Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981_03_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MARCH 25, 1981 , IN THE COURT HOUSE, 1201 PALMER AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the acting Chairman, Mr. Hardesty at 8: 15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty, acting Chairman Mr. Laurence G. Bodkin, Jr. Mr. Peter G. Moore Mr. Stephen Carr Absent: Mr. A. William Boraczek, Chairman Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 28, 1981 and Feb- ruary 25, 1981 were presented 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. Hardesty asked the Secretary to read the first appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 552 Application of Mr. Stanley I . Rosen for modification of Article VIII Section 89-44 Subsection "D" which restricts the height of walls and fences to 4 ft. in a residential area to allow the installation of 52 l .f. of 6 ft. high wooden fence along the rear property line on the premises located at 29 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 365 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnec- essary hardship. Mr. Rosen had appeared before the Board at its January meeting and the Board had advised him to withdraw his application until sometime in the Spring. Mr. Rosen had written a letter and appeared at the February meeting requesting that his application be placed on the agenda for the March meeting. Mr. Rosen stated that he was asking for permission to erect a 6 ft. fence to screen the pile of dirt that was left by the builder behind 29 Blossom Terrace. Mr. Rosen said his hardship was expressed in a letter addressed �G> cb to the Board by his tenant, Mr. Neville Greck on February 9th and the fact that Mr. Greck threatens to break his lease. Mr. Rosen, also, said that the 6 ft. fence would provide a screening for the ground floor level and prevent the dirt from going in the house but if his tenant was on the terrace they would still be able to see the pile of dirt. Mr. Rosen further said Mr. Spencer had previously agreed to withdraw his objection if the applicant would plant a privet hedge to screen the "back" side of the fence that will face Mr. Spencer's property but after Mr. Spencer had thought it over he changed his mind. Mr. Moore asked if the pile of dirt was there when Mr. Greck rented the house and Mr. Rosen said it was. Mr. Anthony R. Spencer of 340 Orienta Avenue, Mamaroneck, New York, the developer of the property said he has al- ready built 12 houses and owns 4 more lots. Mr. Spencer stated that he has already sold all of the twelve houses and three of the neighbors have installed 4 ft. fences. Mr. Spencer, also, said he is about ready to obtain his permits for the four remaining lots but cannot give an exact date and when he does he expects to use the dirt at the back of 29 Blossom Terrace for fill . Mr. Spencer further said that the dirt pile has been there about 14 months and that the other three neighbors in the back have not complained. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Spencer if his reason for not moving the dirt was economy and Mr. Spencer said his reasons were economy and waste. Mr. Spencer said it costs bet- ween $450. and $500. to have the dirt removed and it would then have to be moved again which would make it three times altogether. Mr. Rosen said he would pay half. Mr. Paonessa pointed out that Mr. Spencer had received his permits from the County and needs to supply him with some further information before he can obtain his permits for the four building lots he stills owns. After further discussion the Board decided to vote on the application and it was approved with the stipulation that the fence cannot be built before May 15, 1981 and Mr. Rosen agreed if the pile of dirt was removed before that time he would not build the fence. The vote was as follows: Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Aye Commissioner Moore - Nay Commissioner Carr - Aye The following Resolution was therefore adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Stanley I . Rosen has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to 61ao7 allow the installation of 52 l .f. of 6 ft. high wooden fence along the rear property line 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 Article VIII Section 89-44 Subsection "D" which restricts the height of walls and fences to 4 ft. in a residential area on the premises located at 29 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 365; and WHEREAS, Mr. Stanley I. Rosen has submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1 . To screen unsightly piles of dirt on the adjacent rear property which is vacant land and in ugly disarray. 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 with the stipulation that the applicant not build the fence until after May 15, 1981 and 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/orhdonditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/ or conditions are as follows: 1 . The proposed 6 ft. fence will protect the applicant's view from unsightly piles of dirt on the adjacent rear vacant property. 2. That said circumstances and/or conditions are such that the particular appli- cation of the Ordinance with respect to Article VII Section 89-44 Sub- section "D" would deprive the applicant of the reason- able use of such land and/ or building and that for these reasons the granting of the variance is neces- sary for the reasonable use of the land and/or build- ing and that the variance as granted by this Board is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. (c) That the granting of this vari- ance will be 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 to the applicant and that Article VIII Section 89-44 Subsection "D" be varied and modified so as to allow the installation of the 52 l .f. of 6 ft. high wooden fence along the rear property line on the premises located at 29 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 365 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application provided that the applicant complies in all other res- pects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck with the stipu- lation that the applicant not build the fence until after May 15, 1981 if Mr. Spencer has not removed the pile of dirt by that time. 