Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982_12_01 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD DECEMBER 1 , 1982, IN THE COURT HOUSE , 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. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Peter G. Moore Mr. Peter D. Mosher Absent: Mr. Stephen K. Carr Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of October 27, 1982 were pre- sented and on motion duly made and seconded, approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Secretary presented for the record the affidavit of publication of the notice of hearing. Mr. Boraczek asked the Secretary to read the first appli- cation that had been held over from the last meeting. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 605 Application of Mr. Ronald DeCosimo for modification of Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 8 ft. to allow the construction of an accessory structure in the side yard having a side yard setback of 4 ft. on the premises located at 134 Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124 Parcel 297 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship. Mr. DeCosimo appeared before the Board and said that the rock runs through his back yard and it would be impracti- cal to put a shed at the rear of his property. The appli- cant said that he had originally submitted plans for an 8' x 8' garden shed but had changed the plan to a 6' x 8' shed making the setback 4 ft. Mr. DeCosimo further said that the rock at the rear of his property runs as high as 15 ft. The Board questioned as to what the finish of the shed would be and the applicant replied that it comes natur al rL and can be stained, etc. but he would probably finish it to match the house. Mr. Moore questioned about the location of the entrance door to the shed and Mr. DeCosimo said it would be facing the street. After further discussion the Board decided to vote on the application and the result was as follows : Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye Commissioner Mosher - Aye The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Ronald DeCosimo has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of an accessory structure in the side yard having a side yard setback of 4 ft. together with plans ; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular refer- ence to Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 8 ft. on the premises located at 134 Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124 Parcel 297; and WHEREAS , Mr. Ronald DeCosimo has submitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons : 1 . The reason for the proposed shed being located on the east side of the house is because the rear of the lot has a large rock formation throughout the 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 granted the appli- cation on the following grounds : (a) That there are special circum- stances 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 . Because of the topography of the lot the proposed lo- cation is the most feasible. 2. That said circumstances and/or conditions are such that the particular appli - cation of the Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (2) "Construction Require- ments for an R=6 One Family Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accom- plish this purpose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the 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 VI Section 89-35 Subsection B (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the con- struction of an accessory structure in the side yard having a side yard setback of 4 ft. on the premises located at 134 Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124 Parcel 297 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 . 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 three months of the filing of the Resolution 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. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next appli- cation . APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 610 Application of Mr. and Mrs . Harold Scholnick for modifi- cation of Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (3) "Con- struction Requirements for an R-10 Residence District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 ft. to allow the construction of a 2nd story addition at the rear of the dwelling maintaining an existing nonconforming rear yard of 16. 5 ft. on the premises located at 2 Locust Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109 Parcel 285 on the grounds of prac- tical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Scholnick presented his application and said that the existing porch with the deck space above is where they want to place the addition. The applicant said they were not changing the dimensions of the house and were adding a dressing room adjacent to the bedroom. Mr. Scholnick further said that presently there was a dormer in the front and back which they were replacing with two new windows and the side facing the neighbors will be the same. In conclusion the applicant said they intend to replace the stucco and there will be no change in the house lines. After further discussion the Board decided to vote on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye Commissioner Mosher - Aye The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS , Mr. and Mrs. Harold Scholnick have submitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to allow the construction of a 2nd story addition at the rear of the dwelling maintain- ing an existing nonconforming rear yard of 16 .5 ft. 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 Zon- ing Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (3) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 Residence District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 ft. on the premises located at 2 Locust Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 109 Parcel 285 ; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Scholnick have submitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons : 1 . In order to accommodate the new dressing room off the master bedroom, the only change that will be neces- sary is raising the original porch roof (built with the house in 1931 ) on either side to allow for two dor- mers . 2. This change will not encroach upon the rear setback of the property in any way; nor will it impair views by neighbors. 3. Because we wish to remain in this fine neighborhood and because we are a growing family, we find this modi- fication , which will give us valuable interior space while minimally dis- rupting the exterior of the house , to be necessary. 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 appli- cation on the following grounds : (a) That there are special circum- stances 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 the proposed 2nd story addition will not project into the rear yard any further than the exist- ing dwelling. 2. The proposed addition will provide extra room for the applicant' s family. 3. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (3) "Con- struction Requirements for an R-10 Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accomplish this pur- pose . 4. 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 neighboricod or other- wise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-33 Sub- section B (3) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 Residence District" be varied and modi- fied so as to allow the construction of a 2nd story addition at the rear of the dwelling main- taining an existing nonconforming rear yard of 16. 5 ft. 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. 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 three months of the filing of the Resolution 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. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 611 Application of Frank and Salvatore Micelli for modifi- cation of Article V Section 89-28 Subsection A "Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District" which does not permit the storage and parking of buses in a "B" Business Dis- trict to allow the existing facilities to be used for the parking and storage of contractor' s equipment and buses on the premises located on Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Parcel 45 and 53 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Francis Auleta, an Attorney, represented the appli- cants and said that they had been before the Board on three different occasions . Mr. Auletta stated that the applicants had rented the building for a warehouse and obtained a variance in 1972 for the storage of buses . Mr. Auleta, also, said that the tenant who was renting the warehouse is moving and the applicants want to rent the building for the storage and parking of the buses. The Board questioned as to how many additional buses would be stored and the applicants said about 15. It was pointed out that at present the Micellis store their contractor' s equipment in the rear of the property and the rest of the parking area is used for the buses. Mr. Paonessa said that the building is a masonry struc- ture commercial warehouse and is not sprinkled. Mr. Paonessa, also, said that it was not necessary to have the building sprinkled and that there would be no addi- tions or alterations to the building. The Board requested that the applicants amend their ap- plication and that the property be used solely for the parking and storage of buses and the applicants agreed. After further discussion the board decided to vote on the amended application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye Commissioner Mosher - Aye The application was therefore approved as amended and the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Frank and Salvatore Micelli have sub- mitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to allow the existing facilities to be used for the parking and storage of contractor's equipment and buses 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 Zon- ing Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article V Section 89-28 Subsection A "Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District" which does not permit the storage and parking of buses on the premises located at Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Par- cels 45 and 53; and WHEREAS , Frank and Salvatore Micelli have sub- mitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons : 1 . The applicant was originally granted a zoning variance to use the premises for the storage of contractor' s equip- ment and buses. Subsequently the applicant leased the building to a tenant for warehousing purposes for which a zoning variance was granted. 2. The present tenant is vacating the premises and the applicant has adjoining land used by a tenant for parking and the storage of contrac- tor' s equipment and buses . The ap- plicant is asking for a variance to extend the use of the building and land for the parking and storage of contractor' s equipment and buses in- stead of the present use as a ware- house which was the original intent of the applicant when he first obtained approval from the Zoning Board. 3. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck and will not be injurious to the neigh- borhood or detrimental to the public welfare. WHEREAS , this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all per- sons interested in this application after pub- lication of a notice thereof, and WHEREAS, this Board has requested the applicant to amend the application so that the property will be used solely for the purpose of the park- ing and storage of buses and the applicant has agreed to amend the application, NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board granted the applica- tion on the following grounds : (a) That there are special circum- stances and conditions applying to the land for which a 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 the property has been used for the storage and parking of buses. 2. That similar establish- ments for the parking of buses are located in the area. 3. That said circumstances and conditions are such that the particular appli- cation of the Ordinance with respect to Article V Section 89-28 Subsection A "Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District" which does not permit the storage and parking of buses in a "B" Business District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accomplish this pur- pose. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the 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 VI Section 89-28 Sub- section A "Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District" be varied and modified so as to al- low the parking and storage of buses on the premises located on Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mama- roneck as Block 131 Parcels 45 and 53 in strict conformance with the plans filed and amended with this application provided that the appli- cant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. At the beginning of the meeting Mr. Mosher had asked if he could abstain from hearing the next application since Mr. Codino had been a client of his for many years . Mr. Boraczek had explained to the applicant that since only three members would then be present to vote on the application the vote would have to be unanimous and if Mr. Codino wanted to adjourn his application to another meeting when possibly another member would be present he could do so without prejudice. Mr. Codino said he was willing to go ahead. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the application. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 612 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Albert Codino for modifica- tion of Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (3) "Con- struction Requirements for a One Family R-7.5 Residence District" which requires that on corner lots accessory structures shall be located not less than 30 ft. from the front property lines to allow the construction of a two car detached garage which will be setback 15 ft. from Murray Avenue on the premises located a 1 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 135 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Codino presented his application and said that he had spoken to an Architect who had suggested the proposed plan. Mr. Codino said that they have four cars in the family and limited parking space. The applicant said he had applied to the Board before for a garage in a different location but had been turned down and he had then built a carport for which he did not need a vari- ance. Mr. Codino further said that he has expensive cars which have been vandalized and for practical purposes he was only asking for 15 ft. The, applicant, also, said that his property slopes down in the back and he has put in 04F I a retaining wall which is mostly fill and at present he has a terrace behind his house leaving the proposed site the only location for the garage. In conclusion, Mr. Codino said that if he is granted the variance for the garage he will put two cars in the garage, one in the carport and the oldest car on the street. It was pointed out that the original garage is now a room for Mr. Codino' s son. Mr. Boraczek questioned as to whether the structure could be built on fill and Mr. Paonessa said that it would be a light structure and would be reinforced. A ques- tion was, also , raised as to whether there was any reason why the deck in the rear of the house could not be moved and Mr. Codino said it would destroy his whole back yard. A letter was read by the Chairman from Mr. Carl Tortorella of 5 Leafy Lane and Mr. Richard Tortorella of 11 Leafy Lane stating they opposed the construction and asking whether the applicant had obtained permission from the County for the curb cut. Mr. and Mrs. George Gold of 8 Leafy Lane both spoke in opposition to the application. Reference was made to the carport Mr. Codino had built and again it was pointed out that it was not necessary for the applicant to ob- tain a variance for the carport since it conformed to all zoning requirements. Mr. Moore questioned about the retaining wall that Mr. Codino had built. Mrs. Codino said that cars park on the corner everyday and if she did not have her driveway she does not know what she would do. Mr. Gold said he agreed with Mrs. Codino that commuters park on the corner and it should be a no parking area. Mr. Gold, also, said that there had been a sign there but it had been removed. Mr. Moore, also, questioned about the size of the pro- posed garage and asked the applicant if it was necessary to have such a large garage. Mr. Codino said he did not think he was asking for anything unreasonable and he wants to improve the value of his property. Mr. Moore said that the condition had been created by the appli- cant and there had been a garage on the property. Mr. Codino had , also , stated that he had spoken to his neighbors and they were all in favor of his application. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Nay Commissioner Moore - Nay 111 The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS , Mr. and Mrs. Albert Codino have sub- mitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to allow the construction of a two car detached garage which will be setback 15 ft. from Murray Avenue 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 Zon- ing Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (3) (b) "Construction Requirements for a One Family R-7.5 Residence District" which requires that on corner lots accessory struc- tures shall be located not less than 30 ft. from the front property lines ; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Albert Codino have sub- mitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons : 1 . The applicants need room to park four cars and protect the cars from weather (diesel very hard to start in cold weather). 2. The applicants want to protect their cars from vandalism (3 incidents this year) and needs enclosed garage for two expensive cars to preserve paint, exterior, etc. 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 denied the applica- tion on the following grounds: 1 . The Board felt the applicant had created his own hardship by clos- ing up the original garage. 2. There are other locations on the lot where the garage can be con- structed without a variance. 3. That there were no special cir, cumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 4. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicants to entitle them to the variance are not such as would deprive them of the reason- able use of the land. 5. That the granting of the vari- ance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighborhood and detrimental to the public welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjgurned at 9:45 P.M. Pita A. Johnson , Secretary