Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_03_02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 2, 2005, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison (Counsel not present) 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. Gunther at 7:48 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding open board Minutes. The secretary read the first application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE NO. 2642 (adjourned 1/26/05) Application of Andrea P. Boyar requesting a variance to construct a 11/2 story addition on the premises located at 47 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 399. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 20-ft. where 30-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); a proposed driveway 1-ft. from the property line where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79B; a parking area within 25-ft. of the front property line also pursuant to Section 240-79B for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. John Cleaver (property owner) appeared before the Board and discussed the changes that were made in the revised plan. Mr. Cleaver stated one revision was instead of having a setback of 20-ft. as in the original application, they were requesting a setback of 23-ft. where 30-ft. is required. The other revision is the proposed driveway was eliminated. Zoning Board March 2, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments or questions from the public on this application. There were none. After some discussion the Board agreed that the addition would be a benefit to the applicant and would have no adverse impact on the neighbors or the community. 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. Winick, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Andrea P. Boyar has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 1 1/2 story addition on the premises located at 47 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 399. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 20-ft. where 30-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); a proposed driveway 1-ft. from the property line where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79B; a parking area within 25-ft. of the front property line also pursuant to Section 240-79B 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 240-79B; and WHEREAS, Andrea P. Boyar submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The applicant has come before the Board tonight with a revised design that has pushed the proposed construction of the new garage to a point where the front yard setback will now be approximately 23-ft. from the property line where it was originally 20-ft. as proposed on the initial application where the addition as proposed has a front yard of 20-ft. where 30-ft. is required. The applicant changed the design and has mitigated the impact on the surrounding community to the point where there will not be an Zoning Board March 2, 2005 Page 3 undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to properties if that structure were to be built. B. Given that this is a property which has nearly all front yards, there is really no way that the applicant can achieve their goal of having this additional parking and the capacity of this structure without the grant of some form of an area variance. C. The variance is substantial. Because of how the house is sited on the property it's going to be a pretty visible addition, but the affect will be largely transient on people as they pass down Fernwood, and as such, while it is substantial, the Board doesn't feel that is sufficient grounds for denying the variance. D. The other part of the application is a request that the Board authorize a parking area within 25-ft. of the front property line which, in this case, is the front property line on Fernwood. The applicant has presented to the Board plans with a revision date of 2-1-05 and on sheet A-2 of the plans, there is a plot plan, which depicts a vehicle 6 by, 16-ft. in the driveway. Allowance of the parking space in front of the proposed garage addition is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. E. On condition that the area that's being approved for a parking spot is that area showing the vehicle that is depicted on the plans, the Board should conclude that authorizing that parking spot within the setback will, similarly, not have an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. On that condition and the condition that the variance is limited to the construction detailed on the plans and no other, I move that the Board grant the 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: Zoning Board March 2, 2005 Page 4 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. The secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE NO. 2643 (adjourned 1/26/05) Application of Ellen and Eric Marcus requesting a variance to construct a new garage with two bedrooms above, and a new second floor bath and study over the existing first floor on the premises located at 10 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Lot 84. The new garage with two bedrooms above as proposed has a front yard of 36-ft. where 40-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(1), a side yard of 6.5-ft. where 10-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(2)(a); the second story addition over the existing first floor has a side yard of 9.8-ft. where 10-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); a total side yard of 16.3 ft. where 20 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b); and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Larry Gordon (applicant's architect) appeared before the Board and stated that the Board was adjourned from the prior meeting and when the Board left off, the discussion was about the pitch of the side roofline being altered to lessen the impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Gordon stated that he submitted a revision of the roof. The revision shows that the roof was brought back and sloped away from the adjacent houses, which should lessen the impact. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. After some discussion the Board agreed that the addition would be a benefit to the applicant and would have no adverse impact on the neighbors or the community. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. Zoning Board March 2, 2005 Page 5 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 Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ellen and Eric Marcus have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a new garage with two bedrooms above, and a new second floor bath and study over the existing first floor on the premises located at 10 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Lot 84. The new garage with two bedrooms above as proposed has a front yard of 36-ft. where 40-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1), a side yard of 6.5- ft. where 10-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); the second story addition over the existing first floor has a side yard of 9.8-ft. where 10-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); a total side yard of 16.3 ft. where 20 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b); and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 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 240-36B(1), Section 240-36B(2)(a), Section 240-36B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Ellen and Eric Marcus submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The applicant has come before the Board tonight with a revised set of plans. The affect of the proposed addition on the surrounding environment is limited principally to the fact that there is a very small side yard both on this property and on