Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987_05_07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD ON MAY 7, 1987 IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Price at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Elaine Price, Chairwoman J. Rene Simon Patrick Kelleher Arthur Wexler Thomas Gunther Also Present: Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Counsel to the Town William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Jean A. Marra, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Minutes of the March 25, 1987 were presented and on motion by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, were unanimously approved. SCHEDULING Chairwoman Price stated that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on May 27, 1987 in the Court Room. May 7, 1987 111111, CASE NO. 759 - DECISION - COUGHLIN REALTY CORP. The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Coughlin Realty Corporation 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; and amended to include Article XI Section 89-67 E which requires parking areas to be laid out so that vehicles will not be required to back into public highways when leaving the parking area; 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 Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 627 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The Chairwoman read the Findings of the Board (and they have been incorporated into the Resolution). At this time, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, with Mr. Wexler and Mr. Simon not voting, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Coughlin Realty Corp. submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of an office building and off-street parking at 178 Myrtle Boulevard; and - 2 - May 7, 1987 4111, 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 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; and amended to include Article XI Section 89-67 E which requires parking areas to be laid out so that vehicles will not be required to back into public highways when leaving the parking area; 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 Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 627; and WHEREAS, Coughlin Realty submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: "Much interest has been generated by this application. This Board, being in the unenviable position of rendering decisions which involve irretrievable commitments of land resources -- takes the firm position that everyone who wishes to address the application must have a full and fair opportunity to do so. We believe we have accomplished that objective. And, we thank the proponents as well as the opponents of this application for presenting the issues completely, intently and creatively with minimum fuss and maximum restraint. "The effectiveness of the presentation has assisted us in making a decision with which we feel comfortable. "Again, as we have stated in the past, negative feelings arising out of this decision must be directed to the Board and not toward the adversaries. - 3 - May 7, 1987 "Before coming to any decision regarding the issues in this application, it is important to note that the Board seriously considered the advisory opinion of the Coastal Zone Management Commission which stated that this application would not compromise any of the coastal or land use policies promulgated as part of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. "Also taken into account was the negative declaration with requisite findings issued, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, by the Planning Board which stated that this application, as presented, would have no significant impact upon the environment. 1. REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN "In examining the figures and calculations submitted by the applicant regarding the evaluation and construction costs of the proposed building, it is clear that the construction of this building would not 'I, permit a reasonable rate of return under the current zoning laws. The figures were based on what is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance -- 7,500 square feet -- compared to what is proposed, which is 13,600 square feet. Further substantiation was requested by the Board as to the figures. The substantiation was timely submitted by the applicant's representative (Lane Appraisals, Inc. ) and generally supported the figures as given. "The Board undertook an independent assessment of these figures as well, requesting that the Town Assessor review the statistical documentation. The Deputy Town Assessor verbally advised that the figures submitted were realistic. While we have some questions as to the cost of the garage (under the 7,500 square foot plan) as being excessive, even reducing the garage by half or two-thirds would still show a substantial loss under the 7,500 square foot design. "There are several other factors which relate to a reasonable rate of return analysis. Arguments have been presented that, if it is determined that the applicant has created the economic hardship, then the Board is unable to grant a variance. - 4 - May 7, 1987 "The definition of the economic hardship, as presented by an opponent to the application is not quite clear. If, indeed, the hardship is because the applicant had to move from his former location to the proposed location, pre-existing motivational factors do not impact on the decision-making process of the Board. If the argument runs that the hardship is because the building is an expensive building, thereby not rendering a reasonable rate of return under the 7,500 square foot parameters, there are two significant responses to that contention. "First, even assuming arguendo that a financial hardship has been self-induced, the Appellate Division held four months ago in the Matter of Michael Jackson v. Donald Kirtpatrick that "even though the board correctly found that the Petitioner's financial hardship was self-imposed, this fact does not prevent the board from granting the area variance. It is merely a factor which may be weighed