Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_01_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 26,2005,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Linda S. Harrington Arthur Wexler Paul A.Winick Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Tina Dinunzio,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gunther called the meeting to order at 7:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding open Zoning Board minutes. APPLICATION NO. 1-CASE NO.2641 Application of David and Suzanne Calkins requesting a variance to construct a first floor level wood deck on the premises located at 6 Wildwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116,Lot 188. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 17 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Chris Powell(applicant's architect)discussed the proposed plan noting that it involved expanding the kitchen and mudroom and removing an old wood deck to construct a first floor level wood deck. Chairman Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members.There were none. Chairman Gunther asked if there were any question or comments from the public on this application.There were none. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda.Harrington Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 1 On a motion made by Thomas Gunther, seconded by Linda Harrington, and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On a motion made by Linda Harrington, seconded by Paul Winick and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, David and Suzanne Calkins have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a first floor level wood deck on the premises located at 6 Wildwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116, Lot 188. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 17 ft.where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(3);and WHEREAS, David and Suzanne Calkins submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. In weighing the detriment to the community against the benefit to the applicant,the Board is making this motion in favor of the applicant on the grounds that the proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There was an existing deck on the property that was taken down,due to an addition being constructed. The new deck is in the rear yard,is screened by trees and shrubs from the rear and sufficiently far from the adjoining homes on the sides as not to pose a nuisance. It does not appear that this deck will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. It should be noted that we have had no communication from the neighbors expressing any negative comments about the deck. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via any alternative that would be less intrusive. C. The variance is not substantial at 12-ft. on the rear yard, considering the size of the property. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. As we had no negative communications from the surrounding neighbors, it appears that there are no complaints or adverse impact on the surrounding neighbors or area. E. While this is a self-created difficulty as the property does not have as-of-right, it is not unreasonable to request the variance nor for it to be granted. Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 2 F. The granting of this variance is 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. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.2-CASE NO.2642 Application of Andrea P. Boyar requesting a variance to construct a 1'/2 story addition on the premises located at 47 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218,Lot 399. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 20-ft.where 30-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); a proposed driveway 1-ft. from the property line where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79B; a parking area within 25-ft. of the front property line also pursuant to Section 240-79B for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. John Clever (applicant's husband) stated that he would like to build a garage and turn the existing garage into a true basement/cellar. Mr. Clever also stated that he would like to add a second floor under the eave of the 1 1/4-story addition and add a deck facing back into his yard. Mr. Clever submitted a signed letter from Diana Lukett (59 West Brookside Road resident), which is in support of the application, marked Exhibit #1. Chairman Gunther read the letter, which is a part of the record. Chairman Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. There was no comment. Chairman Gunther asked Mr. Clever to submit a revised plan. On a motion made by Chairman Gunther, seconded by Paul Winick and unanimously approved by all members present, the Zoning Board set a meeting for application #2, case #2642 for its next meeting on March 2,2005. APPLICATION NO.3-CASE NO.2643 Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 3 Application of Ellen and Eric Marcus requesting a variance to construct a new garage with two bedrooms above, and a new second floor bath and study over the existing first floor on the premises located at 10 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Lot 84. The new garage with two bedrooms above as proposed has a front yard of 36-ft. where 40-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(1), a side yard of 6.5-ft. where 10-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(2)(a); the second story addition over the existing first floor has a side yard of 9.8-ft. where 10-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); a total side yard of 16.3 ft. where 20 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b); and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Larry Gordon (applicant's architect) discussed the proposed plan noting that it involved the reconstruction of an existing garage,the addition of two bedrooms, and renovation of the bathroom. Chairman Gunther asked if there were any other questions.There were none. On a motion made by Chairman Gunther, seconded by Paul Winick and unanimously approved by all members present,case#2643 was set for the next meeting on March 2,2005. APPLICATION NO.4-CASE NO.2644 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Leo Schwartz requesting a variance to construct a rear yard wood deck on the premises located at 27 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224,Lot 938. The rear wood deck as proposed has a rear yard of 13.1-ft. where 25- ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Larry Gordon(applicant's architect)discussed the proposed plan noting that it involved the construction of a new deck. Mr. Gordon stated that a brick patio was approved a year ago. Chairman Gunther stated what was originally approved was an 8-ft. 1-in setback, and now the applicant is requesting a larger setback assuming its 13-ft. 1-in. and a smaller deck overall. Chairman Gunter asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda.Harrington Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes On a motion made by Thomas Gunther, seconded by Paul Winick, and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On a motion made by Linda Harrington, seconded by Arthur Wexler, and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Leo Schwartz have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear yard wood deck on the premises located at 27 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224, Lot 938. The rear wood deck as proposed has a rear yard of 13.1-ft. where 25-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3) for a residence in an R-15 Zone District;and Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 4 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-36B(3);and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Leo Schwartz submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. In weighing the detriment to the community against the benefit to the applicant,the Board is making this motion in favor of the applicant on the grounds that the proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The property abuts the Bonnie Briar Golf Course and is far enough away from properties on either side of it, so as not to pose a problem to neighboring properties. As such,it does not appear that this deck will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. It should be noted that we have had no communication from the neighbors expressing any negative comments about the deck. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via any alternative that would be less intrusive. C. The variance is substantial at almost 12-ft. on the rear yard,but given that there are no homes adjoining the rear of the property this should not be an issue. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. As we have had no negative communications from the surrounding neighbors,it appears that there will be no complaints or adverse impact on the surrounding neighbors or area. E. This is a self-created difficulty,but the fact that there is a golf course in the rear of the property and will not have a negative effect on the neighborhood or surrounding properties should be enough cause to grant this variance. It is not an unreasonable request for the variance or for it to be granted. F. The granting of this variance is 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. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 5 RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.5-CASE NO.2645 Application of Adam and Carrie Tucker requesting a variance to construct a parking area on the premises located at 147 West Valley Stream Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210,Lot 211. The proposed parking area is located 7-ft. from the front property line where 25-ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-79B for a parking area in an R-10 Zone District. Pam Lester (applicant's landscape architect) discussed the proposed plan noting that it involved the construction of a parking space Chairman Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda.Harrington Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes On a motion made by Thomas Gunther, seconded by Paul Winick, and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On a motion made by Paul Winick, seconded by Thomas Gunther, and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Adam and Carrie Tucker have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a parking area on the premises located at 147 West Valley Stream Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 211. The proposed parking area is located 7-ft. from the front property line where 25-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 79B for a parking area in an R-10 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-79B;and WHEREAS, Adam and Carrie Tucker submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 6 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This is a very difficult piece of property. It's on a dead end on West Valley Stream Road.The garage of this residence is actually used as a turnaround by neighbors,as well as being used to back out of spaces by the residents. The addition of a parking space is essentially parallel to the mouth of the driveway,which permits a parking space to be used by the applicant,at the same time preserving a way for another car to turn at the dead end. As we learned at the hearing this evening,the property is extremely constrained by differing elevations and the presence of rock. As a practical matter,there is no other place to put a parking space, except up within this area,which is only 7-ft. from the road. The proposed additional parking space will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. In fact,it will allow the applicant to continue to allow the driveway to be used for the benefit of the neighbors,while also preserving a place for the applicant to park his car. It will further allow a safe place,being a flat location, for the children to play. B. From what the Board has heard at the hearing this evening indicates there is essentially no flat spot on this property,other than the mouth of the driveway or the proposed adjoining parking spot. Because of the lay of the land,the applicant cannot achieve the goal that was stated in that file or any reasonable alternative,which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. C. The variance is substantial. It locates the car far closer to the road than the zoning law allows. D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, as has already been stated. E. The difficulty here is not self-created. It's just a function of the decisions that were made on how to plan the original driveway when the property was first laid out and constructed. F. The granting of this variance is 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. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction detailed on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 7 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE NO.2646 Application of Mr. &Mrs. Daryl Simm requesting a variance to construct an inground swimming pool on the premises located at 10 Salem Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 303, Lot 423.2. The inground swimming pool as proposed has a setback of 9-ft. from the principal structure where 15-ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(a) and a front yard setback of 34-ft.where a swimming pool shall not be located,pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(c),in an R-20 Zone District. Frank Giuliano (applicant's landscape architect) stated that the applicant proposed to construct an in- ground swimming pool. Mr. Giuliano continued to say the variance was requested to move the pool away from the house not the neighbor.The plan was to never infringe upon the neighbor's yard. Chairman Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members.There were none. Chairman Gunther asked if there were any questions or concerns from the public on this application. There were none. Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda.Harrington Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes On a motion made by Thomas Gunther, seconded by Paul Winick, and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On a motion made by Paul Winick, seconded by Thomas Gunther, and unanimously approved by all members present,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Daryl Simm requesting a variance to construct an in ground swimming pool on the premises located at 10 Salem Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 303, Lot 423.2. The in ground swimming pool as proposed has a setback of 9-ft. from the principal structure where 15-ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(a) and a front yard setback of 34-ft.where a swimming pool shall not be located,pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(c),in an R-20 Zone District;and Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 8 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-79B;and WHEREAS, Adam and Carrie Tucker submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This is a very difficult piece of property. It's on a dead end on West Valley Stream Road. The garage of this residence is actually used as a turnaround by neighbors,as well as being used to back out of spaces by the residents. The addition of a parking space is essentially parallel to the mouth of the driveway,which permits a parking space to be used by the applicant,at the same time preserving a way for another car to turn at the dead end. As we learned at the hearing this evening,the property is extremely constrained by differing elevations and the presence of rock. As a practical matter,there is no other place to put a parking space, except up within this area,which is only 7-ft. from the road. The proposed additional parking space will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. In fact, it will allow the applicant to continue to allow the driveway to be used for the benefit of the neighbors,while also preserving a place for the applicant to park his car. It will further allow a safe place,being a flat location, for the children to play. B. From what the Board has heard at the hearing this evening indicates there is essentially no flat spot on this property,other than the mouth of the driveway or the proposed adjoining parking spot. Because of the lay of the land,the applicant cannot achieve the goal that was stated in that file or any reasonable alternative,which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. C. The variance is substantial. It locates the car far closer to the road than the zoning law allows. D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, as has already been stated. E. The difficulty here is not self-created. It's just a function of the decisions that were made on how to plan the original driveway when the property was first laid out and constructed. F. The granting of this variance is 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. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. Zoning Board January 26,2005 Page 9 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction detailed on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. NEXT MEETING ADJOURNMENT Marguerite Roma Recording Secretary Prepared by Francine M.Brill