Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968_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, 1968, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Richard F. Eggers, Chairman Mr. Henry Mullick Mr. Price H. Topping Mr. Russell G. Pelton Absent: Mr. E. Robert Wassman Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of May 22, 1968 were pre- sented and on motion duly made and seconded, approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Sec- retary presented for the record the affidavit of publication of the notice of hearing. The Chairman requested the Secretary to read the first application which was held over from the pre- vious month because the Board requested additional information. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 286 Application of Hampshire Country Club, Inc. for modi- fication of Article IV, Section 421.4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance which restricts heights of fences to 4 feet so as to allow the erection of 2000 lin. ft. of 8 ft. high chain link fence along the northerly and westerly boundary line on the premises located at Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 414 Par- cel 1 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Peter D'Angelo, General Manager of the Hampshire Country Club and Mr. Sol G. Feldman, a member of the Club's Board of Governors and Chairman of the Building Committee represented the applicant. Mr. D'Angelo returned to the Board with a more de- tailed and specific plan showing where the 8' fence would be located. The applicant described the lo- C ° cation of the proposed fence starting from a point at the boundary line between the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Mamaroneck intersection with the norterly side of the golf course property. It would then run in a southwesterly direction along the boun- dary line of the golf course property, approximately 3 feet in on the golf course property to its inter- section with the easterly side of the new Hommocks Road. From that point Mr. D'Angelo said that the fence would run in a southerly direction along the easterly side of new Hommocks Road approximately 14 feet in on golf course property to a point oppo- site the 14th tee adjacent to Hommocks Road. From this point the fence would run in a southerly dir- ection still along the easterly side of Hommocks Road approximately 10 feet in on the golf course property, to a point opposite the drainage pond and 3 feet in on golf course property. The fence would continue along the easterly side of Hommocks Road and approximately 3 feet in on golf course property to the intersection of Eagle Knolls Road, thence in an easterly direction approximately 25 feet from Eagle Knolls Road to a point alongside the drainage pond behind some existing shrubbery. The fence would continue in an easterly direction approximately 18 feet and parallel with the northerly side of Eagle Knolls Road to a point of intersection with the boun- dary line of the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Mamaroneck on golf course property. Mr. D'Angelo said that the fence was necessary be- cause of people trespassing on the Club property and that vandalism and trespassing has been going on for some time. Mr. D'Angelo stated that when the Middle School is completed in September they expect this would be increased and the Club felt the 8' fence would make it more difficult for tres- passers. After further discussion as to the topographical location of the fence by the applicant Mr. Eggers asked how the Club planned to install the section of the fence behind the 14th tee where the Club pro- perty was approximately 4 feet lower than the street elevation. Mr. D'Angelo said that the Club planned to construct a retaining wall along this section of the road and place the fence at the top of the wall. Mr. Eggers then pointed out that the combina- tion of both the fence and wall would be approximately 12 feet high. Mr. Eggers than asked the applicant why it was necessary to install the section of the fence near the intersection of Hommocks Road and Eagle Knolls Road only 3 feet from the edge of the pavement. Mr. Eggers said he was very familiar with -_- this section of the property and that the Club should give some consideration to relocating the fence so that it would run in an easterly direction from a point 10 feet away from Hommocks Road to the wall at the drainage pond. He, also, suggested that the fence start on the opposite side of the pond at the end of the wall and thence continue along behind the existing shrubbery and connect up to the fence as shown on the plan. He said this would be necessary in order to prevent a dangerous condition for pedes- trian and vehicular traffic using Hommocks Road and Eagle Knolls Road. Mr. D'Angelo suggested that this fence be placed along that portion of the wall at the drainage pond so as to' enclose the existing tide water gates. He said it would, also, be necessary to install two gates so that equipment used to main- tain the golf course would be able to travel between the easterly side of Hommocks Road and the existing drainage pond. The only other solution Mr. D'Angelo said would be to construct a new bridge over the drainage ditch in front of the 13th green. Mr. Eggers, also, pointed out that the fence from a point opposite the 16th tee near Hommocks Road may be able to be located beyond the wide knoll so that it would be screened by existing shrubbery. The Board asked any members of the audience who were interested in the application to step up and look at the plan. The Board explained to all interested parties where the fence was to go according to the plan. Mr. and Mrs. Keiser appeared in opposition to the application. Mr. Keiser stated that he was mainly concerned about the drainage ditch at the rear of his property which had not been maintained properly by the Club. Mr. Keiser said he would even be will- ing to give the Club some of his property or an ease- ment so that the fence could be located on his pro- perty and the drainage ditch could be maintained properly by the Club. Mr. Keiser, also, stated that he would like to know just what areas were to be excluded and not fenced in and he claimed that the Club had not made any attempt to get together with the residents to solve any of the problems. Mr. Clark who represented Dr. and Mrs. Benford stated that he felt because Country Clubs were non-conform- ing it should be clearly stated in the application and if a variance is granted it should be stated it is an extension of a non-conforming use. Mr. Eggers pointed out that the application had been reviewed by the Town Attorney and that Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordinance pertains to fences in residential districts. Mr. Robert Colnes of 521 Eagle Knolls Road expressed his opposition and said he felt an 8' fence would depreciate property values in the area. 6( 61 Mr. H. G. Sloane of 8 Oak Lane, President of the Hommocks Property Owners Association had sent a letter to the Zoning Board and voiced his oppostion. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the members of the Hommocks Property Owners Association and that all the members live either contiguous to the golf course or in immediate proximity and accordingly have a vital interest in the beauty and safety of the area. Mr. Sloane said that they were opposed to the application because they felt an 8' chain link fence was unsightly and soon would become im- penetrable and overgrown with vines. He, also, stated they felt that an 8' fence was hazardous to cars as well as pedestrians and was more dangerous than flying golf balls. Mr. Sloane, also, said that they did not think the fence was necessary as the Hamp- shire Country Club in their application implied that their property was so valuable but that the Tax As- Sessor's seem to feel it is less valuable per acre than any property in the area. He stated that aside from the Club house and other minor improvements the area consists mostly of grass which is not pil- ferable. Mr. Sloane said that there were other solu- tions which were more acceptable and that a landscaped fence of reasonable height would be justified. Mr. Sloane claimed that: the Club should maintain an ad- equate staff of watchmen to patrol the grounds and that if vandals wanted to climb a fence an 8' fence would be no more protection than a 4' fence. After further discussion the Chairman called a short recess to discuss the application. When the Board returned a vote was taken and the result was as fol- lows: Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Mullick - Nay Commissioner Topping - Aye Commissioner Pelton - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Hampshire Country Club, Inc. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector for a building permit for the erection of 2000 lin. ft. of 8 ft. high chain link fence along the northerly and westerly boundary line on the premises located at Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 414 Parcel 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that erection of said fence would violate Ar- ticle IV, Section 421.4, Fences and Walls L; z of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ma- maroneck; and WHEREAS, Hampshire Country Club, Inc. has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical dif- ficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To provide privacy and tran- quility for the Club members. 2. To protect the club from vandalism. 3. To prevent injury to any trespassers by golf balls. 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 denied the ap- plication on the following grounds: 1. Due to the location of the proposed 8' high chain link fence along portions of the golf course property it would create a dan- gerous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic using Hommocks Road and Eagle Knolls Road. 2. Due to the fact that access will be gained to the golf course by trespassers because the Club plans to construct the fence along only portions of the golf course property. 3. That the Club will rely on barriers and fencing of a lesser height along portions of the golf course property. 4. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reason- able use of the land. 5. That the granting of the var- iance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neigh- borhood 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 requested the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 288 Application of Mr. Jerome S. Lynch for modification of Article IV, Section 410 Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential Dis- trict of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the construction of a one story addition to the southerly side of thedwelling having a minimum rear yard of 15.83 feet instead of the minimum required rear yard of 25 feet on the premises located at 35 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111 Parcel 229 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Lynch presented his application to the Board and stated that the reason for the proposed addition was to enlarge the kitchen and add closets. The present kitchen is 7'6" x 10'10" and is not large enough for the family to eat in. It is necessary for them to use the dining room at all times and Mr. Lynch is desirous of making the kitchen 4' wider. At the time Mr. Lynch purchased the house 10 years ago they had only one child and they now have three. The house was built in about 1927 and Mr. Lynch stated that the site of the proposed addition was the only one available because of the current zoning that requires corner lot owners to maintain two front (streetside) yards