Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987_01_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE Z ONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 28, 1987, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN OFFICES 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The Chairwoman called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Elaine Price, Chairwoman J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Thomas Gunther Patrick Kelleher was not in attendance at this metting. Also Present: Lee A. Hoffman, Jr., Town Counsel William Paonessa, Building Inspector Joseph Jacoby, Stenographer from: J & L Reporting Service, Inc. 180 East Post Road White Plains, New York Jean A. Marra, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Minutes of the November 25, 1986 meeting were not voted on at this time. SCHEDULING After some discussion, the Chairwoman stated that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on February 25, 1987 downstairs in the Senior Citizen Center as the Town Board was meeting in the Courtroom on that date. January 28, 1987 ilir At this time, the order of the agenda was changed and the following application was heard first: APPLICATION NO. 9 - CASE 767 - Kluge The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. John Kluge to extend a variance previously granted for the construction of a Two and One-Half Story Addition at the west side of dwelling which does not have access to a public street pursuant to Section 280-a of the Town Law on the premises located at Beach Road Premium Point and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 508 Parcels 1 and 30 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Geoffrey Young, the attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board and reiterated the events which led to the ultimate approval of this variance by the Zoning Board in April of 1986. He explained that numerous appearances were required before the Planning Board and thus the stipulated time limit which the applicant had to apply for a building permit had expired. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. John Kluge previously submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a two and one-half story addition at the west side of an existing residence fronting on a private road; and WHEREAS, approval was granted for said variance on April 30, 1986; and WHEREAS, the applicant has now applied for an extension of time in which to obtain a Building • Permit to commence construction on said residence; and - 2 - January 28, 1987 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby grants an extension of time, for the applicant to apply for a building permit, to July 28, 1987 subject to the terms and conditions as previously set forth in resolution dated April 30, 1986 and filed with the Town Clerk on August 21, 1986. Attorney Hoffman requested that the record reflect that the Planning Board had treated this case as a Type I Action and a very thorough environmental review was given at that time and therefore none was necessary at this time. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 759 - Coughlin Realty Corp. The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Coughlin Realty Corp. 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 requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet with a 10 foot 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, to allow 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 Blvd. and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133, Parcel 627 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. • The Public Stenographer was present for this matter, and his notes will become a permanent part of this record. - 3 January 28, 1987 Donald Mazin, the attorney for the applicant, explained that this matter has been before the Planning Board for Site Plan Approval and that Board has declared themselves as Lead Agency in this Unlisted Action. He then recommended that the Zoning Board declare themselves as Lead Agency in order to expedite the procedure and he also suggested that the Public Hearing be held pending the outcome of the environmental review process. Due to prior business dealings with the applicant, Mr. Simon execused himself from any participation in the case. Attorney Hoffman stated that he was in attendance at the Planning Board hearing and he felt it was the concensus that the Planning Board wished to be the Lead Agency in this matter. He added that if a dispute arose out of this proposed change in designation, the time delay would be far worse (than waiting for the environmental review to be completed). The Chairwoman indicated that the Planning Board has a Consulting Engineer on their Board and also that they have been studying drainage, traffic and other issues which would impact on the environment. Once the Zoning Board has the full DEIS, (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) they will be able to contribute to the application, Mrs. Price added, and they would also have the opinion of CZM. At this time, Chairwoman Price requested that the official notification of Lead Agency status be sent to interested and involved parties. Mr. Stanely Bierman stated he was opposed to the delay and urged the Board to move this application along as fast as possible. Mr. Bernie Axelrod wanted to speak in opposition to this case but Mrs. Price informed him that this was not the correct time to do that. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, with Mr. Simon abstaining, it was resolved that the Zoning Board hereby accepts the determination of the Planning Board that they be designated as the Lead Agency in this matter for the environmental review process. - 4 - January 28, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 760 - Saravia The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. & Mrs. Alberto Saravia for modification of Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (1) & B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet and a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet to allow the construction of a Second Story Addition over garage which will maintain existing front yard setback of 24.5 feet and side yard setback of 7.9 feet on the premises located at 10 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Parcel 1 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mrs. Saravia, together with Mark Mustacato of Richau - Mustacato - Grippi Associates, presented the application to construct a second-story addition which was needed in order to accomodate the Saravia family. Mrs. Saravia explained that she has three children and one on the way, and the additional bedroom was desperately needed. Mr. Mustacato indicated that the addition would be no closer to the lot line than the house is now as only the roof was being raised. Ms. Luann Hallenbeck stated that she thought the addition would make the house prettier than it was now. At this time, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. • Gunther, it was unanimously resolved that this matter be considered a Type II Action requiring no further EIS. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Alberto Saravia of 10 Dante Street, Larchmont, submitted an application, together with plans, to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a second-story addition over the garage which maintain existing front yard setback of 24.5 feet and side yard setback of 7.9 feet; and • - 5 January 28, 1987 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 (1) and B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet on the premises located at 10 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Parcel 1; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Saravia have submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. That the present home is small for their three children. 2. The family is expecting another baby and an additional bedroom is needed. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, - . reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby grants 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 applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (1) and B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" 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 minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. - 6 - January 28, 1987 ® 2. That the proposed addition is a moderate request. 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 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 (1) and B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a second-story addition over garage having a front yard setback of 24.5 feet instead of the required 30 feet on the premises located at 10 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block I 121 Parcel 1 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 1fir 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 six months 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 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. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 761 - Goldstein The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. Louis Goldstein for modification of Article VIII Section 89-34 Subsection A (2) & B (2) "Construction Requirements for R-7.5 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum street-line frontage and IC lot width of 75 feet and a minimum side yard setback of 10 - 7 - January 28, 1987 feet to allow the subdivision of parcel creating two building lots namely, proposed Parcels A and B will have non-conforming street-line frontage and lot width of 63.68 feet and 59 feet, also proposed subdivision will create non-conforming side yard for dwelling located on Lot "A" of 7 feet on the premises located at 10 Burton Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Parcel 335 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. George Forbes, attorney for the applicant, presented the application and submitted an appraisal from Peter Doern * which appraised the parcel, if subdivded, as being worth approximately $85,000 as compared to only $15,000 if the property were left as is. He explained that the neighbor- hood has quite a mixed use and added that there has been no objection from anyone in the neighborhood that he has been in contact with. Mr. Simon posed a few questions regarding the side yard setback which Mr. Forbes answered. Anthony1 16 R. Spencer, the prospective purchaser, answered some questions which Mr. Wexler had regarding the side yard setback and the placement of the proposed home. Mr. Abraham of 12 Burton Road appeared in favor of the application and stated that he had no objection to something being built there. Mr. and Mrs. Alberto DeCancio of 1046 Palmer Avenue stated that they weren't really against this proposal but said when they wanted to subdivide their property, they weren't allowed to and they wanted to know why. Some discussion followed wherein Mrs. Price explained that their appli- cation had been denied because their area was too small. Mrs. Price then informed the audience that this discussion was taking place because she wanted Mr. and Mrs. DeCancio to understand why their application was denied and also to show consistency within the Board's purview. 1 IL - 8 - January 28, 1987 There being no further questions, either for or against the application, Mrs. Price moved that this be considered a Type II Action, having no significant impact under state or local laws, and consequently no EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) was required. Mr. Simon seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Board. At this time, Attorney Hoffman stated that subdivision approval (through the Planning Board) would be necessary and that the Zoning Board could grant the street frontage variances subject to subdivision approval for conforming roads. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Board unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Mr. Louis Goldstein of 10 Burton Road, Larchmont, submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the subdivision of parcel, creating two building lots; 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 III Section 89-12 "Lot Subdivision" and Article VI Section 89-34, Subsection A (2) and B (2) "Construction Require- ments for R-7.5 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum street-line frontage and lot width of 75 feet and a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on the premises located at 10 Burton Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Parcel 335; and WHEREAS, Mr. Louis Goldstein has submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The owner will suffer financial hardship if parcel remains as one. 2. Presently, there is a purchaser desirous of building on the parcel, thus improving it. - 9 - January 28, 1987 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby grants 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 applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. b. That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Article III Section 89-12 "Lot Subdivision and Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection A (2) and B (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-7.5 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 will accomplish this purpose. 2. That the proposed request is a moderate one. 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 neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article III Section 89-12 "Lot Subdivision" and Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection A (2) and B (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the subdivision of parcel, creating two building lots namely, proposed Parcels A and B which will - 10 - IFF- January 28, 1987 • have a non-conforming street-line frontage and lot width of 63.68 feet and 59 feet, on the premises located at 10 Burton Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407 Parcel 335 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 in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted, and after subdivision approval is granted by the Planning Board, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months 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 within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this frontage variance is subject to Subdivision Approval by the Planning Board for conforming roads; and be it I FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with tIIIV the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. Attorney Hoffman stated for the record that application for a side yard variance was being denied because it was not necessary. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 762 - Ferencz The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Madi Ferencz for modification of Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (2) (a) and B (3) "Construction Requirements for R-7.5 One Family District" which requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet and a minimum rear yard of 25 feet to allow the construction of a One Story Addition to easterly side of dwelling having a side yard setback of 7 feet and a rear yard setback of 14.3 feet on the premises located at 76 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109 Parcel 194 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. - 11 - I January 28, 1987 lip Ms. Madi Ferencz presented the application to put an addition on her home stating that her kitchen was extremely small and she would like to be able to sit down and eat dinner as a family and also that her housekeeper had very little living area to herself. Mrs. Price indicated that the side yard would be terribly small to which Ms. Ferencz explained that she really had no choice because of the way the house was laid out. Some discussion followed regarding the location of the neighbors' outside recreational area and at this time an objection was raised by Mr. Wassman because he could not hear what was being said. After Mrs. Price apprised him of what had transpired, Mr. Wassman then questioned whether the new neighbor had any knowledge of this proposal to which Ms. Ferencz answered in the affirmative stating that Mr. Stephen Stander of 72 Vine Road, even reviewed the plans. There being no one else who wished to be heard, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously 40 resolved that this be declared a Type II Action requiring no further EIS. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Board unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Ms. Madi Ferencz of 76 Vine Road, Larchmont, submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a one-story addition to the easterly side of dwelling having a side yard setback of 7 feet and a rear yard setback of 14.3 feet; 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 89-34, Subsection B (2) (a) and B (3) "Construction Requirements for R-7.5 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet and a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet on the premises located at 76 Vine Road s and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109 Parcel 194; and - 12 - January 28, 1987 WHEREAS, Ms. Madi Ferencz submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The present kitchen is too small to accomodate her family at dinnertime. 2. The proposed addition would increase the living area for her housekeeper. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby grants 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 applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (2) (a) & B (3) "Construction Require- ments for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and the variance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 2. 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 other- wise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is - 13 - January 28, 1987 FIO FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (2) (a) and B (3) "Construction Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a one-story addition to the easterly side of dwelling having a side yard setback of 7 feet and a rear yard setback of 14.3 feet on the premises located at 76 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109 Parcel 194 in strict conformance with plans filed with this appli- cation, 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 in accordance with the i Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months 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 I gir 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. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 763 - Rocconi 4 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. & Mrs. Mark Rocconi for variances from the requirements of Section 280-a of the Town Law requiring frontage on a public street or other suitable access, modification of Article III Section 89-14 "Required Street Frontage" by reduction of the minimum lot frontage from 85 feet to proposed 69.8 feet, and modification of the minimum lot area requirement for the R-10 One Family Residence District from 10,000 square feet to the proposed 9,082 square feet, all for the purpose of re-subdividing the property located at 1 Gaillard Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Parcel 252 and part of Parcel 231 on the grounds of IIL practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. - 14 - January 28, 1987 At this time, the Chairwoman disqualified herself from participating in any discussion and Acting Chairman Simon informed Mr. Rocconi that his application would have to pass unanimously by the remaining three voting members sitting on the Board and asked him if he still wished to proceed to which Mr. Rocconi answered in the affirmative. Mr. Mark Rocconi presented his application and stated that he was not applying for an area variance to which Attorney Hoffman informed him that the issue arose because of the fact that one lot is not entirely situated in the City of New Rochelle and/or the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Rocconi stated that he appeared before the Planning Board and that the 5,000 square feet of property located in New Rochelle would be annexed to the property in the Town. Attorney Hoffman requested that the applicant furnish a deed restriction to that effect. ® The property fronts on a paper street, Mr. Rocconi continued, and he requested a variance for a common driveway for the two parcels onto Dillon Road. He further explained that no cars would be backed out of the driveway so there was no safety issue presented. Mr. Rocconi informed the Board that the Planning Board declared this as a Type II Action and referred it to the CL M and that CZ M was in the process of giving an opinion to the Planning Board. He added that the Town Engineer had made certain recommendations that would be complied with. In answer to a question raised by Mr. Wexler, Mr. Rocconi 0 explained that the easement he had on Gaillard Place gave him the frontage on Dillon Road. At this time, the Recording Secretary read letters received from the Police and Fire Departments wherein it was stated that they had access to the subject property for emergency vehicles. IIL Mr. Simon asked who maintained the paper road and the applicant stated he did. - 15 - January 28, 1987 Mr. Anthony Mauro said he lives directly in front of Mr. Rocconi and his only objection was the fact that in 1978, the Town said the property could not be subdivided until Gaillard Road was improved and Mr. Tony Buccini presented the plans which were submitted in 1978 regarding the proposed subdivision at that time. Mr. Buccini appeared in favor of the proposal but expressed his concern about the maintenance of the road to which Mr. Mauro added that the drainage was very poor. Attorney Hoffman stated that Mr. Rocconi has an application pending before the Planning Board for Subdivision Approval and that the Zoning Board could impose certain conditions and that the Planning Board could impose other conditions. He suggested two things: 1. This could be granted subject to an agreement that is in accord to counsel regarding the New Rochelle property or 2. the Zoning Board can request more information. It was Mr. Hoffman's opinion that the Zoning Board did not have sufficient information to act independently at this point and that technically, the Zoning Board should not act until the report is received from CM. Mr. Wexler questioned whether the road would be dedicated to which Attorney Hoffman said the New Rochelle issue still had to be settled and he then requested a copy of the deed restrictions and copies of the deeds for the properties in Mamaroneck and New Rochelle. Mr. Hoffman added that without the deed restriction, this property could be subject to subdivision again. Mr. Rocconi pointed out that this was not a large sub- division but if the Board wanted him to come back he would consent to the adjournment. - 16 - January 28, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 764 - Kaiser/Jacobs The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Kaiser/Jacobs for modification of Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (2) (a) "Construction Require- ments for R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet to allow the construction of a Wood Deck having a side yard setback of 8 feet on the premises located at 49 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Parcel 586 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. John Annunziata, the architect for the applicants, presented the plans for the proposed deck and explained that the side yard is almost the rear lot line because of the odd-shaped lot. He added that the applicants would like to be able to walk out onto the deck area from the kitchen and that would also be the only way of getting to the back yard without having to walk around the entire house. Mrs. Price suggested having the deck located off of the living room thus having it in conformance with the Building Code but Mr. Annunzita emphasized that the applicants wanted it off the kitchen. Mr. Richard Concannon of 53 Carleon Avenue appeared in opposition stating that no consideration of the effect of this request on adjoining property owners has been given. He added that the proposed structure would be approximately 10 feet high and only 8 feet from the rear property line and his privacy would be totally obliterated. Also, with existing property on the other side of house which was available to them, he saw no basis for permitting this formidable impact. "As of right," the applicant could build a deck without a variance if the deck were made slightly smaller, Mrs. Price offered. James Needham of 61 Carleon said that there was a unique collection of homes in the area and that the back of the home can be seen from the other street as well. He added that the back of the home is as important as the front. - 17 - January 28, 1987 Mr. Paul Hoffmann of 69 Carleon Avenue indicated that his total privacy would be wiped out if this was allowed. He said the house was unique but a deck would destroy it. Afterwards, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Simon, with Mr. Wexler voting nay, it was resolved that this case be considered a Type II Action requiring no further EIS. Mrs. Price then moved to deny the application on the grounds that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship had been demonstrated since there was other available property on which to build a deck. Mr. Wexler seconded the motion and it was unanimously resolved that the application be denied and the following resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Kaiser/Jacobs submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a wood deck having a side yard setback of 8 feet; 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, Subsection B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on the premises located at 49 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Parcel 586; and WHEREAS, Kaiser/Jacobs have submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. That due to unusual configuration of the property, the rear yard is the only practical location for a deck. 2. The proposed deck would provide a play area for the family children. - 18 - January 28, 1987 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 hereby denies the application on the following grounds: 1. The applicants failed to show that additions to the dwelling could not be located in other areas not requiring a zoning variance. 2. That the practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships applying to the land for which the variance is sought have not been established. 