Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_01_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes d ,'--, Town of Mamaroneck w Zoning Board of Appeals • MIMED 1451 • TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2006 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Taina Zambrano, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Daniela Gerardi, Recording Secretary 1. Shkreli The applicant has requested to adjourn this application to the March 1, 2006 meeting. 2. Webster Bank John Kirkpatrick (applicant's attorney)approached the Board and stated the applicant's proposal to erect two additional signs. Mr. Kirkpatrick continued to say the applicant would like to keep the sign tower but replace the current sign and erect two additional signs. Mr. Kirkpatrick also stated Webster Bank, N. A. is currently undergoing a Corporate-wide branding and logo change and would like to install new sign faces on its Mamaroneck location. Mr. Kirkpatrick avowed the applicant is requesting additional signage because they feel that customers have a hard time finding the facility due to the speed and volume of traffic on Boston Post Road. Mr. Kirkpatrick continued to say these signs are compatible with the building and achieve the desired result of alerting passing motorist in time to turn. He also stated the new sign design is compatible with the old, and the signs are grouped together on an existing tower of the building. Dan McWilliams (21 Rockridge Road)opposes the bank's proposal to install two new signs stating the Town Board established the two sign law to lessen the impact of signage on the surrounding neighborhood. Board members agreed with Mr. McWilliams statement and stated they had no trouble finding the bank. The Board finds that the record made by the applicant is not sufficient, the benefit to the applicant does not outweigh any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding properties and denied the variance. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on January 25, 2006. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 25, 2006 Page 2 of 8 CASE NO. 2700—Webster Bank After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED 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 Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution to DENY the application for a Variance was APPROVED: WHEREAS, Webster Bank submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to erect two additional signs on the premises located at 1265 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Lot 449.1. The monument sign as proposed would be the third sign for the premises where, pursuant to Section 240-45(8)3(iii)(b), only two signs are permitted per establishment for buildings located in a "B" Business 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 240-45(8)3(iii)(b); and WHEREAS, Webster Bank 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 does not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The Town Board changed the sign law in November`2004 to only allow two signs on businesses to lessen the impact on the panoramic views of neighboring residents and to stop the proliferation of signage on the Boston Post Road. B. The proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and it would create a detriment to nearby properties. Also the Board finds that the location of the present building bearing two signs is more than adequate for the announcement of the business within. C. The applicants could achieve their goals via an alternate design that would clearly mark the identification of the business and its entry points that were visible to all on the Boston Post Road D. The proposed erection of two additional signs will have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions on the neighborhood by creating unnecessary visual overload. E. The Board views adding two additional signs would have a substantial impact on the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 25, 2006 Page 3 of 8 neighborhood. The business is clearly visible and the additional signage is unnecessary. F. The Board feels the difficulties noted in the application process were self-created. G. The denial 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 due to its small size and placement. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. 3. Kupferberg Arnold Wile (applicant's architect)stated the plans have been revised since the previous meeting. Mr. Wile continued to say some of the changes are they are now proposing 3 1/2 feet instead of 5 feet, they lowered the flooring by one foot, and they sloped the roof. Mr. Kupferberg (applicant) avowed the revisions included making the room smaller by 30 feet, lowering the roof, sloping the roof, and blending the proposed porch into the existing tudor style of the home. Mr. Kupferberg added the sloped roof will be covered with slate material that matches the house. Madi Ference (76 Vine Road) expressed her displeasure with this application stating she bought copies of the plans and was upset due to the fact there were some inconsistencies with the plans. Board member Arthur Wexler had to abstain from voting but was given the opportunity to state his opinions regarding the design of the proposed screen porch. The Board finds that the record made by the applicant is sufficient, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding properties and granted the variance. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on January 25, 2006. CASE NO. 2703— KUPFERBERG After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was adopted, 3-1. 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. Baron, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Barry and Lori Kupferberg submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct a screen porch on the premises located at 290 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110, Lot 82; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector that the addition as proposed has a front yard of 23 1/2 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)for a residence in a R-7.5 Zone District; and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 25, 2006 Page 4 of 8 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector had 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(1) as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Barry and Lori Kupferberg 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 outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties: The design of the screened porch addition is consistent with the Tudor style of the existing residence. This project will not dramatically change the appearance of the home or place a burden on nearby properties because of the structural approach, melding existing home design characteristics into the addition, pitching the roof line in such a way to minimize visual impact and its placement behind many large evergreen shrubs (to be maintained by the owner in perpetuity)which will shield its view from most. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Since the purpose of this addition is to construct a screen porch addition adjacent to the kitchen, this is the only reasonable location. Examinations of other potential locations on the property were not successful in identifying a logical alternative. It should also be noted that the proposed addition in located on the property connected to the home's rear. This property is burdened with two front yards since a street abuts both the front of the home and the rear of the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance requested is not substantial. The existing house is already nonconforming due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. There will be a minimal change in lot coverage. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: There is nothing to suggest the variance will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood from a physical or environmental perspective. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. It is due to the placement of the home on the lot at the time of original construction. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 25, 2006 Page 5 of 8 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 dated January 9, 2006; the final plans were received on February 10, 2006. 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. 5. The owner shall maintain the existing large shrubs as a barrier to viewing the addition. Replacement of like size, denseness and quality is required as long as the screened porch remains. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. 4. Zuckerman Allen Ross (applicant's architect)stated the applicant's proposal to construct a family room addition. Mr. Ross also stated the addition comprises of a single enclosed room with a side porch and a rear terrace. He continued to say this addition is attached to the south side of the existing house and the purpose of the addition is to provide a family room adjacent to the kitchen and the front porch. Mr. Ross added they propose to locate the addition at approximately the same setback line as the existing house, moving it farther east than it would be if it was located at the 40-foot setback line. Mr. Ross stated the first hardship is the Sheldrake River, which runs less than 30-feet behind the house and the driveway accessing the existing garage runs between the river and the house, therefore, the location of the addition keeps it farther away from the river and does not block the driveway. Mr. Ross also stated the second hardship is the existing plan of the house would not allow for a connection to the existing southern front porch from the addition if the 40-foot setback was met. He avowed by placing the addition as shown, a door can connect the porch directly to the family room. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 25, 2006 Page 6 of 8 I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on January 25, 2006. CASE NO. 2705—ZUCKERMAN After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, 5-0. 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 Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Jon and Rachelle Zuckerman submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 17 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222, Lot 606; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector that the addition as proposed has a front yard of 30.25 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B.(1) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector had 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 240-36 B.(1)and Section 240-69 as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Jon and Rachelle Zuckerman 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 outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties: The family room addition will remain consistent with the appearance of the existing residence. With the exception of replacing the windows and doors, this project will not change the appearance of the home. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Since the purpose of this addition is to construct a family room addition adjacent to the kitchen and the front porch, this is the only reasonable location. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 25, 2006 Page 7 of 8 C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance requested is not substantial. The existing house is already nonconforming due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years and the footprint of the house and the lot coverage will not change as a result of the interior construction. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: There appears to be no indication that the variance will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. It is due to the placement of the home on the lot at the time of original construction. 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. 5. KP Industries and AKP Signs Donald Mazin (applicant's attorney) approached the Board and stated his client Sleepy's, The Mattress Professionals, is proposing to erect three awning signs that are internally illuminated and to allow the lettering for the awning signs to be 18 inches. Mr. Mazin also stated his client Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 25, 2006 Page 8 of 8 opened up a new store and desire new signs in number and at same locations as the two prior tenants. Mr. Mazin distributed 22 pictures of signs from surrounding business as evidence. Board members suggested shrinking the width of the lettering because they feel the sign is overwhelming. Charles Redder (Sleepy's)stated they are adjusting the company's colors to comply with the lease agreement but would like to maintain the company logo. Mr. Mazin stated the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) permitted the installation of the temporary signs, which presently exist, and the logo sign was also permitted in the window. Chair Gunther requested comments from the Board of Architectural Review. The Board agreed to adjourn this application to the March 1, 2006 meeting. Adjournment Daniela Gerardi Secretary to Zoning Board