Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_05_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 18,2005,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Frederick Baron Linda S. Harrington Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Taina Zambrano,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mr. Wexler at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Gunther arrived at 8:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding previous open Minutes. APPLICATION NO. 1-2654(adjourned 4/27/05) Application of American Sign Crafters requesting a variance to legalize a monument sign on the premises located at 1370 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410, Lot 1. The monument sign as proposed would be the third sign for the premises where,pursuant to Section 240-45(iii)(b), only two signs are permitted per establishment when located in a "B" Business Zone District. Meeting adjourned to the next meeting June 21,2005 APPLICATION NO. 2-2655(adjourned 4/27/05) Application of Javor and Javor, Inc./Bonnie Javor requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence/sound barrier on the premises located at 15 South Ridge Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 206, Lot 118. The fence/sound barrier as built has a height of 8-ft. where 5-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-15 Zone District. The applicant approached the Board and explained that fence in question was necessary for safety due to a steep drop behind the fence and to cut down the noise level from traffic on I-95.The applicant also stated that the neighbor below was some 150 feet from the fence and the fence did not block the sunlight in any way. The fence is painted green to match nature and is barely visible from Baldwin Place Road below. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 2 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,Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, 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 Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Javor and Javor, Inc./Bonnie Javor have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing fence/sound barrier on the premises located at 15 South Ridge Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 206, Lot 118. The fence/sound barrier as built has a height of 8-ft. where 5-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence 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 240-52A;and WHEREAS, Javor and Javor, Inc./Bonnie Javor 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 exceeds the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The fence is not intrusive to adjoining properties and provides some needed relief from the sound of Route 95 below. There is a great distance in land between the fence and the neighboring property closest to it. The property is a teardrop shape and there is a steep slope in the rear before it comes to another house. The fence won't block the neighbor below's access to sunlight or the enjoyment of their yard or their home. It's also noted that this is a partial fence not running completely from one side lot line to the other, so it doesn't go across the entire property. There is a steep drop-off in topography that does pose a significant safety hazard, especially with children that is alleviated in safety by their fence. The Board doesn't find that it will change the character of the neighborhood. The property is so high up it is not readily noticeable from on the street below it,Baldwin Place. The Board doesn't find that the addition of the proposed fence will create a detriment to nearby properties. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 3 B. Whether the applicant can achieve their goal via a reasonable alternative: The Board finds that there really is no alternative as far as the noise abatement from Route 95 and the safety of people on the property,because there is such a sheer drop. Whether the variance is substantial:The variance itself is not substantial,in that while a large piece of fence is being positioned, it is so far away from neighboring properties on both sides, and the rear, that it's impact is negligible to nearby properties. C. Whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that it won't. It blends in due to the green color, and it is so far away from the nearest property that the Board doesn't find that it will create an adverse impact. D. This is not a self-created difficulty,because there was a negative condition created as a result of the Thruway being built in the back of their property. Also,there is the fact that there is a sheer drop off the rear of the property that was not self-created. Placement of this fence alleviates these conditions,in this instance. E. 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. F. 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. G. 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. APPLICATION NO. 3-2656(adjourned 4/27/05) Application of McMahon's Farm/Thomas McMahon requesting a variance to construct a new loading dock and receiving area on the premises located at 615 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 4 of Mamaroneck as Block 131, Lot 344. The loading dock and receiving area as proposed would have a lot coverage of 63%where 25%is required pursuant to Section 240-45A(3);has a floor area of 63%where 50%is required pursuant to Section 240-45C. for a building in a Service Business Zone District. Application adjourned to the next meeting June 21,2005. APPLICATION NO. 4-CASE NO. 2658 Application of Post Road Larchmont Realty, Inc. requesting a variance to erect a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 12 panel antennas and related equipment in the basement on the premises located at 1-3 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 82. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not a permitted use in a Service Business Zone District pursuant to Section 240-31. Also, the proposed antennas have a height of 56 ft. 2 in. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-46D; and further, the antennas increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in a Service Business Zone District. Cara Bonomolo(applicant's attorney)of Snyder and Snyder approached the board and explained the application.The applicant stated that there is a coverage gap in the area and that this application would help close this gap and there fore help to obtain seamless cellular coverage.The applicant also stated that there would be 12 panel antennas mounted just below the parapet of the building that would not go above the line of the roof and that there would be equipment in the basement to power the panels. Members of the board were concerned with the view from Dillon Road and the view from the Post Road with particular attention to the corner panels that were close to the masonry corners.They felt that the panels should match the brick by painting such details as mortar joints.The applicant agreed this could be done and would make it part of the next submission.The board had no problem with the panels on the stucco facade(north east corner by chimney)but asked if the panels could be separated and spaced to fit better with the lines of the building.The applicant agreed and would also resubmit this request on plan for the next meeting. The application was adjourned to the June 21,2005 meeting APPLICATION NO. 5-CASE NO. 2659 Application of Pam and Rob Joyce requesting a variance to construct a front vestibule on the premises located at 68 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117, Lot 236. The front vestibule as proposed has a front yard of 24 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-7.5 Zone District. No one was present from the applicant's side. The application was adjourned to the June 21,2005 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 6-CASE NO. 2660 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Gorman requesting a variance to construct a first floor addition on the premises located at 15 Wildwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128, Lot 234. The first floor addition as proposed increases the lot coverage from 41% to 42.3% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38F; 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. The application was adjourned to the June 21,2005 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 7-CASE NO. 2661 Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 5 Application of Mercedes Benz of Larchmont/Joseph Pepe requesting a variance to erect additional signage on the premises located at 2500 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 123. The proposed monument sign and the two logo signs along with existing signage would be the fourth sign located on the premises where, pursuant to Section 240-45(iii)(b), only two signs are permitted per establishment when located in a Service Business Zone District. Also, the logo signs have pictorial matter with a height of 2 ft. 10 in. where a maximum of 24 in. is permitted pursuant to 175-11B; has a proposed height above the main roof level where, pursuant to Section 175-11B, the height shall not be above the main roof level for signage in a Service Business Zone District. Don Mazin(applicant's attorney)approached the Board and explained the need for the variance. He stated that the property was unique in that the building was set back over 75 feet from the front property line,sat on a curve on the Post Road,was blocked by large trees and signage from other establishments in the area.Joseph Crocco(applicant's architect)approached the Board and explained the additional signs that were requested.He stated that Mercedes would like to install their three point star logo on the front tower on two sides and install a ground sign. Mr. Crocco stated that the Board of Architectural review was in favor of this signage but could not approve it because it needed a variance from the ZBA. 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,Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington,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.Wexler,seconded by Ms.O'Neill,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mercedes Benz of Larchmont/Joseph Pepe have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to erect additional signage on the premises located at 2500 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 123. The proposed monument sign and the two logo signs along with existing signage would be the fourth sign located on the premises where,pursuant to Section 240-45(iii)(b),only two signs are permitted per establishment when located in a Service Business Zone District. Also,the logo signs have pictorial matter with a height of 2 ft. 10 in.where a maximum of 24 in. is permitted pursuant to 175-11B;has a proposed height above the main roof level where, pursuant to Section 175-11B,the height shall not be above the main roof level for signage in a Service Business 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 240-45(iii)(b)and Section 175-11B;and WHEREAS, Mercedes Benz of Larchmont/Joseph Pepe 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: Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 6 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 by the granting of this variance: The Board finds that in this instance, given the location of this building, given the orientation of this building from the Boston Post Road, given the setback from the Boston Post Road, given the inclusion or proximity to Staples with their large sign on the street,that the signs that are proposed, given in the scaled size and they have their integration to the building,will not have an undesirable change in the community. In looking at the plans that were presented to the Board and if the photographs are accurate,it will be an enhancement to the community,the community along the Boston Post Road,which is really an area that is very visually chaotic. B. Will the benefit sought by the applicant achieve by some methods other than an area variance: Again,given the location of the building,given its proximity and its orientation to the Boston Post Road,given the applicant's desire to promote its business in this area,the Board feels there is no other alternative other than to try to get a space out as far as to the visual eye as possible. The Board finds the applicant has achieved this in a sensitive manner. C. Whether the requested area variance is substantial: Two signs more than two signs allowed might be considered substantial. The Board finds not so, given the size of the building, given the size of the lot, given the size of the signs themselves,they're not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the impact or the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the signs unless they are humongous in size, would have no affect. These are not large signs. They are quite modest given what you see along the Boston Post Road for any other major commercial avenue in our community, that means specifically Larchmont,which is in Westchester. E. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: In this instance since the building was preexisting,the owners renovated the building, resurfaced the building and they have not placed the building where it presently exists. The difficulty is not their doing. 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. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 7 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. The secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 8-CASE NO. 2662 Application of Stanley and Doreen Kolt requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck on the premises located at 4 Country Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 320, Lot 574. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 3.2 ft. where 25 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 36B(3); and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Mr. Kolt approached the board and explained the application. He stated that several years ago he built the deck with out a permit and that he wanted to obtain a variance and build the deck legally. He also stated that the deck at this time was rotten and needed to be replaced. He also stated that the deck would not interfere with any neighbors or be a determent to the neighborhood. 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,Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington,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.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Stanley and Doreen Kolt have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a rear wood deck on the premises located at 4 Country Road and known on the Tax Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 8 Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 320, Lot 574. The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 3.2 ft. where 25 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-36B(3); and further, the deck increases 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(3), Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Stanley and Doreen Kolt 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 making that determination the Board visited the site and reviewed the circumstances and conditions there. There are a series of findings: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created: The Board finds that in this instance it will not; as a deck has existed in the same location for over thirty years. There is no relative impact negatively noticed from any nearby properties in the area. Secondly, the rear of the property faces an open area. Immediately in back of the Kolt residence is a densely wooded area,which is the rear yard of the property adjacent to him. The deck next to the rear lot line is a great distance from any additional structures. Therefore,no change will be noted,nor can it be seen by anyone other than the one neighbor below it. B. Whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: In this matter,to add a rear deck to his property would require a variance in that the house itself was built with a variance, because of the close proximity to the rear lot line. In addition to the rear of the property, the rear of the house would require a variance. C. Whether the variance is substantial: The Board finds that it is not in this instance,because of the significant amount of open space in the area and great distances from other structures. D. Whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that none will be created as a result. What is proposed is a replacement of a deck that apparently exists and has been there for thirty years. The replacement will, in fact, eliminate a potentially unsafe condition from the decaying deck that currently exists. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 9 E. Whether there has been any self-created difficulty: The Board finds that there is none 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 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. APPLICATION NO. 9-CASE NO. 2663 Application of Mark and Deborah Jacoby requesting a variance to erect a fence atop a wall on the premises located at 5 Durham Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 203, Lot 315. The fence as proposed atop the wall has a height of 7 ft. where 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-20 Zone District. The applicant approached the Board and explained the application.Mr. Jacoby stated the fence would serve a dual purpose. He stated that the fence would give privacy to both properties and would serve as a noise barrier from the adjoining properties mechanical equipment.He also stated that the fence would be stained a green color to better blend in with the surroundings and that a good portion of the fence would be hidden by existing evergreen plantings.The fence also acts as part of a required pool enclosure. 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,Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 10 Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, 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 Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mark and Deborah Jacoby have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to erect a fence atop a wall on the premises located at 5 Durham Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 203,Lot 315. The fence as proposed atop the wall has a height of 7 ft.where 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-20 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 240-52A;and WHEREAS, Mark and Deborah Jacoby submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. This fence will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The benefit to the applicants outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. This fence will be screened by trees. The applicants will make sure that the fence is painted green to match the surroundings. It will prevent noise from neighboring air conditioning and pool equipment. The Board believes it will provide a better measure of safety than the fence that exists. The fence will be basically nonintrusive. There are no properties that would be negatively impacted and the only property that really will be impacted,will be the neighbor with the equipment causing the noise issue. The Board has been told by the applicant that the neighbor is in favor of this and it will be visually beneficial to both parties. It will provide a more secure,sturdy fencing,given the fact that there's a pool. There's a pool on both grounds. B. Whether the applicant can achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: C. The problem is that this fence sits on a 2-ft.high stone wall,so that in order to meet the height requirement they would have to install 2-ft. fence,really not desirable and not a reasonable alternative. D. Whether the variance is substantial: Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 11 E. Given the fact that this fence is necessary for the pool and the noise abatement and it doesn't impact anyone but the neighboring towns which is an agreement with the variance,the Board doesn't find it is substantial. F. The Board doesn't find that this variance will have an adverse impact on any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Board has had no negative comments from any neighbors. It won't produce any additional environmental runoff or anything to that affect. G. This isn't a self-created difficulty, because the fence is necessary for the pool and the stone wall exists. The Board doesn't find it is a self-created difficulty. H. 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. L 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. J. 