Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_11_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 25,2009 IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Linda Harrington Ronald Meister Bob Viner,alternate Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary Stenographer: Ashley Negulic CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. Ms. Brill noted for the record that the Bonnie Briar application(Case No. 2853) had been withdrawn by the applicant. The following applications were taken out of order. APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. 2845 Francis and Lisa Ballad Mr. Wexler pointed out a discrepancy between the application and the Notice of Disapproval issued by the Director of Building. The Board and counsel, Kevin G. Ryan, discussed whether or not the matter could be heard. Mr. Ryan advised the Board that the matter could be heard if the portion of the application which was not properly noticed were struck from the application. The applicant agreed to withdraw the portion of their application that had not been properly noticed, i.e., the proposed front porch. The Board therefore proceeded to give the front porch informal consideration,but restricted the formal public hearing to the garage portion of the application. Francis Ballard and Lisa Ballard, the applicants, appeared and addressed the Board. They are seeking to construct a porch and a garage. The Board discussed the application with the applicants and noted that information was missing with respect to the proposed porch. The Board advised the applicants to return with a revised application,reflecting comments made by the Board. Mr.Ryan advised that this would require re-noticing the application to neighbors. The matter was briefly adjourned to provide the applicants with an opportunity to call their architect. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO 2848 Metro PCS New York,LLC Lucia Cucchio,applicant's attorney, appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Cucchio stated that report that the chimney adjacent to the proposed location for the Metro PCS antennas is not active and has a permanent cover. Therefore the proposed antenna enclosure will not affect the chimney. She further stated that everything the Board requested has been covered. Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant is scheduled to go before the Board of Architectural Review and the Planning Board. 1 There were no comments from the public. Mr. Ryan suggested if the Board wants to take action at its next meeting,it could take a straw pole as to whether to direct staff to prepare and circulate a draft resolution before the next meeting. Ms. Cucchio agreed with the suggestion and requested that the Public Hearing be closed. On motion of Mr. Wexler seconded by Mr. Baron the Public Hearing was closed. Ayes: Baron, O'Neill,Viner,Harrington,Wexler Nays: Recused: Meister Mr. Wexler polled the Board as to whether it wished staff to prepare and circulate a draft approval resolution prior to the next meeting. A majority of the Board(not including Mr. Meister who had recused himself from consideration of this application) voted in favor of asking the staff to prepare an approval resolution for consideration at the next meeting. Mr. Ryan noted that the preceding straw poll is not a formal vote on the application and does not bind the Board to a future course of action. APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. 2845 Francis and Lisa Ballad PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED The applicants returned after speaking by telephone with their architect. The Board continued to discuss the proposed porch and front steps with the applicant. Members of the Board and staff made further suggestions for the applicant to revise the application for variances with respect to the front porch. Mr. Wexler stated that the plans should be altered to reflect the discussion so the Board could make an informed decision. Also with respect to the porch,the applicant was instructed to obtain a new Notice of Disapproval letter, re-notice the application to neighbors and correct the date of the public hearing on the sign. It is expected that the applicant will return with new plans for the next scheduled meeting of the Board. The Board then discussed the variances requested for the proposed new garage. Mr. Wexler reiterated that the garage can be handled separately because it was noticed correctly. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the garage and the porch will be permitted separately. Mr. Viner asked if a loft was planned in the garage and Mrs.Ballard responded no. Mr. Ballard stated that if they get permission to build the detached garage, as requested,they will demolish the existing garage and remove the impervious driveway. No members of the public expressed a desire to speak. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Francis and Lisa Ballard requested a variance replace a detached garage on the premises located at 134 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 119,Lot 49;and 2 WHEREAS, the detached garage as proposed is not situated in the rear one-third of the parcel;and WHEREAS, when a detached garage is not located in the rear third of the parcel, the garage must comply with the setbacks of the principal dwelling;and WHEREAS, therefore,the garage as proposed has a side yard set back of 4 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Zoning Ordinance");and WHEREAS,the premises are located in an R-7.5 Zoning district;and WHEREAS, the detached garage increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 of the Zoning Ordinance;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue a building permit on the grounds that the plans submitted fail to comply with the Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240- 38B(2)(a);and WHEREAS,Francis and Lisa Ballard 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 will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and that, in fact,the proposal will benefit the neighborhood by reducing the length of the driveway,thereby reducing the amount of impervious surface. In addition,the proposed plan will eliminate the existing driveway condition which requires a long drive in reverse. Further,the proposal will provide a more unified appearance of the garage with the home,which will help to preserve the character of Murray Avenue. 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 existing long, narrow driveway is unsafe. The relocation of the garage will allow safer egress. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that because the garage is a low structure,the requested variance will not result in undue massing and is,therefore,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 will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district because the relocation of the garage will reduce 70 feet of impervious material and consequentially reduce the amount of runoff to neighbors. 3 E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that although the difficulty is self-created, it is not determinative. The garage as it presently sits is a difficult situation. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning 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 is limited to the construction of a detached garage as 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 November 25,2009 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The present garage is to be demolished prior to the building of the new garage and the area restored to grass. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 5. 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. 6. 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 New York State Town Law. Ayes: Baron, O'Neill,Harrington,Wexler,Meister Nays: Minutes On motion Of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister the minutes of October 28, 2009 were corrected and approved unanimously, as revised. Ayes: Baron, O'Neill,Viner,Wexler,Meister Nays: Absent: Harrington, On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. Harrington the minutes of September 10, 2009 were corrected and approved,unanimously Ayes: Baron, O'Neill,Harrington,Wexler,Meister Nays: 4 ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 Minutes prepared by Francine M Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 5