the adjoining one, so that the addition as proposed really crowded the neighbor on Bonnie Way. B. What the applicant has proposed tonight is different from what was proposed at the previous meeting is that the roof has been slanted backwards away from the adjoining property, which minimizes the effect of the bulk of the proposed addition on the adjoining neighbor. The effect of that, as a practical matter, creates a greater Zoning Board March 2, 2005 Page 6 sense of light and air on the adjoining property and to minimize the effect. Given the siting of the house on this property and the need to have driveway access in the front, there is no practical way that the applicant could add a new garage without crowding one of the side yards. C. The variance is substantial but, again, it's not determinative and the affect on the neighbor has been adequately minimized by the adjustment to the design of the roof. The other two variances required for this are quite minimal, 9.8-ft. where 10-ft. is required, and is hardly noticeable. D. The front yard variance of 4-ft. is in keeping with the character of the building, and as such, will really not be noticeable to the passersby and neighbors, and as such also, is a minimal impact. E. While the request for a variance in this instance is a self-created situation, the home as built is already nonconforming. The proposed addition is the minimum necessary to alleviate the owners need and as such is not determinative. 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 revised plan, which was dated 2/2/05 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 March 2, 2005 Page 7 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. 2647 Application of Mr. and Mrs. M. Gilbertson requesting a variance to legalize an existing wood deck addition and a freestanding wood deck on the premises located at 3 Hilltop Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 228, Lot 75. The wood deck addition as built has a front yard of 1.7 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1). The freestanding wood deck has a rear yard of 3.6 ft. where 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-50. Also, the freestanding deck has a height of 3 ft. 2 in. where 18 in. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-50. The decks increase the lot coverage to 47% where a 35% lot coverage is permitted pursuant to Section 240-35F; and further, the deck addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District. Fred Grippi (applicant's architect) appeared before the Board and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to legalize an existing wood deck addition and a freestanding wood deck. The Zoning Board questioned why the decks were built without a building permit. Members of the Board were troubled because the applicant was absent and unable to defend himself. Neighbors of the applicant expressed their displeasure with the decks stating that it is an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Gunther stated that the Board would like to adjourn this matter and ask the applicant or the owner of the property to be present to answer questions. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick and unanimously approved, application#2647 was unanimously adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. The secretary said the next meeting is scheduled to be heard on March 23, 2005. The secretary read the next application and follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE NO. 2648 Application of Andrei and Natasha Ziabkina requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 368 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 289. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.8-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. Fred Grippi (applicant's architect) appeared before the Board to present this case. Mr. Zoning Board March 2, 2005 Page 8 Grippi informed the Board of his proposal to build a second floor. After some discussion about a variance that was granted in the past, Chairman Gunther made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick and unanimously approved, this application is adjourned to the next meeting. The secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE NO. 2499 (approved 4/24/02) (renoticed 2/23/05) Application of Andrew Juzeniw and Estella Nisola requesting post consideration approval of a landscaping plan on the premises located at 278 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110, Lot 121, pursuant to a resolution previously adopted in case number 2499 on April 24, 2002. Chairman Gunther informed those present that this is a continuance from a variance application going back a ways. Andrew Juzeniw (applicant) explained to the Board that he is proposing to plant 13 5-ft. Emerald Green Arborvitae trees which will continue to grow about 5-in. to 6-in. a year to a maximum height of 14-ft. or 15-ft. Mr. Juzeniw also stated he is proposing to fill in the driveway made of gravel stones. After further discussion, Chairman Gunther stated to let the record show that Mr. Wexler was getting a description from the applicants using the documents supplied with the application to help him visualize the difference between what was there before and what has since been built on top of it. The picture shows a structure of about 8-ft. in height, and what currently exists is a structure of 14-ft. in height. The application refers to the screening that's proposed to cover that area. Members of the Board reviewed 12 pictures, marked Exhibit #1 - 12. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. Mark Chapman (280 Rockingstone Avenue resident) expressed his disapproval with the planting of these trees stating he was concerned about a water problem and that the trees would grow onto his property. To respond to the neighbor's comments, the Director of Building stated that adding plantings would help absorb ground water and stabilize it. Mr. Chapman also declared that when they built the house his view of the woods was taken away and he feels that they don't need anymore trees. Zoning Board March 2, 2005 Page 9 Mark Fried (276 Rockingstone Avenue resident) was concerned about a water problem stating that water was being drained right to his garage and he didn't believe that this could be the system with a variance. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. Marc Cannon (274 Rockingstone Avenue resident) stated he is concerned about the aesthetics, the height of the plantings that are planned as well as the water and drainage issue, because it could potentially affect his property. He continued to say the aesthetics would affect anyone that lives on this street. Chair Gunther suggested to the applicant that he speak to his neighbor, speak to his landscape architect, whoever helped him with these suggested plantings and come up with a revised plan. Everett Robert Wassman (15 Campbell Lane resident) addressed the Board stating he thinks this proposed planning, in fact any planning at this location of this nature, would pose a hardship and a practical difficulty. Mr. Juzeniw responded by saying his proposal for high planting wasn't for his benefit or because he wanted high plantings, he thought that's what the Board suggested. He continued to say he is not looking for screening, he thought the screening was required. Chair Gunther confirmed that he will make a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting, on March 23, 2005, at which point ten days prior to that meeting the applicant should submit a revised landscape plan to the Building Department. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved, Case # 2499 to be adjourned to the next meeting on March 23, 2005. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Marguerite Roma Prepared by Francine M.Brill