HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_10_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
OCTOBER 29,2003,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK,NEW YORK
Present: Arthur Wexler,Acting Chairman
Linda S.Harrington
Jillian A.Martin
Paul A.Winick
Absent: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Jillian A.Martin
Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Counsel
Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building
Nancy Seligson,Liaison
Eileen Agnoletto,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 Acting Chairman Wexler at 7:46 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 1 — CASE 2572 (adjourned 6/24/03/revised/renoticed 8/6/03; 9/24/03;
10/7/03)(revised/renoticed 10/22/03)
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 site plan as proposed has parking spaces in front of the bank
building, which is set back 37 ft. where 75 ft. is required to permit parking spaces in front of the bank
building, pursuant to Section 240-45B(1). In addition, the site plan as proposed has a total of 57 parking
spaces where 59 parking spaces are required pursuant to Section 240-78,to satisfy the parking requirements in
a"B"Business Zone District.
Paul Noto(applicant's representative)appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Noto stated that the plans have
been changed to accommodate the 10 foot buffer in the rear of the property,the bank has been made smaller
and one drive thru has been eliminated.The variance is for woo parking spaces in the front of the bank.
Mike Galante, Frederick Clark Associates of Rye, New York addressed the Board and explained the traffic
assessment study that was done.
Gerry Glaser, 19 Rock Ridge Road appeared and addressed the Board.
Dan McWilliams of 21 Rock Ridge Road appeared and addressed the Board.
The Board discussed this application. The Board determined that it's an unlisted action.
On Motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Wexler,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED
unanimously,4-0.
RESOLVED, that the Board determined it is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. There is no
potential significant adverse environmental impact that will not be mitigated by conditions imposed in the
resolution approving the variance. Accordingly,a Negative Declaration is appropriate and is hereby adopted.
As demonstrated by the traffic report submitted on behalf of the applicant,traffic conditions associated with
the operation of the project will be consistent with existing traffic conditions in the area and will not have a
significant impact. The potential visual impact will be mitigated by landscaping, in accordance with the
requirements of the resolution of approval.
On Motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Melron Amusement Corp. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans 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 site plan as proposed
has parking spaces in front of the bank building, which is set back 37 ft. where 75 ft. is required to permit
parking spaces in front of the bank building, pursuant to Section 240-45B(1). In addition, the site plan as
proposed has a total of 57 parking spaces where 59 parking spaces are required pursuant to Section 240-78,to
satisfy the parking requirements in a`B"Business 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 240-78;and
WHEREAS,Melron Amusement Corp. 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 site plan proposes two commercial buildings on the Boston Post Road. The
character of the project will be consistent with the character of other commercial
developments on the Boston Post Road,including the location of significant parking
in front of the commercial buildings
B. Because the site is long and narrow, and in light of the size of the proposed buildings
and the nature of the proposed uses,the applicant's objectives, and in particular the
placement of the required parking spaces,cannot be achieved without a variance.
C. The reduction in parking from 59 spaces required to 57 is not significant and the
placement of parking in the front of the proposed buildings is consistent with the
character of commercial development on the Boston Post Road. Indeed,parking
already exists in this location on this side.
D. Because there will be a reduction in impervious surface,there should be a
concomitant reduction in storm water runoff.
E. The need for the variance is not self-created.
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. The applicant shall provide and maintain plantings to screen the parking. Such
plantings and maintenance specifications shall be satisfactory to the Planning
Board and the Board of Architectural Review and shall be at a minimum of
sufficient height and of sufficient density to screen the parked cars and shall
allow clear site lines for cars exiting the property. In addition,trees(and not
bushes)shall be planted on the two islands that serve as bookends to the central
parking area to create the effect of an umbrella and soften the impact of the large
parking area.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filling
of this Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if constructions 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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
APPLICATION NO.2—CASE 2583(adjourned 10/7/03)
Application of Deana M. Colon requesting a variance to erect a fence on the premises located at 7
Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 402,
Lot 112. The fence as proposed has a total height of 15 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-52A for a fence in an R-2F Zone District.
Deena Colon appeared to address the Board. Ms. Colon presented a letter from the fence company to
the Board marked exhibit#1.
Mr. Rugero of 10 Garit Lane appeared and addressed the Board. He said he was against the fence being
built on the wall.
The Board discussed the application and on motion made by Ms,Martin seconded by Mr.Wexler,and
unanimously approved,case#2583 was adjourned to the next meeting,Tuesday,November 25,2003.
APPLICATION NO.3—CASE 2585(adjourned 10/7/03)
Application of Gil Schwartzman requesting a variance to construct a fence on the premises located at
1025 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 326,Lot 1. The fence as
erected has a total height of 6 ft. 6 in.where 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in
an R-20 Zone District.
APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2589
Application of Lou and Nina Pizzo requesting a variance to construct an addition on the premises located
at 220 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Block 115,Lot 400. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 22 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant
to Section 240-38B(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-7.5 Zone District.
