Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_02_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 2/27/08 MINUTES PAGE1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 27,2008,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Dana Chipkin,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO.2795 Mr.and Mrs.Reck The applicant requested and received an adjournment. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO. 2799 Duane Reade The applicant requested and received an adjournment. APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO. 2801 Robert and Althea Howe James Giata,Envirospace appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Giata entered a set of photos marked Exhibit A into the record. Mr. Giata also stated that he looked into putting the generator on the other side of the house as the Board requested,and it would cost his client a 46%increase in the cost of the installation. Mr. Giata also stated that the neighbor most directly affected sent a letter in support of the placement of the generator. The Board inquired if the generator could be moved away from the front corner of the house. Mr. Giata stated that the generator could be moved back about 5-6 feet under the second window and be moved closer to the house. The Board questioned what effect moving the generator closer to the house would have on the sound. Mr. Giata was not sure. Also the Board wanted to know if the neighbor was aware that the generator runs in exercise mode once a week for approximately 15minutes,Mr. Giata answered yes. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. 2/27/08 MINUTES PAGE2 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 Frederick Baron,seconded by Ronald Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert and Althea Howe requesting a variance to install a generator on the premises located 2 Dudley Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 303,Lot 201. The generator as proposed has a front yard of 10 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(1),for a residence in an R-30 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 240-34B(1));and WHEREAS, Robert and Althea Howe 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there is no undesirable change to the nearby properties as the proposed unit is small and will not produce sound greater than that of a air conditioner condensing unit. Also the neighbor most effected by the generator has submitted a letter in support. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that although the applicant has a spot on the other side of the house to place the generator without a variance,the increased cost to the home owner would be prohibitive. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that while a variance from 50 feet required to a 10 feet setback is considered substantial,given the nature of the property and the way the house is situated on the property very close to the property line and well within the 50 feet required. The placement of the generator in this case directly next to the house, well back under the window behind the gas meter is not a substantial variance. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district as any impacts which might occur would be mitigated by the required screening of the new generator. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: 2/27/08 MINUTES PAGE3 The board finds that while the need for a variance may be self-created,that is not determinative in this case as the applicants do not have other economically viable means to accomplish their goals. 2. For the reasons stated above,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. 3. For the reasons stated above, 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. NOW,THERFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction as modified and agreed to at the meeting and require that the plans reflecting the modification be submitted for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of a building permit. 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 hereby approved in connection with the application. 5. The applicant shall screen the generator from view with 3 foot high evergreens and is responsible for maintaining this screening for as long as a generator remains in place. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.4—CASE NO. 2802 Mora and Kurt Weisenfluh Mike Csenge, applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge stated that his clients wanted to cover their front entry and create an outdoor living space,and that the addition would enhance the character of the house. The front steps are in need of repair. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Linda Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,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 Ronald Meister,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mora and Kurt Weisenfluh requesting a variance to construct a covered porch with an entry stair on the premises located 18 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 228, Lot 350. The covered porch as proposed has a front yard of 34 feet 11 inches where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1),for a residence in an R-20 Zone District;and 2/27/08 MINUTES PAGE4 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 240-34B(1));and WHEREAS,Mora and Kurt Weisenfluh 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there is no undesirable change to the nearby properties as the proposed covered front porch will enhance the appearance of the house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that there is no such feasible method. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that a 6 foot at most variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there are no physical or environmental effects GAVE NO REASON E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not selfcreated and that the covered porch and entry will be more attractive that just a covered entry. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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. 3. For the reasons stated above, 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. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction as modified and agreed to at the meeting and require that the plans reflecting the modification be submitted for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of a building permit. 2/27/08 MINUTES PAGES 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 hereby approved in connection with the 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.2803 Mary and Peter Croly James Fleming applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Fleming stated that his client wants to enlarge the house by lining up the addition with the lower part,the garage. The footprint of the house will remain the same. The Board questioned the placement of the sign as one of the Board members did not see the sign. James Fleming stated that he went to check and found the sign had fallen over in the snow and replaced the sign. Andrea Harris Cohn of 752 Forest Ave. stated that she was concerned with erosion into her property. James Fleming offered to fix site control at the job site to ease her concerns. 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; After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Linda Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,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 Irene O'Neill,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mary and Peter Croly requesting a variance to construct an additional one story area above the existing garage on the premises located 68 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 124. The one story addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.15 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B.(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-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 240-34B(1));and WHEREAS, Mary and Peter Croly 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting 2/27/08 MINUTES PAGE6 of the area variance: The Board finds that there is no undesirable change to the nearby properties as the proposed one story addition will enhance the rear of this house. It will esthetically improve the appearance of the house. The house sits on a large lot and the addition will not change the footprint of the house.The variance required is due to the houses proximity to the side property line which occurred when the house was constructed. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that there is no design alternative that would allow the applicant to achieve their goal. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial it will add a one story level on top of an existing garage and will not change the foot print of the house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there are no physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood. The footprint will not change there will be no additional runoff from the construction. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created it is do to the placement of the house on the lot at the time of construction. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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. 3. For the reasons stated above, 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. NOW,THERFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction as modified and agreed to at the meeting and require that the plans reflecting the modification be submitted for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of a building permit. 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 hereby approved in connection with the application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. 2/27/08 MINUTES PAGE7 APPLICATION NO 6 CASE NO. 2804 Brad and Pam Nodiff Robert Keller the applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Keller entered a letter from the Nodif's neighbors in support of the application into the record,marked exhibit A. Arthur Wexler raised the question as to whether or not the application was noticed properly,regarding the 3 foot overhang protection into the setback as required in Section 240-561 of the Code. Mr. Wexler stated that for the protection of the applicant the application should be renoticed to say 22.2 feet plus a 3 foot overhang rather than the allowed 2 foot The matter was adjourned to Tuesday February 25,in the Court Room. MINUTES The minutes of January 2,2008 on motion of Linda Harrington,seconded by Ronald Meister were approved unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Nancy Seligson spoke ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary