Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_09_17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 17 2008,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Frederick Baron Ronald Meister Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Absent: Nancy Seligson,Liaison Irene O'Neill Wanda Spevdula,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. 2817 Francis and Joanne DeCabia(adjourned 6/25/08,7/23/08) Paul Bergins applicant's attorney sent a letter requesting an adjournment. The Board adjourned the matter. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO. 2820 Ana Valdivia(adjourned 7/23/08) Suresh Manchanda applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Manchanda stated that he was not extending the footprint of the home only going up to enlarge the living space for the maturing family. The Board questioned why the extension could not be on the other side of the house without the need for a variance. The Board stated that the addition as proposed had too much massing for a house close to the property line on a curve of a busy street. The Board discussed the plan and stated that they felt the applicant should adjourn and come back with another plan. Mr. Ryan stated that a new application if a variance is required for the other side of the house must be re noticed. Mr. Manchanda requested the matter be adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2822 Jeff and Yvette Hammel Joe Guglielmo applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Guglielmo stated that a mistake was made building the addition and that the addition encroaches into the side yard 6 inches requiring a variance. Mr. Guglielmo entered a letter from Mr.Asher,21 Homer Ave in favor of the application,into the record marked Exhibit 1. 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. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. 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: WHEREAS, Jeff and Yvette Hammel requesting a variance to receive a Certificate of Occupancy on the premises located 17 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121,Lot 306 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 Section 240-39B.(2)(b)and WHEREAS, Jeff and Yvette Hammel 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 is already built and is not a detriment to the neighborhood, it was stated that the neighbor directly affected by the addition has no problem with it. 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 no option other than to seek a variance, since to deconstruct the addition would be cost prohibitive. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial the considering there is only an additional 6 inches encroaching into the side yard. 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 fits well with the neighborhood, and has caused no additional noise or runoff to neighboring properties. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is self created, due to a contractor error, but it should not be determinative to these findings. 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, 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. 2823 Richard and Staci Grodin Genna Krupinska of Benedict&Ticehurst Landscape Architects appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Krupinska stated that the applicant's are requesting a variance to construct a 6 foot deer fence around the house area of the property. Ms. Krupinska stated that Mrs. Grodin suffers from Lyme disease and would like the fence to try to prevent deer from going on their property to keep her family safe from the deer ticks. Ms. Krupinska entered a letter Mrs. Grodin wrote to her neighbors marked Exhibit 1, and a photo marked Exhibit 2 showing the details of the proposed fence into the record. Mr. Baron stated that was not in favor of a fence as he believes it is just pushing a problem onto the neighbors. Mr. Baron stated that if the fenced in area was smaller and away from the 2 foot retaining wall he might find it more favorable. Mr.Wexler stated that one Board member was not present and the applicant has the right to request an adjournment till a full Board can be present. Warren Mirarlia of 210 Hommocks Road appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Mirarlia stated that he doesn't want to sound nasty or negative to new neighbors but he has polled all but one of the neighbors and they are all opposed to the fence plan. The town has one family of deer who spend most of their time on the Hampshire Golf Club. Mr. Mirarlia also stated that a local veterinarian has stated that there are no cases of Lyme disease in the Town. Mr. Mirarlia stated that he is sympathetic to the Grodin's plan but knows that the deer will not be stopped by a 6 foot fence therefore feels that the request should be denied. Ms.Krupinska requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2824 Tara and Craig Pisani Craig Pisani appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Pisani stated that he wants to add a 168 sq. ft. extension over an existing sun porch. The addition is not seen from the Road. 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. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. 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,Tara and Craig Pisani,requesting a variance to construct a sitting room over an existing porch on the premises located 128 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214,Lot 267and 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);and Section 240-69and WHEREAS, Tara and Craig Pisani 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 will not be visible from the street it is a small 168 sq. ft.addition over an existing Pt floor sunroom and will not increase the foot print of the house. The addition will improve the esthetics of the home conforming to the rest of the house. Therefore there will be no undesirable change produced in the neighborhood or community. 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 no other option, since the house is nonconforming,any alteration to the home will require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial,the proposed addition is 168 sq. ft., which is minimal in nature,and given the fact that the addition will sit over an existing structure the board finds it 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 on the neighborhood or district as the addition fits well with the neighborhood, and will cause no additional noise or runoff because it is being built over an existing structure. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created. When the home was purchased it was 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 9/17/2008 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. MINUTES On motion of Mr. Baron seconded by Mr. Meister the minutes of 7/23/08 were approved subject to corrections unanimously 4-0. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Ms.Harrington the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board Secretary