Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_11_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 25, 2003, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Jillian Martin Arthur Wexler Absent: Paul A. Winick Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates, LTD. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:46 p.m. Mr. Gunther advised those present that one Board member may be late this evening. The Board will be happy to call your application. There are only four members present. If you would like the Board to proceed, tell the Board. If you would like the Board to hold your application over until the fifth member arrives, the Board will be happy to do that as well. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding Minutes to be approved. APPLICATION NO. 1 —CASE 2583 (adjourned 10/7/03, 10/29/03) Application of Deana M. Colon requesting a variance to erect a fence on the premises located at 7 Blossom Terrance 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. Ms. Colon the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Colon stated that the fence would be on top of a retaining wall, but the fence it self would not be taller than 5 feet. Ms. Colon entered pictures into the record marked exhibit #1. She stated the fence was necessary for safety and security. Mark Schumer of 3 Highland Road read a statement from The Colellas of 1065 Palmer Avenue, marked exhibit #2. The Colellas are concerned for safety and environment and how structurally sound the wall is. Mr. Gunther read a letter from Benedict Salanitro, Civil Engineer, 517 Linden Street, Mamaroneck stating that the wall is capable of supporting the fence. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that the proposed variance will produce an undesirable change in then character of the neighborhood and therefore voted on the resolution set forth below as follows: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman No Linda S. Harrington No Jillian Martin No Arthur Wexler No Paul A. Winick Absent On motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Martin and unanimously denied, the following motion was made; After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. Mr.Winick was not present. 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, Deana M. Colon has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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 residence in a R-2F 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 240-52A; and WHEREAS, Deana M. Colon 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 produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The fence will sit atop an already high retaining wall as viewed from the neighboring properties. A solid wood wall atop concrete blocks at a total height, in some places, of 14 ft. above the neighboring properties on its left side would have an undesirable impact on those adjoining properties and the neighborhood. B. The applicant can achieve their goals via an alternative plan that would be less intrusive. The fence could be left as it is and/or some type of shrub or thick high ground cover could be planted to close the space between the retaining wall and the fence, which would serve to partially screen the fence as well and provide safety for the children. C. While it should be noted that the 14 ft. results from the height of the retaining wall combined with the fence it is proposed to sit on, the variance request for extra height on that already high retaining wall is a substantial one. D. The variance will have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The fence will further block neighboring views and late day sun. By bringing the fence closer to the property E. This is not a self created difficulty as the retaining wall is already in place, but the applicant need not install their fence on top of that retaining wall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE 2593 Application of John and Kim Giarparuto requesting to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 194 Hickory Grove Drive East and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck and known as Block 214, Lot 414. The second story addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.4.ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); a total side yard of 17.9 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. Joseph Paiva, (applicant's architect) Of 510 North State Road, Briarcliff Manor, New York, appeared and addressed the Board. He presented the Board with reduced copies marked exhibit #1. Mr. Paiva also entered a letter from a neighbor, most affected by the application, marked exhibit#2. Bill Cunningham, of 17 North Brook Road addressed the Board, basically in favor of the application. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts to the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. Mr.Winick was not present. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John and Kim Giarparuto have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 194 Hickory Grove Drive East and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 414. The second story addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.4.ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); a total side yard of 17.9 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)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, John and Kim Giarparuto 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. In reviewing this application and observing the conditions on the property, the Board finds that there is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby property. The applicant is constructing a second floor addition, making the necessary improvements to his property using the same footprint of the house as it is currently located in a nonconforming position on the property. B. The here is no minimal reasonable alternative in this case. The applicant has used the minimal amount possible in order to achieve his goals. C. The variance is not substantial. The area in question is a small triangle of area that exists outside of the required setbacks. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood should the addition be built. There is no increase in the runoff or other environmental concerns. E. This is not a self created difficulty. The house stands now in a nonconforming location on the property. On that side of the property there is also an easement called Wilbur Lane that gives extra distance to the neighboring properties. 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 advised the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. APPLICATION NO 3—CASE 2594 Application of Diane Strully requesting a variance to legalize the conversion of an existing sun porch to habitable space on the premises located at 29 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 85. The converted sun porch has a front yard of 18.6 ft. where 30 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39 B(1); and further, the converted sun porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Mike Csenge 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 Jillian Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. Mr.Winick was not present. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Diane Strully has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize the conversion of an existing sun porch to habitable space on the premises located at 29 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122 Lot 85. The converted sun porch has a front yard of 18.6 ft. where 30 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39 B(1); and further, the converted sun porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Diane Strully 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 benefit to the applicant, in this case, will outweigh the detriment to the community. This building is situated looking at Hillcrest Avenue, which is a unique street in our community. Most of the homes are closer than 30 ft. to the property line, but this house falls in line with the adjacent homes and the enclosure will not affect or change any part of the neighborhood. The porch is preexisting. It has probably been there since the house was built and there will be no undesirable change. B. This room is there now. It is existing and the applicant cannot duplicate that somewhere else without creating a hardship. C. In this case the variance is not at all substantial. The building exists in that space. The incursion into the space is actually only a few feet. D. The granting of this variance will have a zero impact on the community. This is existing and has existed there for seventy or eighty years. E. This difficulty was not self-created, because when the applicants purchased this house over 25 years ago this condition existed. 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 APPLICATION NO. 4—CASE NO. 2595 Application of Laura Albeck requesting a variance to construct a portico at the front entry on the premises located at 5 Beresford Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 206, Lot 363. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 31.5 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); and further, the portico increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 2409-69 for a residence in a R-15 Zone District. James Fleming (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 Jillian Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. Mr.Winick was not present. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Laura Albeck has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a portico at the front entry on the premises located at 5 Beresford Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 206 Lot 363. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 31.5 ft. where 40 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36 B(1); and further, the portico 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 240-36B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Laura Albeck 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 addition of the portico will, in fact, enhance the appearance of the front of the home. As it is now, the home has a rather flat appearance in the front, and the portico will add rather than detract from its appearance as well as providing coverage from basd weather and the elements. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via any other alternative. C. The variance request is minimal compared to the size of the property, and the residence is already nonconforming, due to change 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. It will cause minimal additional runoff. As we have had no communications form the surrounding neighbors, it 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 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. 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 APPLICATION NO. 5—CASE 2596 Application of Elyse and Lawrence Faltz requesting a variance to construct a front entry on the premises located at 29 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 227. The front entry as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B (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. Robert Keller(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 Jillian Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Absent After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. Mr.Winick was not present. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Elyse and Lawrence Faltz has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a portico at the front entry on the premises located at 29 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 227. The front entry as proposed has a front side of 6.1 ft. where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38 B(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 240-36B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Elyse and Lawrence Faltz 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 benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community. In this instance, the relationship of the side yard setback and revisions to the existing house sits at 6.1 ft. from the side property line. The crux of the variance is 6.1.ft.; a minor change from the existing condition as the house presently sits. It's a small request as the addition for the covered portico is small in nature and in context with the community that the house is in. B. In this instance, to create a covered protected area the front of the house at the entry door is very desirable. It will be hard to achieve this without tis area variance request. C. Given the size of the footprint of the addition that the area variance requests and given the relationship of the existing side property line to the house and the request from 6.1 ft. from 6.3 ft. is small in nature and is not substantial. D. This is a small addition being placed in the corner of a modest home and the impact on physical and environmental conditions is negligible. E. In this instance the placement of the front entry door at the side of the house in the lower left-hand corner of the house is there and providing coverage for protection of their door and 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 an 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 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 7, 2004. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther and seconded by Ms. Martin, the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Prepared by Francine M. Brill