Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987_03_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE Z ONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HFT.D ON MARCH 25, 1987, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN CENTER 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 Patrick Kelleher J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Thomas Gunther AlII Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Town Counsel William Jakubowski, Building Inspector Jean A. Marra, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Minutes of the February 26, 1987 meeting were presented and on motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, were unanimously approved. SCHEDULING The Chairwoman stated that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on April 29, 1987, which was the fifth Wednesday of the • month. March 25, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 769 - Meagher The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Elizabeth Meagher for modification of Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (1) to allow the construction of a second floor addition thus reducing the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 8.5 feet at the premises in an R-6 Zone District, located at Block 505, Parcel 373, a/k/a 32 Dean Place. Mrs. Meagher and her architect, Mr. Theodore Strauss, who is also purchasing the property from Mrs. Meagher, appeared in support of the application. It was explained by Mr. Strauss that a new master bedroom would be constructed above the pre-existing garage so it would not take away any additional land area as it was above grade. In answer to a question raised by Mr. Kelleher, Mr. Strauss stated that the variance was applied for on the grounds of practical difficulty and hardship. Mr. Gunther inquired if the contract of sale was contingent upon receiving a variance to which Mr. Strauss replied that it was not. In answer to Mrs. Price's question, Mr. Strauss stated that the difficulty under the Zoning Law was that the front and side yard requirements did not exist and he was requesting relief from economic standpoint and practicality in terms of living space since the other bedrooms were already located on the second floor of the home. Mr. Kelleher asked why the applicant did not seek a home which already existed to fit his needs to which Mr. Strauss replied that this particular home was within the budgetary framework of what he could afford. - 2 March 25, 1987 Following a few more questions from the members of the Board, Chairwoman Price read a letter received from the CZ MC and Mr. Strauss stated that he had no objection in following the guidelines presented by them. DEC had to be informed of this since the Town has no Tidal Wetlands Law, Mrs. Price stated, adding that it may have a significant impact. Mr. Jakubowski added that this was not a substantial improvement, but it was discussed with the State; a notification letter was required and sent. The State said it did not have an impact so no permit was needed and they felt no further review was required, Mr. Jakubowski added, stating that since CZ MC wanted a drywell installed, then, accordingly, it had to go back to DEC. Attorney Silverberg suggested that if the Board was so inclined, they could make a finding that any possible impacts could be mitigated by the suggestions of CZMC. This was not a big problem, Mrs. Price stated, but according to State Laws, it did have to be addressed. It was suggested by Mr. Wexler that if the Board rendered a decision, a condition could be made that before a building permit was issued, the applicant would be compelled to meet the requirements of DEC and subject to final approval by them. On motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mrs. Price, it was unanimously - 3 - March 25, 1987 RESOLVED, that this is a Type I Action, being located within a Critical Environ- mental Area, with construction being adjacent to a Tidal Wetlands, as defined by State Law, and consequently, having further responsibilities under SEQR. At this time, a drawing showing the location of the drywell was requested by Chairwoman Price to which Mr. Strauss said he would be more than happy to meet that request. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, with Chairwoman Price voting nay, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Elizabeth Meagher, residing at 32 Dean Place, Larchmont, submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a Second Floor Addition over the garage at the existing of dwelling; 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, B (1) , having a front yard of 8.5 feet where 30 feet is required in an R-6 Zone District, on the premises located at 32 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 373; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Meagher 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 property is being sold to Mrs. Strauss of Mount Kisco, and the home is not large enough for his needs. 2. Presently, the existing bedrooms are located on the second floor of the home. 3. There is no other practical location to build the additional bedroom but over the existing garage. - 4 - March 25, 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 VI Section 89-35 B (1) 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 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 B (1) be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a Second-Story Addition which will have a front yard setback of 8.5 feet instead of the required setback of 30 feet on the premises located at 32 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 373 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 - 5 - March 25, 1987 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the front projection of the second floor be no closer to the property line than what presently exists on the garage; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that all conditions of DEC are to be met, provided DEC determines it necessary, and shall be subject to final approval by DEC, before a Building Permit is issued; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the recommenda- tions of CZMC, the runoff from the two down spouts shall enter a drywell instead of allowing it to flow into the Premium Marsh; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant terrace and plant the steep incline at the rear of the house to prevent erosion and sedimentation of topsoil into the Premium Marsh; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that hay bales be provided and placed along the entire northeast line of property and that hay bales also be placed around the drywell during construction of said drywell; and be it 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, provided final approval has been granted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 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 