with the plan submitted. January 25, 1989 -4- Coe FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VIII Section 89-44 D be varied and modified so as to allow the erection of an eight-foot fence on the premises located at 10 South Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108 Parcel 218 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk and in accordance with Section 89-73 of the Zoning Ordinance, the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ***** APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 890 The third case was as follows: Application of Hof & Pof Realty Company requesting a variance from 4100 Section 14-33L of the Building Code to display 10 inch high lettering on their awning where 6 inch high lettering is the maximum for a business district sign, on the premises located at 170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 657. Frank Bannister appeared on behalf of the application. He stated that the front of his pharmacy had recently been redone and that a 6 inch sign could not be read. Previously the pharmacy sign had consisted of 2 foot high letters painted on the building. The sign law permits only 6 inch lettering on awnings. 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 On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Hof and Pof Realty Company has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install an awning with ten-inch lettering; and January 25, 1989 -5- WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such SwF permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Building Code with particular reference to Section 14-33L on the premises located at 170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 657 ; and WHEREAS, Hof and Pof Realty 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. An awning is an asset to a building 2. The awning sign replaces two-foot high lettering painted on the building. Air 3. Myrtle Boulevard is wide at this point, and across the street there is a parking lot and train tracks. Six-inch lettering is not legible to many passers-by on such a wide street and in this environment. 4. 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 5. 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 Section 14-33L of the Building Code be varied and modified so as to allow the display of ten-inch high lettering on an awning on the premises located at 170 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 657 in strict conformance with the plans January 25, 1989 -6- filed with this application and any conditions set forth in these resolutions, provided that the applicants comply in all other �r 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 Code. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 891 The fourth case was as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. C. Norman requesting variances from Section 89-35 B(3) to reduce the rear yard from 25.0 ft. required to 20.67 ft. and Section 89-57 to retain a rear deck which increases the extent by which the existing structure fails to meet said requirements, in an R-6 Zone District, on the premises located at 32 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Parcel 456. 'Igor Mr. Norman and Mark Mustacato, architect, appeared on behalf of the application. They stated that the deck had been built in June 1988 and that the owners had been unaware of permit requirements. The Norman's property slopes about six feet in the back . The deck allows more usable space off of the first floor. If the deck were shorter, it would not be usable. Mr. Norman submitted a letter indicating that there were no objections to the deck which eleven neighbors, including those two adjoining the property, signed . 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 On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. C. Norman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow to I • remain a rear deck; and 4 January 25, 1989 -7- WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such 4b0 permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 89-35 B (3) on the premises located at 32 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Parcel 456; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Norman 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 rear of the property slopes at least six feet making use of the back yard difficult. 2. The variance granted is the minimum to alleviate 461Pli the practical difficulty detailed in the application. 3. the rear setback line requested is consistent with other houses on the street, and the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and 4. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance granted by this Board will accomplish this purpose; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Section 89-35 B (3) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow to remain a rear deck on the premises located at 32 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Parcel 456 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 r January 25, 1989 -8- 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 Code ***** APPLICATION NO.5 - CASE 892 The fifth case was as follows: Application of Mr. & Mrs. Peter Sherwood requesting variances from Section 89-44D and Section 89-44A to retain a dog run with a six (6) ft. high fence (4 ft. height maximum permitted), and also to retain a paved area of 0 ft. from a property line where 5.0 ft. is the minimum distance permitted, in a Residence Zone District, on the premises located at 6 Glen Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Parcel 354. Peter Sherwood appeared on behalf of his application. Mr. Wexler stated that he knew Mr. Sherwood but felt that his decision would not be affected by the acquaintance. Mr. Sherwood stated that he had built a 5 ft. by 30 ft. dog run with a 3 inch concrete slab floor. The enclosure for the dog is made up of fencing put up by Mr. Sherwood and that installed by two adjacent neighbors. The run is right on the property line between his house and that of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Ziluca of 246 Rockingstone Avenue. The slab is necessary as the dog would dig under the fence were there only a dirt floor. The dog would jump over a four-foot fence. The dog uses the run less than 30 minutes a day. Mr. and Mrs. Ziluca appeared in opposition to the variance. They have small children who are afraid to use their yard because of the proximity of a large dog. The Zilucas are also concerned about odor, unhealthy runoff from the slab, unsightly appearance of the run and the safety of the children - the dog could bite their fingers through the fence while they play in their sandbox near the fence. They stated that their yard is very small, that the Sherwoods' is nearly an acre and that the run could be placed elsewhere in the yard. Mr. Sherwood offered to put slats through the Ziluca's fence to keep the children's fingers out of it. He disagreed about other sites in his yard as the terrain is irregular, and he stated that I 4111; the Zilucas could plant shrubs on their side of the fence. January 25, 1989 -9- Mr. Sherwood requested adjournment on his application so that he could provide additional information. Mr. Gunther stated that the Board must protect the public. He said that the applicant must prove difficulty with the land that will require the granting of a variance. He felt that the property was large enough to put the run elsewhere Mr. Wexler moved that the case was a Type II action under SEQRA with Mr. Negrin seconding. Mr. Gunther was opposed so no determination was made under SEQRA. Mr. Gunther stated that he was concerned about young children being so close to a large dog. Mr. Negrin noted that the fence was obtrusive at its 6 foot height and that he could see no basis yet for variance. ***** APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 893 The sixth application was as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Warren requesting a variance from Section 89-33B 2(a) & (b) to reduce the side yard from 10. ft. required to 6.07 ft. and to reduce the total side yard width from 25.0 ft. required to 12.97 ft. for the proposed construction of a two story rear 4110? addition; and, further requesting a variance from Section 89-33B 2(a) to retain an enclosed porch having a side yard of 6.9 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required. The existing enclosed porch and proposed addition will increase the extent by which the building fails to meet the side yard requirements in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Carroll Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222 Parcel 393. Mr. Warren appeared on behalf of his application. He stated that his increasing family requires more bedrooms on the second floor, that the kitchen is too small and that there is no den. No other location than the one on the application is possible because of the sizes of other yards, grade of his lot and the expense of building in another location. Mr. Warren stated that his neighbors supported his application and that the design was consistent with the style of the house. Mr. Warren stated that the lack of a Certificate of Occupancy for the glassed-in porch was discovered when he applied for the building permit for the addition. Said porch and the addition above it would be on the existing footprint of the house. The chimney projects beyond the plane of the dining room, and the porch is actually under 5 feet from property line. Mr. Warren stated that the application and the notice were both 41111 incorrect. January 25, 1989 -10- Charles Flynn, Mr. Warren's neighbor, appeared. He stated that he 1111, cannot see the porch from his house and that solid rock in Mr. Warren's back yard prevents an addition in another part of the yard. The application was adjourned for the applicant to reapply with a corrected site plan and for the application to be renoticed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the minutes of June 7, 1988 were unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM. 4 fJj L Joel Negrin, C irman ID