Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_08_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD AUGUST 28, 1985, IN THE COURTHOUSE, 1201 PALMER AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. A. William Boraczek, Chairman Mr. Peter Mosher Mrs. Elaine Price Mr. J. Rene Simon Absent: Mr. Patrick Kelleher Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. Steven Silverberg, Town Counsel Public Stenographer from Post Reporting Service, White Plains, NY APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 24, 1985, and May 22, 1985, were presented and on motion made and seconded, approved as submitted. The minutes of the July 24, 1985, meeting were not presented. The Chairman requested that the Secretary read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 679 (This application was postponed from the meetings of February 28, March 27, April 24, and June 26, and July 24, 1985.) Application of Mr. Charles Hoffman for modification of Article VII Sec- tion 89-41 "Construction Requirements for "B" Business District" to allow the construction of an office building and off-street parking facilities, namely Section A(3) which permits a maximum building coverage of 25%, proposed building coverage 58%; Subsection C which per- mits a maximum floor area of 50% of lot area, proposed 115%; Subsec- tion D (1) & (2) which permits a maximum building height of two stories and thirty feet, proposed three stories and forty feet; Subsection E which requires a minimum of 195 off-street parking spaces @ 9'x20' , proposed 141 off-street parking spaces @ 9'x18' on the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Parcel 410 on the grounds of practical diffi- culty and/or unnecessary hardship. The Public Stenographer took minutes of this application which will be made part of the record. After discussion, the Board decided that certain issues had not been answered, and on motion made and seconded, with all members voting in favor, the hearing was adjourned to the September, 1985, meeting. ' F August 28, 1985 APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 703 Application of Mr. Walter McTeigue, Jr. , for modification of Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" which re- stricts the height of walls and fences in any required yard to 4 feet to allow existing stone retaining wall along the portion of the easterly property line having a maximum height of 7 feet on the premises located at 70 Lookout Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Parcel 332 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Silverberg, Town Counsel, said that the applicant, through his at- torney, had requested an adjournment, and he expressed concern because there is a violation on the property. The Board decided that this application would be placed on the agenda for the September meeting, and if the applicant does not appear at that time, the variance will be denied. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 704 Application of Mr. Peter Mogull for modification of Article VI Section 89-30 Subsection B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-30 One Family Residential District" which requires a minimum side yard of 20 feet to allow the construction of a one-story addition to the south- erly side of the dwelling, creating a nonconforming side yard setback of 7.75 feet on the premises located at 836 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Parcel 155 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Mogull was represented by his architect, Mr. Melvin Beacher, who said that the existing dwelling had been built previous to the present zoning. Mr. Beacher stated that the dwelling at present does not have the required side yard setback, and the applicant wants to redesign and expand the present kitchen. Mr. Beacher explained that at present along the property line there is a kitchen door and concrete platform with steps. On motion made by Mrs. Price and seconded by Mr. Mosher, the Board unanimously voted that this was a Type II action and nothing further was required. Mr. Beacher further said that he did not believe the addition would be detrimental to anyone as it is well screened and there is shrubbery on both sides of the property. In conclusion, Mr. Beacher said that the applicant's practical difficulty was that more room was needed to ex- tend the kitchen and family dining area, and if they had to relocate to another location it would be costly. On motion made by Mr. Mosher and seconded by Mr. Boraczek, the Board voted unanimously to approve the application, and the following Resolu- tion was adopted: WHEREAS Mr. Peter Mogull has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a one-story addition to the southerly side of the dwelling creating a nonconforming side yard setback of 7.75 feet, together with plans; and August 28, 1985 WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with Qthe Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VI Section 89-30 Subsection B(2) (a) "Con- struction Requirements for an R-30 One Family Residential Dis- trict" which requires a minimum side yard of 20 feet on the prem- ises located at 836 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Parcel 155; and WHEREAS Mr. Peter Mogull has submitted an application for a vari- ance to the Board on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The existing dwelling is located on the easterly side of lot, with kitchen on that (east) side of house. 2. In redesigning/expanding kitchen, it is not reasonable to consider relocating kitchen to another part of house, and the only practical place to expand (eating area 6'x12') is into existing side yard. 3. Yard is heavily screened with planting along property line. 4. This would cause no undue hardship or devaluation to adja- cent property owner. I 0 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 granted the appli- cation on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or con- ditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The cost would be prohibitive to extend the family's dining area in any other way. 2. The addition will be well screened and will not cause any hardship to neighbors. 3. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-30 Subsec- tion B(2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-30 One Family Residential District" would de- prive the applicant of the reasonable use of the 3 August 28, 1985 land and/or building and that the variance as ® granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neigh- borhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-30 Subsection B(2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-30 Residential District" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a one-story addition to the southerly side of the dwelling, creating a nonconforming side yard setback of 7.75 feet on the premises located at 836 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204 Par- cel 155 in strict conformance with plans filed with this applica- tion, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mama- roneck. