Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004_12_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 22,2004,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 Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Tina Dinunzio,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 Mr. Wexler at 7:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion on previous open Minutes. Mr. Wexler informed those present that there are only four members present as opposed to five members. Therefore, for an action to occur the applicant will need three votes. APPLICATION NO. 2-CASE NO.2639 Application of G. A. Henry requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 11 Rock Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Lot 542. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 9-ft. 9-in.where 10-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); a rear yard of 11-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. Gerald Henry (applicant) stated to the Board that he proposed to extend one room out an extra 4-ft. to create a closet. After some discussion regarding the location of the closet Mr. Wexler asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none. Mr. Wexler then asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. 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: Zoning Board December 22,2004 Page 2 Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler,Acting Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Yes Paul A.Winick Yes On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. Mr.Gunther was absent. 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, G. A. Henry has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 11 Rock Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412,Lot 542. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 9 ft. 9 in.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); a rear yard of 11 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)(a), Section 240-38B(3), Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, G. A. Henry 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 property on Rock Ridge Road where the property abuts Rock Ridge Road and hangs over the shopping center on the Boston Post Road. It is bounded on the other side where the addition is going to extend by the beginning of Rock Ridge Road as it runs up from the Post Road. As a consequence, the two intrusions into the zoning envelope are not going to impact the neighborhood or community in an adverse fashion. To the extent that it crowds the applicant's own back yard, after the many hours that Board members have spent on that street dealing with the variance application for the adjoining commercial property, the Board is well aware of the fact that the back yards along Rock Ridge Road are small and are not of much use as outdoor space,due to the presence of the commercial property. As a consequence, although the Board is sensitive in the reduction in the size of that yard, it affects the applicants, but certainly no one else, and does not really adversely affect even the applicant, give the use of this property and the adjoining commercial property. Zoning Board December 22,2004 Page 3 B. Given the constraints of the size and shape of the lot, the applicant could not achieve his goal via a reasonable alternative which would not involve the necessity of an area variance. The applicant is hindered in part by the fact there are two streets on two sides of the property, which causes the applicant to have two front yards. C. The variance is substantial. It is a considerable intrusion in the zoning envelope. It is not a determinative factor here, and on balance the Board should find that the fact the variance is substantial should not be determinative. D. Nor will the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district or crowd the adjoining property on Rock Ridge. As noted previously, the adjoining parcels that would be impacted are a street and the commercial property next door. Other nearby parcels will not be affected. E. Nor is the difficulty here self-created. It is purely a function of our Zoning Law working on a property with two front yards. The rear yard as shown on the site plan really acts almost like a side yard, in relationship to the house next to it on the street. Viewed that way, the proposed addition goes no closer than the existing house, and it's only a few inches off the required side yard area. 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 be limited to the construction shown on the plans 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.1-CASE 2638(adjourned 11/23/04) Zoning Board December 22,2004 Page 4 Application of Mathew Tym requesting a variance to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 124 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 280. The second story addition as proposed has a front yard of 14.85 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), a side yard of 7.35 ft. where 10 ft. is required 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 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 Arthur Wexler,Acting Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Yes Paul A.Winick Yes On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. Mr. Gunther was absent. 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, Mathew Tym has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 124 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214,Lot 280. The second story addition as proposed has a front yard of 14.85 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), a side yard of 7.35 ft.where 10 ft. is required 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;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(1), Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mathew Tym 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. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property. B. There are no viable options for the applicant to achieve their goals. The Zoning Board December 22,2004 Page 5 applicant cannot achieve their goals via any reasonable alternative, which doesn't involve a variance due to the fact that this property is already nonconforming. C. The variance is substantial in that the applicant has a front yard of 14.85 ft. where 30 ft. is required. However, that in and of itself, should not be determinative in this case. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. This is not a self-created difficulty, because the applicant is faced with a nonconforming lot to begin with. The front yard as shown on the drawing is further back then the addition from the closest point of the house along the facade. It should be noted that the property has a rather generous front yard. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance should be limited to construction detailed on the revised plans that were received tonight and stamped dated by the Building Department December 15,2004 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. The secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3—CASE NO.2640 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Daryl Simm requesting a variance to construct an inground swimming pool on the premises located at 10 Salem Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 303,Lot 423.2. The inground swimming pool as proposed is set back 6-ft. from the principal structure where 15-ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(c) for a swimming pool in an R- Zoning Board December 22,2004 Page 6 20 Zone District. Frank Giuliano (applicant's landscape architect) addressed the Board stating that he proposed to construct an in ground swimming pool 6-ft. from the principle structure instead of the 15-ft as required by the Town of Mamaroneck's law. Members of the Board were concerned about the location of the pool stating that it was a safety hazard. Members of the Board suggested a couple of alternatives; one is to make a somewhat smaller pool. The other suggestion is the pool could be set further back toward the neighboring property and there could be a fence or some other break to prevent someone from going directly out of the house and falling into the pool. The applicant will restudy the position of the swimming pool which might require a front yard variance. The case would be adjourned until such time as the application is resubmitted. The Board discussed the next meeting date,which is scheduled to be held on January 26,2005. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 26,2005. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Winick and unanimously approved, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Everyone wished all those present a Happy Holiday. Marguerite Roma Prepared by Francine M.Brill