with the evidence before it." "Undeniably, this building will be expensive to construct; however, we believe this factor does not rise to the level of self-imposed financial hardship. Philosophical and emotional consideration also play a critical role in assessing financial hardship. "These premises have been vacant for eight years -- that is a significant time in the life of a town and, as importantly, it underscores the continuing inability to develop this parcel of land. The Master Plan Update refers to this parcel as a "soft area" which is generally interpreted to mean that it has significant potential for a negative impact within the community. "During the public hearings, the vocal support engendered by the application for the variance was substantial. Also, received were 357 signatures supporting the application -- although approximately 50 of these petitioners did not live in the Town of Mamaroneck, the remaining did live in the Town and a fair number of the residents signing the petition lived in the immediate area. The concerns and wishes of 300 residents of this community have not been ignored by this Board. We find the concerns of the residents persuasive. We all realize that Larchmont is a charming, attractive and expensive community. To have blight in the retail and business area is untenable. It particularly impacts upon the residents who live in nearby apartments, cooperatives and condominiums and who must live, shop and conduct business within this radius. - 5 - May 7, 1987 "We find this building to be innovative, well- designed, aesthetically pleasing and, therefore, expensive. Placing a building of this quality in the core of the downtown area, will markedly assist in revitalizing this area and contribute to the overall enrichment of the downtown district. 2. CONSISTENCY "The opposition to this application has presented several arguments predicated on a past determination by the Board which is currently under litigation. Adhering to the rationale of the Court of Appeals decision in Knight v. Amelkin, et al, we find the inconsistency arguments presented by the opponents to this application unpersuasive. "The distinctions between the former application involving commercial property and this application are clearly delineated. In the former instance, 40,468 square feet were requested -- 18,030 square feet were permitted. In this instance, 7,500 square feet are permitted; 13,600 are being proposed. And, we would like to note that there was a dispute as to the figures being proposed. We have checked again with the Building Inspector who confirmed that it is indeed 13,600 square feet based on his calculations and the plans submitted. "As importantly, the previous commercial application requested a variance for 3 stories instead of 2. The 2 stories proposed here are in keeping with the zoning requisites. There was testimony in the previous application that 3 stories would have had a significant impact upon the several single-family homes in the adjacent area -- that was a factor the Board weighed seriously. "The parking situation between the two applications also presents a marked difference. The former application requested a variance because of the approximately 58 spaces less than the requisite parking facilities. (All parking spaces were under- sized. ) The proposed application, with the off-site parking permitted, is within the zoning requirement for parking spaces. We might point out here that the Joint Planning Commission, in the Master Plan Update which was completed during the summer of 1986, stated that "it is important that future development within NOY the planning unit does provide adequate parking to satisfy its own needs." The planning unit referred to is Planning Unit #2 which encompasses the Myrtle Blvd. complex in which the applicant has his land. - 6 - May 7, 1987 "The Traffic Commission also expressed strong reservations regarding the former application; whereas in the instant case, the Traffic Commission has determined that there will not be an impact upon the area. "There are also distinct comparisons as to the land costs involved in the two applications. In the former application, the site abuts the Town Public Works Yard and Recycling Center. In the present application, the site is in the middle of Myrtle Blvd. , in a core area of the downtown shopping district, bounded by an attractive office building and next to a residential apartment building. 3. LIGHT, AIR and PRIVACY "The light, air and privacy issues that had been addressed by the Planning Board (which was well within their purview to do so) were found not significant in fir' this application. The light, air and privacy issues are also considerations under the Zoning Ordinance, and should be addressed. "The height dimensions of the building -- two stories -- is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. This scale has the minimum adverse impact possible on the apartment building behind the proposed Coughlin building. There have been some figures as to the height of the underground garage. Again, verifying these figures with the Building Inspector, the height of the underground garage, above ground level, is no more than slightly over 5 feet at its highest level and less than one foot at its lowest. This does not impact on the light, air and privacy of the apartment building to the rear of the lot. Furthermore, the greenery and the plantings on top of this projection can only enhance the general vicinity. The setback at the rear of the building is 25 feet which is allowed and does not require any zoning consideration. Nwr - 7 - May 7, 1987 "While there is an issue of light, air and privacy on the lot lines, particularly, the lot line that abuts the Clock Tower Building, several factors minimize the concern. First and most importantly, there is no provision under the Zoning Code for side setbacks. When the Clock Tower was constructed before the current Zoning Code, there also were no provisions for side yard setbacks and the building was constructed to the lot lines. It should have been contemplated that light from the windows on