be it Fi1K1'HER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. - 6 - March 25, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 770 - Kakar The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Narinder Kumar Kakar for modification of Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (3) (a) to allow the construction of a Second Story Addition which will continue existing non-conforming rear yard setback of 14.8 feet thus reducing the required rear yard of 25 feet at the premises in an R710 Zone District, located at Block 221 Parcel 274, a/k/a/ 20 Sheldrake Avenue. The applicant appeared in support of his application and explained that he has two teenaged children and only two bedrooms with the third one being exceptionally small. He added that it is a small house and there was no family room either. After a brief discussion, there being no one who appeared in opposition to, or in favor of the application, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action, having no significant impact on the environment, as determined by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEAR. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: - 7 - March 25, 1987 WHEREAS, Narinder Kumar Kakar, residing at 20 Sheldrake Avenue, Larchmont, submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a Second Story Addition to the present dwelling; 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 par- ticular reference to Article VII Section 89-33 Subsection B (3) (a) , having an existing non- conforming rear yard setback of 14.8 feet thus reducing the required rear yard of 25 feet in an R-10 Zone District, at the premises located at 20 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221 Parcel 274; and WHEREAS, Narinder Kumar Kakar 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. His teenage daughter and teenage son each need separate bedrooms, large enough to accomodate them. 2. There is no other suitable location where the family room could be located. 3. The proposed addition requires no foundation work, therefore, it is the most reasonable way of adding the needed rooms. 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. - 8 - March 25, 1987 (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 89-33 Subsection B (3) (a) which 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 that purpose. 2. That the proposed addition is a moderate request. 3. That the granting of the variance is in haiiixny 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 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VII Section 89-33 Subsection B (3) (a) be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a Second Story Addition to dwelling on the premises located at 20 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221 Parcel 274 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; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. - 9 - March 25, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 771 - Spellman The Recording Secretary informed Chairwoman Price that an adjournment on this application was requested by the applicant's attorney. Chairwoman Price announced that the matter would be heard at the next Zoning Board meeting. * * * * * APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 772 - Robertson The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Scott & Jill Robertson for modification of Article VI, Section 89-35, Subsection B (1) and Article VI, Section 89-35 B (2) to allow the construction of an addition to an existing non-conforming dwelling thus reducing the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 21 feet and reducing the side yard setback of 8 feet, and a total for two side yards of 18 feet to 6.08 feet and 12.68 feet, respectively, at the premises in an R-6 Zone District and located at Block 505 Parcel 364, a/k/a 38 Dean Place. Mr. Robertson and his representative, Jim Lunney of Remodeling Consultants, Inc., presented the application. After a brief discussion, Chairwoman Price stated that since this was within a Critical Environmental Area, it had to formally be referred to the CZMC for their review and comments since it had not already been done. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment. - 10 - March 25, 1987 At this time, on motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type I Action, being located within a Critical Environ- mental Area with construction being adjacent to a Tidal Wetlands as defined by State Law and, consequently, having further responsibilities under SEAR; therefore, this matter shall be referred to the CLMC in order for them to render an advisory opinion. * * * * * APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 773 - Dillon The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. & Mrs. John Dillon for modification of Article VI, Section 89-32, Subsection B (1) to allow the construction of an addition thus reducing the required front yard setback of 40 feet to 16.5 feet at the premises in an R-15 Zone District, located at Block 206 Parcel 413, a/k/a 24 Avon Road. The applicant and his architect, John Dean Davis of Bronxville, NY, presented the application to construct a family room off the kitchen, at the front of dwelling. It was the opinion of Mr. Davis that the addition would maintain the style of the home and he presented some photos to substantiate that fact. When asked by Mr. Wexler if his neighbors knew of his intentions, Mr. Dillon replied in the negative. After which Mr. Wexler suggested that they be personally notified and shown the plans and perhaps they could even sign a letter stating that they had no objection to the proposed addition, if that was their opinion. He stated that, in other words, he would like input from the neighbors. - 11 - March 25, 1987 Mrs. Price had some reservations with the proposal since the encroachment was so substantial and there was enough room to put the addition in another location. Since the side line was actually a front property line because the house was located on a corner lot, Mr. Simon questioned the distance from the property line to the first step of the house to which Mr. Dillon said it was approxi- mately eight feet. At this time, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this application be considered a Type II Action, having no significant impact on the environment, as determined by New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEAR. At this time, Mr. Wexler stated that before the matter went any further, he would like to view the subject premises once again and it was the consensus of the Board, that they heed Mr. Wexler's suggestion. It was explained by Mr. Kelleher, that the Board had an lbw obligation to be fair and Mr. Dillon stated that he was willing to accept the fact that no decision would be made on his application until the next meeting. - 12 - March 25, 1987 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. Mr. Rene Simon stated that due to a conflict of interest, he would not participate in any discussion nor render any opinion regarding the Coughlin application. The applicant's attorney, Donald Mazin, presented and read a statement which summarized what had transpired to date regarding the proposed office building. A collage of photographs accompanied his presentation and were referred to in his explanation of the area surrounding the site. A petition containing approximately 357 signatures was also submitted by Mr. Mazin together with a letter from the applicant's landlord. The architect, Henry Meltzer, addressed the issues regarding the variances that were required and he presented a drawing of neighboring buildings and their ratio of coverage as compared to their proposal and he indicated that the proposed building was substantially below the coverage of area ratio as compared to the surrounding buildings. - 13 - March 25, 1987 Mr. Meltzer indicated that a 7,500 square foot building with the proposed parking requirements could not be built on the lot. When questioned about the smaller parking spaces, Mr. Meltzer indicated that they would be used for parking by compact cars. At this time, Mr. Edward Ferrone, of Lane Appraisals, presented a detailed analysis of the proposed building versus what is permitted. The costs involved versus the market value were explained by Mr. Ferrone. He concluded that the 7,500 scenario was an impossibility from an economic point of view as the costs would exceed market value. Chairwoman Price then requested substantiation of rental values in the area. Financing for a smaller-scaled version of the building would be next to impossible, Mr. Ferrone stated. Mr. Wexler raised several questions concerning the supposed losses which would be incurred in erecting a smaller building and he pointed out that with a smaller building, an expensive garage would not necessarily be constructed. It was explained by Mr. Meltzer that on-grade parking could not be provided even with a smaller building and the parking would still have to go below grade. In answer to Mr. Wexler's question, Mr. Meltzer explained that Coughlin Realty had only about 5,000 square feet of office space now but they needed to expand and from a cost analysis, he would not recommend constructing a building with only 7,500 square feet. When Chairwoman Price questioned the cost per square foot being high, Mr. Ferrone stated that he based the figures on his past experience and by using comparables. He went on to say that a smaller building had many of the same costs as a larger one such as the stairway, elevator, hallways, common space, etc. - 14 - March 25, 1987 Chairwoman Price then requested that the Board be furnished with data on comparable rentals. Mr. Wexler inquired what the opinion of the Planning Board was, to which Attorney Silverberg explained that the Planning Board only voted on the environmental issues and if the variances were granted by the Zoning Board, then it goes back to the Planning Board for their review. Mr. Mazin announced that the engineer, the architect and the traffic consultant for this project were all present so the Board could ask them any questions they had. Chairwoman Price expressed her concern of the property being over-built as well as her concerns regarding light, air and privacy. She stated that it was a very good presentation and respected the time and effort which was taken in its preparation, but that all of the materials just presented had to be reviewed. Attorney Silverberg brought up the issue of the interpretation of the Building Inspector's opinion regarding whether the other piece of property was to be used in calculating the floor ratio area. There is a transfer of development rights in certain cities which entitles the Board to over-ride the Building Inspector's Interpretation, Mr. Silverberg added. Mr. Mazin said he would provide counsel with citations involving other cases which used "personal problems" as grounds for area variances. At 11:10 P.M. a brief recess was taken and resumed shortly thereafter. At this time, the following people spoke in favor of the application: Gordon Sleeper, William Finnerman, a resident of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue, Janet O'Neill, Joseph Vanderbilt, Harold Froman, Kathy Morris, Frank Claps, M. Tieger, Jim Cervis, Peter Marchon, Cheryl F. and John Henry. - 15 - Ilr- March 25, 1987 • With the consent of everyone involved, it was decided that, due to the late hour, the opposition would not be heard this evening. Mr. Meltzer answered several questions regarding the rear yard setback and stated that the residents of the apartment building would be overlooking a garden area so it would not be a detriment to them. He continued that green gravel would be placed on the roof to give the look of grass. In answer to Mr. Wexler's question, Mr. Meltzer indicated that low, custom-built air handlers would be placed on the roof. The aesthetics of the building were addressed by Mr. Meltzer and he stated that windows would be placed in the front of the building with only a limited number being placed in the rear. e At this time, Mr. Mazin presented additional photographs of the subject area. Mr. Kelleher questioned the additional parking area across the street and Mr. Mazin explained that at present, it was an undeveloped lot and under contract to be purchased from the Town. He added that it would be used for daytime parking by Coughlin employees and evening decal parking permits would be issued by the Town, so additional revenue would be brought in. A speaker was opposed to the trees in the vacant lot being cut down to which Mr. Mazin replied that shade trees would be planted in the new parking lot. 0 Mr. Wexler requested that some of the trees be saved to which Mr. Mazin said that the Town Officials wanted the maximum number of parking spaces available and Mr. Coughlin stated that he would be more than glad to work with the Board in order to save some of the trees. Mr. Stanley Bierman requested that Mr. Malin submit any 11 II. documents before the meetings so that they could be reviewed, not only by the Board members, but by the general public as well. - 16 - March 25, 1987 This matter would be continued at the next meeting since the Board had to review everything that was just presented, Mrs. Price indicated, and she requested that any new information be submitted prior to the meeting. A speaker inquired if parking would be available for other businesses on the street or if those parking spaces would be lost, to which Attorney Silverberg stated that that was an issue the Board had to decide. Mr. Bernie Axelrod pointed out that the present premises had been allowed to deteriorate but added that a smaller building would not impact on the area as much. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 12:10 P.M. "be.-)- i ,, (//id,VI.Qy Jean A. Marra Recording Secretary - 17 -