Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_08_06 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK August 6,2003,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Catherine Vaccaro,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. APPLICATION No. 1—CASE 2569(adjourned 5/28/03; 6/24/03) Postponed waiting for representative. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE 2567(adjourned 6/24/03) Application of James and Kiera Lynch requesting a variance to legalize an existing central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 39 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,Lot 251. The air conditioning unit as installed has a side yard of 4 ft.where 10 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Kevin Peterson(applicant's contractor)presented for the Lynch's. Mr. Peterson handed in letters marked( exhibit 1)from neighbors stating they had no objections to the unit as it is. After some discussion the Board findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther No Linda Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler No Paul A.Winick No After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin,the following resolution was proposed and FAILED 2-3. 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 Ms. Harrington,seconded by Ms. Martin,the following resolution was DENIED: Mr. Gunther, Mr.Wexler and Mr.Winick were opposed: WHEREAS, Jerome and Kiera Lynch have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 39 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,Lot 251. The air conditioning unit as installed has a side yard of 4 feet where 10 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a)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 240-38 B(2)(a); and WHEREAS,Ben Jerome and Kiera Lynch 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 proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There is an existing central air conditioning unit that while not legal, is unobtrusive and relatively quiet. It does not appear that this air conditioning unit will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The area in question is on the side of the house and is partially screened. We have had no communication from any neighbors complaining. As a matter of fact, we now have communication in their favor. We do not find the raised platform to be intrusive. B The applicant's cannot achieve their goals via an alternative that would not require a variance. C. The variance is not substantial at only 6 feet. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact ob the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The air conditioning unit appears to be a new model that appears to be quiet and efficient. The unit was observed functioning on inspection. It is not loud and did not rattle as some of the older models do. As the Board has had no negative communication from the surrounding neighbors, it appears there are no complaints nor adverse impact on the surrounding neighbors or area. E. While this is a self created difficulty,it is not an unreasonable request,and there is no reason that the variance should not be granted. 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 DENIED The 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. Mr. Wexler said he was not in favor and then discussed 5 alternatives; the screening,put it behind the stone wall,buffer some of the sound,there is no screening proposed and the location is really quite out of character. Mr. Gunther agreed stating the unit is new and quiet. Once you grant a variance,the variance goes with the property and in five or ten years,the unit will be old and not functioning at the same level as an efficient one, the visual impact with the boundaries could have an affect on the neighborhood On Motion of Mr. Gunther I will make one change to the resolution. Where it makes reference to I can or I do,change it to we,the Board.,seconded by Ms.Martin APPLICATION NO.1 CASE 2569 (adjourned 5/28/03;6/24/03) 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 240-34B(1); a rear yard of 26 feet 9 inches where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(3); a total floor area of 5931 sq. feet where 4940 sq. feet is required pursuant to Section 240-59.1 for residence in a R-30 Zone District. Peter Geradi the applicant and Mike Fanelli the designer appeared to address the Board. Mr. Gunther said before you proceed,I just want to let you know that there is a deficiency in the Public Notice on the application received. If you have the agenda,the notice says on the third line down,"a rear yare of 26 feet 9 inches." Evidently,the Building Department made an error in that the application calls for a rear yard of 20 feet. Mr. Gunther stated that that he would like to proceed,and open the meeting for public comments,although at this point the Board cannot vote on it. Mr. Fanelli said that they tried to take all the previous suggestions and revise the plans. After some discussion the Board was in favor of the application with certain provisions such as a screening being maintained and how to insure that it would be continually be maintained. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously approved, this matter was adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE 2572 (adjourned 6/24/03/revised/renoticed 8/6/03) Application of Melron Amusement Corp./Ronald Getlan requesting a variance to construct two buildings on the premises located at 1265 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Lot 449. The buildings as proposed do not have the 10 Ft. wide evergreen landscape screen as required pursuant to Section 240-45B(3)for buildings in a`B"Business Zone District. Paul Noto (Melron's Attorney) .stated that they have acted on the Boards suggestion to appear before the Planning Board, the meeting is scheduled for August 13th. Mr. Noto has submitted a letter to all Board members from their consulting engineer,Frederick B.Clark addressing the traffic concerns. Chris Neal from Evergreen Arborist, Inc was present to discuss landscaping issues. Mr. Noto stated that they do not have a landscape plan yet, but he does have an analysis of what he thinks can and cannot be done, exhibit# 1 was submitted,and four photos,numbered 1,2,3,4 to be referred to as such. The ledge and how to grow sustainable plantings was discussed,right now the trees that are growing on the ledge are deciduous and the zoning requirements are for evergreens. The trees that are proposed would in a habitable environment grow to 40 feet,but the environment is hostile to evergreens. Mr.Wexler suggested an alternative to the removal of three