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and com- pleted within two years or the date of said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 705 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Michael R. Asay for modification of Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of walls and fences to 4 feet to allow the construction of 160 linear feet of 8 foot high stock- ade fence on top of existing retaining wall along rear property line on the premises located at 126 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405 Parcel 267 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. On motion made by Mrs. Price and seconded by Mr. Simon, the Board voted that this was a Type II action and nothing further was required. Mr. and Mrs. Asay appeared before the Board and said their problem was that their property backs up to Weaver Street, and they want to restrict the traffic they presently have through their backyard. Most of the other homes have fences over 4 feet, and the applicants want to put an 8 foot fence on top of an existing retaining wall as J August 28, 1985 they have had considerable damage done to their shrubs from teen- agers going through. It was pointed out that if the 8 foot fence is placed on top of the retaining wall, it will be over 11 feet high. The Board ques- tioned the applicants as to why a 4 foot fence on top of the wall wouldn't be sufficient. Mrs. Asay said she asked for the 8 foot fence as a recommendation of her neighbor, but they would change to 6 feet. Mr. Boraczek read letters from Mr. and Mrs. T. Ikuta of 14 Ply- mouth Road and Mr. Helmut Kappelmann of 40 Weaver Street whose properties border on the Asay's residence approving the construc- tion of a six foot stockade fence. Mr. Boraczek also read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Maccrone, 130 Carleon Ave. , next door neighbors and who had no objection to the fence being created. It was pointed out that the proposed fence will be an extension of the neighbor's fence, and the ground level is uneven. Mr. Paonessa said it was necessary to maintain the height on the retaining wall at the corner. The applicants agreed to changing the application, requesting a 6 foot fence instead of the 8 foot one. A motion was made by Mr. Boraczek and seconded to approve the ap- plication on the condition that the application be changed to 6 feet and be no higher than the fence now existing on the neighbor's property. Three members voted in favor, with Mr. Mosher voting against, and the application was approved. The following Resolu- tion was adopted: WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Michael Asay have submitted an application to the Building Inspector to permit the construction of 160 linear feet of 8 foot stockade fence on top of the existing retaining wall at the rear of their property, together with plans; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused 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 "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of walls and fences to 4 feet, on the premises located at 126 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405 Parcel 267; and WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Michael R. Asay have submitted an application to the Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: August 28, 1985 1. A great deal of traffic over the existing fence and through applicants' yard. 2. Teen-agers have damaged the existing wire fence and have thrown trash as they pass. 3. Plants and shrubs near stonewall are affected. WHEREAS this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the appli- cation, and has heard all persons interested in this applica- tion, after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board granted this application on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicants subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. Applicant has agreed to construct the fence no higher than 6 feet on top of the retaining wall at the rear of their property and no higher than the fence on the adjoining property. 2. The fence will prevent trespassers from going through the applicants' backyard. 3. That said circumstances and/or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regu- lations, Walls and Fences" would deprive applicants of the reasonable use of the land and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 4. That 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 it is FURTHER RESOLVED that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" be varied and modified so as to allow the construc- tion of 160 linear feet of 6 foot high stockade fence on top August 28, 1985 of existing retaining wall along rear property line on the premises located at 126 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mama- roneck as Block 405 Parcel 267 in strict conformance with plans filed with the application and with the conditions as listed below, provided that the appli- cant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck: The fence will be no higher than 6 feet above the retaining wall and no higher than the fence now existing on the adjoining neighbor's property. FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 706 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Donatelli for modification of Article VI Section 89-33 B (1) & (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a mini- mum front setback of 30 feet and a minimum side yard of 10 feet and Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in any required yard to 4 feet to allow an existing deck which has been constructed within the front yard having a setback of 5 feet from street prop- erty line and a side yard setback of 2'0" and a proposed fence along southerly and westerly side of wood deck with a height of 6'4" on the premises located at 768 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 Parcel 76 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. This application was heard at the meeting of May 22, 1985, and variance was granted subject to conditions. Motion was made and seconded and approved that the application was a Type II action and nothing further was necessary. The applicants had appeared before the Board at its May meeting and been granted a variance for a deck subject to the condition that the fence along the deck could not exceed 3'6". The appli- cants are now requesting a fence of 6'4" as they feel the 3'6" fence is not sufficient for the safety of their children since there is a large rock cliff drop of approximately 15 feet from the edge of the deck to the street below. The applicants said Forest Avenue is a busy street, and the deck is replacing an unsightly patio. Mr. Dirk W. Sabin, a landscape architect doing their work, spoke and said the proposed deck is an excellent place for the children to play. 1 0 August 28, 1985 Two letters were read by the Chairman from Mr. and Mrs. Gabe Stingone, 772 Forest Ave. and Mrs. Alice Malgrande, 764 Forest Ave. in which they stated they thought the fence of 3'6" was not adequate, and from a safety standpoint, the higher fence was needed. On motion made by Mr. Simon and seconded, with all Board members voting in favor, the application was approved, and the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Donatelli have submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow an existing deck which has been constructed within the front yard having a setback of 5 feet from street property line and a side yard setback of 2'0" and a proposed fence along southerly and westerly side of wood deck with a height of 6'4", together with plans; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused 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 VI Section 89-33 B(1) and (2) "Construction Require- ments for an R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum front setback of 30 feet and a mini- mum side yard of 10 feet and Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations Walls and Fences" which re- stricts the height of fences in any required yard to 4 feet on the premises located at 768 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 Parcel 76; and WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Donatelli have submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The deck replaces an existing concrete slab which is cracked, uneven, and unsightly. 2. The deck is over 6" above grade to allow space for substructure and easy, safe access from kitchen (4" step down from kitchen) . 3. The fence is intended for privacy and of more importance, safety. 4. A minimum 12 foot to 15 foot rock cliff drops off from edge of patio to the street below. 5. A fence rail only 3'6" in height above the deck does not provide sufficient protection. August 28, 1985 6. The applicants have small children who will play on the deck. 7. The proposed deck and fence will replace a patio which is unsafe and unattractive. 8. Shallow ledge in area precludes landscaping in subject area. 9. Site's topography and position of house on lot greatly limit flexibility for locating outdoor use areas. 10. The previous variance was granted for the proposed deck and a fence of 3'6". WHEREAS this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the appli- cation, and has heard all persons interested in this applica- tion, after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board granted the application on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicants subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The proposed fence is necessary for the safety of the applicants' two children. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-33 B(1) and (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" and Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplemen- tary Regulations, Walls and Fences" would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a mini- mum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neigh- borhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is August 28, 1985 FURTHER RESOLVED that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-33 B (1) and (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" and Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" be varied and modified so as to allow the existing wood deck which has been constructed within the front yard having a setback of 5 feet from street prop- erty line and a side yard setback of 2'0" and a proposed fence along southerly and westerly side of wood deck with a height of 6'4" on the premises located at 768 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 Parcel 76 in strict compliance 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. FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted, the applicants shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and com- pleted within two years of the date of said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. Mr. Boraczek read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 707 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Edward Hagerty for modification of Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (3) (a) "Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet to maintain an existing wood deck constructed having a rear yard setback of 14.71 feet on the premises located at 19 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Parcel 595 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. On motion made by Mrs. Price and seconded by Mr. Simon, it was voted a Type II action with no further study required. Mr. Hagerty appeared before the Board and said they had lived in the house for 14 years, and when the existing back porch had rotted out, he hired a builder to replace it. The builder suggested he build a deck to replace the porch and checked with two neighbors who had no objections. Mr. Hagerty further said the deck had been there for 14 years. Mr. Boraczek read letters from 4 neighbors: Mrs. Kathleen Tipper, 32 Maple Hill Drive; Mrs. Karen Greene, 36 Maple Hill Drive; Mr. Martin Ronan, Jr. , 17 Dante St. ; and Mr. Bernard Sloan, 21 Dante St. , in which they all said they had no objections to the Board's p August 28, 1985 granting a variance to maintain the existing structure. After further discussion, on motion made by Mr. Simon and seconded, with all members voting in favor, the application was approved, and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Edward Hagerty have submitted an application to the Building Inspector to maintain an existing wood deck having a rear yard setback of 14.71 feet, together with plans; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused 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 VI Section 89-35 Subsection B(3) (a) "Require- ments for an R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet on the premises located at 19 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Par- cel 595; and WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Edward Hagerty have submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. In 1971, original back porch rotted out, and the applicant hired a man to rebuild it. 2. The builder suggested that the applicant build a deck to replace the porch. 3. The builder had previous experience building decks in Larchmont, and the applicant assumed he knew the requirements. 4. The builder did secure the permission of all bor- dering property owners. 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 granted this application on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or con- ditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations '"� appealed from. August 28, 1985 (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. It would be a hardship for the applicant to have to take the deck down since it has been in existence for 14 years. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B(3) (a) "Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in har- mony 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 it is FURTHER RESOLVED that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B(3) (a) "Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" be varied and modi- fied so as to maintain an existing wood deck having a rear yard setback of 14.71 feet on the premises located at 19 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Parcel 595 in strict conformance with plans filed with the application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with the Rules and Regu- lations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. 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. FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting, it was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Rita A. hnson Secretar J