Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_01_04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes d ,'--, Town of Mamaroneck A Zoning Board of Appeals • MIMED 1451 • TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2006 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Robert S. Davis, 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. Duane Reade Warren Goodman (applicant's attorney)stated to the Board the applicant has withdrawn their application. The Board made a motion to withdraw this application. 2. Shkreli The applicant has requested to adjourn this application to the January 25, 2006 meeting. 3. Cohen The applicant withdrew their application. 4. Webster Bank This application was adjourned to the January 25, 2006 meeting due to improper notification. 5. Kupferberg Barry Kupferberg (applicant) approached the Board and stated their proposal to construct a one- story screen porch that abuts the existing residence at the rear and is accessed from the kitchen. Mr. Kupferberg continued to say they will be removing the existing deck and constructing a screened porch because they enjoy being outside without being bothered by insects. Janet Stander (72 Vine Road) expressed her concerns with the appearance of the porch. Ms. Stander stated she feels a screened porch would not fit in with the character of a tudor. Madi Ference (76 Vine Road) also expressed her concerns with this application stating the screened porch will not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Ference continued to say the porch will be placed in the Kupferberg's backyard but the neighbors on Vine Road would be affected by it more than the neighbors on Rockingstone Avenue. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 4, 2006 Page 2 of 4 Arnold Wile (applicant's architect)stated he has been an architect for many years and will make whatever changes are necessary to please the Board. The Board agreed to adjourn this application to the January 25, 2006 meeting. 6. Illanes Ellen Illanes (applicant)approached the Board and stated their proposal to upgrade the insulation in an existing room that was constructed and enclosed prior to the purchase of their home. Ms. Illanes continued to say they are proposing to remodel the existing kitchen and winterize the porch so it can be used as a family room. The Board finds that the record made by the applicant is sufficient, the benefit to the applicant outweighed 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 4, 2006. CASE NO. 2704—ILLANES After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, 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. O'Neill, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ellen and Felipe Illanes submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to enclose an existing porch on the premises located at 45 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220, Lot 265; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector that the porch to be enclosed has a side yard of 6.05 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-10 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 Section 240-37B(2)(a), as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Ellen and Felipe Illanes 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: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 4, 2006 Page 3 of 4 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 enclosure of the existing porch 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 applicants are locating the enclosed porch on the same site as the existing porch, this is the only reasonable location. 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. Neighbors on each side of this residence and nearby have signed a letter expressing their approval. 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: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes January 4, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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. Adjournment Daniela Gerardi Secretary to Zoning Board