Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_10_02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE f,s. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD OCTOBER 2, 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 8:13 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. A. William Boraczek, Chairman Mr. J. Rene Simon Mr. Patrick Kelleher Mrs. Elaine Price Absent: Mr. Peter D. Mosher Also present: Mr. Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Town Counsel Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mrs. Arline Stefanisko, Secretary to Building Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meetings of July 24, 1985, and August 28, 1985, were not presented. The Chairman read the first application, the Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement continued from the meeting of August 28, 1985. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 679 Mr. Charles Hoffman's application for modification of Article VII Sec- tion 89-41 "Construction Requirements for "B" Business District" to allow the construction of an office building and off-street parking facilities, namely Section A (3) which permits a maximum building coverage of 25%, proposed building coverage 58%, Subsection C which permits a maximum floor area of 50% of lot area, proposed 115%; Subsection D (1) & (2) which permits a maximum building height of two stories and thirty feet, proposed three stories and forty feet; Subsection E which requires a minimum of 195 off-street parking spaces @ 9'x20' , proposed 141 off-street parking spaces @ 9'x18' on the premises located on 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Parcel 410 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. George Forbes, Esq. , representing the applicant, stated that the DEIS had been accepted, and Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Counsel to the Town, said it had been accepted 2 or 3 meetings ago, but the September Public Hearing, postponed until tonight, was to determine whether additional information is required. When the final EIS is accepted and the Board makes findings, it can be determined if adverse impacts can be mitigated. Mr. Forbes disagreed and suggested that the opposition g gg may be answered October 2, 1985 sooner, but Mr. Hoffman said that at the close of the Public Hearing there is an additional ten-day comment period during which either oral or written comments may be addressed to the Board for their consideration. Mr. Philip Grealy asked if there are additional questions which can be dealt with now, but Mr. Hoffman reiterated that the comment period will run from receipt of the transcript of the last Zoning Board meeting on August 28, 1985, which will contain the questions raised at that meeting. Mr. Grealy said that after the Public Hearing is closed, the appli- cant's engineer will respond to additional questions regarding traffic, etc. Mr. Gravenese, who has a shop on Myrtle Blvd. , asked if street parking was being counted on for the parking in this variance, and Mr. Grealy said no. Mr. Steve Chapin, 22 Summit Avenue, asked about financial data. Mr. Hoffman told those present that financial data is related to the vari- ance requested and not to the DEIS, so such questions or comments should be deferred. Mrs. Bea Powers, 33 Maxwell Avenue, also asked about presenting matters for consideration, and Mr. Hoffman again stated that once the Board closes the Public Hearing on the EIS, ten days after the transcript is available, the applicant will respond at either the October or Novem- ber Board meeting, with the probable results either: 1) more work needed on the EIS (traffic, etc.) in response to the Board's questions, 2) Board has sufficient information and deems DEIS done and will deal with findings, adverse or otherwise, or 3) a situation somewhere in between, perhaps with an addendum to the DEIS. Mrs. Powers asked about dynamiting and was informed that if the vari- ance is granted, the Planning Board, through the Site Plan Approval process, will deal with blasting and the underground stream issue, etc. She wanted the verbal questions from the last meeting, and these will be submitted to her when the transcript becomes available. Mr. Pasqual Zavaglia, 5 Byron Place, stated that he thought the traf- fic counts were off and that cars idling while waiting to make turns into Byron Place will pollute. He said there will be eight times more traffic and some control will be needed. He said that the Impact Study says nothing needs to be done, but some control is needed. Mr. Grealy responded that this will be addressed. Mrs. Powers then asked about wetting down for dust during construction in view of the drought and was told this would be dealt with. Since there were no more questions from those present, Mr. Simon moved, Mr. Kelleher seconded, and the Board unanimously voted to close the Pub- lic Hearing. The comment period was extended, on consent of the appli- / October 2, 1985 Ocant, to ten days after the August transcript has been received by the applicant. Other interested residents may obtain the transcript questions, also. The Chairman then read the second application which was postponed from the meeting of August 28, 1985. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 703 Application of Mr. Walter J. McTeigue, Jr. , for modification of Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Supplementary Regulations, Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of walls and fences in any re- quired yard to 4 ft. to allow existing stone retaining wall along the portion of the easterly property line having a maximum height of 7 ft. on the premises located at 70 Lookout Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Parcel 332 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. William Maker, Jr. , Esq. , representing Mr. McTeigue, explained the nature of the 7 ft. high retaining wall. He stated the wall was built in 1983 and conformed then to the Ordinance. It had riprap at the bottom and slopes up, and the height is measured from the top of the riprap. He further explained that Mr. McTeigue had obtained a letter of permission from the neighbors, the Jacobsons, on July 15, 1985, to extend two ft. into their property. On Sept. 25, 1983, the Jacobsons �"� sent Mr. McTeigue another letter saying, "We hereby revoke our per- mission . .", and the riprap was removed, without which the wall ex- ceeds the allowable height limit. Mr. Kelleher wanted to know the span of time between these two letters and why the revocation occurred. Mr. Maker said that to his knowledge the greater runoff of rainwater was the reason, but Mr. McTeigue had planted grass and shrubs to absorb some of this runoff. Mr. William Paonessa, the Building Inspector, stated that the measure- ment of the height of the wall resulted from an interpretation made by the Building Department and the Town Engineer that it would be measured from the top of the riprap. With the riprap removed, the wall no longer conforms. Also, there is a 2 ft. discrepancy between the original survey made for Mr. McTiegue and the survey made for the Jacobsons which has not been resolved. Mrs. Price stated that she takes seriously the letter of permission to the Building Department when the wall was built. + Counsel stated that if the signature can be verified and the origi- nal letter is available, the letter is admissible evidence. Mr. Simon examined the plans and said that about 25 ft. are in ques- tion if the variance is denied. E J f October 2, 1985 Walter J. McTeigue, Jr. © Edward Jacobson, an architect, then spoke and stated that he and his wife had rescinded the license or permission because the wall was on their property, and if the wall had been correctly built, the width of the riprap would not have exceeded the original proposal. He said that before the wall was built there had been no runoff, and now there was considerable runoff -- in winter and spring especially when the ground is frozen. Consequently,he paid to have another survey and learned the wall is on his property, with an additional 2 feet needed for the riprap. The Board suggested a third survey from a different surveyor, but Mr. Jacobson stated he had already paid for one, which was certified, and he did not intend to pay for another. William Paonessa stated that the Jacobsons have sufficient information regarding the location of their property line to know where it is. Mr. Maker was asked if Mr. McTeigue had a certified survey, and he stated that he did. The Board asked that stakes and a cord be put on the property, to which Mr. Jacobson stated that stakes were there and a line had been painted on the rocks along the property line for the Board to view. A vote on this was postponed until the Board members could visit the site and see the stakes, painted line, and the wall. The Chairman read the third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 708 Mr/Mrs. Uri Adner Application of Mr. and Mrs. Uri Adner for modification of Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (2) (a) and (b) "Construction Requirements for R-l0 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet and a total of both side yards of 25 feet to allow the construction of an addition to the rear of the dwelling for a green- house and a wood deck having a minimum side yard of 6.0 feet and a total of both side yards of 15.5 feet which will maintain the exist- ing nonconforming side yard on the premises located at 200 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213 Parcel 98 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or un- necessary hardship. Henry Korn, Esq. , representing Uri Adner, described the deck and green- house the applicant wishes to build and stated that the back yard is unusuable as it is rocky, steep, and dangerous. He presented a build- ing plan, supplemented with snapshots, for the Board to inspect. The house was built in 1924, and the side lines of the house are not going to be changed. e (7 Harold Lowenheim, 167 Hickory Grove Dr. , had submitted a letter to the Zoning Board stating that he had no objections to this variance; his October 2, 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Avi Zinger, 181 East Garden Road, directly across the street from the Adners, also submitted a letter to the Board stating that they had no objections to the requested variance. Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Linder, 198 East Garden Road, also stated in a letter that they had seen the plans and had no objections. Mr. Eleanor Leichter, 202 East Garden Road, the neighbor whose drive- way pavement is continuous with driveway pavement of applicant, read a lengthy statement, which is on record, objecting to the granting of the variance. She also presented an original petition dated this day and signed by twelve individuals from the area, which is also on record. Letters objecting to the granting of this variance were received from Warren A. and Jeanne D. Elliott, 7 Dundee Road; Karen Scharfman, 28 Ellsworth Road; Arthur I. Holleb, 3 Highridge Road; Mary Ann Lomonaco, 36 Stoneyside Drive, all of Larchmont. Mrs. Leichter's statement revealed that she and her husband had filed suit against the Adners to establish an easement for the common drive- way and had obtained a temporary restraining order against any con- struction. Counsel advised that copies of the restraining order and all papers in the litigation be forwarded to the Secretary of the Zoning Board by the Leichters. Carole Maddox, who also signed the petition, 87 Hickory Grove Drive, made a statement in objection. Tony Barrington, 145 East Garden Road, objected to the partitioning of the common driveway. Mr. Korn spoke briefly about the common driveway. Marvin Pearlman, 43 Stoneyside Drive, also a signer of the petition, spoke briefly against the granting of the variance. In response to questioning by Mr. Korn, Mr. Pearlman stated that the Leichters have five automobiles and one motorcycle in their possession. Mr. Henry Scharfman, 28 Ellsworth Road, spoke against the variance. Suzenne Roniger, 50 Stoneyside Drive, also objected to the variance. Lauro Bruno, 10 Ellsworth Road, also opposed the variance. Mrs. Price asked for the return date of the restraining order and was told it was October 7th; it will enjoin and restrain any building in the area alleged to be a common driveway. Mr. Emilio Escaladas, the architect for the Adners, stated that there will be no posts in the driveway, in answer to a question from the Board. He pointed out that the area outside of the Adner's house is not acceo- October 2, 1985 Mr/Mrs. Uri Adner ® sible from the living floor of their house, only from their basement. He also mentioned that the Leichters have a deck. He then pointed out the location of the posts for the deck on the drawing. Mr. Boraczek moved that the Board postpone the application until the lawsuit is settled. Mrs. Price said that the use of the paved area on both the Adner's and Leichter's properties is in dispute, and the court should be heard. Counsel said that the issue of the fence, either with or without a per- mit, is not fair to the applicant as long as a lawsuit is pending, and there may be a preliminary injunction against any building. He suggested that the Board should be prepared to make a decision regarding the appli- cation since the lawsuit may drag on. Mr. Boraczek restated his motion THAT THE BOARD POSTPONE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE OCTOBER 23 MEETING AND THE RETURN DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 1985, OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HAS PASSED. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Board to consider, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. O Jane H. Marion, Secretary