Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978_05_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MAY 24, 1978, IN THE COUNCIL ROOM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE, LARCHMONT. NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. E. Robert Wassman, Chairman Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Lawrence G. Bodkin, Jr. Absent: Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Peter G. Moore Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 26, 1978 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. Wassman advised the applicants that because only three members were present the vote on their application would have to be unanimous and they had the privilege of post- poning their cases to another meeting without penalty. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the first appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 478 Application of Mr. and Mrs . Thomas Hennessy for modifica- tion of Article VI Section 89-33 (2a) 2(b) "Construction Requirements for One Family R-10 Residential District" which requires a minimum side yard of at least 10 ft. and a total of both side yards of 25 ft. to allow the construc- tion of a greenhouse at the southerly side of the dwell- ing having a side yard of 9.9 ft. and a total of both side yards of 17.6 ft. on the premises located at 148 Valley Stream Road East and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Parcel 634 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. and Mrs. Hennessy presented their application to the Board and said that their gas bills are sky high. Mr. Hennessy said that their purpose in building the greenhouse was twofold. First, the applicants stated that the solar heated energy conserving greenhouse attached to the south side of the house at approximately 70 angle to the sun will serve during the winter months as additional insula- tion and produce heat of sufficient temperature and quan- tity to assist in the heating of the dwelling. Their second reason was to grow vegetables, flowers and plants. In conclusion, the Hennessys said that their hard- ship was economics and heating. Mr. Wassman asked if the house was insulated throughout and the applicants said it was. The Board, also, spoke about the common driveway that the Hennessys share with their next door neighbor. It was pointed out that the house is presently non-conforming and was built under the old zoning. Mr. Wassman read a letter signed by eight of the neighbors in which they said they did not oppose the application. Mrs. Walter Brady of 132 Valley Stream Road said she opposed the application as she said she thought the property was cluttered now. Mrs. Brady, also, presented the Board with a letter from Mrs. Marie Scully of 128 Valley Stream Road. Mrs. Scully, in her letter, said she had signed the peti- tion for the variance but had since changed her mind and was opposing the application. Mr. Edward P. Tannenbaum, an Attorney, of 271 North Avenue, New Rochelle, said he represented Mrs. Loretta Ensinger of 146 Valley Stream Road, who is the party most involved with the construction. Mr. Tannenbaum said Mrs. Ensinger was the party who shared the common driveway with the Hen- nessys and he did not feel the Hennessy's hardship with regard to heating was an argument. Mr. Tannenbaum said he had some knowledge of solar energy and didnot think this particular idea was going to work. Mr. Wassman said that the Hennessys had admitted that it was an experiment. Mr. Tannenbaum further said that if the applicants wanted a greenhouse merely for plants they could put it elsewhere and his client felt the greenhouse would be unsightly. After further discussion the Board voted on the applica- tion and the result was as follows : Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Nay Commissioner Bodkin - Nay The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hennessy have sub- mitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a greenhouse at the southerly side of the dwelling having a 7 side yard of 9.9 ft. and a total of both side yards of 17.6 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 B (2a) (2b) "Construction Requirements for One Family R-10 Residential District" which requires a minimum side yard of at least 10 ft. and a total of both side yards of 25 ft. on the pre- mises located at 148 Valley Stream Road East and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Parcel 634; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hennessy have sub- mitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons : 1 . The greenhouse because of its location will serve as additional insulation and produce heat to assist in the heating of the dwelling. 2. The greenhouse will serve as an area in which to grow vegetables, flowers and plants. 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 denied the applica- tion on the following grounds : 1 . That there may be other locations on the lot where the greenhouse could be constructed which would not inter- fere with the use of the common drive- way. 2. That there were no special cir • - cumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions 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 gen- eral purposes and intent of this Ordi- nance 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. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 479 Application of Mr. and Mrs. John M. Delehanty for modi- fication of Article VIII Section 89-44 Subsection D "Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of a fence in a residential district to 4 ft. to allow the installation of 60 lin. ft. of 6 ft. high wooden fence along a portion of the westerly side property line on the premises located at 41 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111 Parcel 257 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship. Mr. and Mrs . Delehanty appeared before the Board and stated that their main reason for wanting the fence was to pro- vide privacy from their neighbor's wooden deck. Mr. Dele- hanty said that their property was lower and most of the homes in the area must have been built before the present zoning. Mr. Wassman asked why the applicants could not put in either hemlocks or a natural hedge and said he did not think a fence should be erected to exclude other people from looking at their property. Mr. Wassman , also, ex- plained to the applicants that because a variance had been granted to their neighbors that did not mean a pre- cedent had been set for future variances . Mr. and Mrs. Delehanty said that it was very difficult to grow any shrubbery in that particular location and that the fence would not be visible from the front of the house. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Aye The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John M. Delehanty have submitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to allow the installation of 60 lin. ft. of 6 ft. high wooden fence along a portion of the westerly 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 Zon- ing Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VIII Section 89-44 Subsection D "Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in a residential district to 4 ft. on the premises located at 41 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111 Par- cel 257; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John M. Delehanty have submitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons : 1 . Because the applicant's neigh- bor obtained a variance to erect a wooden sundeck which impairs the undisturbed use of their backyard and screened porch and eliminates any privacy in those areas. 2. A fence is needed to confine the applicants active 22 year old son to the backyard area and the existing low stone masonry wall is not an effective barrier. 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 . That the applicant has not shown that a combination of shrubbery and fencing along the boundary line could not provide a landscape screen. 2. That a 4 foot fence would ( O provide a confined play area for their young son. 3. That there were no special cir- cumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 4. The facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive the applicant of the reason- able use of the land. 5. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the gen- eral purposes and intent of this Ordi- nance 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. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the last appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 480 Application of Mr. and Mrs. William Irwin for modifica- tion of Article VIII Section 89-44 Subsection D "Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of a fence in a residential district to 4 ft. to allow the installa- tion of 56 lin . ft. of 5 ft. high wooden fence along the northerly side of Copley Road and a portion of the easterly side yard on the premises located at 15 Alden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Parcel 757 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. and Mrs. Irwin appeared before the Board and said their house is across from the apartment and that the people from there park in front of their house. The applicants stated that the children run across the side of their property and they have tried to grow hemlocks and hedges for a natural barrier but because of the shade they have not been successful . The Board asked why a 4 ft. fence would not solve the problem and the Irwins said that because the lot slopes the 4 ft. would not help. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- // 3 ( Is cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Aye The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. William Irwin have sub- mitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to allow the construction of 56 lin. ft. of 5 ft. high wooden fence along the northerly side of Copley Road and a portion of the easterly side yard 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 VIII Section 89-44 Subsection D "Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in a residential district to 4 ft. on the premises located at 15 Alden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Par- cel 757; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. William Irwin have sub- mitted to this Board an application for a vari- ance on the ground of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1 . The applicant' s house is across from the apartment and the people park in front of their home and the children run across the side of the property. 2. The applicants want to enhance and utilize the small piece of pro- perty on the side of the house as they have no rear yard. 3. The applicants have tried to grow a natural barrier of hemlocks but because of the shade they have not been able to grow. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans , re- viewed the applictiorand has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denied the application on the following grounds : 1 . That the proposed 5 ft. high fence would not screen off the street park- ing on Copley and Alden Roads due to the sloping elevation of the pro- perty which is higher than the street elevation. 2. That a 4 ft. high fence would provide the same restriction as a 5 ft. high fence and reduce the tres- passing of the public across the south- erly corner of their property. 3. That there were no special cir- cumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 4. The facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. 5. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the gen- eral purposes and intent of this Ordi- nance 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 adjourned at 9:15 P.M. ita A. Johnson` Secretary