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 554 Application of Ritacco's Service Center Inc. for modi- fication of Article XI Section 89-67 D which does not permit parking required for a business use in a Business District to be provided in a Residence District to per- mit the construction of an extension of the off-street parking lot at the rear of the property which will en- croach 45 ft. into an R-7.5 Residence District on the premises located at 2430 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Parcels 405 and 421 on the grounds of practical dif- ficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. This application had been held over from last month's meeting so that the applicant could discuss with the Town and Village Engineers the drainage problem. Mr. Francis B. Auleta represented Mr. Ritacco and said that they had revised the original plan by reducing the extension to 35 ft. and providing an extra 10 ft. buffer strip. Mr. Auleta had presented members of the Board with a letter which he requested be made part of the re- cord and stated that he, Mr. Widulski and Mr. Ritacco had met with both Mr. Kellogg, the Village Engineer and Mr. Elfreich, the Town Engineer. The purpose of the meeting had been to ascertain what effect Mr. Ritacco's application would have on drainage in the area and they had come to the conclusion that it would have a minimal effect which would be offset by the fact that the main- tenance costs which the Town and Village have just incur- red will be alleviated. Mr. Auleta said that they had determined all the drainage work by either the Village of Larchmont or the Town of Mamaroneck has been completed and no immediate or long term projects are planned. Mr. Bodkin asked if the construction would improve the drainage and the answer was it would help the situation. Mr. Hardesty asked the applicant how ;the :chang.ejn butii= ness will effect the operation and it was pointed out that Mr. Ritacco wanted to phase out the auto body repair part of the business and specialize in installing pop tops and simulated convertibles and will need more room to park cars. It was pointed out that all the work is done indoors. Mr. Bodkin asked what effect the amended plan would have on the application and it was pointed out it would require less blacktopping. Mr. Ritacco said his hardship was economic and the auto body repair business was a losing proposition. Mr. Auleta said he understood a rumor was going around that Mr. Ritacco intended to sell the property for a fast food operation which he said was false. Mr. Ritacco said that about a year and a half ago he had tried to sell the business but had since taken it off the market. Mr. Ralph Engel , an Attorney of 6 Rockwood Drive, Larch- mont represented the Pine Brook District Property Owners Association, Inc. and presented for the record a letter in which the objections of the Association were set forth. Mr. Engel said that Mr. Ritacco proposes to build his parking lot with a wall which will provide a drop of as much as 5 ft. in some areas in a place where there are numerous children and will be extremely dangerous. Mr. Engel stated that the area in question has flooding pro- lems and presented pictures of the back yards of some of the neighboring properties. Mr. Engel , also, said that Mr. Ritacco's proposed paved parking lot would change the grade and cause flooding problems. Mr. Engel fur- ther said that the proposed lot would be visible from numerous one family homes and the residents would have to view an unsightly parking area filled with cars. In addition Mr. Engel stated that the lot in question is zoned for one family residence and there is no indi- cation that it could not be used for that purpose and that Mr. Ritacco has a second facility which he operates under a different name. Mr. Ritacco's second facility Mr. Engel said is indoors and is far better situated than the proposed outdoor parking lot. Further Mr. Engel said that Mr. Ritacco said he needed parking for his employees and he presented photographs taken on the Boston Post Road and at different locations on Mr. Ritacco's present property showing sufficient spaces that can be used for parking. In conclusion Mr. Engel said that there is a lot adjacent to Mr. Ritacco's property on the Boston Post Road which is vacant and they understand that Mr. Ritacco could lease it if he wanted to. Mrs. Elly Fredston said she was neither for or against and represented the Conservation Advisory Committee. Mrs. Fredston said the Committee was concerned about flooding and drainage and it was possible that an Envi- ronmental Impact Study would be required. Mrs. Kathryn Martyn of 63 Sherwood Drive said if the application was allowed they would not be able to sell their house and they cannot afford to move. Mrs. Ruth Perrault of 65 Sherwood Drive presented for the record a letter from Hamerslough Realty of Bronxville stating that they had inspected the property in question and in their opinion if Mr. Ritacco is allowed to extend his parking facility it would be detrimental to Mrs. Perrault's property. Mr. Everett Bovard of 21 Woods Way, Larchmont and Pre- sident of the Pine Brook Property Owners Association expressed his objection and said that the quality of life in the area will deteriorate if the application is approved. The Board asked Mr. Widulski for his opinion of the as- pect of the drainage and he said in his judgment it will improve the drainage problem. After further discussion the Board voted on the appli- cation and the result was as follows: Commissioner Hardesty - Nay Commissioner Bodkin - Nay Commissioner Moore - Nay Commissioner Carr - Nay it The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Ritacco' s Service Center, Inc. has submitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to permit the extension of the off-street parking lot at the rear of the property which will encroach 45 ft. into an R-7.5 Residence District; 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 XI Section 89-67 D which does not permit parking required for a business use in a Business District to be provided in a Residence District on the premises located at 2430 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 503 Parcels 405 and 421 ; and WHEREAS, Ritacco's Service Center Inc. has sub- mitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons: 1 . Present building has a lack of parking for existing business use. 2. Topography of the land which is low lying can be effectively screened and lends itself to the proposed use. 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, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denies the applica- tion on the following grounds: 1 . That the applicant failed to show that the existing parking facilities were inadequate to provide the neces- sary storage of vehicles in order to conduct the business properly. 2. That there are no-special circum- stances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or con- ditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 3. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land. 4. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neigh- borhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 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 555 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Bluestone for modi- fication of Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (1 ) & (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum side yard of 10 ft. and a total of both side yards of 25 ft. to allow the construction of a one story addition at the rear of the dwelling having a minimum side yard of 8.5 ft. and a total of both side yards of 18.6 ft. on the premises located at 89 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Parcel 423 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. and Mrs. Bluestone appeared before the Board and said they wanted to add a family and mud room. It was pointed out that the existing side yard is presently 6.6 ft. and the new construction will be 8.5 ft. The applicants said their reason for wanting the mud room in this particular location was so they could use the present kitchen door. The plan shows the family room to be off the living room. Mr. and Mrs. Raymond J. O'Brien of 87 West Brookside Drive, who are the adjoining neighbors of the Bluestones appeared and said they approve of the application . After further discussion the Board voted on the appli- tion and the result was as follows: Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye Commissioner Carr - Aye The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs . Michael Bluestone have submitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to allow the construction of a one story addition at the rear of the dwelling having a minimum side yard of 8.5 ft. and a total of both side yards of 18.6 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 (1 ) & (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 10 ft. and a total of both side yards of 25 ft. on the pre- mises located at 89 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Parcel 423; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Bluestone have submitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons: 1 . The applicant's three children use the back door to avoid the steps in front. 2. The back door goes directly into the kitchen and its use is disruptive. 3. The mud room extension would be 8.5 ft. from the present lot line and the existing structure is 6.45 ft. 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, 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 and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circum- stances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant 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 location of the back door in the existing facilities the proposed location is the only site where the addi- tion can be placed. 2. The proposed construc- tion will not encroach into the side yard as far as the existing dwelling. 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 (1 ) & (2) "Construction Require- ments for an R-10 One Family Residence District" 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 accom- plish this purpose. 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 89-33 Sub- section B (1 ) & (2) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the con- struction of a one story addition at the rear of the dwelling having a minimum side yard of 8.5 ft. and a total of both side yards of 18.6 ft. in strict conformance with plans filed with this application provided that the appli- cant 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 this 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. 4 - CASE 556 Application of Mrs. Evelyn Walker for modification of Article XI Section 89-67 B "Off-street Parking" Layout and Location of off-street parking facilities which does not permit unenclosed off-street parking facilities to be developed within 25 ft. of front property line or within 5 ft. of side property line to allow the widening of the existing driveway at the westerly side of the property having a front setback of 0 ft. and a side yard setback of 1 ft. on the premises located at 14 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mama- roneck as Block 130 Parcel 328 on the grounds of practi - cal difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mrs. Walker said she wanted to provide a level , safe area for access to the rear of the house and the location where she keeps her garbage cans since she had fallen several times. Mrs. Walker said her neighbor' s trees and the foliage plus foot traffic does not permit any grass to grow. Mrs . Walker stated that they had the retaining wall built about a month ago and her intention was to put in gravel and then pave the driveway up to the wall . The appli- cant said their reason for putting up the retaining wall was to keep the mud back. Mr. Carr asked if the retain- ing wall would solve Mrs. Walker' s problem and she said she hoped it would. The applicant stated that at present they have three cars but she is in the process of selling one car that is now in the garage. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye Commissioner Carr - Aye The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Evelyn Walker has submitted an application to permit the widening of the exist- ing driveway at the westerly side of the pro- perty having a front setback of 0 ft. and a side yard setback of 1 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 Article XI Section 89-67 B "Off-street Parking" Layout and Location of off-street parking facilities which does not permit unenclosed parking facili- ties to be developed within 25 ft. of front property line or within 5 ft. of side property line on the premises located at 14 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Parcel 328; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Evelyn Walker has submitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons: 1 . To provide a level safe area for access to rear of house and garbage cans. 2. To permit side by side parking of two cars. 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 and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circum- stances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That said circumstances or con- ditions are as follows: 1 . The proposed 6 ft. widen- ing of the driveway will provide a parking space for two cars parked side by side. (c) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neigh- borhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article XI Section 89-67 B "Off-street Parking' Layout and Location of off-street parking facilities be varied and modified so as to permit the widening of the existing driveway at the westerly side of the property having a front setback of 0 ft. and a side yard of 1 ft. on the premises located at 14 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Parcel 328 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 this 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. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Rita A. Johns , Secretary g