Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978_11_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD NOVEMBER 22, 1978, IN THE COURT HOUSE , 1201 PALMER AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Mr. Wassman, the meeting was called to order by the acting Chairman, Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek, at 8: 15 P .M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek, acting Chairman Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Peter G. Moore Absent: Mr. E. Robert Wassman Mr. Lawrence G. Bodkin, Jr. Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of October 25, 1978 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 explained to the applicants that since there were only three members present their application would have to be approved unanimously and they had the privi- lege of having their cases heard at another meeting. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the first appli- cation . APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 493 Application of Mr. Arthur A. Katz for modification of Article VIII Section 89-45 A "Height Exceptions" which restricts the total area of mechanical equipment to 10% of area of supporting roof to allow the installation of 75 sq. ft. of solar collectors at the rear of the dwell - ing covering 20% of roof area to which they are attached on the premises located at 18 Orsini Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 119 Parcel 164 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Daniel Flohr, of Daniel Flohr Associates of Purchase, New York, a general contractor of solar hearing systems , represented the applicant. Mr. Flohr said that the in- stallation of a solar hot water system was feasible as ( c/ 7y Mr. Katz would receive a total grant of $400. from the New York State Energy Office and U. S. Department of HUD and he would, also, be eligible for a tax exemption granted by President Carter. He further stated that our utility rates are the most expensive in the Country and the appli- cant could save between $210. and $225. a year on his Con Ed bill . Mr. Boraczek questioned as to the cost of the installation and Mr. Flohr said it was approximately $2,700. Mr. Boraczek read a letter from Mr. Nicolaysei of 138 Murray Avenue, who is a Professional Engineer and a neighbor, who said he had inspected Mr. Katz's roof and that it is capable of withstanding an additional deadweight of at least 600 lbs . which is the approximate total weight of the three solar panels fully charged with liquid and their supporting structure. Mr. Nicolaysen who was at the meet- ing stated that he did not think the panels would look obnoxious and that they would face the rear of his house. Mr. Edward Clarke of 67 Rockland Avenue questioned the ruling that restricts the total area of mechanical equip- ment to 10% when the Zoning was changed in 1959. The Board pointed out that they did not have the power to set aside the ruling and they were there to judge on a variance from the present ordinance on the grounds of practical diffi- culty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Boraczek asked Mr. Flohr if he could foresee the size of the panels being cut down to a quarter of the size they are now and Mr. Moore asked about the charge in the panels. Mr. Flohr said the panels were 50% water and 50% glycerine. Mr. Hardesty asked why the panels could not be changed so they would be architecturally more pleasing. The Board, also, suggested that if Mr. Katz was interested in saving energy he could have his house better 'insulated. It was pointed out that Mr. Katz in his application had not shown any hardship or practical difficulty. The Chairman asked Mr. Paonessa if he had questioned the applicant as to whether he had any other alternatives as to the location of the collectors on the roof. Mr. Flohr said the location on the plan was the only way that was sufficient for the system to do what he was looking for. Mr. Moore questioned as to why it was not feasible to place the collectors on the lower roof. Mr. Flohr said that on the higher roof there was only a slight shading but on the lower roof there was more shading. The Board ques- tioned Mr. Flohr as to whether any trees would be removed and he said no. A question was raised as to the maintenance of the solar panels if they are put on a steep roof. The Board felt they did not understand why the panels could not be placed on the lower roof as they would be more acceptable and accessible . 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 Mr. Boraczek advised Mr. Flohr to speak to Mr. Katz and if possible to relocate the panels, the Board would re- view the application at the next meeting. The application was denied and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Arthur A. Katz has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the installation of 75 sq . ft. of solar collec- tors at the rear of the dwelling covering 20% of roof area 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 of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VIII Section 89-45 A "Height Exceptions" which restricts the total area of mechanical equipment to 10% of area of support- ing roof on the premises located at 18 Orsini Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 119 Parcel 164; and WHEREAS, Mr. Arthur A. Katz has submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons: 1 . Installation of solar hot water system will conserve energy and be ecologically sound and result in long term savings through protection against inflation of energy costs and decrease in utility charges . 2. 75 sq. ft. of panels is the mini- mum necessary to fulfill 100% of the applicant' s family needs in July and 43% in December-January. 3. The N.Y .S. Energy Office and U.S. Dept. of HUD to encourage the installa- tion of a solar system has awarded a $400. grant to offset part of the expense. � Y � l 4. The system will meet the guidelines of both of the above programs . WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans re- viewed 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 the applicant failed to show that the solar collectors could not be located on the dwelling where they would provide the same efficiency and be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. 2. That the applicant failed to show that he could not conserve energy by other construction methods . 3. That there were no special circum- stances 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. That 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 not aesthetically in keep- ing with the residential neighborhood. 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 ap- plication. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 494 Application of Mr. Rankin Johnson for modification of Article VI Section 89-33 B (1 ) "Construction Require- ments for an R-10 Residential District" which requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 ft. from both streets to allow the construction of a two story frame addition to the westerly side of the dwelling having a front yard setback of 24 ft. from Forest Avenue on the premises lo- cated at 89 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Parcel 1 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. Mr. George Rosamond, an Architect of Bedford Hills, New York represented the applicant and said that the appli- cant's existing house was substandard as the rooms are small . Mr. Rosamond stated that the first floor of the present dwelling contains only 565 sq . ft. instead of the 900 allowed and the proposed plan will add two bed- rooms and a family room. He further stated that the pro- posed location was the only feasible way to extend due to the layout of the house at present in that it would require the relocation of a bathroom and a larger addi- tion to accomplish the applicant's needs. In conclusion, Mr. Rosamond said that the applicant wants to make his home more livable and more in keeping with the neighbor- hood. Mr. Johnson added that his home is a major invest- ment and they need the additional room as they have two children. Mrs . Laurie Bair of 86 Rockland Avenue said she had no objection to the addition but wanted to be assured that while the building was going on Mr. Johnson would be re- quired to clean up the construction debris. Mrs . Bair said Mr. Johnson did not maintain his property in good condition and unless the alteration is done properly it will not be an asset. Mr. Joseph Jablonowski of 779 Forest Avenue said he was concerned about traffic and he agreed with Mrs . Bair's objection. Mr. Edward Clarke of 67 Rockland Avenue and Mr. Suther- land of 88 Rockland Avenue both agreed that Mr. Johnson' s property was a "mess". Mr. Hardesty suggested that assuming the variance was granted could they request Mr. Johnson to guarantee that the debris be removed as soon as possible. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye The application was approved with the condition that the debris be carted away during the construction work and the area be graded and seeded as soon as possible after the completion of the work. The following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Rankin Johnson has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a two story frame addition to the westerly side of the dwelling having a front setback of 24 ft. from Forest 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 Article VI Section 89-33 B (1 ) "Construction Require- ments for an R-l0 Residential District" of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 ft. from both streets on the premises located at 89 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Parcel 1 ; and WHEREAS, Mr. Rankin Johnson has submitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons: 1 . Because of the internal room arrangement of the existing house expansion without a variance would require the relocation of a bathroom, center hall and a larger addition. 2. The proposed addition will im- prove both the functioning and value of the house. 3. Because Forest Avenue is higher than the existing first floor level and the proposed new roof line is lower than the existing roof, the visual impact of the proposed encroach- ment is considerably lessened. 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 ap- plicant 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 layout of the rooms it would re- quire the relocation of a bathroom and a center hall which could require a larger addition to accom- plish the applicant's needs. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article VI Section 89-33 B (1 ) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 Residential 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 89-33 B (1 ) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residential District" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a two story frame addition having a front setback of 24 ft. from Forest Avenue on the premises located at 89 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210 Parcel 1 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application subject to the fol- lowing condition, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mama- roneck. That no Certificate of Occupancy be issued until all construction :debris is removed from the property and the area is graded and seeded upon completion of the work . 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 meeting it was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Rita A. Johnso ecretary 1. 9E4 j,