the lot lines would be eradicated when another legally permissible building was constructed on the abutting lot line. Whether the building was built pre or post-zoning, the placement of windows on a building that has been built to the lot line was injudicious at best. "Other issues were raised as to the cars of the proposed building abutting the lower windows of the Clock Tower Building, thereby admitting pollutants and creating noise. The concerns of the representatives ‘11I► of the Clock Tower Building seem somewhat misplaced or overstated. In inspecting the exterior of the existing Clock Tower Building, there are 11 parking spaces in front of 4 windows on the side of the Clock Tower Building facing Washington Street. Two of these windows are only 6 inches above ground level and there is no stone abutment separating the windows from the parking spaces. The 6-inch level is precisely at the spot where exhaust would be emitted. Assuming that these parking spaces abutting directly against the windows have been in existence for awhile, this past practice militates against the objections raised. At least the windows along the Myrtle Blvd. side which would abut the proposed Coughlin Building, are two and a half to three-feet high, and there is a stone abutment which separates the cars from the windows. If, indeed, the Clock Tower representatives were genuinely concerned about the noise and the pollutants being emitted by cars, some steps would have been made to rectify that existing situation they created on the Washington Street side. (We will refer the issue on proper exhaust and fans devices within the parking garage to the Planning Board. ) - 8 - May 7, 1987 4. TRAFFIC and PARKING "As to the parking and traffic issues that have been raised by a few residents, again we refer to the Planning Board's determination as to the traffic in the area. Moreover, the Traffic Commission has concluded that this application will present no significant disruption of the traffic pattern and flow. It is important to note that the off-site parking which will be provided is directly across the street from the proposed building and the number of parking spaces conforms to the zoning requirements. "As to the potential increase of traffic, the Master Plan Update that was commissioned by the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck addresses that. Referring to Unit #2 which encompasses the project in question, the Master Plan stated "thus a significant amount of new development within the study area can be accomplished without causing noticeable traffic congestion at this location." "Also, we refer to the signatures that were obtained by the applicant; many came from 14 and 16 North Chatsworth Avenue residents, who would be directly affected by any perceived traffic issues. These residents voiced no concern over increased traffic. "To recapitulate, the applicant's statistics, together with independent substantion of these figures, show that a reasonable rate of return on this building is not possible unless the variances requested are granted. The proposed building is a creative and aesthetically pleasing design which undeniably adds to the cost. We believe that an attractive, well-designed building can only enhance the immediate area and ultimately improve the property values in the vicinity. "As to consistency, there are clear distinctions between this application and the former application -- 1111, which would satisfy any court tribunal. - 9 - May 7, 1987 err "The light, air and privacy considerations, we believe, go to the height of the building which, if higher, would have a significant impact on the residents directly behind the building. As to the light, air and privacy issue of the adjacent building, we believe the opponents are estopped from raising the issue -- whether relying on pre-existing zoning or present zoning, it matters not. They fully understood that an adjacent building could be built to that lot line without a variance. Their past practice does not make their arguments any more persuasive. "Moreover, we find that the proposal does not significantly impact upon the neighboring building even if the past practices of the Clock Tower owners were not a factor. Having received and integrated the opinions and resolutions of the Planning Board, Coastal Zone Management Commission and the Traffic Commission and having taken into account all the testimony of the residents who have demonstrated concern and energy over the application in particular and the Town in general, we find that the public interest would best be served by granting the variances requested. "The proposed building is the minimum needed to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty, shall not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, and should therefore, be granted." WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the variances sought are, in all respects, granted subject to the following conditions: a. That all construction and final design be in accordance with the plans presented in support of the application. NOW - 10 - May 7, 1987 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that the Articles and Sections as heretofore stated, be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a two story office building and off-street parking on the premises located at 178 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 627 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that 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 after Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board and thereafter of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one year and completed as soon thereafter as is possible. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with 1110, the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. Donald Mazin, the applicant's attorney, then thanked the Board for their time and effort in hearing this application and he also thanked them for their favorable decision. * * X APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 771 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Dr. Spellman to allow a professional office use which requires four (4) additional parking spaces be provided in addition to the existing ninety-nine (99), pursuant to Article XI Section 89-66. Article XI Section 89-65 also requires Board of Appeals approval for the enlargement of existing use without providing additional parking spaces. Parking spaces of 8'6"x 18'6" are provided, where a 9'x 20' size is required by Article I Section 89-3 "Definitions" - Parking Space at the premises in an R-TA Zone District, located at Block 127 Parcels 106, 108 & 214, a/k/a 16 North Chatsworth Avenue. - 11 - May 7, 1987 The Chairwoman excused herself from participating in this application since Dr. Price has a practice at 14 North Chatsworth Avenue. The applicant, his attorney, Arnold Green, and Ronald Sher, the attorney for the 16 North Chatsworth Avenue Corporation, appeared in support of the application. Three letters in favor of the application were submitted; with two of them being from Selma Grant of 16 North Chatsworth and the other from Rose Zuckerman of the same address. A letter of concern regarding the present parking situation in the area was received from the Chatsworth Gardens Condominium, 14 North Chatsworth Avenue, wherein some easy and inexpensive suggestions were made to alleviate the parking problems. Mr. Sher then explained the financial dilemma the Co-op was in regarding the sale of a particular professional apartment associated with this application and he stated it never sold as a residential apartment because it was built to be used for professional offices. There was some discussion regarding when the premises in question was last used as a professional office and it was concluded that it was approximately 16 years ago. It was explained by Mr. Sher that the unit was undesirable for residential purposes for security reasons and also because it was located next to the community laundry room. Following a lengthy discussion regarding the purchase of the apartment and the number of spaces available, it was determined that an extra two spaces would be made available to the applicant by the Co-op. Mr. Sher explained that this would be accomplished by closing off an existing fence; thereby the original 99 parking spaces would be increased to 101 with the two new spaces being in conformance with the zoning requirements relating to size. 11011, Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously - 12 - May 7, 1987 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action which has 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 SEQR. On motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. Eric Spellman has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow a professional office use which requires four additional parking spaces; 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 XI Section 89-66 11111, and Section 89-65 which requires that four additional parking spaces be provided and Section 89-3 which provides for 9'x 20' parking space, where 8'6"x 18'6" are being provided, at the premises located at 16 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127 Parcels 106, 108 and 214; and WHEREAS, Dr. Spellman 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 there is an existing nonconforming use with one parking space allocated to each apartment with 15 spaces being rented by others. 2. The existing parking spaces have always been 8'6" x 18'6" and have not been altered. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication 11111, of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT - 13 - May 7, 1987 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 XI Section 89-66, Section 89-65, and Section 89-63, 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. 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 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article XI Section 89-66, Section 89-65 and Section 89-63 be varied and modified so as to allow a professional office use which requires four additional parking spaces of 9'x 20' at the premises located at 16 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127 Parcels 106, 108 and 214, 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 be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that exactly four parking spaces be allocated to this unit as a professional use unit plus the two new additional parking spaces being allocated for this use, with the two newly created parking spaces being of a 9'x 20' dimension; and it is - 14 - May 7, 1987 11111, 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. * * * * * APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 772 (per CZMC decision 4/28/87) 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 nonconforming dwelling which would reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 21 feet and reduce the side yard setback from 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, located at Block 505 Parcel 364 a/k/a 38 Dean Place. The applicant appeared in support of his application and stated that his existing home is extremely small and it was his desire to make it more livable by adding an addition and that this was the only feasible location for the addition. The plans were reviewed by the CZM Commission, Mr. Robertson stated, adding that none of his neighbors had any objections to the proposal as it would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Jakubowski announced that the Erosion Control Plan was on file in the Building Department. - 15 - May 7, 1987 Chairwoman Price read a letter from the Consulting Engineer wherein the environmental issues were addressed and it was recommended that hay bales or silt fences being installed around the perimeter of the construction area. A letter from the CZM Commission was then read by Mrs. Price and the applicant stated that he would be more than willing to comply with all of the recommendations made by Mr. Trachtman and CZM. Some discussion followed regarding a rusted radiator being abandoned in the marsh area and a feasible method of removing it. At this time, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type I Action which could have a significant impact on the environment as ‘11OW determined by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or corresponding local law, for which however, the preparation of an EIS is not required since the applicant has agreed to certain conditions as set forth by the Coastal Zone Management Commission and the Consulting Engineer to the Town, whereby there would be no impact due to the mitigating steps to be taken by the applicant during construction of said addition. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Scott & Jill Robertson of 38 Deane Place have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of an addition to an existing non- conforming dwelling; and 11110, - 16 - May 7, 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 (2) in an R-6 Zone District, which requires a front yard setback of 30 feet and a minimum side yard of 8 feet or a total of two of 18 feet, on the premises located at 38 Deane Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 364; and WHEREAS, Scott & Jill Robertson 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. The existing home is extremely small. 2. The proposed addition would include a much- needed family room as well as a master bedroom. 11111, 3. The land is highly irregular and steep which renders it not feasible for the proposed addition to be constructed in another location; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Zone Management Commission and the Consulting Engineer to the Town have submitted comments and recommendations in writing regarding this application to the Zoning Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby grants the application on the following grounds: a. That during construction, hay bales be placed around the perimeter of the area under construction. b. That a silt fence be installed to keep debris from entering any portion of the Critical Environmental Area; - 17 - May 7, 1987 c. That debris be removed on a daily basis. d. That additional down spouts are to be included and as approved by the Consulting Engineer. e. That there are other 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. f. That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance of systems in a Critical Environmental Area; 2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, because the proposed activity (A) will have only a minor impact, because (B) it is the only practical alternative, and (C) it is compatible with the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or social burden on the community; 3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland, because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective conditions imposed by this resolution; 4. 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 (2) would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. - 18 - May 7, 1987 5. 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 (2) be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of an addition to an existing nonconforming dwelling having a front yard setback of 21 feet instead of the required minimum front yard setback of 30 feet and a side yard setback of 6.08 feet and 12.68 feet, respectively, instead of the required total for two side yards of 18 feet, on the premises located at 38 Deane Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 364 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 approval by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and thereafter of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one year and completed 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. * * X X * 10110 - 19 - May 7, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 773 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 which would reduce 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, John Dillon, and his architect appeared in support of the application and stated that they were previously before the Board. Mr. Dillon offered that he had complied with the Board's request to speak to his neighbors regarding the proposed addition and that they voiced no objection. It was reported by Mr. Wexler that he viewed the subject property again and that he noticed other homes in the area were similarly situated. U 41110 Three letters in support of the application from Helen Jennings of 20 Avon Road, Elizabeth & John Berringan of 3 Beresford Lane, and Dave Hammelburg of 6 Beresford Lane were 4 read by Chairwoman Price. There being no further questions or comments, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action which has no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or corresponding local 4 law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQR. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, with Chairwoman Price voting nay due to the fact C that, in her opinion, the request was too substantial, the following resolution was adopted: - 20 - May 7, 1987 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John Dillon have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of an addition which would reduce the required front yard setback of 40 feet to 16.5 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 89-32, Subsection B (1) which requires a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet on the premises located at 24 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 206 Parcel 413; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Dillon 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. The proposed addition would provide more 1110, livable room off the kitchen. 2. That due to the layout of the home, it is the only feasible location for the addition. 3. Placing the addition in this location would add to the home without damaging the architectural design. 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. - 21 - May 7, 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 89-32 Subsection B (1) would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal 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 otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. The proposed addition is a moderate request; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-32 Subsection B (1) be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of an addition to the dwelling which will reduce the required front yard setback from 40 feet to 16.5 feet on the premises located at 24 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 206 Parcel 413 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. X SC 3f * - 22 - May 7, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 774 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. S. Strachan for interpretation of Article VIII Section 89-47 B, to permit an existing dwelling unit in an accessory structure which use is limited to residential use by domestic employees of the owner or tenant of the main building, at the premises located in an R-10 Zone District, located at Block 221 Parcel 78, a/k/a 49 Sheldrake Avenue. The applicants, together with their attorney, Marilyn Reader, were present for the Board's interpretation of the application. It was stated by Ms. Reader that the home the Strachans are under contract to purchase has an accessory structure which would be occupied by Mrs. Strachan's parents, who in turn will be providing child care services while Mrs. Strachan is at work. She then asked the Board for their interpretation regarding the use of this accessory structure for that purpose as they were unable to purchase the property until a certificate of occupancy was issued by the Building Department and a letter of conformance was sent to the lending institution. Mr. Wexler questioned if the Board's interpretation would be used for all future determinations and Chairwoman Price answered in the affirmative. It was the Board's contention that a residence was just a room and that a dwelling unit contained a kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Jakubowski stated that the owners of the premises would be receiving a financial benefit from the accessory structure whereas in a five bedroom home, perhaps one room is used to house a domestic. Following much discussion, Mrs. Price explained that she was having difficulty with Section 89-47B and the Building Inspector summarized that it would be two-family occupancy 111111, in a one-family zone. He continued that the house could not be sold the way it exists because he would not issue a certificate of occupany and he added that this situation has existed since 1961. - 23 - May 7, 1987 4411►' A letter from the applicant's mother was read by Mrs. Price wherein it was stated that child care services would be provided by the mother to her daughter, Mrs. Strachan. The present owners of the home, Mr. & Mrs. George Shaw, who live in New Rochelle, stated that the addition was there when the home was purchased by them. Chairwoman Price read a three-page letter from Marguerite Perrin of 5 Rockland Avenue in opposition to the interpre- tation of the application being favorable and Ms. Perrin appeared to voice her opposition. Mr. Jakubowski produced documentation of previous appli- cations for use of the garage as living space being denied; one in 1949 and another in 1977 and the reason cited was that "no accessory structure shall be used for residential purposes except for domestic purposes." Several questions were raised by the members of the Board after which, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Simon, with Mr. Wexler voting nay, it was RESOLVED, that this Board upholds the interpretation of the Building Inspector of the Town of Mamamaroneck regarding Section 89-47B, as follows: that the term "residence purposes" is not compatible with the existing use, to wit: a kitchen, and therefore does not conform to the term residence as an accessory structure. At this time, Mr. Gunther stated that he would abstain from any interpretation of "domestic" for many reasons. Mrs. Price indicated that the wording in the statute could not be limited to a particular situation; it would not be possible. "Residence" means no kitchen, Mrs. Price added. Therefore, the term "domestic employees" within the meaning of the statute did not have to be addressed at this time. x x x x - 24 - May 7, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 775 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. Edwin C. Scanlon for modification of Article VIII Section 89-44 D, to erect a five-foot stockade fence which would exceed the four-foot height allowance, at the premises located in an R-7.5 Zone District, located at Block 118 Parcel 359, a/k/a 12 Maplewood Street. Mr. Scanlon appeared in support of his application and stated the proposed fence would be erected for the safety of his five month old baby, for privacy and also to keep a neighbor's cat out of his yard. Mr. Simon questioned the neighbor's fence he saw when he visited the property and Mr. Scanlon explained that the neighbors would take it down. Mr. Wexler questioned if the good side of the fence would face out and Mr. Scanlon replied that it would. With some of the Board members finding difficulty in accepting the necessity of a five foot fence, Mr. Gunther explained that it was a matter of personal interpretation of hardship. Traffic going by on Murray Avenue is noisy, neighbor's parties, etc. Mr. Gunther continued that the Zoning Board did not have 20 applications a month for a six foot fence and Mr. Wexler offered that five feet was the permissible height in many other communities. Mr. Peter Doria (Case No. 777) stated he was in favor of the fence for the safety of the child. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously WHEREAS, Mr. Edwin C. Scanlon submitted an 1111, application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the erection of a five foot stockade fence; and - 25 - May 7, 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 VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of walls and fences in any required yard to 4 feet on the premises located at 12 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Parcel 359; and WHEREAS, Mr. Scanlon 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. That he was concerned for the safety for his five month old baby. 2. A child would not be able to climb over a five foot fence as easily as a four foot one. 3. A fence would reduce noise and keep the neighbor's cat from entering his yard. 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 rnipo are as follows: - 26 - May 7, 1987 ``r 1. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance, with respect to Article VIII Section 89-44 D, would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 2. That the proposed application 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 VIII Section 89-44 D be varied and modified so as to allow the erection of *Mor a five foot stockade fence on the premises located at 12 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Parcel 350 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, when a variance is granted, the application shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. And the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one year and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. - 27 - May 7, 1987 APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 776 Mr. Gunther read the application as follows: Application of Madeleine and Stephen Zavel for modification of Article VI Section 89-32 B (2) (b), to construct two decks which would reduce the total side yard setback to 20 feet from 30 feet and would reduce the rear yard setback to 17 feet from 25 feet pursuant to Section 89-32 (B) (3), at the premises located in an R-15 Zone District, located at Block 404 Parcel 267, a/k/a 62 Carleon Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Zavel presented their application and stated that they had changed their mind about building a gazebo and requested that it be ignored. Mr. Wexler immediately requested that the applicant submit new plans which contained more information and Mrs. Price explained that the plans, as submitted, were not adequate. Mr. Simon added that the plans did not show the existing premises and the proposed work. Mr. Zavel was quite surprised that the plans were inadquate and Mr. Jakubowski explained that according to the information sheet the applicants are furnished, the plans presented far exceed what is requested. A discussion regarding the plans presented was held at the dias. Mr. Zavel tried to explain that his property sloped in the back yard and there was much rock to contend with. He said that a lower deck was proposed also to eliminate a tall staircase having to be constructed. The Board members raised questions with regard to the impact on the neighboring homes and the distance from the proposed deck to the neighbor's property line and Mr. Zavel said woods were in the rear of his home and it was a great distance to the neighbor's house in the rear. Concern about the impact on the property was expressed by Mr. Gunther and he said it was very difficult to tell what impact the decks would have because the plans were so vague and Mr. Simon also requested that the dimensions be stated. - 28 - May 7, 1987 Mr. Zavel requested that just the side yard variance be approved because he was going to build the deck in three stages anyway but the Board members explained they were unable to grant any variance at this time. Mr. Wexler then requested photographs, elevations, drawings to scale and a topographic profile be submitted and on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that Application No. 776 be adjourned. * * * * * APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 777 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Peter Doria for modification of Article VIII Section 89-44 B, to erect a six-foot fence which would exceed the four-foot height allowance, at the premises located in an R-2F Zone District, located at Block 403 Parcel 400, a/k/a 30 Blossom Terrace. Mr. Doria appeared and stated that Metro North railroad tracks border his rear property line and that in February of 1984, a railroad car derailed not too far from his home. He added that his back yard drops approximately 20 feet and it was because of these factors that he worries for the safety of his son. He stated that at present, there was a cheap fence up but it was all bent out of shape and very dangerous and that if he were permitted to erect a taller fence, his son would not be able to climb over it. Two letters in support of the application from Mr. & Mrs. Morgan of 35 Blossom Terrace and Robert Weber of 28 Blossom Terrace were read by Mrs. Price. There being no further questions, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously - 29 - May 7, 1987 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action which has 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 SEQR. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Peter Doria submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the erection of a six foot fence; 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 B which would exceed the four foot height allowance at the premises located at 30 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 400; and WHEREAS, Mr. Doria 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. That he was concerned for the safety of his young son and a small child would not be able to climb over a six foot fence. 2. That the rear property drops approximately 20 feet and his son has fallen many times. 3. A fence would reduce noise from the Metro North Railroad tracks which border his rear property line. 4. The railroad tracks are very dangerous. 