Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003_06_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 24,2003 IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Linda S.Harrington Jillian A.Martin Arthur Wexler Absent: Paul A.Winick Also Present: Judy Gallent,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 7:46p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no open Minutes available for review. APPLICATION NO.1—CASE 2569(adjourned 5/28/03) Application of Peter A. Gerardi requesting a variance to construct a single-family residence on the premises located at Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 101, Lot 12. The residence as proposed has a front yard of 25 ft.where 50 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 34 B(1); a rear yard of 26 ft. 9 in where 50 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(3); a total floor area of 5931 sq. ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-59.1 for residence in a R-30 Zone District. Mr. Fanelli appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Fanelli stated that they made modifications to the application. After some discussion about the size of the proposed dwelling the matter was unanimously adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting,August 6,2003. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE 2567 Application of Jerome 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 Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111,of 251. The air conditioning unit as installed has a side yard of 4 Ft.where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Kevin Peterson,the contractor who installed the air conditioning unit,addressed the Board. Mr.Peterson stated that the unit was placed in the only viable place on the property. The impact of the noise level was discussed and Linda Harrington said that she was there when it was going at full blast and she could hardly hear it. No one spoke in opposition. Mr.Gunther made a motion that this is a Type II action,requiring no further action under SEQRA,Mr.Wexler seconded. No one voted in favor. The application was adjourned to next month August 6,2003. APPLICATION NO. 3—CASE NO.2570 Application of Amparo Guillen and Robert Stern requesting a variance to construct a front vestibule addition and rear two-story addition on the premises located at 48 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114,Lot 542. The vestibule addition as proposed has a front yard of 27.3 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);the two-story rear addition has a front yard of 15 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);a side yard of 7.6.ft.where 10 ft.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. Robert Keller(applicant's architect)addressed the Board. Mr.Keller stated that the projects consists of two parts. One the proposed building of a new garage,on the same place as the existing garage,the second story sun porch will become the two story addition.The second part of the project is a small vestibule to the front of the building. Mr.Keller stated that the house is a small two-bedroom one bath house. The garage as it is not useable, although you can pull a car in it you can not open the door to exit the car. The plan is to increase the garage 3- ft.,create a kitchen,dining room,and family room above,as there is no dining space in the existing house. Above that rearrange the second floor,so we can get three bedrooms and an additional bath. Mr.Keller also stated that the vestibule creates an entrance into the house,where none exists now. There were no questions or comments from the public on this application. On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Martin,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Amparo Guillen and Robert Stern have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front vestibule addition and rear two-story addition on the premises located at 48 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 542. The vestibule addition as proposed has a front yard of 27.3 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);the story rear addition as proposed has a front yard of 15 ft.where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); a side yard of 7..6 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38(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 240-38B(1), Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Amparo Guillen and Robert Stern 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. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's desire to create a vestibule is certainly understandable and is consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. The rear addition is the minimum requires in order to create and extra bedroom and bathroom for the applicant to make the house comfortable and convenient. B There is no reasonable alternative in which the applicant can achieve his goals given the fact that this house is burdened by two front yard and practically any work that would be done would require an area variance. C. The variance in the front is not substantial - a matter of less than 3 ft. The rear addition variance is substantial,but is a result of the fact that the house is burdened by two front yards. It does not have a substantial impact on the area.. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environment conditions in the neighborhood. E. The necessity for this variance is not self-created, since the house as it stands is nonconforming and is burdened by the two front yards. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE NO. 2571 Application of Emile and Louis Garcia requesting a variance to legalize an existing garage addition on premises located at 27 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218,Lot 372. The garage addition as built has a side yard of 6.89 ft. where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 230-37B(2)(a); a rear yard of 14 ft. where 25 Ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 Zone District. Mr. Gunther asked if anyone was present representing the applicants. There was no answer. Mr. Gunther said we will come back to the application later. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE NO. 2572 Application of Melron Amusement Corp. Ronald Getlan requesting a variance for site plan approval 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 within .5 ft. of the rear property line where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-45B(3) for site plan approval in a "B" Business Zone District. Paul Noto of 650 Halstead Avenue, Mamaroneck, New York appeared to represent the applicant. Also present is Mark Mustacato, the architect and Mel and Ron Getlan, the primary officers of Melron Amusement. Mr. Noto said the proposal is to demolish the existing building and to build two smaller buildings on the site. The existing building has parking within the 10 yard setback, and there will be no change in the future. There is about 40%of the rear line that is in compliance with the provisions of the code. There is a question about the 60%that is not and that's the basis of this application. Mr. Noto said that the abutting residential area is at a significantly higher elevation. Since they are maintaining the status quo,he does not believe that there is any negative impact as parking will remain the same. Also since there will no longer be any food service on the property , the new enterprise will have much less of an impact on the neighbors. After much discussion Mr. Gunther said the Board is not going to act tonight. It is more a legal review. This application has to go to the Westchester County Planning Board,before we can act. The Meeting was opened for public comments. Mr. Howard Orenstein of 27 Rock Ridge Road expressed his concerns that the parking,loading dock and ATM will impact his property. Karen Ornstein of 27 Rock Ridge Road expressed her concern that there be some type of buffer. Mr. Kirchoff of 25 Rock Ridge Road also expressed his concern about some kind of buffer between the properties. Dan McWilliams of 21 Rock Ridge Road addressed the Board,he objected to the plans for various reasons about the setbacks. Mr. Mc Williams voiced his concerns about the air conditioning unit on the roof of the Proposed building would seriously impact his property. Mr. Hacker of 23 Rock Ridge Road said that he agreed with his neighbors,that there would be a detramental impact on his property. Mr. Gunther advised the applicants to make a simultaneous application to the Planning Board for consideration,the Town will file notice with the Westchester County Planning Board,renotice the application and adjourn to the next meeting. Mr.Wexler seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Mr. Gunther recalled the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE NO. 2571 Application of Emile and Louis Garcia requesting a variance to legalize an existing garage addition on premises located at 27 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218,Lot 372. The garage addition as built has a side yard of 6.89 ft. where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 230-37B(2)(a); a rear yard of 14 ft. where 25 Ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 Zone District. Mr. Gunther asked if anyone was present representing the applicants. There was no answer. Mr. Gunther said we will come back to the application later. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6 CASE NO. 2573 Application of Alan Siegel requesting a variance to legalize an existing garage addition on the premises located at 297 Murray Avenue a/k/a 7 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 408. The shed addition as built has a side yard of 6.3.ft. where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 Zone District. The applicant's daughter Allison Siegel,and the present owner Larry Rockland were present. Mr. Carpaneto said in order for a permit to be issued the applicant needed to get a variance to legalize the shed. After some discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. There were none. On motion of Mr.Gunther,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.Wexler,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Allan Siegel have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing tool shed addition on the premises located at 297 Murray Avenue a/k/a 7 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 408. The shed addition as built has a side yard of 6.3 ft where 10 ft. is permitted 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 240-38B(1), Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Alan Siegel 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. Nothing will change if this variance is granted. This is architecturally a Tudor house,which is style in which anything goes.. The projection is less than 2 ft.-it's tiny. If taken away, it would be a detriment to the house. Given the type community,given that specific area,high rent district where homes are beautifully designed Tudor in the 1920's,this falls deeply into the context of those buildings. It's also architecturally designed for the house so that you can't even find it. B Given the size of the little shed, given that the side yard is 6.3. ft. where 10 ft. is permitted in the side yard, given the shape of the turnaround all the conditions in the environment there,the variance is minimal. C. The alleged difficulty was not self created. D. 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. E. 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. 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 said be sure to pick up your Certificate of Occupancy at the Building Department during regular business hours. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion from Board members. There was none. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE NO. 2571 Application of Emile and Louis Garcia requesting a variance to legalize an existing garage addition on premises located at 27 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218,Lot 372. The garage addition as built has a side yard of 6.89 ft. where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 230-37B(2)(a); a rear yard of 14 ft. where 25 Ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 Zone District. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from the Board members on this application. There were none. On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Emilie and Louis Garcia have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing garage addition on the premises located at 27 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 372. The garage addition as built has a side yard of 6.89 ft where 10 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 230- 37B(2)(a) a rear yard of 14 ft. where 25 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-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 240-38B(1), Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Emilie and Louis Garcia 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 character of the neighborhood. The existing two-car garage is in the back of the property and the side as it is a corner lot, and blends nicely with the existing house. The garage does not appear to block anyone's property or otherwise produce an undesirable addition to the neighborhood. Ass a matter of fact,it is well kept and pleasing to the eye. As we have had no communication from any neighbors complaining or unhappy with the present configuration,the Board does not find the garage to be intrusive. B The applicant's cannot achieve their goals via any alternative that would be less intrusive. C. The variance is substantial qualitatively, but the garage is not intrusive qualitatively. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As we have had no communications from the surrounding neighbors, there appears to be no adverse impact on the surrounding neighbors or 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 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. Nancy Seligson said she was asked to let the Zoning Board know that the Town Board is in the process of passing a law on alternate members of both the Zoning and Planning Boards. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on August 6,2003. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Martin the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary Revised by Francine M.Brill 6/8/06