established trees,Mr. Salanitro stated it's a matter of reconfiguring the space. Mr. Glaser of 19 Rock Ridge Road appeared and addressed the Board. He stated that his property is greatly affected by what is happening on the Melron property. Mr. Glaser was concerned with the height of the buildings proposed and the screening that is proposed. He stated that the trees that are already there are about 40 feet and magnificent and that it would be a sin to consider moving them. Mr. Glaser asked if garbage dumpsters and enclosures would be placed in the 10 foot screening zone. After some discussion the answer was no the dumpsters would not be in the buffer zone. Ms. Mc Williams of 21 Rock Ridge Road stated her property was lower than 18 feet , she did not have evergreens on her property She stated that in her opinion the proposal is completely unacceptable and should be denied. Marsha Kirchoff of 25 Rock Ridge Road stated that residents have Zoning Laws in place for their protection, health,safety and welfare of the property values. Mrs.Kirchoff asked that a variance not be granted,and that they send Melron back and redesign the buildings to conform with the Design Law. Thomas Kirchoff of 25 Rock Ridge Road entered 5 photographs into the record. Pictures taken from ground level looking towards his property shows the evergreen buffer on his property. Mr. Kirchoff stated that he is against the variance. Karen Robb of 24 Rock Ridge Road appeared before the Board stating she was against the removal of the trees Howard Orenstein of 27 Rock Ridge Road stated the 10 ft. buffer would give his family a feeling of some residential space away from the activity of the commercial Boston Post Road area. Scott Hacker of 23 Rock Ridge Road stated that he is concerned about noise levels, fumes from cars that would be 6 in. from his property without the 10 ft. buffer. He stated that he is most concerned about health issues and feels that the residents should be protected by the Zoning Laws. Karen Orenstein of 27 Rock Ridge Road addressed the Board stating that she was concerned why the commercial owners were not being challenged to come up with a plan that would not necessarily require a variance or the removal of the 10 ft.buffer. She stated that she is concerned about the health and safety and the property value of her house. Dan McWilliams of 21 Rock Ridge Road stated that is adamantly opposed to the variance for all the reasons already articulated. He stated that if they cannot make the plan work within the rules then change the plan not the rule. Mr.McWilliams said in February 2003 a study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, entitled"Impact on Truck Idling in Air Emissions and fuel Consumption"showing that the chemicals found in diesel exhaust are being shown to cause asthma. Considering that Rock Ridge Road has at least 19 young children,the elimination of the 10 foot buffer would have a demonstrative and serious effect. Carmen Hacker of 23 Rock Ridge Road addressed the Board stating that she would like Melron to consider making the project smaller and then every one would be happy. Mr. Glaser read a letter that was addressed to the Town. We,the undersigned,are unilaterally opposed to any proposal by Melron Amusement Corp./Ronald Getlan that would not include the 10 foot evergreen landscape screening buffer area between residential and commercial properties in this area. Attached to the letter were names and addresses of the individuals that were speaking. Mr. Gunther stated that he believes that the point has been well made Mr. Noto responded to the residents stating that the tenants have minimum requirements and that these buildings comply with every provision of the code except for the one which they are seeking a variance. After some discussion Mr. Gunther said he suggested that that they adjourn,and that the applicants go back to the designer and see if he can find the 10 ft.. After further discussion, on motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanomusly approved application#3,case 2572,is adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATIO NO.4—CASE 2574 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Richard Weston requesting a variance to enlarge a second floor space over the existing garage on the premises located at 7 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208,Lot 21. The addition as proposed has a total side yard of 27.5 ft.where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(2)(b); and the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Richard Weston of 7 Avon Road appeared to address the Board,requesting a variance to increase the living space of his home by utilizing the space above the garage. The area of nonconformity is 1.5 feet; it is not an extension of the footprint only the side of the roof closest to the property line. There were no questions from the public. 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. Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of August 6,2003,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. On motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. &Mrs. Richard Weston have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 7 Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208, Lot 21. The addition as proposed has a total side yard of 27.5 ft. where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(2)(b); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is non conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 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 240-36 B(2)(b)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Richard Weston 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 proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The existing home is set back from the road on a large piece of property. The garage , as it now exists, is already dormered. The application seeks to enlarge the existing dormer. It would appear,in fact,to balance out the house in this area. As it now exists, it is the lowest portion of the home. This alteration will not block anyone's property or otherwise produce an undesirable addition from any neighbors complaining or unhappy with the plans as presented. B The applicant's cannot achieve their goals via an alternative that would not require a variance. C. The variance is not substantial at only 2 '/2 feet. The building itself is nonconforming,due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact ob the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. As the Board has had no communications from the surrounding neighbors, there appears that there is no adverse on the surrounding neighbors or area. E. While this is a self created difficulty,that should not determine the granting of this variance. 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 (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 dated of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. The decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. - CASE 2575 Application of Mr. &Mrs. Guy Zerega requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition and covered entry on the premises located at 1 Briar Close Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 544. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 24 ft. 4 in.where 40 ft is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Mike Csenge(applicant's architect)appeared to represent Mr.&Mrs.Zerega. Mr. Csenge said the proposal is to construct a second floor addition that does not cover the entire first floor. The original plans filed when the house was built showed a two bedroom second floor. Mr.Csenge stated the portico does not increase the lot coverage.The house is already non conforming. 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. Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A.Winick Yes If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of August 6,2003,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. On motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms. Harrington,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.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Guy Zerega have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 1 Briar Close Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 544. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 24 ft. 4 in. where 40 ft. feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is non conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 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 240-36 B(1)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Guy Zerega 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 to expand the second floor of an existing dwelling without going outside the current wall. The proposed second floor addition is set back from the side of the house, so it will minimize the impact on the adjacent property. The front yard,where the variance is required,is in line with all of the properties on the side yard. As a consequence,there is essentially no impact on the adjacent properties nor anywhere else. The only further intrusion is the zoning envelope is over an existing concrete porch and that is a proposed covering of the porch which is small and does not actually intrude beyond what's an already existing walking surface on the property. B Given the nonconforming nature of the property,the applicant cannot achieve his goal via an alternative that does not require a variance. The solution the architect has chosen is an obvious and effective one,given the additional space. C. The variance is substantial in a sense that it is 5 ft. outside the now existing applicable zoning requirement,but that is not determinative. D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. E. The difficulty here is not self-created. It is house, like many in the Town,where the zoning changed after construction. The changed zoning created this difficulty, certainly not anything that the applicant did. 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(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 dated of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. The decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.6—CASE 2576 Application of Abbey and Steve Moses requesting a variance to install a fence on the premises located at 41 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,Lot 119. The fence as proposed atop of the existing wall has a total height of approximately 8 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52 A for a fence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Abbey and Steve Moses of 41 Villa appeared and addressed the Board. They stated that they wanted to install a fence for safety reasons,that children can sneak thru the Arborvitae and it is quite a drop. After discussion the Board on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, case #2576 was unanimously adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO.7—CASE 2577 Application of Joseph and Margaret Lanni requesting a variance to construct a front porch on the premises located at 21 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 480. The porch as proposed has a front yard of 28 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(1)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick,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.Winick,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Joseph and Margaret Lanni have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front porch on the premises located at 21 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 480. The porch as proposed has a front yard of 28 ft.where 30 ft. feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); 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 240-36 B(1); and WHEREAS, Joseph and Margaret Lanni 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 proposing a new porch for their house that is attractive and is not beyond the existing boundaries of the house. As such it will have,if anything,an attractive,visual impact on the community. B The purpose of the application is to provide cover on the front of the house. There is a large uncovered area, that given the front setback requirements, that cannot be done without the necessity of an area variance. C. The variance requested is 2 ft.and is not substantial. D. There is no undesirable change on either the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties that might be affected by the proposal change. E. The difficulty is not self-created. It is a function of a non conforming property. 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(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 dated of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. The decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.8—CASE 2578 Application of Robert Markel requesting a variance to legalize an enclosed room at the rear of the building on the premises located at 18 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 21. The room to be legalized has a side yard of 8.8 ft. where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a) and further the enclosed room increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District;and After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert Markel has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize an enclosed room at the rear of the building on the premises located at 18 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 21. The room to be legalized has a side yard of 8.8. ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a)and further the enclosed room increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 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 240-36 B(2)(a)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS,Robert Markel 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 proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The existing enclosed room at the rear of the building blends nicely with the existing house. The enclosed room predates the applicant's ownership of the home. The enclosed room does not appear to block anyone's property or otherwise produce an undesirable addition to the neighborhood. It should be noted that the back staircase on the plans submitted, which was taken from the original survey,is not pertinent to this request. B The applicant cannot achieve his goals via any alternative that would not require a variance without substantial hardship. C. The variance at 1.2 ft. is not substantial and the building itself is nonconforming, due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, as it already exists and has for quite some time. Therefore, there will not be nay additional water runoff or any other adverse impacts. As we have had no communications from the surrounding neighbors,it appears that they have not noted and adverse impact on the surrounding area. E. This is not a self-created difficulty. The structure predates the present owners and appears to have been there for quite a period of time. 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(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 dated of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. The decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.9- CASE 2579 Application of Lewis and Melissa Silverman requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 721 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220, Lot 420. The additions proposed has a total side yard of 24.21 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 R10 Zone District;and After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington,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.Winick,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Lewis and Melissa Silverman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 721 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220,Lot 420. The addition as proposed has a total side yard of 24.21 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; 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)(b)an Section 240-69; and WHEREAS,Lewis and Melissa Silverman 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 application is for a variance that is required because the proposed side yard is 24.21 ft. where 25 ft. is required. The proposed addition projects 17 feet back from the house. There is no variance required for that, although it should be noted that the proposed new rear face of the residence is more or less in line with the neighboring property on one side. B The applicant is extending the existing building line to get the most appropriate looking way to achieve those goals. C. The variance is not substantial. D. Given the substandard size of the property there would not be a way to do this addition without requiring an area variance. E. The difficulty here is not self-created. It is one of the many instances the Board sees where the property is nonconforming due to the zoning law change. 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(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 dated of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application The decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.10—CASE 2580 Application of Don Morris and Mary Beth Jordan have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two story addition on the premises located at 211 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116, Lot 519. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 18 ft. where 25 ft is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-7.5 Zone District;and After review,on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin,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.Winick,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Don Morris and Mary Beth Jordan have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a two story addition on the premises located at 211 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116, Lot 519. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 18 ft. where 25 ft is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-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(2)(3)an Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Don Morris and Mary Beth Jordan 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. This is an application for a rear yard variance at the back of the house sites on one corner of the property. The part of the addition that requires a variance is simply the continuation of the existing building line on half of the rear of the residence. The additional incursion that falls outside the zoning envelope is simply a bay window structure which is very small compared to the overall size of the rear of the house. For that reason the proposed variance will not have a significant visual impact at all. The part in the back of the property where the variance is proposed has adequate screening, so there is really no change at all in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to the nearby properties as a result of the addition. B Given the placement of the house on the property,the applicants could not achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative that does not require a zoning variance. C. The variance is substantial given the current structure of the house, but the increment outside the zoning envelope is not great. D. The difficulty is not self-created. This is again a nonconforming property. E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 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(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 dated of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application The decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 24,2003 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:12 a.m. Marguerite Roma Recording Secretary Revised By Zoning Board July 2006 Prepared by Francine M.Brill