Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_04_30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 30,2008,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 Kevin Moore,Assistant Building Inspector Nancy Seligson,Liaison Absent: Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Eunice Tecun,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO. 2799 Duane Reade(adjourned 11/28/07, 1/2/08,2/27/08,3/30/08) The Board removed the application from the agenda;not noticed correctly sign not posted. APPLICATION NO. 2 -CASE NO.2805 Erick and Sheara Graber(adjourned 3/25/08) Applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO.3 -CASE NO.2807 Orsola and Mike Vecchione(adjourned 3/25/08) James Fleming the applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board.Mr.Fleming stated that they rotated the house as per the Boards suggestion in order to give the adjoining neighbor more light and space. The positive result of the rotation is that the front of the new house will be more parallel with Baldwin Avenue. The Board questioned the removal of trees on Myrtle to accommodate the placement of the new structure. Mr.Fleming stated that the Building Dept.was aware of the need to remove the Town trees and the applicant will replant when the house is in place. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Linda Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED,4-0 Ronald Meister did not vote as he arrived late. 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. Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 2 On motion of Linda Harrington,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Orsola and Mike Vecchione requesting a variance to demolish an existing single family dwelling and erect a new single family dwelling on the premises located at 108 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 126,Lot 442. The new one family dwelling as proposed has a front yard(Baldwin Avenue.)of 23.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1),has a front yard of 18.5 feet(Myrtle Blvd.)where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1)has a rear yard of 18 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3)and further the replacement building increases the extent by which the former building was 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 240-39B(1),240-39B(3);and 240-69 and WHEREAS, Orsola and Mike Vecchione 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 is no determent to the environment created by the placement of the new house it is a single family home being placed on the lot in essentially the same way as the existing house. The driveway will be moved from Myrtle Blvd. to Baldwin Avenue which is a benefit in that it is a safer spot in regards to traffic. Traffic, drainage and site maintenance are all improved by this plan. 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 there is no feasible alternative to achieve their goals the original home is small and has an undesirable layout. The new home will provide the applicant with a more usable living space. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance although substantial is the minimum in order to allow the applicant to achieve their goals. One non conforming house will be removed and one nonconforming house will be put in its place 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 their will be no increase in noise,water runoff or traffic. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 3 The board finds that the difficulty is not self created the lot is non conforming and the applicant has a small house with an undesirable layout. 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 direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant at the April 30,2008 meeting of the Board. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. 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. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with the 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.2806 Eun Kyung Oh and Michael Oh The application was removed,because the applicant did not post a sign or mail a notice. APPLICATION NO.5—CASE NO.2808 Karen and Scott Gottdiener Diane Blum applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Blum stated that the home is on a narrow deep lot with a nonconforming house. The plan is to extend out the rear of the home to create a family room,and dining space adjacent to the kitchen and to have a deck accessible from the kitchen. The Board requested the decibel level of the two existing air conditioning condenser units as well as alternate areas for the new unit. The Board also requested that the architect submit something with less impact on the neighbors (regarding the sun light) The matter was adjourned to the May 28,2008 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2809 William McKechnie The application was removed from the agenda,because the applicant failed to post the sign properly. Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 4 APPLICATION NO.7 CASE NO. 2810 William and Sara Seigel Howard A. Rabbe applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board..Mr. Rabbe explained that it is a small house with a first floor of 727 square feet on a 50 foot wide nonconforming lot. Mr.Rabbe also stated that his client's were previously approved for a much larger addition November 30,2005 that they did not follow thru on. 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 Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr. Meister,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. Baron seconded by Ms. Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,William Seigel submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a two-story rear addition on the premises located at 52 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221,Lot 412.The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 21.3 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3),has a side yard of 7.3 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a),has a total side yard of 18.3 feet 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(3), Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS,William Seigel 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 outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. 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 construction is designed to compliment the existing structure.The addition will provide additional space for today's lifestyle. The proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. The scale of the structure will continue to be appropriate within the context of the neighboring residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 5 By constructing the addition,the applicant will be enlarging the kitchen/great room and adding a bedroom on the second floor.The existing structure presently extends into the required side yard setbacks on both sides,as well as the required rear yard setback. Given the situation of the house on the lot and the substandard size of the lot for the zone in which it is located,there are very few alterations to the house which would not require a variance. Furthermore,this is the most practical location for this construction,within the boundaries of the existing structure.It allows for the addition of the desired space without significantly altering the appearance or the mass of the house. There is no other method by which the applicant may feasibly achieve the desired benefit, because of this the applicant has no options which would not require a variance for increasing the nonconformity. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that while the side line could be considered substantial there is a minimal change in the lot coverage. 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 addition will not have appreciable effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The house will continue to conform in appearance to the surrounding homes and there will be no additional drainage or light issues. The Board heard no opposition from neighbors with regard to this application. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty was not self created because the size of the property and the placement of the house make it impossible to add space to the structure without building in the required setbacks. The addition actually brings the house up to code for the minimum first floor area. 2. For 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 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 April 30,2008 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filling of this Resolution. Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 6 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. A 3 foot 0 inch by 4 foot 0 inch window will be added to the right side elevation in the bedroom. 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. 2811 Steve and Susan O'Byrne Steve O'Byrne appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. O'Byrne stated that he would like to install a small backup generator attached to the natural gas service for emergency purposes. Mr. O'Byrne stated that he believes there would be little or no impact on his neighbors because he on a corner he also stated that no neighbors had issue with the installation. Mr. O'Byrne stated that the generator self tests for 10 minutes once a week and the decibel level is 70. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: After review,on motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Ms. O'Neill,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. O'Neill seconded by Mr. Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Steve and Susan O'Byrne submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans install an emergency standby generator on the premises located at 21 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105,Lot 471.The generator as proposed has a front yard of 26.8 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1) and further the generator 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 240-36B(1),and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Steve and Susan O'Byrne 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: Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 7 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. 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 standby generator will not produce an undesirable change in the neighbor hood the generator is small and will be used only in an emergency, and the 10 minute test mode will only be once a week. 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 there is no other method by which the applicant may feasibly achieve the desired benefit,other than an area variance. The alternate location is less desirable placing the unit in the middle of the lawn. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial,the generator will be a significant distance from the nearest property line and the generator is small in size. 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 generator will not have an adverse impact as the generator is small and will run once a week in test mode and only during power outages. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty was not self created,it is the applicants need for a power supply in case of power outages. 2. For 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 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 be limited to the conditions as modified and agreed to at the meeting and require that the plans reflecting the modification be submitted for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit.. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. 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. Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 8 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 9 CASE NO. 2812 Peter and Mary Pinkowish Mr. Peter Pinkowish appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Pinkowish stated that he proposing to put a deck on the side of his home two feet off grade. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there was 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 Ms. Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Peter and Mary Pinkowish submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 15 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133,Lot 22.1.The deck as proposed has a side yard of 6.32 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); 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 240-36B(1),and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS,Peter and Mary Pinkowish 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 outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. 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 by the construction of the deck. Both adjoining neighbors have similar decks. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 9 The Board finds that there is no other method by which the applicant may feasibly achieve the desired benefit other than an area variance. The property is a corner lot,pie shaped and the house is already non-conforming. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial,deck is small in area coverage and will be built on five 12 inch sonotubes,increasing the impervious coverage less than 1%. 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 deck will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood because of its modest size and its location,and no opposition having been expressed by adjoining neighbors. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that,although the difficulty may have been self created,this factor is outweighed by the applicant's desire for a deck on a non-conforming house constructed on an unusually-shaped lot. 2. For 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 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 be 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 April 30,2008 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. Zoning Board minutes 4/30/08 page 10 MINUTES The minutes of 3/25/08 were approved with corrections. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the letter sent by Mrs.Reck of 127 Laurel Avenue requesting an extension to apply for the deck variance due to an illness and death in the family. Mr. Ryan,Counsel will check the town law if the Board can grant a postponement legally. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Francine M.Brill,Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary