Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_01_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 28,2009 IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Eunice Tecun,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:55 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,and 1/7/09) The applicant had requested an adjournment to February 25,2009. The Board adjourned the matter. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE NO. 2832 Richard and Patricia Patterson(adjourned 11/18/08,1/7/09) Mr. Wexler stated that upon research,the parcel in question was zoned one-family in 1924 when the house was built. Mr. Ryan stated that research was done and results show that zoning for that parcel in 1921 was located in a single family zone. Mr. Ryan stated that there is no permit in the Building Department file to convert the structure to a two family use. It is therefore not a prior legal nonconforming use and the applicant was advised to retain counsel to request a use variance to legalize the 2 family use. Mr. Patterson requested an adjournment. On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Ms. Harrington the Board adjourned the matter to February 25, 2009,5-0 APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. 2834 Leonardo Lopane(adjourned 1/7/08) Steve Marchesani,the applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Marchesani stated that as per the Board's request he has returned with a revised plan with a one foot projection on the face of the addition and shutters to visually break up the mass of the addition. The Board discussed the application and 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. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Meister, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. WHEREAS, Leonardo Lopane requested a variance to enlarge a second floor bath room on the premises located at 49 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 133,Lot 72; WHEREAS, the addition as proposed has a front yard of 27.75 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and WHEREAS,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a lot in an R-7.5 Zone District;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 240-38B(1),240-69;and WHEREAS, Leonardo Lopane, 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 second floor addition is within the existing footprint and will not cause an undesirable change or impact to neighboring 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 another feasible method anything the applicant could do would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because this addition is 40 square feet which is a minimal amount of space encroaching into the front yard only 2.25 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 as the addition stays within the existing footprint. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that although the difficulty is self-created it is not determinative any solution will require an area variance as the lot and building are already non- conforming. 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 25, 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. 2837 Frederick Matchneer Mr. Frederick Matchneer,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Matchneer stated that he needs an extra bedroom and the only way is to raise the roof and create a second floor. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant had looked at any alternatives. Mr. Baron asked if the scale of the addition could be minimized. Mr. Wexler stated that the applicant is requesting a big variance,creating a 2 '/2 story structure,a 13x23 foot bedroom with dressing room and master bath. Ms. O'Neill stated that the addition is quite massive and overpowering towering over the neighboring home at 46 Echo Lane. The Board suggested that the applicant scale down their request and come back with an up to date survey,plans of the first floor and a zoning analysis sheet on the plans. The Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Ms. Debra Reissen of 46 Echo Lane spoke against the addition stating that an addition of that height and mass would greatly impact the only sunlight they get in their home. Ms.Reissen entered 2 photos into the record marked Exhibit A and B. Mr. Bruce Robinson of 83 Lookout Circle stated that he is against the granting of the variance as it would greatly impact his home and entered 3 photos into the record marked Exhibit I,II,III. On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Ms. O'Neill the matter was adjourned to February 25,2009. APPLICATION NO.5 CASE NO.2838 Maryanne and Peter Robb James Fleming,applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Fleming stated that it is a steep gabled house on a corner lot. The applicant would like to remove the original tin portico and construct a new portico, as well as construct a second story addition over an existing sun porch. Mr.Fleming stated that when the applicant bought the house they had to legalize the already existing sun porch for which they received a variance March 17, 1999. Mr.Fleming also stated that because of the gabled roof and the fact it is a corner lot almost anything they could do would require a variance. Maryanne Robb,the applicant,stated that neighbors on Cooper Lane had seen the plans and voiced no objections. The house most impacted by the addition has no windows on that side of the house. Mrs. Robb stated that they have a 6 year old disabled daughter and wish to convert the sunroom into an exercise room for her as well construct a 2"a floor handicapped accessible bath room. Mr. Wexler asked if the second floor could be set back, and Mr. Fleming answered no because it is important to maintain the gables. The Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. The applicant requested to Poll the Board. Poll Board: Arthur Wexler, Chairman No Frederick Baron No Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes The Board discussed the application and 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. Harrington, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED,3-2. WHEREAS, Maryanne and Peter Robb requested a variance to construct a two story addition and a portico on the premises located at 33 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 534; WHEREAS, the two story addition as proposed has a side yard of 5.7.feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a). WHEREAS, the front portico as proposed has a front yard on Mardon Road of 11.2.feet, has a side yard on Cooper Lane of 29.9 feet where 30 feet is permitted for each front yard pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);and WHEREAS,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a lot in an R-6 Zone District;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 240-38B(2)(a),240-39 B(1)and 240-69;and WHEREAS,Maryanne and Peter Robb,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 second floor addition is within the footprint of the existing first floor and will not cause an undesirable change or impact to neighboring properties.The addition seeks to utilize the existing footprint and maintain the integrity of the gables. The portico is a simple, attractive convenience and is smaller than the existing portico. 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 another feasible method because anything the applicant could do,would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the house sits in a zone with a small side yard setback, only the sunroom foundation is encroaching. The portico is not substantial because it is minimal and,with the removal of the stoop,the area is more zoning compliant. 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 as the addition is within an existing footprint.There is no excavation necessary, except minimally for the portico. 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 January 25, 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 The minutes of January 7,2009 were postponed to February 25,2009. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 P.M. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary