Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_03_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 24,2009,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,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 Robert B.Viner Alternate Nina Crescenzi,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO. 2817 Francis and Joanne DeCabia (adjourned 6/25/08,7/23/08,9/17/08,10/23/08, 11/18/08,1/7/09/1/28/09,3/24/09) The applicant requested an adjournment due to a medical emergency. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO.2832 Richard and Patricia Patterson (adjourned 11/18/08,1/7/09/1/28/09,3/24/09) The applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO.2837 Frederick Matchneer (adjourned 1/28/09,3/24/09) The applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2840 Rosa Ferraro Sal Ferraro applicant's son appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Ferraro,stated his mother is in the process of selling the house and it was discovered that the deck had no permit when it was renovated over 30 years ago. They are here to tie up looses ends and legalize the already existing deck. When the house was purchased by the Ferraro's there was a back door leading to a walkway that was about half the size of the current deck leading to a set of stairs down to the rear yard. Approximately 30 years ago Mr. Ferraro's father went to the Building department and misunderstood the regulations. At that time he believed he could replace the existing walkway without a permit,but in building the existing deck he increased the size thus creating the need for a variance. Mr. Ferraro entered a Google Map photo into the record marked Exhibit A. Mr. Ferraro entered a petition signed by 10 neighbors stating they have no issues with the deck marked exhibit B. Mr. Wexler stated that the deck is well screened. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board and there was no response. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions or comments from the Public and there was no response. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: After review,on motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. WHEREAS, Rosa Ferraro requested a variance to legalize an existing rear wood deck on the premises located at 4 Cabot Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125,Lot 499; and WHEREAS, the deck as built has a rear yard of 10.7 feet where 25 feet is require pursuant to Section 240-39B.(3) WHEREAS, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District; and WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a building permit to legalize an existing rear wood deck;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 240-39B.(3)and 240-69;and WHEREAS, Rosa Ferraro 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 it is a preexisting deck built in error. The deck will not produce a detriment to the neighborhood as it has existed 30 years. The deck is unobtrusive and the applicant has supplied a petition from the surrounding neighbors stating they are in favor of the deck. The deck is well screened. 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 goal by any other method while they might be able to reduce the size of the deck they still need access to the stairs. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that while the variance is substantial, there is a need for the applicant to be able to access a set of stairs from above the ground level via a walkway. 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 legalizing the deck will not adversely impact the neighborhood or district. If there were any negative environmental impacts they would have been felt and noted by now as the deck has existed for at least the past thirty years. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created. There is a clear need for some type of walkway to a set of stairs. It should be noted that any application would require a variance as the property as it exists is non conforming. 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 March 24,2009 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. NEW BUSINESS The new alternate to the Zoning Board of Appeals Robert B.Viner was introduced to the Board. Nancy Seligson Liasion stated that the Town Board is very happy to welcome Robert B.Viner to the Board as alternate. MINUTES On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Mr.Wexler the minutes of February 25,2009 were approved as amended.5-0. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Mr.Wexler the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals,Secretary