Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984_05_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes if lk MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE C TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MAY 23, 1984, 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. A. William Boraczek, Chairman Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Peter D. Mosher Mrs. Anne McAndrews Absent: Mr. J. Rene Simon Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. Steven Silverberg, Town Counsel APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 25, 1984 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded, approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING CThe Chairman declared the hearing open and the Secretary presented for the record the affidavit of publication of the notice of hearing. Mr. Boraczek asked the Secretary to read the first appli- cation. After the Secretary read the application the Chairman asked if the applicant was present. Since Dr. Krol was not there the Chairman said the application would be heard later. He then asked the Secretary to read the second application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 657 Application of Mr. Michael Festo for modification of Ar- ticle VI Section 89-36 Subsection B (3) "Construction Re- quirements for an R-2F Residence District" which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 ft. to allow the construction of a wood deck at the rear of the dwelling creating a rear yard setback of 20 ft. on the premises located at 34 Blos- som Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 390 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. C Mr. Festo, the applicant said he was attempting to develop a non-hazardous living area in his rear yard. The appli- cant stated that his back yard slopes about 40 to 50 ft. down to the railroad tracks. Mr. Festo stated that at present there is only one exit at the front door and he .001 cc __c r plans to add a second exit which could be used in case of fire. The applicant further stated that there is a drainage pro- blem in his rear yard that makes it not useable and the deck will develop another living area. In conclusion Mr. Festo said that they would like to start a family and he is looking into the future. Mr. Wexler, the Applicant's Architect said Mr. Festo really has a hardship as at present they cannot use their back- yard and they are requesting essentially a 5 ft. variance. A question was raised as to the easement that is at the rear of the property. Mr. Boraczek read a letter that Mr. Festo had received from the County Office in which they said they had no objection to the installation of wood support columns to a depth of approximately 3 ft. into the ground and the terms and conditions of the ease- ment would remain in full force. Mr. Paonessa stated that the one corner where the setback variance is being requested is the area where the concrete stairs will be located. Mr. Jay Reynolds of 32 Blossom Terrace, who is next door to the applicant, said he would like to go on record as C having no objection whatever to the proposed deck. He said that the Festo's house is the only one that does not have a deck and a second door for egress. Mr. Charles Williams of 31 Blossom Terrace, who lives across the street said the Festos were good neighbors and he was in favor of the application. A motion was made by Mr. Mosher and seconded that the ap- plication be approved. A vote was taken on the applica- tion and the four members present voted in favor of the application. The following Resolution was therefore adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Michael Festo has submitted an ap- plication to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a wood deck at the rear of the dwelling creating a rear yard setback of 20 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 VI Sec- tion 89-36 Subsection B (3) "Construction Require- ments for an R-2F Residence District" which re- quires a minimum rear yard of 25 ft. on the pre- ® mises located at 34 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mama- roneck as Block 403 Parcel 390; and WHEREAS, Mr. Michael Festo has submitted an ap- A plication for a variance on the ground of prac- tical® difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The backyard slopes down to the railroad tracks. 2. The applicant is planning a family and needs an area where access to tracks is not available. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, re- viewed 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 circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances 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 topography of the lot which slopes down to the railroad tracks and the drainage problem the proposed deck will provide a more useable back yard for the applicant and his family. 2. The proposed deck will provide a second egress in case of an emergency. 3. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article VI Section 89-36 Subsection B (3) "Con- struction Requirements for ® an R-2F Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as 10 granted by this Board is © a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or other- wise detrimental to the pub- lic welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-36 Sub- section B (3) "Construction Requirements for an R-2F Residence District" be varied and modi- fied so as to allow the construction of a wood deck at the rear of the dwelling creating a rear yard setback of 20 ft. on the premises located at 34 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Parcel 390 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. 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 then asked if Dr. Krol had appeared and since he had not Mr. Boraczek asked the Secretary to read the third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 658 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Monte Ganis for modification of Article VIII Section 89-44 "Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in a residential district to 4 ft. to allow the construction of 130 l.f. of 6 ft. ® high wooden fence in side and front yard on the premises located at 2 Gate House Lane and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330 Parcel 45 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. lk Mr. Ganis said he had put in hemlocks but they are dying ® because of the drainage problem. The applicant, also, said that their neighbor in the house in the rear leaves his garage door open plus leaving his garbage on his drive- way. Mr. Ganis further stated that they have two young children and for aesthetic reasons they think their pro- perty would look better with the 6 ft. fence. The appli- cant stated that the 4 ft. fence would defeat their pur- pose because the property is very low and slopes down. Mr. Mosher said he could not understand why they were only fencing portions of the property if it was for security. Mrs. McAndrews said she was concerned about the 30 ft. of fence in the front yard which she felt could effect the visibility at the corner. Mrs. Ganis said they were thinking of the protection of their children when they are playing in