Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_04_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK April 23, 2003, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Absent: Jillian A. Martin Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Melissa Sasso, 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 7:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion on outstanding Minutes. APPLICATION NO. 2—CASE 2557 Application of George D'Angelo requesting a 12 month extension of a variance granted October 22, 2002 to Acura of Westchester to construct a vehicle delivery pavilion and addition to the existing parking deck on the premises located at 2155 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501, Lot 1. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 23 ft. where 75 ft. is required to allow for parking in the front of the building pursuant to Section 240- 45B(1); a building coverage of 34.2%where a maximum of 25% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45A(3); a proposed sign 4 ft. 6 1 n. in height where a maximum of 32 inches in height is permitted pursuant to Section 175-11 B for a building in an SB Zone District. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts 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 Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes Jillian A. Martin Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, 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 Mr.Winick the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, George D'Angelo has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a 12 month extension of a variance granted October 22,2002 to Acura of Westchester to construct a vehicle delivery pavilion and addition to the existing parking deck on the premises located at 2155 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501, Lot 1. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 23 ft. where 75 ft. is required to allow for parking in the front of the building pursuant to Section 240- 45B(1); a building coverage of 34.2%where a maximum of 25% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45A(3); a proposed sign 4 ft. 6 1 n. in height where a maximum of 32 inches in height is permitted pursuant to Section 175-11 B fora building in an SB 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 240-45B(1), Section 240-45A(3); Section 175-11 B; and WHEREAS, George D'Angelo 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. Extend the time from the date of this meeting, April 23, 2003. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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 twelve (12) months from this date April 23, 2003, 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 informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for your building permit. APPLICATION NO. 3—CASE 2558 Application of Mr.& Mrs. Daniel DeMasi requesting a variance to construct a second floor with habitable attic space on the premises located at 66 East Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212, LOt 156. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 5.9.ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); a total side yard of 12.4 ft. where 25 ft. 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. Darcy Gibson (applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts 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 Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes Jillian A. Martin Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, 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. Harrington the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Daniel DeMasi have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a second floor with habitable attic space on the premises located at 66 East Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212, Lot 156. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 5.9.ft where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); a total side yard of 12.4. ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37 B(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(2)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b); Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr.& Mrs. Daniel DeMasi 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 A. This is a nonconforming property under current zoning. The applicant seeks to stay. within the existing footprint of the building to create a living space. There are two properties that are potentially affected by the addition, one on each side, #74 on one side and #62 on the other. The weight of the proposed addition is toward the side of the neighbor at#62. There will be an impact on that property caused by the proposed addition. However, this house is well in front of the residence at#62. The proposed addition is close to the garage of#62 where there is a flat roof which the neighbors use to garden, but which is not inhabited with any frequency. In any event there are alternate places on that property where the neighbors can use the space. We also have letters in the record from that neighbor indicating they do not consider it to be a burden and they do not object to the proposed addition. B. While there will be a detriment to the nearby property, the Board finds that it will be outweighed by the benefit to the applicant. C. Given the size of the proposed addition, which does include the typical Larchmont sized house and not beyond and the size of the lot, there is not a reasonable alternative which does not require a variance to create that additional living space the applicant seeks on that property. D. The variance is substantial. It has an impact on the neighboring property. However, that's not determinative, given the fact that the benefit to the applicant outweighs that. E. The variance will not affect the people in the other house, #74. It's an appropriate scale and will have no undo impact on the neighborhood or district as a whole. The difficulty here is not self-created. It's simply something wee often see where a substandard lot that predates the zoning requires a variance. Given this as a small lot in an R-10 zone, they have a larger front yard than required for the zone and it has about a 17 ft. greater rear yard in that zone. It's a small lot. It's a small footprint. It's close to the side yard. 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 informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for your building permit. APPLICATION NO. 1 —CASE 2556 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 240-39B(2)(a); a total side 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 240-39 F; 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)appeared and addressed the Board. Dermond Sullivan, 207 Weaver Street addressed the Board. Beth Colleary of 65 Hillcrest addressed the Board Mr. Gunther stated that the Board received a letter from John and Maria Wurpel of 67 Hillcrest Avenue in opposition to the application. The Board discussed this application and unanimously voted to adjourn to the next meeting May 28, 2003. APPLICATION No. 4—CASE 2559 Application of Bill and Jill Lankler requesting a variance to legalize an existing enclosed porch on the premises located at 38 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224, Lot 3335. The enclosed porch as built has a side yard of 7.8 ft. where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Douglas Lankler, applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Lankler stated that there was an error in the notice that his name was wrong. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts 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 Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes Jillian A. Martin Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, 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, Douglas and Jill Lankler have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to legalize an existing enclosed porch on the premises located at 38 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224, Lot 335. The enclosed porch as built has a side yard of 7.8 ft. where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a)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(2)(a); and WHEREAS, Douglas and Jill Lankler 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 A. The applicant has informed the Board that the work legalizes the installation of windows on what was an existing enclosed porch without changing the footprint. The introduction of those windows, if anything, reduces the impact of the enclosed porch on the neighbors by reducing the amount of sound that wick emanate from people using the porch. As a consequence, if there is any change at all caused by enclosing the porch, the Board should find that it's a positive one, given that there is no change in footprint and this area of the house is well removed from all of its neighbors due to a large rock outcropping and the relationship to the surrounding properties to this one. While there will be a detriment to the nearby property, the Board finds that it will be outweighed by the benefit to the applicant. B. There is no undesirable change that will be produced to the character of the neighborhood neighbors, if the variance is granted. The enclosure could not be performed without a variance. C. The variance is insubstantial. It doesn't change the footprint or use of the property in any way, nor does the installing of the windows on one side of this house have any impact at all on the neighborhood or district as a whole. D. The difficulty is self-created in a sense that the applicant has done this without seeking a building permit, but with that observation, limiting that we grant the variance of that on construction detailed on the plans and no other. 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 informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for your building permit. APPLICATION NO. 1 —CASE 2556 Application of Mr. & Mrs. John Healy requesting a variance to construct a front portico on the premises located at 43 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 205 Lot 1. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 35.5 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Mark Galezo project manager appeared and addressed the Board. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts 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 Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes Jillian A. Martin Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, 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 Mr.Winick the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. John Healy have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a variance to construct a front portico on the premises located at 43 Mohegan and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 205, Lot 1. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 35.5 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1)for a residence in an R-15 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 WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. John Healy 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 A. After going through the site and seeing where this portico will be placed, the Board believes that there will be no undesirable change in the property as it presently is positioned on a curve of the road. The building sticks out a little further from its neighbor, but given the configuration of the land that will not impact at all any of the neighbors. B. To protect one from the elements at the front door, there is no other feasible alternative. C. The Board feels that the request is not substantial. It's a small area, a natural appenditure to a building and it will be very much in keeping with the design of the present structure. D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Given the small size of the variance that's requested, the footprint being possibly 30 sq. ft. out of a front yard that is much greater than that. There will be no adverse affect in the district or neighborhood. E. The house as it sits now is 40 ft. from the property line,where that would be what the requirements of the zone are, yet the building has no projection from the elements. 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 informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for your building permit. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on May28, 2003. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary Prepared by Francine M. Brill