Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_05_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 27,2009,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: Lisa Hochman,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Absent: Nancy Seligson,Liaison Stephanie Gualtieri,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Mr. Wexler called the meeting to order at7:45 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 and4/22/09) Mr. Paul Bergins,applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Bergins gave some background information to the Board stating that the lot is the only undeveloped parcel on Cabot Road. The DeCabias bought the property in 2005 and paid the back taxes the previous owner owed the Town. They are requesting 4 separate variances frontage,area,coverage and parking in the front 25 feet of the property. In regards to the driveway entrance the DeCabias have been before the Town Board to request opening Cabot Road to the sound barrier,the Town Board declined. The frontage of the lot is 50.24 feet where 60 feet is required;the 5 foot side yard driveway encroachment is required because of the Town's barrier on Cabot Road. The applicant supplied an alternate house plan bringing the coverage down from 36.5%to 31.3%. The 25 foot no parking in the front of the property may not need a variance as the Town Board is in the process of changing the ordinance. Mr.Bergins stated that to summarize the application there could be no productive use of the property without a variance. Mr. Bergins stated they looked into the suggestion of the Board that the house on the other lot be reduced and the cost was not viable at about$275,000.00. Ms. Hochman stated that council has taken the position that the two lots have been merged and would require a subdivision by the planning board. The Board discussed coverage,the placement of the driveway, and the undersized lot would require a variance. The Board would like to hear from the engineer about the drainage for the property as well as the effects on Cabot Road. The Board stated that the application must be renoticed to include the substandard lot size. On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Ms. Harrington the matter was adjourned to the June meeting,date to be set. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE NO. 2837 Frederick Matchneer(adjourned 1/28/09,3/24/09 and4/22/09) Frederick Matchneer the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Matchneer stated that he reduced and redesigned the plan down 25%,the height of the roof line was lowered 30 inches to aline with the existing roof. Mr. Matchneer stated that there will be no change in the existing footprint. Mr. Meister stated that he was concerned with the effect on the house the side of the plan extension. Mr. Matchneer stated that the extension is not higher than the existing house,but the house to the east is lower down. Mr. Baron stated that he was concerned with the impact on the neighbor on Echo. Mr. Wexler asked when was the rear yard selected. Mr. Matchneer replied in 1996 when he applied for a previous permit. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions from the Board. Hearing no response,he then asked if there were any questions from the public. David Riessen of 46 Echo Lane stated that he was concerned that he would no longer have sun light in his back yard, family room and child's room. Mr. Wexler asked how close his house is to the property line;Mr.Riessen answered very close less than 10 feet. The Board discussed the application and requested the applicant return with a plan having less of an impact on the neighbor's property. Mr. Matchneer requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO 3 CASE NO. 2841 David and Amy Levere Robert Tramontano,applicants landscape architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler stated that the Board and council looked at the swimming pool local law and the text stating required front or side yard and determined that the applicant was not. Mr. Wexler read Ms.Hochmans draft resolution into the record and marked it exhibit A On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr.Meister the Resolution was approved 5-0. RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS In The Matter Of The Application Of David and Amy Levere To Construct A Pool On The Premises Known As 858 Fenimore Road May 27,2009 WHEREAS,the application of David and Amy Levere requesting a variance to build an in-ground swimming pool within the side yard of the premises located at 858 Fenimore Road is currently before the board; and WHEREAS,the subject application is located in an R-30 zoning district; and WHEREAS, section 192-5 of the Mamaroneck Town Code of the Town of Mamaroneck(Design and construction standards)provides as follows: "No permit shall be issued under the provisions of this chapter unless the proposed swimming pool or the alterations to an existing swimming pool shall comply with the following requirements: A. Location (1) The outside edge of any swimming pool,coping,deck or walk [hereinbelow"pool element"] shall not be constructed,installed,located,maintained or operated within: (a) Fifteen feet as required from the outside edge of the pool coping to the side yard lot line,principal structure or accessory structure attached thereto,except as set forth in this section. (b) Twenty feet of any rear lot line. (c) The required front or side yards of any residential property. (d) Twenty-five feet of a septic tank or leaching field. (2) A minimum of five feet is required to any accessory structure. No minimum distance between a deck and pool is required. (3) A pool deck or patio must conform to side yard requirements of Sec. 240-50(Terraces and porches)"; Mamaroneck Town Code, Sec. 192-5.A. [Emphasis added.] and WHEREAS, the above quoted provision uses the distinct terms"side yard"and a"required side yard." WHEREAS, Section 240-4 of the Mamaroneck Town Code defines the term"yard,side"(or"side yard") as follows: "A yard between the side line of the lot and the nearest line of the building and extending from the front yard to the rear yard or,in the absence of either of such yards,to the front and rear lot line,as the case may be." WHEREAS,the"minimum side yards"for the R-30 Zoning District are,in relevant part,as follows: (a) Least one:20 feet. (b) Total of two: 50 feet. WHEREAS,the subject application proposes to locate the swimming pool within the side yard of the premises,but not within either of the minimum side yards of the premises, as defined above; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT, 1. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck interprets the reference to a"required side yard"in the text of Section 192-5 of the Mamaroneck Town Code to mean a"minimum side yard"as may be set forth in Article VI of the Zoning Code. 2. The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the proposed location of the pool elements as set forth in the plans submitted by the applicants do not encroach into the required side yard as interpreted above; and 3. Provided that the dimensional requirements of the zoning district are otherwise met,no area variance is required. 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.2842 David and Victoria Rosenstreich Rivi Oren,applicants,landscape architect appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Oren stated that the Rosenstreichs had a fire and had to restore the house and the end of the renovation they added an AC unit and found that it requires a variance. They are here to correct the situation. The AC units are very quiet 72 decibels. Mr. Scott Speilberger,of 43 Hillside Road wrote a letter stating that he does not object to the units where they are situated. The Rosenstreiches have planted trees on the property line to block the view of the AC units. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions from the Board. Hearing no response,he then asked if there were any questions from the public. Mr. Meister stated that he prefers AC units to be placed in the rear yard. Ms. Oren stated that it would be a hardship on the applicants to move the AC units. Mr. Wexler stated that the AC units would hide the pipes in the rear but placement there would still require a variance. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED:4-1 WHEREAS, David and Victoria Rosentreich requested a variance to legalize two existing air conditioning units on the premises located at 40 Hillside Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 128,Lot142. WHEREAS, The air conditioning units as proposed have a side yard of 6 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)and WHEREAS, the units increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R7.5 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 240-38B(2)(a);and 240-69and WHEREAS, David and Victoria Rosentreich 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 be no undesirable change in the neighborhood, as the ac units are placed in the rear side of the property. 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 feasible method as any other placement on the property would also require a variance. The placement is shielded from the street and neighbor by aborvites that the applicant planted. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the 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 will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district there will no more runoff and the noise should be minimal. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is self created but not 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 4/22/09; 5/27/09 meeting(s)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.5—CASE NO. 2843 Kate Beeby and Louis Scenti Robert Keller, applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Keller entered a letter from Marci and David Wrobel of 28 Colonial Avenue in favor of the project into the record marked exhibit A. The Board discussed the elevation of the deck and its impact on the street and neighborhood. Mr. Meister stated that the deck would be a unifying feature on an awkward structure and property, although he had reservation concerning the proposed metal railing. Mr. Wexler stated that he would like foundation plantings to lessen the impact of the vertical wall on the very visible prominent corner.The plantings should remain green year round. Ms.Beeby stated that she will plant and maintain anything the Board requires. 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: On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: 5-0 WHEREAS, Kate Beeby and Louis Scenti requested a variance to construct a front yard deck addition on the premises located at 81 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Blockl 12,Lot 280;and WHEREAS,the deck as proposed has a front yard of 10 feet 6 '/4 inches where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);and WHEREAS, the deck has a rear yard of 13 feet 9 '/2 inches where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);and WHEREAS, the addition 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 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 Section240-39B(1),240-39B(3);and 240-69; and WHEREAS,Kate Beeby and Louis Scenti 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 be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. They are replacing an existing nonconforming deck and stairs. The applicant has assured the Board that they will plant and maintain plants to soften the impact of the vertical wall. 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 any other way. Anything they do would require a variance as the existing deck is also nonconforming. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that although the variance is substantial 10 feet where 30 feet are required it is not reason enough to deny the variance. Given the terrain and the placement on the property,it will not affect the neighborhood or district. 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,as there is plenty of land to absorb any additional runoff. The placement of the deck is in keeping with the nearby properties in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created the house and deck are already nonconforming. Anything the applicant wishes to do would require a variance. 4. 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. 5. 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 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 May 27,2009] 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. MINUTES On motion of Mr.Baron, seconded by Mr.Wexler the minutes of April 22,2009 were approved 5-0. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Mr. Wexler the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals, Secretary