Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_07_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 22,2009 IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Bob Viner Ronald Meister Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Absent: Linda Harrington Nancy Seligson,Liaison Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary Stenographer: Nina Crescenze 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, 11/18/08,1/7/09,1/28/09,3/24/09,4/22/09,5/27/09,6/30/09 and 7/22/09) Paul Bergins,applicants' attorney, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Bergins stated that he had nothing to add. Mr. Lakanhauer,of Hudson Engineering,applicants' engineer, explained the drain line from Thompson and Laurel that goes through the DeCabia's property,turns east under the driveway to a catch basin in Cabot Road,to twin 48" pipes that goes under 95. There are two manholes on the DeCabia property--one in the lawn and one in the driveway. Mr. Wexler asked about the drainage line in the adjoining rear property. Mr. Lackanhauer stated that the line was not part of his computations. Mr. Wexler questioned about the lots and whether they are considered combined. Mr. Ryan stated that the law is a very dense thicket on that point. He stated that if the Board takes the position that that the properties have merged by operation of law,that applicant would have to go before the Planning Board for a subdivision for a nonconforming lot. He stated that,on the other hand,the Code provision could be interpreted to mean that the lots do not merge until an application for a building permit is put in. Mr. Bergins stated that the Code does not actually use the term merger and that he interprets the code to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance and,in effect,the lots would become unmerged. 1 Mr. Ryan stated that the Zoning Board can vary dimensional requirements,including the prohibition on granting building permits for undersized lots not in single and separate ownership.If the Board goes in that direction the applicant must renotice to request relief from 240-70A. Mr. Ryan stated that even if the Code is interpreted not to cause a lot merger as a matter of law,it is entirely appropriate and within its discretion for the Zoning Board to send the application to the Planning Board for subdivision approval. The Board discussed the issue and whether or not the Zoning Board could grant a variance and send it to the Planning Board or consider the lots as not to have automatically merged. If the Zoning Board finds the lots to be merged by operation of law the applicant would be required to go before the Planning Board to subdivide the lot. If the Board finds the lots not to already have merged by operation of law,the Board could vary the application of Section 240-70A of the Code but the application must be re-noticed. Poll Board In favor of considering-variance with regard to Section 240-70A and to have applicant re-notice: Arthur Wexler Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Bob Viner Yes Ronald Meister No Mr. Bergins requested an adjournment. The matter was duly adjourned. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2837 Frederick Matchneer Mr. Matchneer appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Matchneer stated that based on previous meetings,he shrunk the design 150 square feet smaller,adjusted the roof angle and lowered the ridge line. Mr. Wexler stated that it is a more sympathetic solution. Mr. Matchneer stated that he did a shadow study showing the shadow that would be casted on the house on Echo Lane. The Board discussed the study. Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Mrs.Riessen of 46 Echo Lane stated that she also did a shadow study sitting in her family room,the only place in her house that has any sun. The sun enters her house slightly in the winter and in the summer because the sun is higher in the sky and they get a little more sun. Mrs.Riessen stated that the Matchneer's house is currently on the market. Mr. Viner asked if this is solely a shadow objection or a broader issue. Mr. Ryan stated that light and air are still relevant even if the applicant reduced the application. Mr. Wexler stated that the current proposal is in context with the existing house,maintaining the form of the house in a preexisting nonconforming structure. He noted that the rear yard has been pre-determined and the house is burdened with two front yards. Mr. Wexler asked about the house being on the market. Mr.Matchneer answered that if the variance is not successful it is his fallback measure. Mr. Wexler asked for a motion. Hearing none,Mr.Wexler made a motion to approve. 2 Mr. Wexler proposed the following resolution. WHEREAS,the Matchneers have made an application requesting a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 95 Lookout Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117,Lot number 102; and WHEREAS,the front yard,as proposed,has a depth of 18 feet, 9 inches,where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and WHEREAS,the rear yard has a depth of 13.75 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and WHEREAS,the requested variances increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R7.5 Zoning District. WHEREAS,the Matchneers have 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 Law, Section 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: Given the architecture of the house,which is 2.5 stories with the addition of an integrated 1.5 story on the left side, this is a charming tutor house with an addition that is sympathetic to the design 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: Given the siting of the house with respect to the front and rear lot lines,there is no other feasible method of this homeowner to create more space for his family without an area variance. Given the existing footprint of the house, which is 18 feet, 9 inches,9 and 5/8 inches from the front property line,adding on top of that is not a substantial change in the footprint. The rear yard change is substantial but in looking at the design of the house and setting back what has become,in essence, a dormer,the invasion into the rear yard is not terribly substantial. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The modifications are minimal in the sense of the square footage,depth,size and scale of the house and the previously presented proposal has been reduced by 50%in square footage. The ridge line is lower than the existing ridge line. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The requested variance will not result in any change to the district or any environmental condition. 3 E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Yes,it is self-created;but that factor is not determinative. Mr. Wexler asked if any board member would second his motion to approve. Ms. O'Neill seconded the motion. Mr. Wexler asked if anyone was opposed and Mr. Baron and Mr.Viner both stated that they opposed the motion by Mr. Wexler to approve the area variance application. Mr.Wexler observed that they do not have sufficient votes to carry the approval of the application. Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron No Irene O'Neill Yes Bob Viner No Ronald Meister No APPLICATION NO 3 CASE NO. 2846 Tracy and Jason Daniels Tracey Daniels appeared and addressed the Board. Mrs.Daniels stated that they want to finish a patio they already started and take out the macadam patio that is currently there. Mrs.Daniels stated that they followed the macadam not realizing that it was too close to the property line. The Board discussed the application;there were no comments from the public. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. WHEREAS,Tracy and Jason Daniels requested a variance to legalize an existing patio on the premises located at 54 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 221,Lot 397;and WHEREAS, the house with the patio as built has a rear yard of 1.5 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-50;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted fails to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-50; and WHEREAS,Tracy and Jason Daniels 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: 4 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 the patio is replacing a less attractive patio and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. 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, as the trapezoidal nature of the property limits their possibilities. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the patio enlarged by 3.5 feet 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 because there will be no additional noise or runoff as a result. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that although the difficulty is self-created,it is 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,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 July 22,2009 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 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. 4 CASE NO. 2847 Sara Seigel 5 Sara Seigel appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Seigel stated that the patio was replaced two years ago and the addition to the house was put in last year. She stated that she is here to legalize the patio. There are three 175- gallon dry wells that were installed at the time the addition was constructed. Mr. Meister asked if the water runs off the patio into the neighbors' yard and Ms. Seigel answered that it runs to the dry wells. Mr. Carpaneto stated that he will check the size of the dry wells and the slope of the patio. Mr. Wexler stated that he could not determine where the rear property line was located because there was nothing there to indicate it. Ms. O'Neill asked if the patio was included in the 37%impervious coverage when the addition was approved. Mr. Meister stated that the patio is definitely self-created and it would be expensive to remove. Mr. Carpaneto stated that original plan does not show the patio. Mr. Wexler stated that the applicant is under the 35%lot coverage requirement,if the 2005 numbers are accepted. Ms. O'Neill stated that it is not a visual intrusion. Mr. Baron stated that the issue is drainage. Mr. Wexler asked if the Building Inspector could check and confirm drainage. The matter was adjourned to the September meeting. APPLICATION NO.5 CASE NO.2848 METRO PCS NEW YORK,LLC Lucia Chiocchio the applicant's attorney, appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Chiocchio stated that she has submitted revised drawings concerning the aesthetics of the antennas not the height. Nextel's existing equipment shelter has flush mounted 12 panel antennas. Mr. Ryan stated that there is discrepancy in the Nextel area variance approval because a Recital(Whereas clause) mentions both the equipment shelter and the antennas;but the operative terms of the resolution refer only to the equipment shelter. The Board discussed the placement of the existing antennas. Mr.Wexler asked if the antennas could be mounted to the side of the building like Dillon Road. Ms. Chiocchio stated that if the panels are moved further in,the antennas would have to be higher. They are trying to position the antennas at a minimum height and make it look like a structure. Mr. Meister asked if they are competitors with Cablevision. Ms. Chioccio said no. Mr. Viner asked if 3G or 4G is proposed and Ms. Chioccio said yes to 3G and 4G in the future. Mr. Meister stated that if there is a potential for a conflict with one of his law clients he must recuse himself. Ms. Chioccio said a conflict is possible. Therefore,Mr.Meister recused himself. 6 Mr. Ryan asked about the EAF and the statement that the towers could be viewed from Hampshire Golf Course, noting that there are no pictures showing it. Mr. Wexler asked how the antennas can be integrated to look better and what separation is required from competitors. Ms. Chiocchio stated that they need three sectors of antennas,two antennas each,four feet apart and at a certain angle for coverage. Mr. Wexler wants the antennas to look like they belong on the roof. Ms. Chiocchio stated that she must talk to her design engineer and return in September. Mr. Ryan stated that an applicant has to demonstrate that there are no other properties that can be utilized. Ms. Chiocchio stated that a use variance was already granted for this building. Mr. Ryan stated that a request for a variance for a cell phone antenna enjoys a degree of relaxed scrutiny. Federal law,however,allows municipalities to decide sites. If the Board is concerned about the location it must look at a coverage study. Mr. Wexler stated that the Board would like a third party engineering consultant to look at the placement for the best coverage. Ms. Chiocchio asked for another opportunity to meet the Board requests before it brings in an engineer. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the Board of Architectural Review did not have to see the application. Ms. Chiocchio stated that the applicant would have to go before the Planning Board next. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 7