Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_05_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MAY 22, 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 D. Mosher Mr. Patrick Kelleher Mrs. Elaine Price Absent: Mr. J. Rene Simon Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. Steven Silverberg, Town Counsel APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 27, 1985, were presented and on motion made and seconded, approved as submitted. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 679 The Chairman said that in reference to the first application for Mr. Hoffmann the Board had only received the DEIS a few days be- fore this meeting and it would have to be adjourned to the next meeting. Mr. Silverberg pointed out that if the Board members had any questions before the next meeting to either contact him or the Secretary. The Chairman read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 683 Application of Hof-Pof Realty Co. for modification of Article X Section 89-56-E "Nonconforming Use of Buildings" and Article XI Section 89-66-A "Off-street Parking Requirements" which re- quires that a nonconforming use that is changed to a conforming use must conform to existing zoning regulations, to maintain and use converted 2nd floor dwelling unit for professional offices which does not have the required five (5) off-street parking spaces on the premises located at 168-170 Myrtle Boule- vard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mama- roneck as Block 133 Parcel 657 on the grounds of practical dif- ficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Paul Hodys who is the owner of the property appeared be- fore the Board and said he was not at the last meeting but believed the Board had requested a Parking Study. Mr. Hodys said the Architect was ready to testify, and they were not May 22, 1985 aware that the Board had wanted a presubmission of the Study. OMr. Silverberg pointed out that the Board had to determine whether there would be any significant impact on the environ- ment, and after they had received the Long Form EAF they had requested them to make a traffic and parking study. Mr. Hodys said they were talking about five parking spaces, and they were prepared to do whatever the Board wanted. 4 Mr. Boraczek pointed out that the parking is of the utmost importance, and Mr. Hodys pointed out they were alleviating the problem since they were eliminating one overnight space. Mr. Mosher said he was familiar with the area, and the build- ing that was residential completely fills the lot with no space to build. Mr. Mosher pointed out there was parking across the street and whether or not there is a study will not make any difference. Mr. Hodys said they were bringing the building into conformance. Mrs. Latona from the Traffic Commission said they are trying to deal with the problem of parking for residents. Mr. Hodys suggested they meet with the Traffic Commission. Mr. Wassman, who is on the Joint Long-range Planning Committee, said their consensus is that parking is one of the most crucial problems we have. ® Mr. Boraczek pointed out that the Board had asked for the Study at the last meeting, and he would like to see it in writing, and the applicant should have the information in to the Secretary at least ten days before the next meeting. Mr. Hodys consented to the adjournment and agreed to provide the information requested. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION No. 3 - CASE 690 Application of Dr. Steven Kantor for modification of Article III Section 89-14 "Required Street Frontage" which requires that no permit for any structure be issued unless the lot has a mini- mum street frontage of 125 ft. on suitable permanent access as required by Section 280A of Town Law and Article VI Section 89-30 Subsection A (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-30 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum lot width and street line frontage of 125 ft. on a public street to allow the construction of a tennis court at the southwes- terly side of the dwelling having no frontage on a public street (Fenimore Road) on the premises located at Fenimore Road (Grand Park Avenue) and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 301 Parcel 327 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. 4:: Dr. Kantor appeared before the Board, and Mr. Silverberg said that the Board should determine whether the application is a May 22, 1985 Type II Action and would not require any further action. Mr. Mosher questioned as to whether the proposed tennis court would cause any drainage problems, and Mr. Paonessa said he did not think it would. All the members agreed it was a Type II Action and would not require any further study and adopted a resolution to that effect. Mr. Boraczek questioned about the macadam, and Mr. Paonessa pointed out that Mr. Kantor had received a previous variance, and the Police Chief and Fire Chief had both said there would be no problem with access to the property for vital services. After further discussion, on motion made by Mr. Mosher and seconded, with all members voting in favor, the application was approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. Steven Kantor has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to construct a tennis court on an interior lot having no frontage on a public street, 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 III Section 89-14 "Required Street Frontage" which requires that no permit for any structure be issued unless the lot has a minimum street frontage of 125 ft. on suitable permanent access as required by Section 280A of Town Law on the premises located at Fenimore Road (Grand Park Avenue) and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 301 Parcel 327; and WHEREAS, Dr. Steven Kantor has submitted an applica- tion for a variance to this Board on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The lot is an interior lot with no frontage on a public street and an easement exists across the neighbor's property to the public street. 2. The Police Chief and Fire Chief have stated that vital services can be obtained on the property. 3. The tennis court would not alter the access to the property for the vital services. 4. The proposed location of the tennis court is the most suitable site on the property. May 22, 1985 5. The court will be located on level property Cwith no drainage problems and far enough from neighbor's property. 6. The nonconformity (no street frontage) will not be altered by the construction of the court. 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 application on the fol- lowing grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and condi- tions 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. The proposed location is the only site where the tennis court could be placed. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article III Section 89-14 "Required Street Frontage" would deprive the applicant of the rea- sonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is the minimum 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 neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article III Section 89-14 "Required Street Frontage" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a tennis court at the southwesterly side of the dwelling having no frontage on a public street (Fenimore Road) on the premises located at Fenimore Road (Grand Park Avenue) II 4:: and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 301 Parcel 327 in strict conformance with May 22, 1985 O 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 of the Town of Mama- roneck where a variance is granted the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this application 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. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 691 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 ft. and a minimum side yard of 10 ft. and Article VIII Section 89-44-D "Supplementary Regulations Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in any required yard to 4 ft. to allow an existing deck which has been constructed within the front yard having a setback of 5 ft. from street prop- el' erty line and a side yard setback of 2'0" and a proposed fence 4,, 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 unneces- sary hardship. Mrs. Price said she was a good friend of the Donatelli's and felt she should abstain from participating in the hearing. The Chairman explained to the applicants that since only three mem- bers would be voting, their vote would have to be unanimous, and if they wanted to hold their application over to another meeting when possibly there would be another member, they had the privi- lege of doing so. Mr. Sabin of Site Design Associates represented the applicants and said they were willing to go ahead with their application. The Board unanimously adopted a resolution finding this an un- listed action but would not require any additional action as there were no adverse environmental impacts. Mr. Sabin said they were replacing a concrete slab with a new deck. Mr. Kelleher asked if when they have a client if any attempt is made to find out if the work conforms with the local building code. Mr. Boraczek pointed out that since his client was spending so much money he would think they would investigate thoroughly. Mr. Paonessa pointed out that the Donatellis had obtained a variance a couple of years ago for an addition. May 22, 1985 Mr. Sabin stated that his clients were improving a condition that was unsafe and unsightly, and there is a 12 ft. drop out- side of the kitchen. Mr. Sabin said the height of the fence is for protection and is replacing a fence that was already there. It was pointed out that the deck and fence are both higher than what was originally there. Mr. Alexander who is also associated with Site Design Associates said when they had been made aware of the problem they had stopped the work. Mr. Alexander also said they would prefer not to have the fence over 4 ft. The applicants presented 8 letters from their neighbors sup- porting their application which were read by Mr. Boraczek. After further discussion, on motion made by Mr. Mosher and seconded by Mr. Kelleher, with the three members voting in favor, the application was approved with the condition that the fence not exceed 3'6", 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 in the front yard having a setback of 5 ft. 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) & (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" which re- quires a minimum front setback of 30 ft. and a minimum side yard of 10 ft. and Article VIII Section 89-44-D "Supplementary Regulations Walls & Fences" which re- stricts the height of fences in any required yard to 4 ft.; 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 very uneven due to being poured over ledge rock and unsightly. 2. The deck is raised above 6" over grade (12"±) to allow deck substructure and easy safe access ® from the kitchen (4" below kitchen floor) . 3. The fence is proposed for safety reasons and to 1 May 22, 1985 o provide reasonable privacy from a nearby westerly neighbor. 4. A 12' minimum height rock cliff drops off from the edge of the existing concrete slab on one side, and the applicant does not feel a fence of 3' above the deck ele- vation would provide adequate protection. 5. The proposed deck and fence replace exist- ing patio and fence which are both unsafe and unattractive. 6. Shallow ledge in this area precludes land- scaping portion of house in extreme southern corner of lot and greatly limits flexibility for siting outdoor use areas. WHEREAS, this Board has granted the application on the fol- lowing 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 0 the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or condi- tions are as follows: 1. Because of the tremendous problems with the property, the proposed plan will create a safe place to go out from the kitchen to the deck. 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) & (2) "Construc- tion Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" and Article VIII Sec- tion 89-44-D "Supplementary Regulations Walls & Fences" would deprive the appli- cation of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimum ad- justment that will accomplish this pur- pose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in _ harmony with the general purposes and in- tent of this Ordinance and will not be May 22, 1985 injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise Odetrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-33 B (1) & (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family District" and Article VIII Section 89-44-D "Supplementary Regulations Walls & Fences" be varied and modified so as to maintain an exist- ing deck which has been constructed within the front yard having a setback of 5 ft. from street property line and a side yard setback of 2'0" and a proposed fence higher than 4 ft. along southerly and westerly side of wood deck 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 conformance with plans filed with this application subject to the following condition provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. 1. The fencing along the wood deck is not to exceed 3'6" in height. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mama- roneck where a variance is granted the applicant shall C obtain a building permit within three months of the fil- ing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The build- ing 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 9:20 P.M. 0-1 o • ita A. Johnson, S cretary U