the front and she, also, has to watch small animals coming to feast on her neighbor's garbage and she would like a little privacy. The Board asked if she had spoken to her neighbor about the uncovered garbage in the driveway. After further discussion on motion made and seconded the Board decided to deny the application and the Board voted with the four members voting against approval of the ap- plication. The following Resolution was adopted: © WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Monte Ganis have submitted an application for a building permit to allow the construction of 130 lin. ft. of 6 ft. high wooden fence in the side and front 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 Zoning Ordi- nance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VIII Section 89-44 D "Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in a residential district to 4 ft. on the premises located at 2 Gate House Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330 Parcel 45; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Monte Ganis have submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnec- essary hardship for the following reasons: I. The property line (at rear of house) is low lying area and all the water ® from rain gathers at this low area and is constantly saturated creating a water problem (even with drain) . The applicants have planted evergreens but they cannot live under these con- ditions. p2. The applicant's neighbor constantly leaves his garage door open and they are contimally facing his two cars and interior of his garage all day long. The neighbor, also, keeps his garbage on his driveway right near the property line and small animals are always running to feast on his garbage. 3. The elevation of ground at that point (rear property line) is very low and slopes down. A 4 ft. fence would be like having a 2 ft. fence and would be totaling defeating the purpose of having a fence. To have protection for the applicant's young childreiwould be defeated. 4. The fence that would be placed in front of the house would help give protection for their young chil- dren and keep them away from the street. © 5. With existing shrubbery and a proposed fence they could have the kind of property that would give protection when the children are out playing. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, re- viewed 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 application on the following grounds: 1. The applicants did not show suf- ficent reasons for practical difficulty. 2. The reasons given for the variance are mainly for privacy and are not appropriate to change the zoning which does not permit a fence higher than 4 ft. 3. That there are 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 in the district. 11 4. That the facts and circumstances © claimed by the applicant to entitle then to the variance are not such as would deprive them of the reasonable use of the land. 5. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the 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 then asked if Dr. Krol had appeared and at three minutes to nine decided to hear the first applica- tion without the presence of the applicant. The Secretary read the application again. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 656 Application of Dr. George Krol for modification of Arti- cle VIII Section 89-44 D "Walls and Fences" which restricts the heiglt of fences in a residential district to 4 ft. to allow the construction of 335 l.f. of 5 ft. high chain link fence along a portion of the northerly, easterly and southerly property lines on the premises located at 1001 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 325 Parcel 336 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnec- essary hardship. Mr. Boraczek read the letter Dr. Krol had submitted with his application in which he said he had recently moved into the community and from the neighbors he has heard that almost every house has been burglarized and he has a German sheppard guard dog which makes them feel safe. However, Dr. Krol said in his letter there are problems with this type of dog and the dog had snapped his running line and went after a jogger who was passing the front yard. The applicant further said in his letter that the man was knocked down and bitten and he can imagine the possible legal and medical problems from such or similar incidents. Dr. Krol, also, said in his letter that al- thoug the dog is on a leash or running line the neighbors or children are afraid (so is he) that he might get loose accidefttly. Further the applicant said there are other dogs around which do not seem to belong to anybody and © dog fights happen plus they might soil the yard and break the garbage bags searching for food. Dr. Krol, also said that the fence would solve these problems and it would enclose only the backyard. A dog pen is not practical as most of the backyard is occupied by large rock and a--S- f v in conclusion the applicant stated in his letter the fence © would be almost invisible because of the existing trees and bushes. Mrs. Berkowitz of 3 Deerfield Lane said that Dr. Krol's house was new and since he moved in he has extended the driveway and done other work. Mr. Paonessa pointed out that the applicant had permits to do the work. Mrs. Ber- kowitz stated that she is opposed to the fence and even though the fence would be for safety it will be unsightly. Mrs. Geringer of 999 Old White Plains Road said she agreed with all Mrs. Berkowitz said,the fence would be unsightly and the dog is a terror. Mr. Mosher said he thought they would be better off with a fence but Mr. Boraczek said a dog that size can get over any size fence. Mr. Boraczek, also, said that if the dog is that bad it should be kept inside. Mrs. Hamilton of 2 Deerfield Lane said she has lived in her house for 18 years and does not know of anybody that has been burglarized. She, also, said she has two dogs and never has any problems except when they hear Dr. Krol's dog bark and the fence will not accomplish anything. Mrs. Geringer's son said he did not think the fence would Qdo any justice. A motion was made by Mr. Hardesty and seconded that the application be denied. A vote was taken and the four mem- bers present voted against the application. The following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. George Krol has submitted an appli- cation for a building permit to allow the construc- tion of 335 lin. ft. of 5 ft. high chain link fence along a portion of the northerly, easterly and southerly property lines 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 89-44 D "Walls and Fences" which restricts the height of fences in a residential district to 4 ft. on the premises located at 1001 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 325 Parcel 336; and ® WHEREAS, Dr. George Krol has submitted an appli- cation to the Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons: 1. Applicant recently moved into the community and has heard about burglaries SC 1 ir lk and to protect himself has a guard dog ® which makes him feel safe. 2. The dog has broken the running line and bitten a jogger who was passing the front yard. 3. The applicant is afraid the dog will get loose accidently as the neigh- bors and children are also afraid. 4. There are a number of other dogs around and the applicant thinks dog fights might happen and also the dogs might soil the yard and break the gar- bage bags in search of food. 5. Since a dog pen is not practical because most of the backyard is occupied by large rocks. 6. Because of existing trees and bushes the proposed fence would be almost in- visible. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, re- viewed the application and has heard all persons Q 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. The Board did not feel that a 5 ft. fence would be sufficient to en- close a dog of the size of the appli- cant's. 2. The applicant did not submit suf- ficient evidence of practical diffi- culty for putting up a 5 ft. fence. 3. That there are 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 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 him of the reasonable use of the land. 5. That the granting of the variance !Fr- would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the 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. 4 - CASE 659 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Roxbury for modifica- tion of Article VI Section 89-20 Subsection C (3) Permitted Accessory Uses and Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (1) "Construction Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" which does not permit accessory struc- tures customarily incidental to nonconforming business uses and requires a front setback of 30 ft. to allow the installation of 8'x10' garden tool shed, incidental to nonconforming florist and greenhouse business having a front setback of 25 ft. from Weaver Street on the premises located at 96 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Parcel 47 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. The Chairman pointed out to the applicant that he was al- ready in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and he is irate but the Board will hear the case. Mr. Boraczek asked the applicant to explain for those who do not realize why some- thing would be put up that would not be permanent construc- tion. Mr. Roxbury, the applicant said as stated in his applica- tion it is a wood structure and they are agents for the Honest Barn Co. who are selling these products. The ap- plicant said he had paid $625. deposit to use the demon- stration model which he had put 25 from his property line and 70 ft. from Weaver Street. Mr. Boraczek asked why he did not put up a 6'x8' shed and the applicant said he wanted to use one that was half way between the biggest and smallest. Mr. Mosher pointed out that there are a lot of problems as it is a nonconforming use in a residential area and it is the intent of the Ordinance that such uses will dis- appear. Mr. Mosher, also, said that the applicants are moving into a new kind of business different than flowers and plants which has been traditionally for Grant's. Mr. Roxbury said that Grant's have been there since 1896 and they have had the business for two years. The appli- cant said they live at 100 Weaver Street and have no in- !Fr-- 4, tention of making it into a Boston Post Road. Mr. Rox- bury said he did not think selling sheds would be so far away from what Grant's is now and he did not know why it should be restricted. Mr. Mosher said that the Zoning Ordinance has: been revised from time to time and they are trying to limit commercial use to certain areas. Mr. Roxbury said he thought that the problem was the 5 ft. short setback. Mrs. McAndrews said that there were two problems, the set- back and the permitted accessory uses on a nonconforming piece of property. Mr. Roxbury said if the only problem was the 5 ft. setback it could be worked out. Mrs. McAndrews pointed out that the applicant's line of argument is not for the extension of the nonconforming use and Mr. Boraczek said the applicant was looking at it as if it was not there. A question was raised as to whether the structure could be put in another place and it was suggested perhaps behind the hemlocks but the applicant said they want it where it can be seen and it would have to be in front. Mr. Mosher said he was not worrying about the 5 ft. but looking at the nonconforming use and Mr. Hardesty said he agreed with Mr. Mosher in regard to the nonconforming use. Mr. Roxbury said he had spoken to his closest neighbor and she had no objection. A motion was made by Mrs. McAndrew and seconded by Mr. Mosher to deny the application. Mr. Boraczek asked Mr. Silverberg if they denied the application would there be a time limit for the removal of the shed. Mr. Silverberg said that would be up to the Building Inspector who is the enforcement officer and the Zoning Board would have no authority to give the applicant more or less time. Mr. Roxbury said he would have to contact the Honest Barn Co. A vote was taken on the application with Mr. Boraczek ab- staining and on a vote of three to zero the application was denied. The following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Roxbury have sub- mitted an application for a building permit to allow the installation of an 8'x10' garden tool shed incidental to a nonconforming florist and greenhouse business having a front setback of 25 ft. from Weaver Street, 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 Sec- tion 89-20 Subsection C (3) Permitted Accessory Uses and Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (1) "Construction Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" which does not permit accessory structure3 customarily inciden- tal to nonconforming business uses and requires a front setback of 30 ft. on the premises located at 96 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 406 Parcel 47; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Roxbury have sub- mitted an application to this Board for a vari- ance on the ground of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The applicants are sales agents for the Honest Barn Co. and are required to have a demonstration model for poten- tial customers to inspect. 2. The structure must be visible and easily accessible to customers. 3. If the applicant is not permitted to have the structure for display he will have to terminate his contract. 4. The structure is well within their property boundaries. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, re- viewed 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 application on the following grounds: 1. That the installation of the 8'x10' shed for commercial purpose would be extending a nonconforming use in a residential area. 2. The applicants did not show any economic hardship would be suffered due to the strict application of the Zoning Regulations. 3. Applicant has failed to show any hard- ship or practical difficulty if the business is limited to a greenhouse and flowers. 4. That there are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land in the district. L 5. 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. 6. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the 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. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. J i Rita A. Johnso , Secretary