Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004_11_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 23, 2004, 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: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Tina Diningio, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gunther called the meeting to order. Mr. Gunther said before we get started with the agenda I'd like to make note that one of the Board members will be leaving the Board at the end of the term, which is December 31, 2004, and would like to ask for the Board to make a motion of support and thanks. Mr. Wexler made a motion thanking Ms. Martin for being a vital part of the Board for eight years, which was seconded by Mr. Gunther and unanimously approved. Mr. Gunther said thanks from the Board and the Town for your years of service. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding open Minutes at this time. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE NO. 2601 (adjourned 4/29/04; 5/26/04; 6/23/04; 7/28/04; 9/9/04; 9/29/04; 10/27/04) Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 2 Application of Joseph Paterno requesting a variance to subdivide an existing lot on the premises located at 50 Sheldrake Avenue and know on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 417. The subdivision as proposed creates "Lot A" with a lot width of 75 ft. and a street line frontage of 80 ft. 1 in. where 85 ft. is required for both, pursuant to Section 240-37A(2); and also creates "Lot B" with a lot width of 75 ft. and a street line frontage of 80 ft. 1 in. where 85 ft. is required for both pursuant to Section 240-37A(2) for a lot in an R-10 Zone District. Mr. Gunther informed those present that this application has been before the Board since April 29, 2004, we have heard this case at seven meetings and discussed various actions, listened to public comments on this and have had input and response from the applicant along the way. We closed the public hearing at our last session and reviewed the environmental and other matters relative to a resolution of this application. The Board has some concerns regarding the size of the house that's proposed. On a motion made by Mr. Wexler, seconded by the following motion was unanimously approved: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes On motion of Mr. Gunther, 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 Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Joseph Paterno has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to subdivide an existing lot on the premises located at 50 Sheldrake Avenue and know on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 417. The subdivision as proposed creates "Lot A" with a lot width of 75 ft. and a street line frontage of 80 ft. 1 in. where 85 ft. is required for both, pursuant to Section 240-37A(2); and also creates "Lot B" with a lot width of 75 ft. and a street line frontage of 80 ft. 1 in. where 85 ft. is required for both pursuant to Section 240-37A(2) for a lot in an R-10 Zone District; and Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 3 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 240-37A(2); and WHEREAS, Joseph Paterno 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created: The Board believes there will be a change produced, but it is not out of character with the neighborhood that it is sitting in and also as a result of looking at the width of the lot in the community and the size of the lots, the granting of this width of lot, 75-ft. as opposed to 85-ft., is not out of character with the majority of the lots in that area. In fact, the size of the lot is greater than most of the lots in that area. The Board did look at a number of properties, 16 of them to be exact not only the size of the lots, but the proportion of coverage and frontage as well, and those lots that are conforming versus nonconforming are through the entire neighborhood. B. Whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: The Board feels that the applicant does not have an alternative with the idea that this lot will be subdivided into two lots. The most efficient way of subdividing this lot into two lots given the width of 150-ft. and reduce the lot widths to 75-ft., where with a width of 80- ft. is required, it is not that far from the required width. C. Whether the variance is substantial: The Board feels that the request is not substantial. The 5-ft. width variance in width frontage, the lots are large than what is required under the code and it's a balancing act between lot widths with greater lot size than lots of required width and sub-sized. Therefore, the Board feels that the request is not substantial. D. Whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district: Given Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 4 that the size of the lots in the overall neighborhood in this area, this lot is not out of line with the general width of the neighborhood. E. Whether this variance had any self-created difficulty: Given the placement of the existing house and when it was built, it was intended that another house would be built and is not determinative in this case. 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 application as submitted to the Board has two prototypes for the granting of this variance to the construction of the house on Prototype B. Prototype B has an attached 1%-storygarage on the southeast side of the house where Prototype A has a garage underneath the building. The Board would like to restrict the conditions that the garage be on grade or close to grade to the first floor as possible, that the house and square footage as shown be the house that is proposed to be built and no greater than what is proposed to be built. 2. The height of the house as shown to be reduced by 12-in.; the height of the exterior wall on the second floor be reduced to 7- ft.reducing the overall height of the structure by 1-ft. 3. That the setback be brought back to be 35-ft. instead of the required 30-ft. on the left front corner of the house, closest to the property line. That the right side setback from the principle portion of the house, not the depth, at 30-ft. from the right property side. 4. Screening be provided along the right side property line for a distance from the intersection of the front property line along that Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 5 side property line to the rear portion of the house. Screening be approximately 5-ft. high, height and location on the plan to be presented to the Building Inspector for approval. 5. The applicant has to work out a landscape plan on that side of evergreens. Coverage not to exceed what is proposed, which is 30%. No greater than what is presented in context to pushing the house back, if the applicant needs a little bit more driveway or more walkway that would be acceptable. Lowering the eave line on the second floor it might be helpful to dormer the windows above the eaves. 6. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 7. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 8. 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. 9. 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. Discussion followed. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2632 (adjourned 9/29/04; 10/27/04) Application of Anthony Cafero requesting a variance to construct a new roof line above the existing garage on the premises located at 103 Edgewood Avenue and know on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 1. The new roof line as proposed has a rear yard of 12 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. John Gardner of 14 Elm Place, Rye, New York addressed the Board. He said he is dealing with counsel for Mr. Cafero. Mr. Gardner stated there were modifications made to the roofline. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 6 Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, 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. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Anthony Cafero has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a new roof line above the existing garage on the premises located at 103 Edgewood Avenue and know on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 1. The new roof line as proposed has a rear yard of 12 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(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Anthony Cafero 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 is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has made a sincere effort to reduce the impact on the neighboring property by altering his original plans. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative. This particular property is burdened by two front yards and is already nonconforming. Therefore, there would be no ability to Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 7 make alterations to this property without the necessity of a variance. C. The variance granted with respect to the alteration of the roofline over the garage is not substantial. The applicant is actually pushing part of the structure back away from the neighboring house in order to accommodate the neighbor's concerns regarding light and impact on their property. D. Therefore, the variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. In fact, it is believed based on sundial Studies that there would be an increase in available light in that area between the two properties. E. There has been no self-created difficulty in this instance. As previously noted, the building is in a nonconforming location and burdened by 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 be limited to the construction detailed on the plans submitted to this board dated October 26, 2004, revised and received by the Building Department on November 17, 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. Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 8 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2634 Application of Sondra Delano requesting a variance to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 251 Murray Avenue and know on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Lot 103. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.6 ft. where 19 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Ed Elliott (applicant's architect) addressed the Board. Mr. Elliot stated that he plans on following the same line of the building, so that the setback remains the same on the side of the house as it is now. He also stated the addition is about a little bit over 100- sq. ft. and just follows that line because a little further out from the back wall of the house,just so we get enough room to put the bathroom in. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. 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 there fore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes 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 Ms. Martin, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Sondra Delano has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 251 Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 9 Murray Avenue and know on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Lot 103. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.6 ft. where 19 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is conforming 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 240-69; and WHEREAS, Sondra Delano 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 a detriment to nearby properties created. The applicant has proposed a small addition in the rear of the house to add a storage area and a bathroom, and to gain access to the rear yard from the house. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative, as the house is already in a nonconforming location on the property. The property is long and narrow, and the house, as it exists, already has a side yard, which is nonconforming. C. The variance is not substantial. The proposed addition increases coverage by a very small amount. D. There will be equally no adverse impact on any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood by the construction of this rear addition. E. There is no self-created difficulty. The property, as previously stated, is nonconforming and the need to add a bathroom and access to the rear yard is certainly understandable. 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. Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 10 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 detailed on the plans submitted to the Zoning Board 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. 4 - CASE 2635 Application of Michael and Liza Mason requesting a variance to construct a one-story kitchen and family room addition on the premises located at 98 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 294. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 8.92 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. Larry Gordon (applicant's architect) stated that they are proposing an extension of an existing kitchen and a small family room. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 11 Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington 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. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Michael and Liza Mason have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story kitchen and family room addition on the premises located at 98 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 294. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 8.92 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; 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 240-38(B)(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Michael and Liza Mason 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 properties created. The Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 12 application for the variance request that they are asking for is small, less than 2-ft. B. There is no other alternative for the applicant to achieve their goals. C. The variance, at less than 2-ft., is not substantial. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It's a very attractive little addition and will not impact any of the neighboring properties detrimentally. E. There is not a self-created difficulty, as the building is already nonconforming. 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. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for their permit. Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 13 APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2636 Application of Rob Anhouse and Elizabeth Weisman requesting a variance to construct a second story addition over an existing porch on the premises located at 11 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 9. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 9 ft. 4 in. 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. Joel Weisman (applicant's father) stated they are proposing to take the existing structure down and construct a two-story addition The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes 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 Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Rob Anhouse and Elizabeth Weisman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story addition over an existing porch on the premises located at 11 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 9. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 9 ft. 4 in. 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; 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 240-69; and Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 14 WHEREAS, Rob Anhouse and Elizabeth Weisman 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 properties created. The applicants are removing an existing one-story porch and rebuilding it into two stories. The footprint won't change. It is not coming out further. The applicants are only asking for an 8-in. variance. B. The Board does not see any reasonable alternative for the applicant to achieve their goals. C. The variance is not substantial. It is only 8-in. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There already is an existing structure. It will be built higher, but it will not impact neighboring properties. There will be no foreseeable impact on the neighborhood. E. This is not a self-created difficulty, as the applicants have a nonconforming property to begin with. 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 Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 15 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. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion. There was none. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular hours for your permit. The secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2637 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kushner requesting a variance to construct a front dormer addition on the premises located at 3 Dudley Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313, Lot 22. The dormer addition as proposed has front yard of 40-ft. where 50-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(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-30 Zone District. John Cotugno (applicant's architect) stated they are proposing a dormer in the middle of the house that happens to be in the kitchen. This will give more height and light to the kitchen. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 16 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 Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kushner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front dormer addition on the premises located at 3 Dudley Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313, Lot 22. The dormer addition as proposed has front yard of 40-ft. where 50-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(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-30 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 240-34B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kushner 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. B. Given the nonconforming location of the house, any change to the front of the house would require a variance. This is a minor adjustment to the house to add light to the kitchen and does not create any undesirable change in the neighborhood. The applicant cannot achieve his goal via a reasonable alternative, given the nonconforming location of the house on the property as it stands. Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 17 C. The variance is not substantial. This is a very small addition and does not impact the property in any significant way. D. For the same reason, there is no adverse impact on any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. E. Neither is there any self-created difficulty, given the fact that the house is already in a nonconforming location. 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 detailed on the plans submitted to the Zoning Board 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. 7 - CASE 2638 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 Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 18 the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 280. The second story addition as proposed has a front yard of 15.10 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. Keith Akroyd (an associate of the applicant's architect) stated the plan was to go upstairs not encroaching anymore on the side line or front property lines taking the wall straight up. Mr. Akroyd asked if he can get on the next board meeting. Mr. Gunther said the Board will adjourn this case. He advised Mr. Akroyd if he is not ready, it will be held over until January 2005. Mr. Gunther made a motion to adjourn application #7, case 2638, for two reasons; (1) the notice was insufficient. It is noticed at 15.10-ft. where it should be 14.4-ft. and secondly, the applicant may wish to revise the drawings, seconded by Ms. Harrington and was unanimously approved. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on December 22, 2004. Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Marguerite Roma These appeals are taken under Article XII Section 77 of the Zoning Ordinance adopted June 29, 1959, entitled "Board of Appeals". All persons interested in the above applications are invited to attend the meeting at which time they will be given an opportunity to be heard. Plans for the above cases may be inspected at the Office of the Building Inspector at the Town Center, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York during regular business hours. This notice is sent to all property owners within a 400-foot radius of each new application. TOWN OF MAMARONECK BUILDING DEPARTMENT --- PHONE (914) 381-7830 THOMAS E. GUNTHER, CHAIRMAN Zoning Board November 23, 2004 Page 20 NEW SAMPLE ZBA MINUTE FORMAT 8/12/02 Date: Application/Case Number: Agenda Item/Public Notice: Remarks (a discussion took place regarding this matter; (include information from Notice of Disapproval): 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 Linda S. Harrington Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Contents of Certification(when finalized): If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of(include date), it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department, after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application.