Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_03_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK March 26, 2003, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates, LTD. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Absent: Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary Linda S. Harrington CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding approval of previous Minutes. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2471 (adjourned 10/24/01, 11/28/01, 12/19/01, 1/26/02,4/4/02,4/24/02, 5/22/02, 6/26/02, 7/23/02, 8/7/02, 9/25/02, 12 18/02) Application of Fred Freidman/Ann M. Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 13.5 feet where a maximum of 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District. Mr. Gunther said a letter was received from the applicant requesting an adjournment. On motion made by Mr.Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2471 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2540 (adjourned 12/18/02) No one present. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2453(b) Application of Eve Neuman requesting an extension for at least six months of the variance to construct a one-story rear addition on the premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 300. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.3 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. 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: On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, 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 motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Eve Neuman has submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting an extension for at least six months of the variance to construct a one-story rear addition on the premises located at 96 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 300. . The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.3 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the variance authorizing proposed construction, which was granted on May 16, 2001 has expired; and WHEREAS, Eve Neuman submitted an application for an extension of the 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 NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED, The Board extends the variance that expired, dated May 22, 2001, for one (1)year from the date of this certification, 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 one (1)year of the filing of the current certification. 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 the certification is signed. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2540 (adjourned 12/18/02) Application of Bruce Robinson requesting a variance to maintain a fence in the rear and side yards on the premises located at 83 Lookout Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 117, Lot 84. The fence as proposed has a total height of 7 ft. 2 in. where 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a rear and side yard fence in an R- 7.5 Zone District. Mr. Gunther entered letters from David Riessen of 46 Echo Lane; Beth and Steven Korotkin of 75 Lookout Circle and Jane Lebowitz of 189 Hickory Grove Driver in support of the application into the record. The Board discussed this matter and reviewed the photographs in the file. On motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2540 be, and hereby is adjourned to the February 26, 2003 Zoning Board meeting. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2545 Application of Richard and Jacqueline Emmet requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition on the premises located at 20 Lansdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 219 Lot 127. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 4.82 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Larry Gordon of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue (applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Gordon said we are asking for a variance in order to extend and renovate an existing kitchen and provide a small family area room and a powder room on the first floor. 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: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther Yes Linda Harrington Absent Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, 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 motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Richard and Jacqueline Emmet have submitted an application to the Building Inspector together with plans to construct a one-story rear addition on the premises located at 20 Lansdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 127. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 4.82 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. 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 240-37B(2)(a) WHEREAS, Richard and Jacqueline Emmet submitted an application for an extension of the 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: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The Board extends the variance that expired, dated May 22, 2001, for one (1)year from the date of this certification, subject to the following conditions: 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. The applicant has proposed a modest size addition to the house that creates a fairly small family room/sitting area plus an eating area as an extension to the kitchen. The proposed addition is in the rear of the property and, as such, has no effect on surrounding properties except for the adjoining back yard, which is the property at 350 Weaver Street. B. The closest point of the proposed addition is 4.5. ft. from the property line of 350 Weaver Street, but that property line is well screened and is back considerably front the house. There is a cistern or pond in the back of that property that creates a sufficient distance from the addition to where the property is used that the addition does not create an adverse impact on that property. The other neighboring properties are all further away, well screened, and there be no adverse affect on them either. C. The variance is substantial; nearly half of the 10 ft. minimum, but that is not determinative in and of itself. D. There will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district as a whole. E. Nor is the difficulty self-created. The unusual lot size and shape creates the problem. 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. 5 - CASE 2546 Application of Eric and Carolyn Rosenbaum requesting a variance to construct a shed on the premises located at 55 Moran Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504 Lot 153. The shed as proposed has a front yard of 5 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(c)for an accessory structure on a corner lot in an R- 10 Zone District Eric Rosenbaum appeared and addressed the Board 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: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther Yes Linda Harrington Absent Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, 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 motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Eric and Carolyn Rosenbaum have submitted an application to the Building Inspector together with plans to construct a shed on the premises located at 55 Moran Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 504, Lot 153. The shed as proposed has a front yard of 5 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(c)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. 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 240-37B(2)(c) WHEREAS, Eric and Carolyn Rosenbaum submitted an application for an extension of the 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: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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. 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. The applicant is seeking to put a shed in a corner of the property. It's a corner property. The yard that the applicant has chosen for the shed is a back yard corner in relationship to the house, but due to the fact that the house is a corner property that yard is a front yard under the Zoning Code. Hence the need for this variance. The applicant has landscaped the property extensively, and the corner where the shed is to be is completely screened by evergreens. As a consequence of personal inspection, it's apparent that the shed will not be seen from either the street or the adjoining property. B. As a consequence, even assuming that the shed were otherwise to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood because of the screening it will, in fact, not be a detriment either to the neighboring property or to the character to the neighborhood as a whole due to the effective screening surrounding the proposed site. C. The applicant has explained why a possible alternative- using the carriage house would not allow him to accomplish the same goals as he can achieve by building the shed. D. The variance is not substantial. The way that this property is used we're talking about a shed that for all intents and purposes is in a back yard, although it is a front yard for zoning purposes, and as such the request to locate the shed there is not a very substantial change from what is customary in the community. E. Nor is the difficulty self-created. It is a function of the Zoning Laws, a particular requirement required for a corner lot. 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. 6 - CASE 2547 Application of Eric Weiner requesting a variance to erect a 6 ft. fence on the premises located at 1001 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403 Lot 105. The fence as proposed has a height of 6 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 250-52A for a fence in a R-2F Zone District. Mr. Weiner appeared and addressed the Board. 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: Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther Yes Linda Harrington Absent Jillian A. Martin Opposed Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 3-1, Ms Martin was opposed. 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 motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr.Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Eric Weiner has submitted an application to the Building Inspector together with plans to erect a 6 ft. fence on the premises located at 1001 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 403, Lot 105. The fence as proposed has a height 6 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 250-52A for a fence in an R-2F Zone District. 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 250-52A WHEREAS, Eric Weiner submitted an application for an extension of the 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: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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. I. 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. The applicant seeks a 6 ft. fence where 5 ft. is permitted and has explained that the reason for the application is two-fold; The applicant's desire for privacy, and the need to screen the applicant's dog from seeing the street, so the dog will not react to passing cars and people. The applicant's dog's need for privacy is not a legitimate reason to grant a variance in this case. However, the applicant has made the case that because of the slope of the land his back yard is lower than the neighbor's and, consequently, they look down at his property. By visual inspection, the Board agrees that this is the case. As a consequence of the grade of the land, The impact of the height of the fence is less on the surrounding the property than on the applicant's property and, accordingly, it will not create a detriment to those nearby properties. B. There will be no adverse impact on neighboring properties or on the community as a whole. The fence will be set far back from the street, at or behind the property line, so that any impact of the additional height will be minimized. C. The applicant has discussed with a member of the Board the possibility of modifying the fence, so that the upper 18 inches of the fence will be a tight weave lattice instead of a solid ,material, and has indicated no objection to adopting that kind of design. The applicant has submitted in his application pictures of several varieties of fence by the manufacture, SWP Industries. Inc. It is required as a condition of this approval that the applicant install something identical or similar to SWP Industries, Inc. model Z15 known as Tongue & Groove, that is depicted on an attachment to the application. D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 26, 2003 ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Prepared by Francine M. Brill