Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_10_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 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: Lisa Hochman,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Absent: Nancy Seligson,Liaison Wanda Spevadula,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,and 9/17/08) Paul Bergins applicant's architect sent a letter dated October 17,2008 requesting an adjournment until the Town Board has an opportunity to review the applicant's request re: Cabot Road. APPLICATION NO. 2—CASE NO. 2820 Ana Valdivia (adjourned 7/23/08,9/17/08) No one appeared and the application was adjourned to November 18,2008. APPLICATION NO. 3- CASE NO. 2823 Richard and Staci Grodin (adjourned 9/17/08) Glen Ticehurst of Benedek&Ticehurst Landscape Architects& Site Planners appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Ticehurst stated that they have modified the fence plans as per the Boards concerns. The original fence was proposed to be 6 foot high,now the front fence is proposed to be 4 feet high with a two foot extension of monofilament"fishing line"6 inches apart. The side and rear fences are now proposed to be five feet in height with a one foot extension of monofilament. The Board questioned the safety of the monofilament with regard to the deer and asked the applicant to produce literature on the risk to the deer. The Board also requested evidence that a six foot fence is actually better than a four foot fence in deterring deer. Mrs. Grodin stated that she will produce literature addressing the Boards concerns. A letter from Stephen Rabinowitz of 212 Hommocks Road was entered into the record marked Exhibit A. The applicant requested an adjournment to satisfy the Boards request. The applicant requested that the Board be Polled: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes wants to see a sample of the fence proposed Linda S. Harrington No Frederick Baron No Irene O'Neill Yes wants to see a sample of the fence Ronald Meister Non committal would like to see sample APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 2825 Mantu and Lopa Gupta (adjourned 9/17/08) Joe Cermele of Site Design Consultants appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Cermele stated that his clients are proposing a tennis court in the middle third of the property. There is a protected wetlands as conservation easement in the rear of the property. Ms. Seligson,liaison,stated that she was Chair of CZMC at the time the development was proposed. The original developer wanted to build 9 houses each on one acre. The Town approved 6 building lots with a conservation easement protecting the wetlands area. A letter from Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities dated October 16,2008 was entered into the record marked exhibit A,stating they are granting permissions to proceed with the project as per the terms and conditions set in the May 11,2004 letter. The Board discussed the application and stated that they needed a more comprehensive plan and the area staked out so they can see the exact location of the proposed court. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2826 Ilona Cyruli The matter was adjourned to November APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2827 Cosmo Franze Cosmo Franze appeared and addressed the Board. 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 Mr.Baron,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Cosmo Franze requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck on the premises located at458 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 221,Lot 141. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 22.78 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)for a rear deck 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 240-37 B(3);and WHEREAS, Cosmo Franze 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 will be no change in the character of the neighborhood, the deck needs to be a sufficient depth to be functional for family use and will be only approximately 2 feet into the setback. Other houses in the area have similar decks and thus would not change the general appearance of 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 there is no alternative in order to gain access to the rear yard from the above grade first floor the applicant needs a variance to construct a deck. Other houses in the neighborhood have comparable decks and the closest effected neighbor is across the Sheldrake River. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial it is less than 10%. 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 there will be no runoff into the Sheldrake River as a result of the proposed deck. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created but due to the nature of the lot and its nonconformity and the height of the first floor at the rear of the house. 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 October 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. APPLICATION NO.7 CASE NO. 2828 Justin and Francine Minadeo Justin Minadeo appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Minadeo stated that they are requesting a shed dormer on the rear of the house which will not be visible from the Street. Mr. Minadeo stated that there will be no increase to the foot print of the existing house. 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 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 Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Justin and Francine Minadeo requesting a variance to construct a rear Yard shed dormer on the premises located at3 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 15. The shed dormer as proposed has a side yard of 5 feet 8 inches where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a) ; has a total side yard of 12 feet 8 inches where 18 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b)and further 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 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); Section 240-39B(2)(b)and 240-69;and WHEREAS, Justin and Francine Minadeo 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 of the rear yard shed dormer will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The rear yard dormer will not be visible from the road and will be partially obstructed from the neighbors' view by tree cover. In addition the foot print of the house will not change. C. 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 applicants' are not able to achieve their goals of a full second floor bath without a variance. Expansion of the first floor is not practical. The dormer will also increase the usable space and natural light in both second floor bedrooms. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial all new construction will be within the foot print of the existing nonconforming building and the overall building height will not change. 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 addition should enhance the residence. The rear yard dormer does not increase the lot coverage and does not require tree removal. The addition will not increase runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created,the addition of a second floor bath became a necessity when the owners began to plan on raising a family in this residence. Due to the placement of the house on the lot the house is 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,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 October 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. APPLICATION NO. 8 CASE NO. 2830 Steve Babel Paul Noto applicant's attorney and Greg DeAngelis Architect appeared and addressed the Board.Mr.Noto stated that the proposed addition is a small percent increase to the existing residence and will be in the existing footprint. The house is built on rock and has no basement therefore the only way to increase the living space is the proposed addition. The Board questioned the size of the increase and asked the applicant to decrease the size of the proposal. Also the board questioned the notice and the square footage on the plan asking the applicant to either fix the notice or come back with a lesser request. MINUTES The minutes were not discussed ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Ms.Harrington the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary