Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_06_30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 30 2009,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Linda S. Harrington Ronald Meister Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Absent: Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building 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 and 6/30/09) Paul Bergins,applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Bergins stated that he presented a new plan, showing a smaller house eliminating the need for a lot coverage variance. The plan shows the car turning radius in the gravel driveway as requested since the Town Board stated that they are not moving the guard rail at this time. The variances being requested are as follows 1. Frontage of 50.24 feet where 60 feet is required. 2. Area 5,275 square feet where 6,000 square feet are required. 3. Driveway 0 foot setback where 5 feet is required. 4. Parking within 25 feet of the front property line. No garage is planned as it would increase lot coverage. Mr. Lackanhauer,of Hudson Engineering,Tarrytown N.Y appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Lackanhauer stated that the property is below the curb line the runoff from Thomson and Laurel flows on to the property by raising the elevation once the water gets off the property it flows down the street to the catch basin. He stated that he has calculated the chambers for the 25 year storm and intends to hold water on the property until after the peak flow. Mr. Lackanhauer explained the system and how it will be maintained. Ms. Seligson,asked how they propose to handle additional water from the new house. Mr. Lackanhauer answered by recontouring the property. Mr. Wexler stated that there are no downstream residences from the applicant and the parking lot does not flood now. Mr. Ryan stated that Section 240-70 states that in order for a lot that is substandard it has to be held in single and separate ownership,the date of the provision is not clear. The intention of the provision was to protect people that owned sub-standard lots at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Wexler asked if the lot was separate it would be a buildable lot and Mr.Ryan answered yes. Mr. Bergins stated that statute was created to allow for the owner of a substandard lot to build as of right. Case law provide for the applicant to seek a variance. The tax lots are separate. Mr. Ryan stated that the purpose of the provision was to gradually eliminate nonconforming lots and suggested that if the Board approves the granting of the variance it should be subject to the Planning Board granting a subdivision. Mr. Bergins stated that 8 other properties on Cabot Road 4 of which are smaller than 5,200 square feet. Ms. Harrington requested that the applicant calculate to retain water for a 100 year storm. Mr. Wexler asked what will be done to the existing house. Mr. Lackanhauer state that the property will be regraded and the house will be raised. Mr. Baron stated that the variance should be subject to the regrading. Mr. Wexler polled the Board: Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Fred Baron Yes subject to restrictions Ronald Meister No the street is to small Mr. Wexler stated that the benefit to the applicant does not outweigh detriment to the neighborhood. The matter was adjoined to July 22,2009. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2837 Frederick Matchneer Matter was adjourned at applicant's request. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2844 Edward Ludwig Thomas Alfredo of Alferdo LDC,Armonk N.Y.,applicant's landscape specialist,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Alfredo stated that the Ludwig's would like to install a fence a 5 foot fence on top of an existing I foot wall along the front of the property to help cut down on the noise and light from cars head lights on Old White Plains Road. The fence would be stained dark green to blend into the foliage. Mr. Alfredo stated that a number of houses have six foot fences in the area including the house directly across the street. Mr. Meister stated that the fence seems imposing and asked if there was a noise study done and will a hedge work instead. Mr. Alfredo stated that evergreens reduce noise only about 18%where a fence is 70%-80% . Ms. Harrington asked if plantings could be done to screen the fence. Mr. Alfredo answered yes there is 36-42 inches of area that can be planted The Board discussed the application and it's 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 Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. WHEREAS, Edward Ludwig requested a variance to erect a fence on the premises located at 1 Wellhouse Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 340,Lot 680;and WHEREAS, the fence as proposed atop the wall has a total height of approximately 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;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,Edward Ludwig 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 fence 5 feet on top of the 1 foot wall will not have an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties as several other 6 foot fences are in the neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to plant and maintain evergreens to screen the fence. 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 has presented evidence showing the difference between the reduction in noise with a 5 foot fence verses a 4 foot fence. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial although it is 2 feet taller than permitted. 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. 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 June 30,2009 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 on screening by plantings 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. 2845 Jerry and Gila Fortinsky Herbert Feuerstein,applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Feuerstein stated that the Fortinsky's would like to create a small breakfast nook. The kitchen is in the front of the house and they have to work with that layout. The Board discussed the application and its found that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. WHEREAS,Jerry and Gila Fortinsky requested a variance to construct a one story breakfast nook at the front of the house on the premises located at 2 Ormond Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 203,Lot 280;and WHEREAS,the breakfast nook as proposed has a front yard of 30.4 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section240-35B.(1);and WHEREAS, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69;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 Section240-35B(1), and 240-69; and WHEREAS,Jerry and Gila Fortinsky 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 currently the house projects into the front yard and faces a heavily screened rear yard of the neighbor across the street.. The new one story breakfast nook will maintain the character, scale and architectural style and fit well with the other homes in the neighborhood. 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 is unable to meet their goals without requiring major construction and ultimately a much larger addition. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial the breakfast nook is only 49 square feet, 11 foot 9 inches high and will project only 8 inches beyond the adjoining bay window. 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 and any run off will be minimal.. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that although the difficulty is self-created that due to the placement of the house and its preexisting nonconformity,it is not determinative. 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 June 30,2009 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. 5 CASE NO. 2848 Lucia Chiocchio,of Cuddy&Feder,applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Chiocchio stated that they are before the Board for an interpretation of the code as they believe they do not need a variance. Nextel received a variance in 2001. Nextel equipment received a variance but the antennas are not in the Town therefore did not require a variance from the Town. Mr. Baron stated that anything over 70 feet triggers the need for a variance. Me. Wexler stated that Nextel was granted a use variance and a height variance. Mr. Ryan stated that a use variance runs with the land but an area variance is required. The area variance granted in 2001 to Nextel was for the plans presented and no other. The applicant requested an adjournment to July to request a variance The matter was adjourned. MINUTES On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Ms. Harrington the minutes of 5/27/09 were approved subject to the correction of the date. 5-0 ADJOURNED On motion of Ms. O'Neill,seconded by Ms. Harrington the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary