Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_05_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 28,2008 IN THE COURT ROOM,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 Wanda Spevedula,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes postponed. APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO. 2805 Eric and Sheara Graber Applicants did not have a sign posted and requested an adjournment to June. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE 2808 KAREN AND SCOTT GOTTDEINER Diane Blum applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Ms.Blum stated that they have removed the air conditioning units from the application and as per the Board's request they have submitted two different plans for the Board to review. Option 1 does not work for the applicant;option 2 lessens the scale of the addition while meeting the applicant's goals. Mr. Gottdeiner entered letters from the most affected neighbors into the record marked exhibit A,in which they stated that they have no objections to the plans submitted. Mr. Gottdeiner also stated that he was trying to enlarge his living space in a way that would have the least impact on the neighborhood,he could build as of right but felt that it would be more egregious to the neighborhood. 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: After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Irene 0' Neill, seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: by a vote of 4-0. Arthur Wexler No Frederick Baron Yes Linda Harrington Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Abstained WHEREAS, Karen and Scott Gottdeiner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a new rear deck, family room and dining room on the premises located at 14 Knollwood Drive and known on the tax assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105, Lot 382. The family room addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.46 feet (from the fire place) where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(1); has a side yard of 19.23 where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 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 240-37B(2)(1);and Section 240-69 and WHEREAS, Karen and Scott Gottdeiner 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 as amended in Option 2, and there are no neighbors directly behind the house to be impacted by the addition. The neighbors on each side of this property have indicated their support of the project. 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 given the property configuration and the split level nature of the house the applicant can not achieve their goals by any other feasible method. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial.It is a one story addition on the north side encroaching 3.77 feet from the neighbors at the chimney. It is the least that can be done and provide sufficient interior space to meet the homeowners needs. 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 noise or runoff. As required by Town Code all additional runoff will be contained on the premises. Additionally neighbors have written letters stating that they have seen the plans and do not object to the project. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created. Rather it is due to the fact that the side yards of the house are substandard. The deck is 13.71 feet at the southwest side of the house resulting in a total side yard of 19.23 feet where 25 feet is required. 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 4/30/08,5/28/08 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.3—CASE NO. 2813 David and Lisa Rooth David Rooth appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Rooth stated that they are building on the existing footprint of a residence that is within 95%of the rear setback. The shed dormer will allow floor area that is already there to become usable, adding 160 square feet to the rear residence. The front residence has 2 apartments, making the property a pre existing nonconforming three family property in an R-6 zone. The Board discussed this application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED by a vote of 5-0: WHEREAS, David and Lisa Rooth submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a dormer addition on the premises located at 22 A Deane Place and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 390. The dormer as proposed has a rear yard of 1.61 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B.(3). The two residences have a total Floor Area Ratio of 2735 square feet where 2270 square is permitted pursuant to Section 240-59B(2)(line 4) and further the dormer 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 Section 240- 240-37B.(3),240-59B(2)line 4 and 240-69;and WHEREAS,David and Lisa Rooth 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 the addition of a shed dormer along the west roof line would be nearly identical to the shed dormer along the east roof line. The proposed dormer would match existing finishes and not exceed existing height or existing footprint. The house in question as set way back on 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 since the house is within 95% of the rear setback,the square footage violates Section 240-39, One family Residence District R-6, by being under sized in square footage for this district the proposed expansion of the second floor will bring the size of the house closer to the minimum requirement for a R-6 District. There's no other alternative other that what is presented without increasing the footprint of the structure which without requiring an area variance to provide the applicant with additional square footage that the applicant needs in the bedrooms on the second floor. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the proposed addition of 160 square feet is not substantial in comparison to the neighboring properties the proposed residence in comparison to other residence is actually smaller. While it as a substantial request for a variance, the building in question is in the back of the property and should not impact anyone. 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 the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. The addition Is within the existing footprint, there will be no additional paved areas and although in the Wetlands there will be no additional runoff. The shed dormer addition will promote cross ventilation eliminating the need for air conditioning. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that it is not a self created difficulty the applicant purchased the property nonconforming. 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. The variance be limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant at the 5/28/08 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. APPLICATION NO.4—CASE NO.2814 Adam and Diane Safer Adam Safer the owner appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Safer entered photos into the record marked Exhibit A. Mr. Safer stated that the corner of the deck is over the setback by a'/2 foot,it appeared alright on the old survey but not on the new survey. The Board discussed this application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Meister,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Adam and Diane Safer have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an open porch, mudroom and entrance way to the front of the house on the premises located at 99 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 130,Lot 209. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 29.46 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), has a side yard of 9.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a lot in an R-10 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 240-37B(1),240-37B(2)(a)and 240-69 and WHEREAS, Adam and Diane Safer 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 character of the neighborhood because the addition as proposed is less than one square foot. 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 the applicant can not achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative. The variance sought is deminimus in nature29.46 feet in front,9.96 on the side. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance, adding less than one square foot, 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 as there will be no increase in runoff or noise. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created 2. 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. 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 be limited to the construction shown on the plans as conditioned and/or modifies in accordance with the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant at 5/28/08 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. APPLICATION NO.5 CASE NO.2815 Scott Raved Joe Guglielmo from Gordon and Yestadt Architects appeared and addressed the Board Mr. Guglielmo stated that they wish to construct a 17 by 17.11 family room. The house is a corner lot and the applicant picked Stoneyside as the front yard The Chairman stated that the applicant can choose a rear yard in order to illuminate the need for on variance,but once it's chosen it becomes permanent. The Board discussed the application and requires a new plan showing drainage specifications. The Board adjourned the matter to the 6/25/08 meeting requiring the application to be renoticed. APPLICATION NO.9 CASE NO. 2809 William McKechnie Paul Noto applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Noto stated that he was just retained as counsel and requested an adjournment in order to familiarize himself with the application. On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron the matter was adjourned to the July 23,2008 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2816 Dr.Poppas and Paul Bodor Tom Ransom applicant's builder appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Ransom stated that the house is nonconforming and they are requesting a variance to install 2 air conditioning condenser units. The Board discussed the application and would prefer the units to be placed in the rear of the house where there is more space for the noise to dissipate,rather than between the houses where there is already a unit grandfathered on the neighboring property. The applicant requested the Board to grant the variance for the units to be placed further back on the side of the house as the Board recommended. The Board discussed this application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED,3-2. Arthur Wexler No Linda Harrington Yes Frederick Baron No Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister No RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Dr. Dix Poppas and Paul Bodor requesting a variance to install two air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 19 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 437. The central air conditioning condenser units as proposed have a side yard of 5.74 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B.(2)(a) for a condenser unit 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 Section 240-39B(2)(a);and WHEREAS, Dr. Dix Poppas and Paul Bodor 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 will be produced in the neighborhood or environment given the relocation of the air conditioning condenser units to no closer than 25 feet from the rear lot line on the side 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: The Board finds that the applicant can not achieve their goal within out a variance given the nonconforming location of the house and the setback requirements. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial the air conditioning units are 30 inches high by 30 by 30 inch footprint, set in an 8 foot required side yard of leaving 5.74 feet. 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 the air conditioning condenser units are small and will not produce any additional runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created The board finds that the difficulty is not self created since the house was rebuilt on the original footprint the lack of side and rear yard is preexisting nonconforming. 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 5/28/08 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. APPLICATION NO. 8 CASE NO. 2806 Eun Kyung Oh and Michael Oh Michael Oh appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Oh stated that his garage is useless for cars only good for storage. He is keeping the same rear line and the neighbors have no objection to the project. The Board was concerned that there would be no access to the rear yard in an emergency, and suggested that the structure should be smaller the 2'/2 story structure is a large mass close to the property line. The Board requested the applicant to come back with new plans showing the existing house is and the drawings must be to scale. The Boards recommendation is not to have the angle to the house,make the addition smaller and not 2'/2 stories. On motion duly made and seconded the matter was adjourned to the 6/25/08 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 2799 Duane Reade (adjourned to 11/28/08; 1/2/08, 2/27/08, 3/25/08,removed 4/30/08;adjourned 5/28/08) Paul Noto, applicant's counsel, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Noto stated that he previously requested an interpretation of the zoning code, and he brought a representative from Classic Audi as requested by the Board. Mr. Noto reiterated that the intention is for a showroom only at the most 10 cars will be displayed and there will be no deliveries. Mr. Kevin Higgins,Classic Audi's General Sales Manager addressed the Board. Mr. Higgins stated that in his 30 years experience this is a unique facility,there is no other place he knows of to compare with. The service facility is located on Macquestirn Parkway in Mount Vernon,and the new cars are delivered to that location as well. The Board felt that in asking the Board for an interpretation the Applicant is asking the Board to circumvent the Town Code. The Board discussed the Application and on suggestion of counsel adjourned the matter to properly prepare the findings. The application was adjourned to the June 25,2008 meeting ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Arthur Wexler the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 P.M. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary