Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988_06_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARNECK JUNE 22, 1988, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN OFFICES 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Negrin at 8:21 P.M. ROLL CALL �► RECEIVED Present: Joel Negrin, Chairman VA 2 1999 Thomas E. Gunther DiCIOCCAO Patrick B. Kelleher PA SQWNCtERK J. Rene Simon MAMpNONECK Arthur Wexler Also Present Edward M. Lieberman, Town Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Gerald Milani J & L Reporting Service 180 East Post Road White Plains, NY 10601 APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE NO 846 The Building Inspector read the application as follows: Application of Mr. Brad Eric Scheler adjourned from the meeting of June 7, 1988. Mr. Scheler appeared on behalf of his application. He stated that Mr. Jakubowski had attended a State hearing with him in New City concerning his plans to construct habitable space on his third floor. The State had stipulated that he must install a sprinkler system on the third floor and in all of the stairwells. It also required a battery-operated alarm system for the third floor. Mr. Scheler withdrew that part of the application that related to the stairs to the screened porch, leaving his original plan which was for the third floor. He stated that he needed to amend this application to allow for stairs to the screened porch. The amendment would be for an additional 5'9" rear setback variance. Mr. Lieberman explained that the public would have to notified about a variance that increased the nonconformity, but that the Board could vote on the rest of the design minus the staircase. Mr. Scheler could come back to the next meeting for the variance for the increased setback for the staircase. Mr. Scheler reviewed his previous presentation to the Board, repeating his contention that the proposed plan is required by an increase in his family size and that it is both the least expensive and intrusive addition which could be made to address his situation. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously June 22, 1988 Page 2 �„ 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 unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Brad Eric Scheler has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a rear screened porch and two bedrooms on the third floor; 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 89-35 B (3) on the premises located at 32 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamroneck as Block 122 Parcel 430; and WHEREAS, Mr. Scheler 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 not caused by the applicant for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The variance granted is the minimum possible to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. 2. 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 3. 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 June 22, 1988 Page 3 QFURTHER RESOLVED, that the following conditions shall attach to this variance. 1. A sprinkler system must be installed on the third floor and on all stairwells. 2. A battery-operated alarm system must be installed on the third floor. 3. All other provisions of applicable State Building and Fire Codes be complied with; 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 the construction of a rear screened porch on the premises located at 32 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Parcel 430 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 Code. ***** APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE NO. 854 The Building Inspector read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Freund requesting a variance from Section 89-44 D to construct a six-foot high stockade fence (four-foot height maximum permitted) , in an R-10 Zone District, on premises located at 282 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Parcel 653. Mrs. Freund appeared on behalf of the application. She stated that they wished to replace a four foot fence that was falling down. The Freunds were seeking more privacy and wanted to reduce the noise from Murray Avenue. They had talked to all of the neighbors who had not expressed any reservations. June 22, 1988 Page 4 .-� Mr. Negrin noted that the property to the rear and on the right is higher than that of the Freunds. 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. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Freund have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a six-foot high stockade fence which would exceed the four-foot heigh 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 which would exceed the four-foot height allowance on the premises located at 282 Murray Aveneu and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Parcel 653; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Freund 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, which circumstance and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations from which appeal is taken, on the following grounds: 1. The Freunds' current fence is unsightly and unsafe and needs to be replaced. 2. The property to the rear and on the right are higher than that of the Freunds. June 22, 1988 Page 5 3. The Freunds seek privacy on the side of the house, where a door is located, and relief from the noise of the traffic on Murray Avenue - a heavily traveled street. 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 FURTHER RESOLVED that the following condition shall attach to the variance: The finished side of the fence shall be installed facing Murray Avenue FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VIII Secion 89-44 D be varied and modified so as to allow the erection of a six-foot fence on the premises located at 282 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Parcel 653 in strict conformance wiht 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 bulding 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 one year and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed wiht the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. *** APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE NO. 855 The Building Inspector read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Robert DiBiccari requesting a variance from Section 89-33 B (1) and 89-57 to reduce the front yard setback from 30.0 feet required to 10.9 feet, in an R-10 Zone District, for the proposed construction of a new front addition to replace a smaller porch structure, which will increase the extent by which the existing dwelling fails to comply with said requirements, on the premises located at 23 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 210. June 22, 1988 Page 6 Mr. Jakubowski stated that the house is in a critical environmental area and in a flood area. The CZMC will need to determine the impact of the construction on the environment. The floor of the porch must be at least 14 feet above sea level. On motion of Mr.Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type I action which may have a significant impact on the environment and that the application be referred to CZMC. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this application be rescheduled for the first meeting of this Board which is held after the report from CZMC concerning this application has been received. ***** APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE NO. 856 The Chairman read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. E. Brown requesting variances from Section 89-31 B (1) to reduce the front yard from 40.0 feet required to 32.5 feet, Section 89-31 B(2) to permit a 7.16 feet side yard where 15.0 feet is required for the proposed construction of a new front addition and further to legalize an existing stairs and platform which has a side yard of 11.66 feet where 15.0 feet is required, in an R-20 Zone District, on the premises located at 28 Country Club Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 229 Parcel 52. Mr. Wexler stated that he had a business relationship with the engineer for this project, Mr. Widulski, and excused himself from the discussion and the voting. Mr. Brown stated that the extension was necessary as Mrs. Brown's elderly mother who is legally blind will be coming to live with them. Negotiating stairs will be a problem for her. Therefore, a first floor bedroom is a necessity. Mr. Brown has heart problems and has had a stroke and could envision the necessity of using this added room himself one day. The stairs were added when the deck was built in 1977. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the Board unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant �.� impact on the environment as determined by New York State or June 22, 1988 Page 7 corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On motion of Mr. Negrin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. E. Brown have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a new front addition and to legalize existing stairs; 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 89-31 B (1)and (2) on the premises located at 28 Country Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamroneck as Block 229 Parcel 52; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Brown 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 not caused by the applicant for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The topography of the terrain is irregular. 2. The line of the front yard is not a straight line. 3. There is more than 40 feet along the front now and, considering the shape and size of the front yard, even with the addition, the front yard will be quite extensive and remain consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 4. The side of the house on which the addition is proposed is adjacent to a neighbor's garage. 5. There are woods behind the house. 6. The variance granted is the minimum possible to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. June 22, 1988 • Page 8 7. 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 8. 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 the following condition shall attach to the variance: Shrubbery shall be planted and maintained as screening along the side of the premises. FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Sections 89-31 B (1) and (2) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a new front addition and the legalization of existing stairs and platform on the premises located at 28 Country Club Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 229 Parcel 52 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 Code. ***** APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 857 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. G. Reiners requesting a variance from Section 89-32 B (3) to reduce the rear yard from 25.0 feet required to 19.0 feet, in an R-15 Zone District, for the proposed construction of a second floor rear deck on the premises located at 31 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208 Parcel 565. June 22, 1988 Page 9 Mr. Reiners and Mark Mustacato, contractor, appeared on behalf of the application. They stated that the proposed deck is replacing a rotted one. The terrain drops 15% in the back of the house. The property abuts a nature area in the rear. The Reiners had spoken to their neighbors and found no opposition to the proposal. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the Board 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. Negrin, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mr. G. Reiners have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to construct a second floor rear deck; 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 89-32 B (3) on the premises located at 31 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamroneck as Block 208 Parcel 565; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Reiners 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 not caused by the applicant for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The property is adjacent to a conservation area. 2. The property is unusally shaped with a marked slope. 3. The variance granted is the minimum possible to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. June 22, 1988 Page 10 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 89-32 B (3) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a second floor rear deck on the premises located at 31 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208 Parcel 565 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 Code ***** APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 858 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Mr. Robert J. Morgan requesting a variance from Section 14-48 of the Building Code to reduce the side yard from 15.0 feet required to 5.0 feet and also to reduce the rear yard from 20.0 feet required to 5.0 feet, in an R-2F Zone District, for the construction of a proposed above ground swimming pool, as a permitted accessory use under Section 89-22 C, on the premises located at 35 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 380. It was the consensus of the Board that the pool would be extremely close to the neighbors' yards. Mr. Negrin asked Mr. Morgan to submit letters of comment from these neighbors. While the application was being discussed, it was learned that pools must be at least 15 feet away from the owner's house. Therefore, a third variance would be ,..., necessary. June 22, 1988 Page 11 Mr. Morgan withdrew his application. x***•* APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 859 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Mr. and Mrs. G. Durkin requesting a variance from Section 89-34 B (1) to reduce the front yard setback from 30.0 feet required to 20.0 feet, in an R-7.5 Zone District, to allow to remain a porch roof on the premises located at 10 Overlook Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127 Parcel 482. Mr. Durkin appeared on behalf of the application and stated that the roof had been built years ago and had just been found to be nonconforming. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Board 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. Negrin, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. G. Durkin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow to remain a porch roof; 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 89-34 B (1) on the premises located at 10 Overlook Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamroneck as Block 127 Parcel 482; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Durkin 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; June 22, 1988 Page 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds that there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land not caused by the applicant for which the variance is sought on the following grounds: 1. The construction had been done at least 20 years ago. 2. The design corresponds with that of the house in general. 3. The house has three front yards which impose unusual difficulties. 4. The variance granted is the minimum possible to alleviate the practical difficulty detailed in the application. S. 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 6. 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 89-34 B (1) of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow to remain the porch roof on thepremises located at 10 Overlook Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127 Parcel 482 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 Code. June 22, 1988 Page 13 ****:: APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 860 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Coughlin Realty Corporation for an extension of time to obtain a building permit pursuant to a variance previously granted on May 7, 1987, for modification of Article VII "Construction Requirements for "B" Business District" Section 89-41 Subsection A (3) which permits a maximum building coverage of 25%, Subsection B (3) which requries a minimum rear yard of 25 feet with 10 feet wide evergreen screen, Subsection C which permits a maximum floor area of 50%, Subsection E which requires a minimum of 70 on-site parking spaces; and amended to include Article XI Section 89-67 E which requires parking areas to be laid out so that vehicles will not be required to back into public highways when leaving the parking area; which allowed the construction of a two-story office building and off-street parking having a building coverage of 67%; a rear yard setback to garage of 0 feet along rear property line, a floor area of 13,982 square feet or 186% and on-site parking for 36 cars, five of which have dimensions of less than 9' x 20' and an additional 32 off-site parking spaces on the premises located at 178 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 627 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mssrs. Wexler and Simon excused themselves from the discussion and voting on this application. Donald S. Mazin, attorney, appeared on behalf of this application. Clock Tower Associates had taken Coughlin Realty to court on an Article 78 proceeding which had held up Coughlin from obtaining a building permit. The Board decided that it should handle the matter as if it were a new item. Therefore, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the three remaining members of the Board 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. Kelleher, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: June 22, 1988 Page 14 WHEREAS, Coughlin Realty Corp. submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of an office building and off-street parking at 178 Myrtle Boulevard; 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 VII "Construction Requirements for "B" Business District" Section 89-41 Subsection A (3) which permits a maximum building coverage of 25%, Subsection B (3) which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet with 10 feet wide evergreen screen, Subsection C which permits a maximum floor area of 50%, Subsection E which requires a minimum of 70 on-site parking spaces; and amended to include Article XI Section 89-67 E which requires parking areas to be laid out so that vehicles will not be required to back into public highways when leaving the parking area; which allowed the construction of a two-story office building and off-street parking having a building coverage of 67%, a rear yard setback to garage of 0 feet along rear property line, a floor area of 13,982 square feet or 186% and on-site parking for 36 cars, five of which have dimensions of less than 9' x 20' and an additional 32 off-site parking spaces on the premises located at 178 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 627; and WHEREAS, Coughlin Realty has previously submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship which was granted for the following reasons: "Much interest has been generated by this application. This Board, being in the unenviable position of rendering decisions which involve irretrievable commitments of land resources -- takes the firm position that everyone who wishes to address the application must have a full and fair opportunity to do so. We believe we have accomplished that objective. And, we thank the proponents as well as the opponents of this application for presenting the issues completely, intently and creatively with minimum fuss and maximum restraint. "The effectiveness of the presentation has assisted us in making a decision with which we feel comfortable. "Again, as we have stated in the past, negative feelings arising out of this decision must be directed to the Board and not toward the adversaries. June 22, 1988 Page 15 "Before coming to any decision regarding the issues in this application, it is important to note that the Board seriously considered the advisory opinion of the Coastal Zone Management Commission which stated that this application would not compromise any of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. 1. REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN "In examining the figures and calculations submitted by the aplicant regarding the evaluation and construction costs of the proposed building, it is clear that the construction of this building would not permit a reasonable rate of return under the current zoning laws. The figures were based on what is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance -- 7,500 square feet -- compared to what is proposed, which is 13,600 square feet. Further substantiation was requested by the Board as to the figures. The substantiation was timely submitted by the applicant's representative (Lane Appraisals, Inc. ) and generally supported the figures as given. "The board undertook an independent assessment of these figures as well, requesting that the Town Assessor review the statistical documentation. The Deputy Town Assessor verbally advised that the figures submitted were realistic. While we have some questions as to the cost of the garage (under the 7,500 square foot plan) as being excessive, even reducing the garage by half or two-thirds would still show a substantial loss under the 7,500 square foot design. "There are several other factors which relate to a reasonable rate of return ananlysis. Arguments have been presented that, if it is determined that the applicant has created the economic hardship, then the Board is unable to grant a variance. "The definition of the economic hardship, as presented by an opponent to the application is not quite clear. If, indeed, the hardship is because the applicant had to move from his former location to the proposed location, pre-existing motivational factors do not impact on the decision-making process of the Board. If the argument runs that the hardship is because the building is an expensive building, thereby not rendering a reasonable rate of return under the 7,500 square foot parameters, there are two significant responses to that contention. "First, even assuuming arguendo that a financial hardship has been self-induced, the Appellate Division held four months ago in the Matter of Michael Jackson v. Donald Kirtpatrick June 22, 1988 Page 16 that "even though the board correctly found tha the Petitioner's financial hardship was self-imposed, this fact does not prevent the board from granting the area variance. It is merely a factor which may be weighed with the evidence before it" "Undeniably, this building will be expensive to construct; however, we believe this factor does not rise to the level of self-imposed financial hardship. Philosophical and emotional consideration also play a critical role in assessing financial hardship. "These premises have been vacant for eight years - - that is a significant time in the life of a town and, as importantly, it underscores the continuing inability to develop this parcel of land. The Master Plan Update refers to this parcel as a "soft area" which is generally interpreted to mean that it has significant potential for a negative impact within the community. "During the public hearings, the vocal support engendered by the application for the variance was substantial. Also, received were 357 signatures supporting the application - - although approximately 50 of these petitioners did not live in the Town of Mamaroneck, the remaining did live in the Town and a fair number of the residents signing the petition lived in the immediate area. The concerns and wishes of 300 residents of this community have not been ignored by this Board. We find the concerns of the residents persuasive. We all realize that Larchmont is a charming, attractive and expensive community. To have blight in the retail and business area is untenable. It particularly impacts upon the residents who live in nearby apartments, cooperatives and condominiums and who must live, shop and conduct business within this radius. "We find this building to be innovative, well-disigned, aesthetically pleasing and, therefore, expensive. Placing a building of this quality in the core of the downtown area, will markedly assist in revitalizing this area and contribute to the overall enrichment of the downtown district. 2. CONSISTENCY "The opposition to this application has presented several arguments predicated on a past determination by the Board which is currently under ligigation. Adhering to the rationale of the Court of Appeals decision in Knight v. Amelkin, et al, we find the inconsistency arguments presented by the opponents to this application unpersuasive. June 22, 1988 Page 17 "The distinctions between the former application involving commercial property and this application are clearly delineated. In the former instance, 40,468 square feet were requested - - 18,030 square feet were permitted. In this instance, 7,500 square feet are permitted; 13,600 are being proposed. And, we would like to note that there was a dispute as to the figures being proposed. We have checked again with the Building Inspector who confirmed that it is indeed 13,600 square feet based on his calculations and the plans submitted. "As importantly, the previous commercial application requested a variance for 3 stories instead of 2. The 2 stories proposed here are in keeping with the zoning requisites. There was testimony in the previous application that 3 stories would have had a significant impact upon the several single-family homes in the adjacent area - - that was a factor the Board weighed seriously. "The parking situation between the two applications also presents a marked difference. The former application requested a variance because of the approximately 58 spaces less than the requisite parking facilities. (All parking spaces were under-sized. ) The proposed application, with the off-site parking permitted, is within the zoning requirement for parking spaces. We might point out here that the Joint Planning Commission, in the Master Plan Update which was completed during the summer of 1986, stated that "it is important that future development within the planning unit does provide adequate parking to satisfy its own needs. " The planning unit referred to is Planning Unit 02 which encompasses the Myrtle Blvd. complex in which the applicant has his land. "The Traffic Commission also expressed strong reservations regarding the former application; whereas in the instant case, the Traffic Commission has determined that there will not be an impact upon the area. "There are also distinct comparisons as to the land costs involved in the two applications. In the former application, the site abuts the Town Public Works Yard and Recycling Center. In the present application, the site is in the middle of Myrtle Blvd. , in a core area of the downtown shopping district, bounded by an attractive office building and next to a residential apartment building. 3. LIGHT, AIR AND PRIVACY The light, air and privacy issues that had been addressed by the Planning Board (which was well within their purview to do June 22, 1988 Page 18 so) were found not significant in this application. The light, air and privacy issues are also considerations under the Zoning Ordinance, and should be addressed "The height dimensions of the building - - two stories -- is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. This scale has the minimum adverse impact possible on the apartment building behind the proposed Coughlin Building. There have been some figures as to the height of underground garage. Again, verifying these figures with the Building Inspector, the height of the underground garage, above ground level, is no more than slightly over 5 feet at its highest level and less than one foot at its lowest. This does not impact on the light, air and privacy of the apartment building to the rear of the lot. Further more, the greenery and the plantings on top of this projection can only enhance the general vicinity. The setback at the rear of the building is 25 feet which is allowed and does not require any zoning consideration. "While there is an issue of light, air and privacy on the lot lines, particularly, the lot line that abuts the Clock Tower Building, several factors minimize the concern. First and most importantly, there is no provision under the Zoning Code for side setbacks. When the Clock Tower was constructed before the current Zoning Code, there also were no provisions for side yard setbacks and the building was constructed to the lot lines. It should have been contemplated that light from the windows on the lot lines would be eradicated when another legally permissible building was constructed on the abutting lot line. Whether the building was built pre or post-zoning, the placement of windows on a building that has been built to the lot line was injudicious at best. "Other issues were raised as to the cars of the proposed building abutting the lower windows of the Clock Tower Building, thereby admitting pollutants and creating noise. The concerns of the representatives of the Clock Town Building seem somewhat misplaced or overstated. In inspecting the exterior of the existing Clock Tower Building, there are 11 parking spaces in front of 4 windows on the side fo the Clock Tower Building facing Washington Street. Two of these windows are only 6 inches above ground level and there is no stone abutment separating the windows from the parking spaces. THe 6-inch level is precisely at the spot where exhaust would be emitted. Assuming that these parking spaces abutting directly against the windows have been in existence for awhile, this past practice mitigates against the objections raised. At least the windows along the Myrtle Blvd. side which would abut the proposed Coughlin Building, are two and a half to three-feet high, and there is a stone June 22, 1988 Page 19 abutment which separates the cars from the windows. If, indeed, the Clock Tower representatives were genuinely concerned about the noise and the pollutants being emitted by cars, some steps would hve been made to rectify that existing situation they created on the Washington Street side. (We will refer the issue on proper exhast and fans devices within the parking garage to the Planning Board. ) 4. TRAFFIC and PARKING "As to the parking and traffic issues that have been raised by a few residents, again we refer to the Planning Board's determination as to the traffic in the area. Moreover, the Traffic Commission has concluded that this application will present no significant disruption of the traffic pattern and flow. It is important to note that the off-site parking which will be provided is directly across the street from the proposed building and the number of parking spaces conforms to the zoning requirements. "As to the potential increase of traffic, the Master Plan Update that was commissioned by the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck addresses that. Referring to Unit 02 which encompasses the project in question, the Master Plan stated "thus a significant amount of new development within the study area can be accomplished without causing noticeable traffic congestion at this location. " "Also, we refer to the signatures that were obtained by the applicant; many came from 14 and 16 North Chatsworth Avenue residents, who would be directly affected by any perceived traffic issues. These residents voiced no concern over increased traffic. "To recapitulate, the applicant's statistics, together with independent substantiation of these figures, show that a reasonable rate of return on this building is not possible unless the variances requested are granted. The proposed building is a creative and aesthetically pleasing design which undeniably adds to the cost. We believe that an attractive, well-designed building can only enhance the immediate area and ultimately improve the property values in the vicinity. "As to consistency,there are clear distinctions between this application and the former application - - which would satisy any court tribunal. "The light, air and privacy considerations, we believe, go to the height of the building which, if higher, would have a significant impact on the residents directly behind the building. As to the light, air and privacy issue of the • June 22, 1988 • Page 20 ® adjacent building, we believe the opponents are estopped from raising the issue - - whether relying on pre-existing zoning or present zoning, it matters not. They fully understood that an adjacent building could be built to that lot line without a variance. Their past practice does not make their arguments any more persuasive. "Moreover, we find that the propsal does not significantly impact upon the neighboring building even if the past practices of the Clock Tower owners were not a factor. Having received and integrated the opinions and resolutions of the Planning Board, Coastal Zone Management Commission and the Traffic Commission and having taken into account all the testimony of the residents who have demonstrated concern and energy over the application in particular and the Town in general, we find that the public interest would best be served by granting the variances requested. "The proposed building is the minimum needed to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty, shall not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, and should therefore, be granted." 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 the application of the applicant for an extension of time to obtain a building permit pursuant to the above-mentioned previously granted variances be granted subject to the following conditions: a. That all construction and final design be in accordance with the plans presented in support of the application, and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that the Articles and Sections as heretofore stated, be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a two story office building and off-street parking on the premises located at 178 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 627 in strict conformance with 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 after Site Plan Approval by the June 22, 1988 Page 21 Planning Board and thereafter of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one year and completed as soon thereafter as is possible. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ***** NEXT MEETING The next meeting was scheduled for July 12, 1988. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was adjourned. Joel Negrin, Chairman