Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_01_07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 7,2009,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 Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Absent: Linda S. Harrington Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:48 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) Paul B. Bergins applicant's attorney sent a letter dated January 7,2009 requesting an adjournment to the February meeting. The Board adjourned the matter to the February meeting. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE 2823 Richard and Staci Grodin (adjourned 9/17/08,10/23/08,11/18/08,1/7/09) Glen Ticehurst,applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Ticehurst stated that they have addressed the Board's comments and have modified the request, and explained those changes. The front yard fence has been reduced to 4 feet with 4 strands of monofilament strands attached to the top,creating a 6 foot high fence. The side yard fence has been reduced to 5' and will be screened. The rear yard fence has been reduced to 5'with a proposed extension of 2 strands of monofilaments strands. The north side yard fence has been reduced to 5' with 2 strands of monofilament and has been relocated to 8 feet away from the property line to provide a corridor for wildlife. Mr.Ticehurst entered a photo of the fence and monofilament into the record Marked exhibit A. Mr.Ticehurst stated that only 40%of the entire property will be fenced leaving the rest open for the access of wildlife. Ms. O'Neill asked if the monofilament presented any danger to deer. Mr.Ticehurst stated that he was unaware of any danger to animals and that the monofilament would break if a deer struck it. The Chair asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Mr. Miralia of 210 Hommocks Road stated that he believes the monofilament stands and the posts that anchor them are totally against Town Code suggesting that the Zoning Board cannot grant a variance. Mr. Ryan stated that it is a legal application for a variance because the applicant is not claiming that the monofilament is as of right.Therefore,the Zoning Board has the power to grant a variance. Mr. Miralia also stated that,although he is not an expert on ticks,he knows that other animals carry ticks, such as squirrels. Mrs. Grodin stated that she uses permethian which coats the small animal's fur and kills ticks but doesn't hurt the animals. Mr. Ryan questioned Mr. Mirarlia about the six foot fence in the rear of his yard and Mr. Mirarlia stated it was there when he purchased the property and was grandfathered in. Mr.Mriarlia also stated that the fence does not stop the deer from jumping over it. Mr.Ticehurst requested the Board be polled. Mr. Baron opposed, Mr. Wexler in favor Ms. O'Neill in favor Mr. Meister opposed The Applicant requested an adjournment to the next meeting January 28,2009 for a vote with the full Board. The Board adjourned the matter. APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO.2832 Richard and Patricia Patterson(adjourned 11/18/08,1/7/09) Mr. Patterson appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Patterson said it was his belief that Mr. Carpaneto was to research the history of the house as to whether the use of a two-family house was legal at the time the family purchased the house. The house was built in 1924 and the Pattersons have lived in the house since 1931 as a two-family residence. The house has been used continuously as a two-family residence since they purchased it and have been paying assessment taxes as a two-family home. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the Building Department has no records to show that the house was legally made into a two-family residence. Mr. Ryan stated that it is now a legal question,and will have to research what the zoning was between 1924 and 1931 and whether it was ever legal. If the zoning allowed two family residences there would be no need for a variance,as it would be grandfathered. Mr. Ryan also stated that if it wasn't legal the applicant would indeed need a use variance which is very difficult for the Zoning Board to grant. The matter was adjourned to the January 28,2009 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 2834 Leonardo Lopane Steve Marchesani,the applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Marchesani explained that the second floor addition would remain within the footprint of the house. Mr. Wexler stated that he had a problem with the aesthetic aspect of the design as the house is very prominent on North Chatsworth Avenue and the mass of the addition on the front is too visible. Mr.Wexler proposed the applicant come back with a new plan such as a decoration to break up the front addition. The Board adjourned the matter to January 28,2009. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2835 David Londin David Londin appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Londin stated that he wants to enclose an unheated first floor section of the house to enlarge the dining room and kitchen. The 1958 house is only 1,100 square feet. The Board discussed the application. The Chair asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Mr. Ray Yturraspe,applicant's neighbor stated that he is in favor of the granting of the variance. The Board discussed the application and found that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. WHEREAS, David Londin requested a variance to enclose an existing breezeway on the premises located at 2 Mardon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 38;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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(1);and WHEREAS,David Londin 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 due 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 the proposed addition will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The area to be added is relatively small and will straighten the front of the house and make the roof line one straight line. 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 feasible method as it is a very narrow corner lot with little room for expansion. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition is extremely small. 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 be no additional runoff as the addition is going over an existing patio and breezeway which are impermeable surfaces. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that although the difficulty is self-created, the applicant will improve the look of the house as well as increase the living space in a very small house. 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 January 7,2009 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.6—CASE NO.2836 Alexandra Leach Mr. Wexler recused himself,Ms. O'Neill was acting chair. Mark Leach appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Leach stated that they bought the house 7 '/2 years ago and since then they have had two more children and have run out of room in the house. The basement is basically a damp crawl space. Mr. Leach stated that the garage is extremely small and their cars do not fit in the space. They have always parked the cars in the driveway and wish to convert the garage to storage. The outside of the garage will remain the same. The Board discussed the application. The Chair asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. The Board discussed the application and it found that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. WHEREAS, Alexandra Leach requested a variance to convert an attached one car garage to household storage space on the premises located at 20 Copley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 409,Lot 101. WHEREAS,the proposed conversion of the one car garage to household storage space would create a condition in the driveway that would not accommodate the parking of two vehicles within the required setback pursuant to Section 240-79-B;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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 240-79B;and WHEREAS, Alexandra Leach 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 no undesirable change in the neighborhood or character or character of the nearby properties will be effected. 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 feasible method because of the configuration of the house,the driveway,and the size of the garage. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the request might be considered substantial in that it would result in the applicant being permitted to park a car closer to the street than is otherwise permitted,that factor is not determinative. 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 physical or environmental effects and no other change to the property,footprint of the house or to runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that because the house was purchased with the knowledge of this condition it might therefore be considered self created. However, that factor is outweighed by the other factors. 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 January 7,2009 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. MINUTES On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Mr.Meister the minutes of November 18,2008 were corrected and approved 4-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary