Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_10_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 28,2009 IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Bob Viner,alternate Absent: Linda Harrington Also Present: Lisa Hochman,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary Stenographer: Stephanie Gualtirei Carbone and Associates 111 North Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO. 2849 James Schwartz and Susan Cohen Larry Gordon,of Gordon&Yestadt Architects,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Gordon stated that the applicant's would like to construct a front portico in order to access their home out of inclement weather. Mr. Wexler stated that the second floor projects over the first floor one foot Mr. Carpaneto stated that the house conforms at its foundation. Mr. Gordon pointed out pictures of the neighbors on either side and across the street and they all have porticos. The Board discussed the applications. There were no questions or comments from the public. After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Ayes: Wexler,Baron,O'Neill,Meister Nays: WHEREAS, James Schwartz and Susan Cohen requesting a variance to Construct a front portico on the premises located at 16 Carriage House Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block340,Lot 840(the"Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property, as developed with the front portico steps would have a front yard of 32.72 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1),and WHEREAS,the portico roof as proposed has a front yard of 34.80 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1);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 240-35B(1);and WHEREAS, James Schwartz and Susan Cohen 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 Boards that there will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The portico will enhance the appearance of the house and will be consistent with the neighboring houses. 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 the applicant cannot achieve their goals by a reasonable alternative,as the house is located up against the existing setbacks. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance while increasing the house by 84 square feet it is situated on a large plot where the total coverage is 16.05%where 35%is allowed. 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 the addition is in scale and design of its neighbors. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is self created as the house was purchased without the portico addition but it is not considered determinative. 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 is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant at the 10/28/09 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. 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. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application,as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 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. 2851 Bonnie Briar Country Club It was stated that the application was noticed correctly the word temporary was removed from the notice of disapproval. Benedict Salinitro the applicant's engineer appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Salinitro stated that the club is requesting a variance to install a golf cart structure for the new electric golf carts that are replacing the gas carts now stored on the site. There will be 50 electric carts replacing 60 gas carts. The current area will be used identically as it is now with the exception of the shelter to protect the carts from the elements while charging. The area is between the tennis courts and the Spiess Property. The structure is 26 feet wide, 110 feet long and 14 feet at the peak. Mr. Salinitro stated that there will be no change to the character of the site except the removal of the 5 trees shown on the plan. Mr. Wexler stated that there is no screening between the neighbor and the structure. Mr. Salinitro,stated that the Spiess,the adjacent property owners are in support of the structure and a letter from them is in the file. Mr. Spiess property is densely screened and the trees to be removed are small. Mr.Wexler,Mr. Salinitro and Mr. Burke the general manager of the golf club looked at the survey and discussed the pros and cons of alternative sites. Mr. Baron asked the height of the wall,and Mr. Salinitro responded that it is 7 feet the fence is currently 8 '/2 feet and will remain. Mr. Wexler stated that the structure is not visually attractive in a very handsome area. Mr. Baron voiced his concern that the structure is 5 feet higher than the existing fence. Mr. Salinitro responded and if the Spiess property was part of Bonnie Briar there would be no need for a variance and that the structure will not be seen from Weaver Street. Mr. O'Neill asked about the height of the pro shop and Mr. Salinitro responded that the roof of the pro shop is 18 feet in height. The material and anchoring system was discussed. Mr. Salinitro stated that it would be anchored by small concrete pads. Mr. Salinitro further commented that the Country clubs board is very sensitive to the look of the property and that the structure would be obscured from everywhere the tennis courts would be most impacted and they are heavily screened. Mr. Wexler discussed the storage of the carts in the facility with the intention of reducing the size of the structure and the preservation of the trees at the site. Mr. Burke stated that the color of the structure would be ecru at the Spiess request. Mr.Wexler stated that it is a large structure with a large impact. Mr. Salinitro stated that the Country Club doesn't want a negative impact,on the area,they are seeking to utilize the space as it is currently being used,the vehicles are stored there at present and they are trying to improve storage. Mr. Wexler stated that the new structure would have a greater visual impact. Mr. Salinitro responded that they will try to lower the height and reduce the overall size of the structure. It was stated that the Planning Board will declare intent to be Lead agency. The matter was adjourned to November 25,2009. APPLICATION No. 3 Case No.2848 METRO PCS. New York,LLC Ronald Meister recused. Lucia Chiocchio, applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Chiocchio gave a brief update since they last appeared before the Board in July. Ms. Chiocchio stated that the board had asked for an alternative design and the design engineer went to the site and came up with an alternative. The Board also asked about visibility of the antennas from Hampshire Golf Course and the sound,the results of the study states they are not visible. Also at the Boards request an updated Long EAF was submitted. Mr. Greg Lahey stated that the antennas enclosure was redesigned to screen flush mount with the penthouse,the material is fiberglass. Ms. Chiocchio stated that they are going before the Planning Board. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the applicant must also go before the Board of Architectural Review. The Board discussed the screening material and placement,the distance from the chimney and whether or not the chimney was functioning chimney. Mr.Wexler was concerned that if the chimney is an active working chimney it must not be hampered in any way. Mr.Lahey will check whether the chimney is currently being used and design accordingly. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the chimney top is required to be 2 feet higher than the surrounding structure. The Zoning Board referred the application to the Board of Architectural Review. The matter was adjourned to November. MINUTES The minutes were not discussed. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Ms. O'Neill the meeting was adjourned Minutes prepared by Francine M Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary