Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_05_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK May 28,2003,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Jillian A.Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A.Winick Absent: Linda S.Harrington Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Denise Carbone,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD. 111 N.Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50p.m. Mr. Gunther stated that only four Board members were present this evening.The Board would be happy to hear your application and proceed. If anyone wishes to have the application held over to the next meeting that can be done as well. Just let the Board know when your application is called,if you would like to proceed or not. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding previous open Zoning Board Minutes. APPLICATIONS NO.1—CASE 2556(adjourned 4/23/03) Application of Ben and Melissa Nagin requesting a variance to construct a two-story rear addition and deck on the premises located at 9 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122,Lot 222. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 14.7 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); a side yard of 6.5 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39(2)(a); a total side yard of 15.9 ft.where 18 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b); a total lot coverage of 42.8%where 35%is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Paul Benowitz(applicant's architect)addressed the Board.Ben Nagin(applicant)also addressed the Board. After discussing the application the Board found that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained. Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Absent Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of May 28,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. After review,on motion of Mr. Winick,seconded by Mr. Wexler,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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ben and Melissa Nagin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story rear addition and deck on the premises located at 9 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 222. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 14.7 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); a side yard of 6.5 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39(2)(a); a total side yard of 15.9 ft. where 18 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b); a total lot coverage of 42.8% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is 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(3); Section 240-39B(2)(a); Section 240-39(2)(b); Section 240-39F; Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Ben and Melissa Nagin 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. The applicant,in this revised application,has asked essentially to bump the house out slightly to square it off in the rear, but has removed his deck that would protrude into the rear of the zoning envelope. No proposed rear yard variance is required. It is significant to the Board,because it seems that the house as proposed is no closer to the rear properties on Hillcrest than the zoning ordinance permits. The applicant has asked for a side yard variance and a lot coverage variance. The side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the neighbors. To the extent that there is impact, the impact on the next door neighbor of Maple Hill is minimal. When the house is squared off as proposed in the plan due to the setback on the second floor,the only window which is really impacted directly by the addition will have plenty of light and air since the second floor will be set back. B With all due respect to Mrs. Colleary's objection, the addition as proposed does not change the view, leaving aside the issue of whether she's entitled to the view in the zoning law that she expressed concern about. There is still the same view out to Maple Hill, since the addition is not going to go beyond the existing side line of the house,nor will the rear addition impact her. The increment toward the rear property line between the addition and the existing house will not be noticeable from her vantage point 25 ft. back of the property plus the additional distance between the property line and her house. C. The Board finds that there is not a detriment to the nearby property or to the community created by the proposed addition, nor can the applicant achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative, which doesn't involve the necessity of an area variance. The house is nonconforming now and consequently any addition, even at the existing lines,requires a variance. D. Nor is the variance substantial. The addition is modest and is sensitive to keeping the rear yard line, which really creates the concentrated open space in the area because it does not impact the back yard, the variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions to the neighborhood or district as a whole. E. It is obvious there is not self created difficulty here. This is simply a matter of our traditional houses built long before the existing zoning variance coming up against that requirement of modern usage. F. 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. G. 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. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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 this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.2.—CASE 2561 Application of Mr.&Mrs. Greg Sadowski requesting a variance to install two central air conditioning condensing units on the premises located at 18 Deane Place,and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505,Lot 395. The air conditioning condensing units have a side yard of 5.5 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a)for an air conditioning unit in an R-6 Zone District. Greg Sadowski(applicant)addressed the Board. Louis DeCiara Of 1 Glen Eagles Drive addressed the Board. After discussing the application the Board found that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained. Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Absent Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of May 28,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. After review,on motion of Mr. Winick,seconded by Mr. Wexler,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 Mr.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs. Greg Sadowski have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install two central air conditioning condensing units on the premises located at 18 Deane Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 395. The air conditioning condensing units have a side yard of 5.5. ft.where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); for an air conditioning unit 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);and WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs. Greg Sadowski 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. The Board feels that the placement of these units in that recess on the side rear of the structure would be the most logical place to place the unit due to the configuration of the house and the proximity to the open space on the property to the left of the applicant's property and the wetlands open space in the rear. B Given the location in the rear of this property of his sliding glass doors on the deck,this is the only feasible location that these can be placed. C. Given that it's an air conditioning unit and not a structure close to the house at that height and depth,the Board feels that it is not substantial. D. The Board does not feel that the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or district. It is a localized sound that's produced and will not have any effect on the general neighborhood. E. It might appear that it is a self creates situation,but the placement of this will have the least impact on the nearby neighbors. F. 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. G. 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. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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 this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3—CASE 2562 Application of Sue Schneider requesting a variance to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 1 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 650. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 1815 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(3); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Sue Schneider(applicant)addressed the Board. After discussing the application the Board found that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained. Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Absent Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of May 28,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin,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.Martin,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Sue Schneider have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting a variance to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 1 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 650. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 18.15 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is 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(3); Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Sue Schneider 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. The Board should find that there is no undesirable change to be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. It's a very small addition which will even off the back line of the house and give the applicant some extra room in the kitchen and in the powder room downstairs. It is the minimum amount required to achieve the applicant's goals. B There is not a reasonable alternative, which does not involve the necessity of an area variance,because it is already a nonconforming property. C. The variance is not substantial. It is a 4 ft. addition and the rear of the house is already nonconforming as it stands. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It does not increase any noise in traffic in the neighborhood and the landscaping between the applicant's property and the property most affected by this addition is going to be maintained. E. There is no self-created difficulty, because the house itself already sits in a nonconforming location. F. 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. G. 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. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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 this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2563 Application of Allison Garces requesting a variance to raise front left gable on the premises located at 50 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,Lot 152. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a); a total side yard of 12.1 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B (2)(b); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 249- 69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. James Fleming(applicant's architect)addressed the Board. After discussing the application the Board found that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained. Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Absent Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of May 28,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin,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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Allison Garces have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to raise front left gable on the premises located at Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,Lot 152. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 ft. where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); a total side yard of 12.1 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B (2)(b); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 249-69 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 240-38B(22)(a); Section 240-38 B (2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS,Allison Garces 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. The applicant is seeking a side yard variance in an already nonconforming structure to raise the roof of an existing room over the garage in the front of 50 Villa Road that will allow an existing room to get more ceiling height and be useable as a study. This is one of the unusual circumstances where an addition to the front of the house has the least impact on the neighborhood or community. Any change to this house to increase the useable space would involve the side wall and would. Therefore require a variance. The proposed addition has far less impact on neighbors and on the community as a whole than any other alteration requiring a variance that could be done on this house given that zoning stricture. There has been a suggestion by a member of the public that the change to the structure of the gable, slanting the roof back from the building front, is an undesirable architectural change. The Board does not sit a Board of Architectural Review. The Board also makes the following observation. Marked as exhibit#1 at this hearing is a picture of another project,which shows an enlarged gable with a peaked roof that runs left/right without any change to the roof to relieve the vertical all the way to the roof peak. This demonstrates ably why that roof shouldn't be slanted back. It makes the structure extremely large. The architect's proposed design for 50 Villa Road relieves some of the impact that the raised roof would have if it were not to be tilted back away from the road,but still leaves a distinctive architectural feature that is common to then homes and entirely appropriate,in the Board's view. B For the reasons expressed earlier there is no alternative, given the nonconforming nature of that side yard that does not involve the necessity of an area variance and allows an increase of this space. C. The variance is not substantial. It does not further encroach on the side yard and with the deck that's on the existing house and with the roof being relieved back from Villa Road,the mass of the increase should be minimized. D. This is not a self created difficulty. This is actually a house where the zoning made the house nonconforming. E. 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. F. 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. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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 this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5—CASE 2564 Application of Gila and Jerome Fortinsky requesting a variance to erect a 6 ft. fence in the rear yard on the premises located at 2 Ormond Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 203, Lot 280. The fence as proposed has a height of 6 Ft. where 5 Ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-20 Zone District. Mr. Gunther advised those present that the Board receive a notice that Mr. Fortinsky called the Building Department yesterday to withdraw his application. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6—CASE 2565 Application of Robert Howard requesting a variance to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 80 Holly Place and known on Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 116. The new room as proposed has a side yard of 7.34 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the buildings nonconforming for a fence in an R-20 Zone District. Andrew Howard(applicant's son)addressed the Board. After discussing the application the Board found that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained. Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Absent Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of May 28,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin,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.Martin,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert Howard has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 80 Holy Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 116. The new room as proposed has a side yard of 7.34 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-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 240-39B(2)(a); Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Robert Howard 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. There is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created by granting of this variance. The applicant does not intend to increase the size of his house, but is simply replacing an unusable greenhouse room that is leaking and creating damage to the underlying structure with a usable room to be enjoyed by the family. B There is no reasonable alternative for the applicant in achieving his goals. The structure as it stands is unusable and is doing damage to the home. C. The addition as proposed will not be outside the current footprint of the house, which already nonconforming. D. For the reasons stated above, the variance is not substantial. There will be no adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The room is enclosed and there will be no impact on the neighboring property. In fact,the applicant is repairing an unsafe condition in the home. E. 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. F. 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. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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 this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2566 Application of Timothy Sawyer requesting as variance to construct a master bath and dressing room above an existing patio on the premises located at 31 Emerson and known on Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 116. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 4.85 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the buildings nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Katie Sawyer(applicant)addressed the Board. After discussing the application the Board found that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained. Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Absent Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of May 28,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin,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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Timothy Sawyer has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a master bath and dressing room above an existing patio on the premises located at 31 Emerson Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122,Lot 348. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 4.85 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the buildings nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. 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 240-69; and; WHEREAS, Timothy Sawyer 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. The applicant has provided a picture of the residence from the 1950's or earlier which shows what the structure would look like with a porch in place that the applicant proposes to now put a porch on the second floor front of the residence. The difference between that picture and what's proposed in the plans is that the applicant proposed to pull the front of the house out to a depth of about 8 to 10 ft. behind the railing on the porch of the second floor. The old picture gives us a better idea than we often have about what the proposed addition will look like when it's actually constructed,and it is quite attractive. B Increasing the mass of the house in the front is not going to impact either the neighbors or the neighborhood or community as a whole. The new construction will be shingled to match the rest of the house and will blend readily into the structure as it is now, so that the increased mass of the house will not be particularly noticeable. This particular addition, because the existing side yard is nonconforming,could not be constructed without a variance. C. Nor is the variance substantial. It continues along the existing sidewalls of the house and as such will not change the structure as perceived by neighbors or by passersby. D. The difficulty also is not self-created. This is another instance where the building as constructed is nonconforming so that any addition requires a variance. E. 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. F. 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. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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 this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 8—CASE 2568 Application of Kathi and Howard Weisblum requesting a variance to legalize an enclosed porch on the premises located at 26 Plymouth Road and known on the Tax Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410, Lot 622. The enclosed porch as built has a side yard of 5.5.ft. where 8 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); a total side yard of 11.75 ft. where 18 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(b); and further, the enclosed porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Mr. Beacher(applicant's architect)addressed the Board. After discussing the application the Board found that there was little or no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained. Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Absent Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of May 28,2003,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department,after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin,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.Martin,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Kathi and Howard Weisblum have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to legalize an enclosed porch on the premises located at 26 Plymouth Road and known on the Tax Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410, Lot 622. The enclosed porch as built has a side yard of 5.5.ft.where 8 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); a total side yard of 11.75 ft. where 18 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b); and further, the enclosed porch increases the extent by which the building is 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(2)(a); Section 240-69; and WHEREAS,Kathi and Howard Weisblum 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. There is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby property. The applicant has testified this porch existed on the property for close to 40 years or more without any problems. The property is an isolated location and is well screened from the property in the rear. It is on a nonconforming piece of property and it does not increase the nonconforming nature or footprint of the house as it is today. B There is no reasonable alternative for the applicant achieving his goals in maintaining a porch other than tearing it down. C. The Board does not find that the variance is substantial particularly because the porch has existed and is not increasing any of the nonconforming use of the property. D. There's no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood,given that this is a preexisting condition. E. 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. F. 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. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 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 this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.9—CASE 2569 Application of Peter A. Gerardi requesting a variance to construct a single-family residence on the premises located at 805 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 101,Lot 12. The residence as proposed has a front yard of 25 ft. where 50 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34 B(1); a rear yard of 26 ft. 9 in. where 50 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); a total floor area of 5931 sq. ft. where 4940 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-59.1 for residence in a R-30 Zone District. RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2569 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next meeting. NEXT MEETING After some discussion,the next meeting dated was set for June 18,2003. ADJOURNMENT On motion and seconded,the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary Revised by Francine Brill 6/14/06