as well as a rear (or side) yard. Because of the topography of the lot they intend to use the rock cropping for the foundation for the addition. Mr. David Meadow of 41 Vine Road appeared before the Board in favor of the application and stated he did not feel that the addition would detract from the property value of the other residences in the neighborhood. Mr. Lynch had mailed in a petition signed by Mr. Stanley Judkins of 6 Villa Road and Mr. Joseph Talbott of 37 Vine Road approving the application. After further discussion the Chairman asked for a short recess to discuss the application. When the Board returned a vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Mullick - Nay Commissioner Topping - Nay Commissioner Pelton - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Jerome S. Lynch has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the construc- tion of a one story addition to the sou- therly side of the existing dwelling to- gether 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 Ordinance of the Town of Mama- roneck with particular reference to Article IV, Section 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet on the premises located at 35 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111 Par- cel 229; and WHEREAS, Mr. Jerome S. Lynch has submitted to this Board an application, for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To enlarge the present kitchen so that they will have room to eat in it. 2. Because of the current zoning this is the only available site for the proposed addition. 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 ap- plication on the following grounds: 1. That there were no special circumstances or conditions ap- plying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circum- stances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 2. That the facts and circum- stances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land. 3. That the granting of the var- iance 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. The Chairman requested the Secretary to read the third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 289 Application of Mr. Robert Petrocelli for modifica- tion of Article IV, Section 410 Schedule of Resi- dence District Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the construction of a one story addition to the southerly side of the dwelling having a minimum side yard of 6.1 feet instead of the required min- imum side yard of 10 feet on the premises located at 8 Spruce Road and known .on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Parcel 590 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. In the absence of Mr. Petrocelli who was called out of Town, his wife, Mrs. Rita Petrocelli presented the application to the Board. Mrs. Petrocelli stated that they now have an open porch which they intend to enclose and they would like to add an additional 4 feet so that they could enlarge the living room. The applicant said that the house now has approximately 670 sq. ft. of living space whereas according to present standards it should be 800 sq. ft. and they, also, felt that the enclosure would look better if it was not recessed. Mrs. Pet- rocelli, also, stated that they were not going beyond the present structure line. The applicant presented the Board with a petition signed by six neighbors approving the application. Mr. Frank X. O'Donnell, Jr., an Attorney, represented Mr. and Mrs. Joseph E. Manion of 4 Spruce Road whose house is adjacent to Petrocelli's and who had written a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals objecting to the application. They stated that the two houses were separated by a common driveway and the edge of the Petrocelli's porch would be exactly 14 feet across the common driveway to the north wall of the Manion house. Mr. O'Donnell, also, stated that the addition would cause problems with the heavy snow in the winter as the snow would have to be put on the Manion's side of the common driveway. The Board pointed out that Mrs. Petrocelli had the right to enclose the porch and the applicant was requesting a variance for the additional 4' of new construction. A letter was presented to the Board from Mr. Carl Holpp of 20 Spruce Road objecting to the application and stating that althought Mrs. Holpp had signed Mrs. Petrocelli's petition he was opposed. After further discussion the Board voted on the ap- plication and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers Nay Commissioner Mullick - Nay Commissioner Topping - Nay Commissioner Pelton - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Petrocelli has sub- mitted an application for a building per- mit to the Building Inspector for the con- struction of a one story addition to the southerly side of the dwelling 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 Ordinance of the Town of Mama- roneck with particular reference to Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet on the premises located at 8 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Par- cel 590; and WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Petrocelli has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The applicant would like to add an additional 4 feet so that the living room could be enlarged. 2. The enclosure would aestheti- cally be better if it was not recessed. 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 ap- plication on the following grounds: 1. That there were no special circumstances or conditions ap- plying 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. 2. That the facts and circum- stances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land. 3. 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 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 meeting it was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. y � l