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 - 30 - May 7, 1987 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 VIII Section 89-44 B, would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 2. That the proposed application 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 VIII Section 89-44 B be varied and modified so as to allow the erection of a six foot fence on the premises located at 30 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 400 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 - 31 - May 7, 1987 FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, when a variance is granted, the application shall obtain a building permit within six months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. And the building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one year and completed within two years of the date of said permit; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. * * * * APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 778 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Maurice and Sandra Geeslin for modification of Article VI Section 89-33 B (2) (a), to construct an addition and rear porch which would have a side yard of 5.3 feet instead of the required 10 feet, at the premises located in an R-10 Zone District, located at Block 218 Parcel 539, a/k/a 73 Fernwood Road. Mr. and Mrs. Geeslin appeared in support of their application and stated that their home is very small and they wish to enlarge the existing house out back which would just extend the existing non-conforming use. A letter in favor of the application from the next-door neighbors, Stephen and Susan O'Bryne of 75 Fernwood Road, was read by Chairwoman Price. A memo from William E. Jakubowski regarding the location of the home being in excess of 100 feet from the stream bed was also read into the record by the Chairwoman. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Price, seconded by Mr. Gunther, it was unanimously - 32 - May 7, 1987 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action which has 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 SEQR. At this time, on motion by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Geeslin submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of an addition and rear porch which would have a side yard of 5.3 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 89-33, Subsection B (2) (a) which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on the premises located at 73 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Parcel 539; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Geeslin 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. The existing home is extremely small. 2. There is no other feasible location for the proposed addition. 3. The proposed addition would just continue existing nonconforming side yard setback. 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; Nur NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT - 33 - May 7, 1987 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 89-33 Subsection B (2) (a) 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. 2. That the proposal 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 89-33 Subsection B (2) (a) be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of an addition and rear porch which will maintain existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5.3 feet instead of the required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on the premises located at 73 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Parcel 539 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 - 34 - May 7, 1987 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. 9 - CASE 779 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of William and Catherine Roehr for modification of Article VI Section 89-30 B (2) (a) and (b), for a permit to maintain an existing one-story rear addition with a side yard of 11 feet and a total side yard of 24 feet where a side yard of 20 feet and a total of 50 feet is required; and Article VI Section 89-30 B (3) which requires a rear yard of 50 feet which has been reduced to 48 feet, at the premises located in an R-30 Zone District, located at Block 412 Parcel 581, a/k/a 21 Rockridge Road. The Chairwoman excused herself from participating in this application. Mr. and Mrs. Roehr appeared in support of their application and stated that when the zoning changed from 7.5 to R-30, they home was affected by this. Apparently, Mr. Roehr stated, this was done in error but it still has not yet been changed back. Under the present zoning requirements, Mrs. Roehr stated no house on the street meets those requirements. She added that there was no building permit obtained for previous work which was done and they are now applying because they 14111, could not get refinancing on the home without a certificate of occupancy. - 35 - May 7, 1987 At this time, on motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action which has 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 SEQR. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. William Roehr submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to maintain an existing one-story rear addition; 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 89-30, Subsection B (2) (a) and (b) which requires a minimum side yard setback of 50 feet, and a side yard of 20 feet and a total of of 50 feet, on the premises located at 21 Rockridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Parcel 581; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Roehr 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 present upzoning of the street was done in error. 2. The existing addition does not meet the current zoning requirements. 3. No house on the street meets the current zoning requirements. 1111 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, - 36 - May 7, 1987 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 89-30 Subsection B (2) (a) and (b) 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. 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 89-30 Subsection B (2) (a) and (b) be varied and modified to permit to maintain an existing one-story addition at rear of dwelling having a rear yard setback of 48 feet instead of the required 50 feet and a side yard of 11 feet for a total side yard of 24 instead of the required side yard of 20 feet for a total side yard of 50 feet, on the premises located at 21 Rockridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Parcel 581 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 - 37 - May 7, 1987 1111, 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. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 A.M. Jean A. Marra Recording Secretary - 38 -