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. APPLICATION NO. 10-CASE NO. 2664 Application of Warren Page and Liz Sabin Page requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition, front porch and bay window on the premises located at 30 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104,Lot 44. The bay window addition as proposed has a front yard of 29 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); the addition has a front yard of 31 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); a side yard of 6.30 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(2)(a); a total side yard of 18.43 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Christina Griffin(applicant's architect)approached the Board and explained the application. She stated that the home was nonconforming in respect to front and side yard setbacks and any addition would require a variance. She explained that the second floor had two bedrooms with low ceiling heights and very small windows that by Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 12 today's standard were in violation of the building code. She stated that there would be a covered entry added to protect the residents from foul weather when entering the home. The Board agreed that the addition as presented would provide a benefit to the applicant that is outweighed by any detriment to the health,safety or welfare of community or surrounding properties and granted the variance. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, 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.Wexler seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED. On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Warren Page and Liz Sabin Page have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor addition, front porch and bay window on the premises located at 30 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104,Lot 44.The bay window addition as proposed has a front yard of 29 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(1); the addition has a front yard of 31 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); a side yard of 6.30 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); a total side yard of 18.43 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(b); and further,the addition increases 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, Warren Page and Liz Sabin Page 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 in the granting of the variance: In this case, the variance that is sought after of putting dormers on the main house, putting a small covered entryway and the projection of a small bay window on the front facade would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods' front yards are a plus or minus 30 ft. from the lot line. This house as sited has a front yard setback of 31 ft. The only projection beyond that 31 ft.would be the small bay window that appears to be on the second floor,but the main floor of the house. The requested variances on the side line which will maintain an existing side yard of 6.3 ft.where 10 ft is required and a combination of two side yards of 18.43 Ft. where 30 ft.is required is the actual side line setback that exists now. The addition in these areas will be minimal given the size of the property, and the benefit that the applicant needs to achieve what they're building. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 13 B. Whether the applicant can achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative,which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: Given the conditions of the house as they exist, given the development of the second floor in an attic area where there is minimal light, air and ventilation and do not meet the requirements of the present day Building Code, the development of the second floor will afford the owners of the property the use of that second floor to meet the requirements of the Building Code. Given the fact that the house is so sited that it is presently 10 ft. closer to the front property line than present day code allows, it is closer to the side line than the Town of Mamaroneck Code allows, and yet the Board does not see any alternates that the applicant can develop on this house without the need for a Zoning Variance. C. Whether the variance is substantial: Looking at a 30 ft front yard 40 ft is required, but given the fact that this house is already sitting in that area, it was built probably in a time when that was the required front yard of 30 ft. It appears that it is in character with the neighborhood and not substantial in relation to the homes that are around it. D. Whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood of district: The Board finds that since the footprint is only minimally being enlarged,the runoff of this house will be minimal,if at all. Board finds there will be no impact on air quality or any other things that will affect the district. E. Whether there has been any self-created difficulty as a result of this: Given again the location of this house being that it was sited on the property given the fact that footprint basically is not being enlarged that is not self created,because of the need and desire of the applicant. The Board finds no self-created condition. 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. One additional window be added to the expanded structure as indicated on the plans on page A-3. 2. That the finish on the addition that is proposed matches the brick on the house. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 14 3. That the proposed driveway, be of gravel impervious materials and not paved in any way, and that there be something to stabilize the material so that it does not get onto the street, such as a cobblestone apron but not concrete,that will blend into as a garden type of surface. 4. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 5. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 6. 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. 7. 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. 11 -CASE NO. 2665 Application of Sunilla Ajodah requesting a variance to alter and enlarge an existing porch on the premises located at 704 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 1. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 3 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(3); a side yard of 5.2 ft.where 10 ft. is required pursuant 240-37B(2)(a); a proposed parking area within 25 ft. of the front property line where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79; 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. Nathan Frankel expediter for the applicant approached the Board and explained the application. Mr Frankel stated that the applicant need more room for a growing family and the addition was primarily to add closet space on the first floor. Also the addition of a driveway on Forest Avenue was needed due to the fact that it is difficult and dangerous to back out on to Weaver Street.The applicant stated that this would be a gravel drive way set 5 feet from the neighboring property. A Board member raised the concern that adding the driveway on Forest Avenue would interfere with parking on Forest Ave when school was let out and when the school had special functions. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were no 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,Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington No Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 4-1. 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. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 4-1. Mrs.Harrington did not vote in favor of this resolution. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 15 On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Sunilla Ajodah has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to alter and enlarge an existing porch on the premises located at 704 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221,Lot 1. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 3 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3); a side yard of 5.2 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant Section 240-37B(2)(a); a proposed parking area within 25 ft. of the front property line where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. ;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(3), Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-79, Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Sunilla Ajodah 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. After visiting the site, the Board in evaluating the application and reviewing it on a number of prospectives makes the following findings: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created in the granting of the variance: The Board finds it does not. This particular property is burdened by two front yards sitting on the corner of a very busy street within the Town. The house has been placed and setback very far to the east side of the property where the side lot line goes straight back from Forest Avenue and having a portion jut in for approximately 3 feet creating an"S" as in the property line, on the forest Ave side of the property.. The applicant's proposed addition is in this particular area and no other variance is reasonable to add the addition that's required To alleviate the applicant's need. A review of the application from the nearby property owners have returned no objections from any neighbors,including those most closely affected by the increase in the house footprint. The proposed addition would enclose a long existing porch area and add some additional structure mostly not able to be seen from the street B. Whether the applicant can achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative,which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: This is a preexisting nonconforming structure, according to Section 240-69 and any increase in the size of the structure would require a variance. C. Whether the variance is substantial: In this matter,the increase in square footage requested is a mere 92 square feet. In this matter the board considers it not be not substantial. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 16 D. Whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood of district: Because of the relatively small size of the addition, there will be no environmental impact because of the addition as proposed. Regarding the requested parking space, the increase of the parking area is being proposed as a major element to provide safety for the owner. At present, exiting the home's garage, situated under the house by backing up hill and onto Weaver Street also know as State Route 125,which is one of the busiest streets in our Town;having a tremendous amount of traffic both from inter- Town traffic and traffic mixed with the street diagonally across the way, creates a hazard to both the home owner and children potentially crossing the street toward the school diagonally across Weaver street. Allowing off street parking on the Forest Avenue side of the property creates a safer exit point for the homeowner. E. The addition of an alternative parking space on the Forest Avenue side of the property for a 10-ft. width, to alleviate the Weaver street exit potential-hazard situation to the homeowner, allows for a safer exit from their property during the busiest time of the day. F. Whether there has been any self-created difficulty as a result of this: The Board finds that there is, though not determinative in this case, because of the placement of the house on the property. Its location is appurtenant to Weaver Street and a school across the road. G. 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. H. 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. L 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: 8. One additional window be added to the expanded structure as indicated on the plans on page A-3. 9. That the finish on the addition that is proposed matches the brick on the house. 10. That the proposed driveway, be of gravel impervious materials and not paved in any way, and that there be something to stabilize the material so that it does not get onto the street, such as a cobblestone apron but not concrete,that will blend into as a garden type of surface. 11. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 12. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 17 13. 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. 14. 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. 12 -CASE NO. 2666(granted November 23,2004) Application of Joseph Paterno requesting an extension for a variance granted November 23, 2004 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 Paterno owner representative approached the Board and explained the reason for the extension.Mr Paterno stated that due to weather and the time spent at the Planning Board review time had run out for the 6-month requirement to obtain a building permit. The Board granted a 6-month extension. Record of Vote Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, 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.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Joseph Paterno has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting an extension for a variance granted November 23, 2004 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 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 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 18 RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED an extension of twelve months, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the granting of an extension of the variance granted November 23, 2004 for an additional six months. 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. NEXT MEETING DATE The next Zoning Board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,June 21,2005. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by seconded by ,the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Daniela Gerardi Zoning Board May 18,2005 Page 19 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 Frederick Baron Linda S.Harrington Irene D.O'Neill Arthur Wexler 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.