Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004_09_09 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 9, 2004, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liason Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 North Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Absent: Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mr. Gunther at 7:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding previous open Minutes APPLICATION NO. 1 —CASE NO. 2601 (adjourned 4/29/04; 5/26/04; 6/23/04; 7/28/04; 9/9/04) Application of Joseph Paterno requesting a variance to subdivide an existing lot on the premises located at 50 Sheldrake Avenue and known 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. Paul Noto (applicant's attorney) appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Gunther stated that the matter had been referred to the Planning Board and the planning Board was in favor of the planned subdivision. Mr. Bruno Pietrosanti (engineer)submitted perk tests for the property. 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 Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes On motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved, application #1, case#2601 is adjourned to our next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 2—CASE NO. 2615 (adjourned 7/28/04) Application of Vicki and Dan Alcott requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition and to enlarge the garage on the premises located at 50 Glen Road and known on the Tax Assessment of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 492. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 19.7 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to section 240-38B(1); a proposed Floor Area Ratio of 4700 sq. ft. where 4590 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-591 B(2), Column 1, Line 11; 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. Mr. Noto (applicant's architect)appeared and addressed the Board. John Woodruff(applicant's architect) addressed the Board Bill Scheur of 46 Glen Road appeared and addressed the Board, stating that he is not against anyone wishing to enlarge their house, but he feels that the new structure will impact his home quite a bit. 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 No Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick No On Motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously: 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. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED WHEREAS, Vicki and Dan Alcott has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story addition and to enlarge the garage on the premises located at 50 Glen Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 492. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 19.7 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); a proposed Floor Area Ratio of 4700 sq. ft. where 4590 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-591 B(2), Column 1, Line 11: 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 240-591 B(2), Column 1. Line 11; 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, Vicki and Dan Alcott 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 findings: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. The applicant is continuing the line of the garage as it currently exists, and repairing substandard conditions. B. There is no reasonable alternative for the applicant which does not require the necessity of an area variance, given the fact tht the house is currently in a nonconforming location. C. The variance itself, relating specifically to the garage, is not substantial. D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood in that there will be no additional traffic noise or any other adverse environmental condition. E. The applicant has not been faced with a self-created difficulty, because the house already is 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 dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. APPLICATION NO. 3—CASE 2630 Application of Mr.& Mrs. Richard Kushner requesting a variance to construct a one-story 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 addition as proposed has a front yard of 37 ft. 2 in 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. Michaele Kushner, applicant appeared and addressed the Board. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes On Motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0. 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. Winick, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kushner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story 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 addition as proposed has a front yard of 31 ft. 2 in. 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. & 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 findings: A. The applicant is seeking to enlarge an 8 ft. wide bay window, a projected addition of approximately 2 ft. in the front of her house 3 Dudley Lane is on a very large piece of property and sits well above the street up high on a ridge.. As such, the differentiation between the front of the house and the bay window is almost invisible from the street. The incremental change to the size of the bay window will be unnoticeable. B. As a consequence, there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. C. Given that the house is already nonconforming, there is no way that the applicant can enlarge that window and improve the seating area in a way that does not involve the necessity of an area variance. D. The variance is insubstantial, because the piece is a very small section of the front of the house. E. Nor is the difficulty self-created. It is a function of the initial placement of the house and the shape of the lot. 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 dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. APPLICATION NO. 4—CASE NO. 2623 Application of Adriene Skinner and Clay Gordon requesting a variance to construct a porch to the front and left side yard on the premises located at 11 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 65. The porch as proposed has a front yard of 10.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); a lot coverage of 43.33%where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Mr. Yestadt (applicant's architect) appeared and addressed the Board A letter from the neighbors stated that they were in favor of the variance was entered into the record. 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 Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Paul A. Winick Yes On Motion of Mr. Gunther seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0. 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. Winick, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Adriene Skinner and Clay Gordon have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a porch to the front and left side on the premises located at 11 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 65. The porch as proposed has a front yard of 10.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); a lot coverage of 43.33 %where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(1), Section 240-39F; Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Adriene Skinner and Clay Gordon 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 findings: A. The applicant is is restoring the house by adding a porch to the front of the house. Although it does infringe on the front yard, the proposed addition is a vast improvement, as attested to by the letters that were received from the people who are best able to judge that, the neighbors. There will not, as a practical matter, be any impact of that porch on the neighbors. B. Nor given the fact that the house is nonconforming could the applicant achieve that goal via an alternative that does not involve the necessity of the area variance. C. Nor is the variance substantial. It continues the existing building line and, as such, involves a minimal change, which is not significant. D. The record does not reveal any impacts on physical/environmental conditions in the area. E. Nor is the difficulty self-created. This property is a nonconforming property. 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 dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. APPLICATION NO. 5—CASE NO. 2624 Application of Jill and Steven Stafford requesting a variance to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 29 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 85. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 21 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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- 6 Zone District. Ed Jacobson (applicant's architect) appeared and addressed the Board. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Left Meeting Paul A. Winick Yes 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, Jill and Steven Stafford have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 29 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 85. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 21 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Jill and Steven Stafford 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 findings: A. There is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant is proposing a second story addition that is in line with the rest of the house which is already in a nonconforming location. There is a substantial buffer zone on either side of the house, in excess of the zoning requirement. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative. They are adding as additional bedroom to their house over the gargage and are not increasing the footprint of the house. C. The variance is not substantial, given the fact that they are building over the current footprint of the property. D. There will be no increased adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The houses on the block are in similar nonconforming locations. E. There is no self-created difficulty, as the house 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 be limited to the construction detailed on the plans dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. APPLICATION NO. 6—CASE NO. 2625 Application of Norman Bander requesting a variance to legalize an existing deck on the premises located at 14 Winthrop Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410, Lot 38. The deck as built has a side yard of 6 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39 B(2)(a); a privacy fence as built with a height of 7 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52 A for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Norman Bander of 14 Winthrop Avenue appeared and addressed the Board A letter form Howard and Kathryn Bunta of 16 Winthrop Avenue stating they have no objection to the deck was submitted as exhibit#1. 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 Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Left Meeting Paul A. Winick Yes 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, Norman Bander have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing deck on the premises located at 14 Winthrop Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 410, Lot 38. The deck as built has a side yard of 6 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39 B(2)(a); a privacy fence as built with a height of 7 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52 A for a residence in an R-6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240-52 A; and WHEREAS, Norman Bander 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 findings: A. In dealing with the application with respect to the side variance, there is no undesirable change to be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The deck was constructed in a nonconforming location almost 15 years ago and there has been no problem reported with the deck and the location of the deck as it is today. With respect to the height of the privacy fence, however, the Board finds that there is an undesirable change and a detriment to nearby properties, because the fence is too high. B. The applicant does not have a reasonable alternative with respect to the location of the deck, but should be required to bring the height of the fence at the front into conformity with the rest of the fence. C. The variance is not substantial, with respect to the location of the deck, but is substantial with respect to the fence. D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Although the difficulty is self-created in this instance, 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 dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. APPLICATION NO. 7—CASE NO. 2626 Application of Linnet Tse and John Forsyth requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 30 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 80. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.93 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. Ron Pascale, of 217 Vale Lane, North Salem (applicant's general contractor) appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Pascale stated that the second story would become the family room The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the environment or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Left Meeting Paul A. Winick Yes 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 Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Linnet Tse and John Forsyth have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 30 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 80. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.93 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 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240 69 and WHEREAS, Linnet Tse and John Forsyth 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 findings: A. The addition as proposed is not out of line wiyh the character of the neighborhood. It will not be intrusive on any of the neighboring properties and will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. B. The Board discussed whether the applicants can achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative, and determined that they cannot build over the existing one-story in the rear of the house because of the cathedral ceiling. For architectural reasons, they need to build over the garage. That necessitates a variance. C. The variance is not substantial in as much as they are asking for less than 3 ft. The house is already nonconforming due to changes in the building code over the years. D. The variance will not produce an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The plans note that runoff will be contained on the property. E. This is not a self created difficulty, because the house is already non- conforming. 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 dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. APPLICATION NO. 8—CASE NO. 2627 Application of Nancy and Mark Abrams requesting a variance to construct a two story addition on the premises located at 1 Daymon Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112, Lot 648. The two-story addition as proposed has a front yard of 18.70 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-6 Zone District. James Fleming (applicant's architect)and applicant Nancy Abrams appeared and addressed the Board. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Left Meeting Paul A. Winick Yes On Motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, 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. Winick, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Nancy and Mark Abrams have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 1 Daymon Terrace. The two-story addition as proposed has a front yard of 18.70 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240 69 and WHEREAS, Nancy and Mark Abrams 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 findings: A. This is a difficult site. It's a triangular piece of where, in order to fit the house on the first place, the house was set forward toward the Daymon Terrace property line. B. As the applicant's architect has told us, there is essentially no way to add this additional structure that does not require some variance. The proposed design presents the most straightforward way of incorporating an additional bedroom and bathroom into the space. C. There will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood as a whole from the addition to this one house. Of more concern is whether there will be a detriment to the adjoining property and there will not be or, at least, any detriment is outweighed by the benefit to the applicant. The proposed addition will be within the side yard setback and more significantly, it will not impact the useable part of the neighbor's house that will face this addition. That side of the neighbor's house contains the dining room, and there only is a small window in the downstairs room that faces the addition. So the construction close to that side should not effect the neighbor. D. The variance is substantial. It's going to crowd the space somewhat and will increase the impact of the building on the streetscape, but will not overall have a negative impact on the neighborhood or the district. E. The difficulty here is not self-created. It is a function of the size and shape of the lot. From the observation of the property, the private outside space for this house is to the west, on the other side of the property from where the applicant proposed this addition. Construction on the west side, the possible alternative, would also require a variance, and would have a detrimental affect of removing a very beautiful private space that is the only outside space for the house. As such, it is not an alternative to the requested variance. 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 dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. APPLICATION NO. 9—CASE NO. 2628 Application of Frank Giattino requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 130 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 261. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft. 1 in. 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. 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 Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Jillian A. Martin Yes Arthur Wexler Left Meeting Paul A. Winick Yes 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, Frank Giattino has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 130 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 261. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft.1 in. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240 69 and WHEREAS, Frank Giattino 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 findings: A. There is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant is adding a small second floor addition over the existing garage in order to create an additional bedroom for his family. B. There is no reasonable alternative, which would not require the necessity of an area variance, because the garage as it exists is currently in a nonconforming location. C. The variance is substantial in that it is calling for a 6 ft. side yard. However, given the fact that the applicant is proposing to build over the current garage, there is no reasonable alternative as previously stated that would outweigh the other factors. D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. They are building over an existing garage. E. There is no self-created difficulty in the first place, because the house already is 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 be limited to the construction detailed on the plans dated July 30, 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 Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a building permit during regular hours. Nancy Seligson, a Town Board member, said we did discuss the idea of bringing the Planning Board, Zoning Board, Board of Architectural Review (BAR)together with the Town Board to discuss guidelines and how to better streamline that process. It was discussed that the chairs of the various Boards and some members should meet to discus the process. The proposed meeting date will be in October notification will be sent as to the exact date. On motion made and seconded the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. All persons interested in the above application 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 Of Mamaroneck, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York during regular business hours. Prepared by Francine M. Brill