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