Elizabeth DiSalvo(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 Gunther Absent
Linda Harrington Yes
Jillian A.Martin Yes
Arthur Wexler Yes
Paul A.Winick Yes
On motion of Mr. Wexler,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 Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Winick,the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Lou and Nina Pizzo have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct an addition on the premises located at 220 Rockingstone Avenue and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 115,Lot 400. The addition
as proposed has a front yard of 22 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-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(1), Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS,Lou and Nina Pizzo 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 portion of the addition to the home requiring the variance will
sit on the existing footprint,and is in line with the dwellings surrounding it. This is
a very small one-story home that is well below the surrounding homes in height. It
sits on a corner and most of the other homes adjacent to it are far enough away as to
not suffer any impact from the addition. The only home close enough to feel any
impact is considerably higher in height than this home, so that the addition will bring
it more into line with same.
B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via an alternative design.
C. While the variance is substantial,the residence is already 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. There appears to be no indication that this addition
will cause additional significant runoff or other undesirable results. As we have had
no communication from the surrounding neighbors,there appears that they have
noted no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or area.
E. This is not a self-created difficulty. The structure is already nonconforming,due to
changes in the zoning requirements over the years.
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
APPLICATION NO.5—CASE 2590
Application of Don Morris and Mary Beth Jordan requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition to
the existing garage 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 side
yard of 9 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to 240-38 B(2)(a); 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-7.5
Zone District.
Tom O'Brien(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 Gunther Absent
Linda Harrington Yes
Jillian A.Martin Yes
Arthur Wexler Yes
Paul A.Winick Yes
On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Ms. Harrington,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,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 side yard of 9 ft.where 10ft.is required pursuant to
Section 240-38B(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 240-38B2)(a), 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 a matter that has been before the Zoning Board before. It is back
before the Board,because of an error was discovered on the survey. The
proposal is a 4 ft. extension to the garage in front of the house continuing the
existing building line. The problem here is a technical one,which is that the re-
survey determined that the front corner of the proposed addition to the garage
will be inside the setback and therefore will require a variance. The proposed
extension of the garage will not have any impact at all on the character of the
neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. It continues the
existing building line and the fact that it is a somewhere between and inch and a
foot of an encroachment on the side yard will not have a visible effect.
B. Nor could the applicant achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative which
doesn't involve the necessity of a variance,as the proposal here is an extension
of an existing building line presently in a garage. Canting a garage wall inward
has a detrimental effect, as you try to get the cars in and out of the garage and
due to the siting of the house on the property,there is not an alternative that
would not require an area variance.
C. The variance is not substantial.
D. The variance is less than a foot and there will not be any impact on the physical
and environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district as a result.
E. The need for a variance is not self created..
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.
5. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in
connection with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
APPLICATION NO.6—CASE 2591
Application of Roger and Christine King requesting a variance to rehab and add to existing front steps on
the premises located at 41 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 370. The step addition as proposed has a front yard of 13 ft. 10 in where
30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the
building is nonconforming pursuant to section 240-69 for a residence in a R-10 Zone District.
James Lotto(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 Gunther Absent
Linda Harrington Yes
Jillian A.Martin Yes
Arthur Wexler Yes
Paul A.Winick Yes
On motion of Ms. Martin,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 ADOPTED:
WHEREAS,Roger and Christine King have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,
together with plans to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 41 Holly Place and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 370. The step
addition as proposed has a side yard of 9 ft.where 10ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-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 240-37B2)(a), Section 240-69; and
WHEREAS,Roger and Christine King 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 rehabilitation of the front steps as well as the addition
to same will,in fact, enhance the appearance of the front of the home. The
home sits high on the foundation with a garage underneath it. The steps are
necessary to enter the home and are in need of repair. The landscaping
proposed and the new steps will be an enhancement to the property.
B. While the applicant can achieve their goals via an alternative design,it would
not be as desirable nor should that prevent the granting of this The variance is
not substantial.
C. While the variance is substantial,the residence is already 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. In fact,it will serve to spruce up the front of
the residence and in fact,will be more pleasing to the eye than what is already
existing. The addition of plantings should serve to mitigate any additional
runoff from the additional impervious surface. As we have had no
communications from the surrounding neighbors,there appears that they have
noted no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or area.
E. This is not a self-created difficulty. The structure is already nonconforming,
due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. ..
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.
6. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in
connection with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
APPLICATION NO.7—CASE 2592
Application of Frances Fusco requesting a variance to legalize an existing two-family residence on the
premises located at 24 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 410,Lot 429. Application for Mrs. Frances Fusco appealing the determination of the Director of
Building,that the existing use as a two-family home is not permitted within the Urban Renewal Area,and
in the alternative,requesting a use variance to permit a two family home in an Urban Renewal Area where
such a use is not permitted.
Mike Csenge(applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board.
The Board discussed this application and it was decided that the Director of Buildings withdraw his
determination and the appeal was withdrawn.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 25,2003.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion made and seconded,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Prepared by
Francine M.Brill