Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974_06_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD JUNE 26, 1974, 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. Richard F. Eggers, Chairman Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Lawrence G. Bodkin, Jr. Absent: Mr. E. Robert Wassman Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of May 7th and May 22, 1974 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded, ap- proved 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. Eggers asked the Secretary to read the first applica- tion. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 406 Application of Mr. Joseph Jackson for modification of Ar- ticle IV Section 421 .4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordi- nance which restricts heights of fences in a Residential District to 4 feet so as to allow the installation of 71 lin. ft. of 6' high wood fence along a portion of the nor- therly side property line on the premises located at 88 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114 Parcel 219 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Joseph Jackson presented his application to the Board and stated his main reason for wanting the fence was be- cause of his neighbor' s vicious dog. The applicant said he is afraid for the safety of his children and that the dog is chained to a log in the neighbor's yard indicating that the owner's fear for the nature of the dog. Mr. Jack- son said he had been told that the dog had broken away once and his son is afraid to go into the yard because of the dog. The applicant said he wants his children to have a safe place to play and he wants the 6 ft. fence because he does not believe the 4 ft. fence would contain the dog if he ever got loose again. Mrs. Jackson said that the dog was never allowed in the house and is always kept either in the garage or the back yard. Mrs. Jackson stated that when her son goes out to the yard the dog lunges and gets ferocious and if they are allowed the 6 ft. fence the dog would not be able to see the children playing in the yard. Mr. Boraczek questioned the applicants about what was in the back of their property and whether the proposed fence was part of a project to fence in the whole area. It was pointed out that there is presently a 4 ft. fence and shrubbery and that the retaining wall was on the Jack- son's property. Mr. Boraczek pointed out that when the proposed gate is put up in front the 6 ft. fence will not be seen from the front of the property. The Chair- man questioned as to whether the applicant's intended to have the opening in the gate large enough for a car to go through and Mr. Eggers said that one of the condi- tions if the application was approved would be to have the opening at least 8 ft. wide. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Aye The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph Jackson has submitted an application for a building permit to the Build- ing Inspector to allow the installation of 71 lin. ft. of 6' high wood fence along a portion of the northerly side 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 the Zoning Ordi- nance with particular reference to Article IV Section 421 .4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance which restricts heights of fences in a residential district to 4 feet on the premises located at 88 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114 Parcel 219; and WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph Jackson has submitted an application for a variance on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : 1 . To protect the applicant' s chil- 1 dren when they are playing in the yard from the neighbor' s vicious dog that is tied on the adjacent property. 2. A 4 ft. fence would not contain the dog if it broke loose. 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 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 aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1 . The 6 ft. fence will allow the applicant' s chil- dren to play on their pro- perty without being seen by the dog. 2. The proposed fence will not be seen from the front of the property. (c) That the granting of this var- iance 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 IV Section 421 .4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance be varied and modified so as to allow the installation of 71 lin. ft. of 6' high wood fence along a portion of the northerly side property line on the premises located at 88 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114 Parcel 219 in strict conformance with plans f filed with this application subject to the following condition, provided that the appli- cant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. That the gate opening be at least 8 ft. wide. 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 last appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 407 Application of Mr. Eugene L. Pinto for modification of Article IV Section 421 .4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance which restricts heights of fences in a Residen- tial District to 4 feet so as to permit the installation of approximately 70 lin. ft. of 5' high wood fence along a portion of the rear property line on the premises lo- cated at 9 Orchard Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Parcel 10 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Eugene L. Pinto presented his application to the Board and stated that the fence had been put up by his gardener. The applicant said he was totally in ignorance and was not aware of the zoning rule on the height of fences. Mr. Pinto said the fence was installed for privacy and to beautify his property. The applicant said they had cleaned up some of the old planting which was scraggly and he believes the area looks bigger. Mr. Eggers asked why when the original fence was only 4 ft. Mr. Pinto changed to 5 ft. and the applicant said that the gardener who had installed the fence in question had also installed the previous fence. Mr. Pinto said the fence had been installed near his garage to hide the garbage cans and the garage on the property in the rear. The Chairman questioned the applicant as to his hardship and Mr. Pinto replied that if his variance was not approved he would have to cut the fence down to 4 ft. which would be a problem. The applicant further stated that the fence was installed in ignorance and not maliciously and he thought aesthetically it was an improvement to his pro- perty proving them with a "backyard". Mr. Pinto also said that the only neighbor involved was Mr. Quimby who lived in the rear. Mr. George E. Quimby of 30 Lansdowne Drive said he was against all solid wood fences and felt they were an eye- sore to the community. Mr. Quimby stated that he had I 73 a lovely garden and did not like any objectionable view from his property. Mr. Quimby, also, said that he had maintained the previous fence and it was put there for the protection of the children and to keep dogs, etc. from coming over. Mr. Quimby further stated that Mr. Pinto had asked him to participate in installing the fence in question but he had told him he objected to solid wood fences. Mr. Eggers explained to Mr. Quimby that the Zon- ing Board had no jurisdiction over the type of fences and were concerned only with the fact that the fence was over four feet. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Nay The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Eugene L. Pinto was served with a Notice of Violation for the erection of ap- proximately 70 lin. ft. of 5' high wood fence along a portion of the rear property line on the premises located at 9 Orchard Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Parcel 10; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has issued such violation on the ground that the erection of said fence violated Article IV Section 421 .4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck; and WHEREAS, Mr. Eugene L. Pinto 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 . Applicant replaced existing fence which was in bad condition and was ignorant of the law regulating fences. 2. The fence was installed to beautify the property and old planting which was straggly cleaned out. 3. Aesthetically the fence improves the property and provides a sense of privacy. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plan, 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 the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows : 1 . If the variance was not approved the applicant would have to cut the fence down to 4 ft. which would cause a problem because of the construction of the fence. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article IV Section 421 .4 Walls and Fences would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land and/or building and that for these reasons the granting of the variance is necessary for the reason- able use of the land and/or building and that the vari- ance 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 gen- eral purposes and intent of this Ordi- nance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detri- mental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the applicant and that Article IV Section 421 .4 Walls and Fences be varied and modified so as to allow the erection of approxi- mately 70 lin. ft. of 5' high wood fence along a portion of the rear property line on the pre- mises located at 9 Orchard Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 219 Parcel 10 in strict confor- mance 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 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 8:50 P.M. Rita A. Johnson, Secretary