Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_07_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Minutes ZBA 7/23/08 page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 23,2008,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,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 Absent: 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 APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO. 2806 Eun Kyung Oh and Michael Oh(adjourned 4/30/08,5/28/08,6/25/08) Michael Oh the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Oh stated that it was his third time before the Board and that the architect couldn't be present. The Board discussed the plan and found inconsistencies in the plan and the notice. Mr. Oh stated that the error occurred because the architect used the wall dividing the properties and the survey shows the property line closer to the house. The Board stated that the application needs to be renoticed and it would be helpful if the architect was present to answer any questions the Board may have. The Board questioned the fire regulations and the fact the eave of the house appears to be over the property line.The Board suggested that the applicant make the addition smaller to get further away from the property line. On motion of Mr. Wexler seconded by Mr. Baron the matter was adjourned. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE 2809 WILLIAM McKECHNIE (Adjourned 4/30/08,5/28/08/,6/25/08) Counsel Mr. Ryan stated that the Town Code Section §144-4 requires that a sign be posted 14 days prior to the meeting if not posted§144-5 states that the application "if already placed upon the agenda, stricken therefrom". Minutes ZBA 7/23/08 page 2 Paul Noto the applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Noto stated that the sign was installed in the store next door on July 9t'and was removed by someone unrelated to the applicant. Mr. Noto stated that there is a repetitive action where the sign keeps disappearing. He stated that he will renotice and make an appointment with the Building Dept to verify the placement of the sign. Donald Mazin attorney for Village Square Bagel appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Mazin stated that there is a lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court against the landlord by Village Square Bagel and he entered a"Stay"marked"Exhibit A". Matter postponed. APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO.2817 Francis and Joanne DeCabia Applicant's attorney Paul Bergins requested an adjournment as the applicant's engineer will not be available. APPLICATION NO.5 CASE NO. 2820 Ana Valdivia Suresh Manchanda,the applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Some of the Board members stated that they did not see the sign posted and therefore the application could not be heard. The matter was adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2819 Mr.and Mrs.Peter Vaughn Mike Csenge Applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge stated that on 4/26/07 the applicant's received a variance to enlarge a front yard entry and erect a two story addition on the rear of the premises. Mr. Csenge stated that the front porch with roof over it would not increase lot coverage as the previously existing covered porch was removed. The lot coverage had been 35.6%and the new porch would bring it back to 35.6%. The porch is 4'/2 feet out from the house plus 1 ft. for the step. The house is at present 29.1 ft. from the property line and now requests 24.7 ft. 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 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 Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Vaughn requesting a variance to construct a covered front porch on the premises located at 768 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 76. The front porch as proposed has a front yard of 24 feet 7 inches where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);has a lot coverage of 35.6%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-37F 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 Minutes ZBA 7/23/08 page 3 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));240-37F and 240-69 and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Vaughn 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 proposed covered entry porch is in keeping with the existing dwelling and the surrounding residential 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 due to the existing conditions that were created at the time the dwelling was constructed that do not conform with the regulations of today. Practical difficulties exist were this addition could be designed without an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the proposed covered porch is an open porch extending only a small distance into the front yard it doesn't create any additional impervious coverage to the existing site because there was porch on the other side of the home that was removed. 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 is in spirit with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood or district. The addition will not create any additional runoff because it is replacing a porch that was removed. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created, the house was nonconforming prior to the application. 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. Minutes ZBA 7/23/08 page 4 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 7/23/2008 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.6—CASE NO.2721 Christopher and Amy Jogis Steven Chirogianis applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Chirogianis' stated that the Jogis's are requesting a larger platform in the front from 3 feet to 4 feet in order to safely open their front screen door without having to back down the steps. The rear addition would square off the rear of the house over an existing patio,the lot coverage would remain the same. The Jogis have entered a letter from the neighbor at 26 Valley Road in support of the plan marked exhibit"A"as well as two previous letters from neighbors in support of the plan. The neighbors from 5 Birch Road are in support as long as the Jogis's plant shrubs or trees to screen the rear addition from their back yard. The Jogis's entered an estimate from Nabel's Nurseries for 2 arborvitae into the record marked exhibit"B". 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 Ms. O'Neill,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED:by a vote of 4-1. Record of vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister No WHEREAS, Christopher and Amy Jogis have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two story addition and expand the front stair platform on the premises located at 7 Birch Road and known on the tax assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116, Lot 684. The rear addition as proposes has a side yard of 7.3 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- Minutes ZBA 7/23/08 page 5 38B(2)(a). The front steps as proposed have a front yard of 16.4 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)has a lot coverage of 46%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-38F and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 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)(a), Section 240-38B(1), Section 240-38F and Section 240-69 and WHEREAS, Christopher and Amy Jogis 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 changes will not be obvious from the front of the house as the addition will be on the rear of the house. In addition the expansion of the stoop by a foot closer to the property line should enhance the front of the property and actually make it safer and easier to maneuver entering 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 in the case of the front entrance there is no alternative. The only way they can expand the stoop is to move closer to the property line. As to the rear addition which will be in line with the existing side line of the house,the applicant's have no alternative to move the addition any further away from the side line given the placement of the original house on the property. They also need a left side yard variance in order to maximize the usable area within the existing house which is only 23 feet wide. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance at the front is only one foot and that is not substantial. The variance at the left side is substantial but it is due to the placement of the house on the property at the time of construction. 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 front steps will actually improve the physical condition for the house. The rear addition will not increase the amount of lot coverage,the house already exceeds lot coverage that is an existing condition. There should be no additional runoff as related to the rear addition. The property owners have agreed to the request of the neighbors on their left side to plant two large arborvitaes in order to shield the rear yard of the neighbor from the addition. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Minutes ZBA 7/23/08 page 6 The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created the house was designed and placed on the property prior to the passing of the existing zoning ordinances. 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 7/23/2008 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. SHORT BREAK EXECUTIVE SESSION APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO. 2809 McKechnie Reconvened after an executive session. The Board notes that since Mr. Mazin suggested that there could be a potential lawsuit the Board held an Executive Session. The Board concludes that the application must be renoticed. Mr. Noto stated that he was ok with the decision and that he will resubmit an amended plan to the Building Inspector along with a request for an interpretation. On motion duly made the matter was adjourned to September 17,2008. MINUTES On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Wexler the minutes of June 25, 2008 were unanimously approved. Minutes ZBA 7/23/08 page 7 ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned 10:00P.M. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals, Secretary