3. That said circumstances or conditions are not such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-33, Subsection B (2) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. a 4. That the granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to I the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is i FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 765 - Auffarth The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. Henry Auffarth for modification of Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (2) (a) & B (3) (a) IL "Construction Requirements for R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 8 feet and - 19 - January 28, 1987 W a minimum rear yard of 25 feet to allow the construction of a One-Story Addition at rear of dwelling which will maintain existing non-conforming side yard of 3.90 feet and create a rear yard setback of 14.5 feet on the premises located at 16 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Parcel 319 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Patricia and Henry Auffarth presented the application and stated they would like to enlarge their home by adding a family room for their three children. It is a very small house, Mr. Auffarth stated, and the garage has already been • converted into a bedroom. At this time, Mrs. Auffarth presented letters from the 1 residents of 78 and 70 Hillcrest Avenue and 18 and 14 Edgewood Avenue, wherein it was stated that they had no objection to the proposed addition. Mrs. Price concerned herself with the 4 foot side yard setback and rear yard encroaching on the neighbors to which I46 Mr. Auffarth stated that if there was a house in back of his, he would reconsider his plans; but since there was nothing there but open space, it did make his yard seem larger. On motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously resolved that this case be considered a Type II Action requiring no further EIS. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the Board: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Auffarth submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a one-story addition at rear of dwelling which will maintain existing non-conforming side yard setback of 3.90 feet and create a rear yard setback of 14.5 feet; and • - 20 - January 28, 1987 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 (2) (a) and B (3) (a) "Construction Requirements for R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet and a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet on the premises located at 16 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Parcel 319; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Auffarth have submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. That the present home is extremely small. 2. The proposed addition would provide a family room for their three children. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby grants 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 applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (2) (a) & B (3) (a) "Construction 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. - 21 - January 28, 1987 2. That the proposed addition is a moderate request. 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 neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is 4. That evergreen shrubbery be planted to match existing shrubbery and shall be planted in the same location. FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (2) (a) & B (3) (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a one-story addition at rear of dwelling which will maintain existing non- conforming side yard of 3.90 feet and create a rear yard setback of 14.5 feet on the premises located at 16 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 Parcel 319 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 in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within six months 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 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 Tam Law. At this time, Mr. Paonessa advised the applicant that since the side yard was less than 5 feet, the New York State Fire • Code now required that certain building materials be used in construction. - 22 - January 28, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 766 - Lynton The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. M. Lynton for modification of Article VI Section 89-30 Subsection B (2) (c) "Construction Require- ments for R-30 One Family Residence District" which does not permit accessory structures in any side or rear yard having a height of more than 15 feet and Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations" which restricts the height of walls and fences in any required yard to 4 feet to allow the installation of approximately 100 linear feet of 34 foot high fabric landscape screen on side yard of property on the premises located at 961 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 302 Parcel 70 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Jonathan Hay appeared in support of Mr. Lynton's application to erect fabric landscape screening on the side of his property. Mr. Hay explained that trees could not be planted on rock and that during the winter they would like • to block any view into the home from the house in the rear. Mrs. Whitehill of 21 Split Tree Road and Mrs. Bocia of 19 Split Tree Road appeared in opposition to the application as well as Shawn and Chris Murphy, the developers for the Beringer subdivision. After some discussion, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously resolved that this matter be declared as a Type II Action requiring no further EIS. Thereafter, Mrs. Price moved to deny the application on the grounds that no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship had been demonstrated. Mr. Simon seconded the motion and it was unanimously resolved that this appli- cation be denied and the following resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. M. Lynton of 961 Fenimore Road, Larchmont, submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the installation of approximately 100 linear feet ILof 34 foot high fabric landscape screening; and - 23 - I January 28, 1987 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 par- ticular reference to Article VI Section 89-30, Subsection B (2) (c) "Construction Requirements for R-30 One Family Residence District" which does not permit accessory structures in any side or rear yard having a height of more than 15 feet and Article VIII Section 89-44-D "Supplementary Regulations" which restricts the height of walls and fences in any required yard to 4 feet on the premises located at 961 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 302 Parcel 70; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lynton has submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. Applicant is desirous of having privacy especially during the winter when there are no leaves on the trees. 2. Due to rock formations, no trees can be planted to provide privacy to the home. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby denies the application on the following grounds: 1. That there are no 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 applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are not such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-30, Subsection B (2) (c) "Construction Requirements for an R-30 One Family Residence District" and Article VIII Section 89-44-D "Supplementary Regulations" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building. - 24 - January 28, 1987 3. That the granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Tbwn Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 11:15 P.M. L 47 tom/ f aArt.et. Jean A. Marra Recording Secretary �.. - 25 -