Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_03_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 23,2005,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Linda S. Harrington Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Also Present: Judith M. Gallent,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Tina Dinunzio,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at by Mr. Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed all the applicants that at the moment one Board member is stuck in traffic,he will be here momentarily. The board will be happy to start and if you would like to hold your application till the fourth board member arrives,the Board will be happy to do that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding previous open Board Minutes. APPLICATION NO.1-CASE NO.2499(approved 4/24/02)(renoticed 2/23/05)(adjourned 3/2/05) 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. Andrew Juzeniw (278 Rockingstone Avenue) appeared to address the Board and stated that a revised plan of plantings was submitted. Mr. Juzeniw continued to say he and his neighbors met after the last Zoning Board meeting and came up with a plan to plant 3 Pears,3 Japanese Holly, and 2 Rose of Sharon. Chairman Gunther wanted to confirm the documentation provided by Nabel's Nurseries which indicates that the Bradford Pears will run from 8-ft. to 10-ft. tall,the Holly 4-ft. to 41/4-ft. tall, and Rose of Sharon 3-1/4 to 10-ft. Mr. Juzeniw confirmed this statement. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none. Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 2 Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman 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,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Andrew Juzeniw and Estella Nisola have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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;and WHEREAS, Andrew Juzeniw and Estella Nisola 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: The record reflects that there is adequate screening of the adjacent property. Accordingly, the landscaping is in accordance with the April 24,2002 variance and a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED. Mr.Wexler said don't we just have to make a motion to accept the interrupted. Ms. Gallent said yes,that it's in accordance with whatever is where it says and meets your approval. Mr. Gunther said the applicant shall develop a landscape plan and return to the Board for approval of the landscaping plan before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. That will give the Board a chance to address that situation of screening the adjacent properties. Ms. Gallent said you might want to say that the record reflect that this is adequate screening and you accept that. Mr. Gunther asked Mr.Wexler if that was fine. Mr.Wexler said absolutely. Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 3 Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion. There was none. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for inspections,before a C of 0 can be issued. APPLICATION NO. 2-CASE NO.2647(adjourned 3/2/05) 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. Mark Mustacato (applicant's architect) distributed a revised statement of the request for a variance Mr. Mustacato stated at the last meeting to this Board that the house is very nonconforming. The house is very large, it covers a good percentage of the property, it's nonconforming with regard to the front setback line which is a very unusual position, its only 1'/2-ft. from the property, although it's probably 50 something feet back from the street, because there is a strip of park land between the street and the actual property line. That pertains to that condition that's attached to the house. There is also a detached deck that's in the rear yard 3.6- ft. from the property line where 5-ft.is required. Mr. Gilbertson entered two letters from neighbors,marked exhibit#1, one from Blanche Benenson of 4 Hilltop Road that sits right across from the applicant, and Alice Horowitz of 11 York Road, in support of this application. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions The Board discussed the 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 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,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. M. Gilbertson have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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. Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 4 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;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 240-35B(1),Section 240-50,Section 240-35F,Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. M. Gilbertson 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. In evaluating whether the proposed variance would result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, this Board feels that is not the case in this instance. This finding is based on the fact that the house as situated on the property already is preexisting, nonconforming, with an exceedingly large lot. A 3% increase in coverage on a 20,067-sq. ft. lot is not considerable in terms of making a change to the neighborhood. In addition, the Board finds that the addition of the deck next to an open space comprised of a brook and Town of Mamaroneck Park area does not intrude on the character of the neighborhood or nearby residences. In addition, because the house is built close to the front lot line, at one point 3.6-ft. where 40-ft. would normally be required, the continuance of that deck at a lower level than the preexisting deck along the property line, following the property line in a parallel manner is not inconsistent with the area. With regard to the rear platform, its placement while close to the rear property line because of the proximity with nearby properties, which are on all surrounding sides and the large open space along the terrain is not inconsistent with the area as well. B. Given the existing nonconformity,there is no means, feasible for the applicants to pursue, for the applicants to achieve their goals without a variance. C. Whether the variance is substantial: It was already noted that it's a minimal increase in lot coverage. 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 take place as a result of the addition of these two decks. E. Whether there has been any self-created difficulty: This particular element may be relevant but not determinative and the Board finds that while the applicant did self-create by adding these two decks,it was out of ignorance to use the zoning board's regulations. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 5 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 granted based upon the normal terms and conditions covering the plans as presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department. APPLICATION NO. 3-CASE NO.2648(adjourned 3/2/05) Application of Andrei and Natasha Ziabkina requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 368 Weaver St 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. Mark Mustacato of RMG Associates, 105 Calvert Street, Harrison, New York 10528 appeared to address the Board. Mr. Gunther requested information regarding the height of the property as proposed relative to the neighbor's house. Mr. Mustacato said, I also have for you a composite elevation of the Ziabkina house with the addition and the neighboring house. The neighbor has no objection to the conditions. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none. The Board discussed his 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 Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 6 Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Andrei and Natasha Ziabkina have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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; 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(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Andrei and Natasha Ziabkina 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 proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. This addition is being put on a house that sits on a big corner property. It's already got an existing roofline that it's tying into. It's far enough away from neighboring properties,so as not to be a detriment. It's in keeping with the character of other houses in the neighborhood. B. The applicants cannot achieve their goals via an alternate design that would not require a variance,as this property is already a nonconforming property. C. The variance is not substantial at only 2.4-ft. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. It should be noted that there has been no negative communication from neighbors of surrounding properties. It appears in that case there are no objections. They are not concerned about this addition having a negative impact on their property or surrounding neighborhood nor of it creating any environmental difficulties. Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 7 E. It's not self created difficulty, due to changes in the Building Code over the years. This is a nonconforming lot and any addition or change would require a variance on that side of the house. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther advised the applicant to see the Building Department. APPLICATION NO. 4-2649 Application of Alan and June Ginsberg requesting a variance to retain an oven/range for a second kitchen which was installed for temporary use during the 24-month construction renovation of the house on the premises located at 46 Eton Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211,Lot 690. The retention of the second oven range would provide a complete housekeeping facility for a second dwelling unit, the use of which would not be permitted pursuant to Section 240-21; specifically Section 240- 21A.(1)and Section 240-37 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Mr. Wexler asked to make a statement at this time. Mr. Wexler said I was the original architect for the addition and alterations to that house a couple of years ago. I have no problem sitting in and voting on this matter. Ms. Gallent asked do you feel that you can be objective. Mr. Wexler said yes. Alan Ginsberg of 46 Eton Road, Larchmont, New York, 10538 appeared to address the Board. Mr. Ginsberg said we did a substantial renovation of our house and for approximately a year we didn't have use of our main Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 8 kitchen. We installed a temporary one in the basement,which allowed us to use that during the renovation but what we have found is that it provides a tremendous benefit to us. Mr. Gunther said we'll use text that Ms. Gallent made mention of earlier, and add the following. Based on the circumstances presented by this applicant and on the Board reviewing and visiting the site it becomes apparent that this is a,what's an appropriate word to describe the house from the outside,a grand single-family residence and not a two-family or multiple dwelling unit. The intent of the owner is to use it for additional cooking facilities, as the record indicates, it's all in the application. In addition, the applicant had stated that the oven range in the basement entertainment area allows the applicant to provide kosher food and non-kosher preparation in a multi-ethnic family with both Eastern-European-Jewish and Cantonese/Chinese backgrounds. The family indicated they are active in many organizations, both Jewish and Chinese/American, and often informally entertain guests in a variety of organizations, domestic and internationally, that require the preparation of foods in two different areas. The second oven allows the owners to provide a specific kosher and non-kosher dietary requirements of their guests,which is consistent with the applicant's use of the house solely as a single-family dwelling. This interpretation is merely to permit the use of cooking facilities in the lower level and does not constitute an additional dwelling unit. Ms. Gallent suggested the Board include,there are no indication of a second dwelling unit. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments, there were none, and as such the Board finds that this interpretation therefore does not require a variance. 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 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,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.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Alan and June Ginsberg have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to retain an oven/range for a second kitchen which was installed for temporary use during the 24-month construction renovation of the house on the premises located at 46 Eton Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211,Lot 690.The retention of the second oven range would provide a complete housekeeping facility for a second dwelling unit,the use of which would not be permitted pursuant to Section 240-21; specifically Section 240-21A.(1)and Section 240-37 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 240-21,specifically Section 240-21A.(1)and Section 240-37;and WHEREAS,Alan and June Ginsberg submitted an application for an interpretation 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; WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings: Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 9 A. The Board does hereby interpret the use of a second oven/range in this particular single family home as a permitted use and finds that it does not in itself create a second dwelling unit within the building,which the code strictly prohibits. B. The downstairs of this house is essentially a recreation area and not a second dwelling unit. hi other words, it's a wide open basement area with a counter in the back and the area is decorated and arranged to be used as a high-class entertainment area in fitting with the style, prestige and character of the home. The Board finds that the additional cooking facilities are present to support the recreation/entertaining area alone, and not to establish a second dwelling unit. C. Based upon the circumstances presented by the applicant and upon the Board reviewing and visiting the site,it is apparent that this is a grand single family residence and not a two-family or multiple dwelling unit. The intent of the owner is to use it for additional cooking facilities as the record amply indicates. In addition,the applicant has stated that the oven range in the basement entertainment area allows the applicant to provide kosher food and non-kosher food preparation in a multi-ethnic family with both Eastern-European-Jewish (kosher) and Cantonese Chinese backgrounds(the apparent heritage of the homeowners and so indicated in testimony). The family indicated they are active in many organizations, both Jewish and Chinese/American and often informally entertain guests in a variety of organizations that are domestic and international in scope, necessitating the preparation of food in two different areas. The second oven allows the owners to provide for specific kosher and non-kosher dietary requirements of their guest,which is consistent with the applicant's use of the house solely as a single-family dwelling. This interpretation is merely to permit the use of cooking facilities in the lower level and does not,by its use,create a second dwelling unit. Moreover, there are no indicia of a second dwelling unit, and as such the Board finds that this interpretation therefore does not require a variance. Mr.Wexler said I'd like to correct the variance of the other range to state what it is now. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other comments with the requirements. There was no response. Mr.Gunther said and as such,the Board finds that this interpretation therefore does not require a variance. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for your building permit. APPLICATION NO. 5-2650 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Craig Pisani requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 128 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 267. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 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. Craig Pisani of 128 East Garden Road,Larchmont,New York 10538 appeared to address the Board. Mr. Pisani said I'm basically trying to accomplish something that my neighbor to my left actually did a few months prior, basically building a small room above the existing structure. The house as it is right now is nonconforming, so the addition is going to be nonconforming. The room is fairly small, about 9-ft. wide and about 20-ft. deep and from the front of the house purposely try to keep the esoteric look appropriate to the neighborhood. The extension goes back. On the existing roof it goes above the room that's there. It goes up, and the peak of the roof actually is below the existing roof and the backside of the roof is actually tied into the existing roof on the back. The front of the house is not terribly offensive to the neighborhood. In terms of the neighbors,I'd probably have the biggest problem with my next door neighbor to the right that's from 6-ft.to the property line. I spoke to Ms. O'Reilly. She was perfectly fine with the addition. Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 10 Mr. Pisani said the reason for this room is that my wife is pregnant and we need an extra room in the house. Mr. Gunther said 228-sq. ft., using the same footprint as already exists on the house, with which Mr. Pisani agreed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. 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 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,4-0. RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Craig Pisani have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 128 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 267. The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.1 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(a); and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Craig Pisani 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 proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. This addition will be built over the existing space on the first floor. The properties that border this one in the rear are far enough away that the addition should not present a problem. The addition will be in line with the existing house and will fill in an open space left by the portion of the home that is one level. The home that borders this on the side will be about the same height,when the addition in that Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 11 area is added. As we have had no negative comments from the surrounding neighbors, it appears that there are no objections to the addition. B. This applicant cannot achieve their goals via an alternative design that would not require a variance, as this property is already nonconforming due to zoning changes over the years. C. While this variance is substantial considering the request for a 4-ft. variance and the fact that the property is already nonconforming,this should not be a determining factor in the granting of this variance request. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. It should be noted that there should not be any additional runoff from this addition,because there is already a structure in the area. As we have had no communications from neighbors,it appears there are no objections and they are not concerned that this addition will have a negative impact on their properties or surrounding neighborhood. E. This is not a self-created difficulty. Due to changes in the building code over the years the house exists on a nonconforming lot,and any change or addition would require a 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 authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Pisani to see the Building Department for your permit. APPLICATION NO. 7-2652 Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 12 Application of Paul and Linda Ardleigh requesting a variance to construct a front yard addition on the premises located at 28 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120,Lot 67. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 24.48 ft.where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); the proposed addition will have a lot coverage of 38% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Paul Ardleigh of 28 Homer Avenue,Larchmont,New York appeared to address the Board. Mr. Ardleigh said the house was constructed in 1927 and we believe was the first structure on Homer Avenue. Mr. Ardleigh said other than this 150 sq. ft. addition to the family room in the early '60's,no change has been made to the square foot of the area of the house since that time. The house is approximately 1750 square feet. We'd really outgrown our little house. Mr. Gunther said he received letters addressed to the Zoning Board as follows: "Our family is aware of the Ardleigh's plan to renovate their home. We live in close proximity as indicated below. They discussed their plans for renovation with us,and have no objection to the granting of the variance. We feel their plans will further improve the neighborhood. Signed by Kenneth J. Cooney at 16 Homer Avenue, Frank& Beth Sabia at 20 Homer Avenue, Alan&Elaine Ascher at 21 Homer". Mr. Gunther said this is a different letter, "My wife and I live at 21 Homer Avenue diagonally across the street from the Ardleigh residence at 28 Homer Avenue. We have seen their plans for the renovation of their home which is small in comparison to all the houses on the street, and we have no problem whatsoever. In fact, we feel their plan will further improve the neighborhood." There are also letters from 23 Homer Avenue, 24 Homer Avenue,27 Homer Avenue and 30 Homer Avenue having no objection. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington and unanimously approved, application#2652 was adjourned the next meeting scheduled to be held on April 27,2005. APPLICATION NO. 6-2651 Application of Mr. and Mrs. John Hillman requesting a variance to construct a 3-story addition and flagstone patio on the premises located at 11 Glen Eagles Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108, Lot 181. The addition as proposed has a third story where 2'/2 stories is required pursuant to Section 240-37D(1); a Floor Area Ratio of 5060 sq. ft. where 4877 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-59.9B(2),Line 13; and further,the addition as proposed has a lot coverage of 35.78%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-37F for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Mike Csenge of 26 Devonshire Road,New Rochelle,New York addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge said we were able to recalculate the lot coverage and bring it down to a proposed lot coverage of 34.99%which would put us below the 35%allowed Mr. Gunther asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. Mr. Gunther said there was a letter delivered to the Board from Dr. and Mrs.John Burn noting their objection to the extension to this area and read the letter. The Board discussed this application,and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 13 Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther,Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington No Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED,3-1. 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.Wexler,seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs.John Hillman have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a 3-story addition and flagstone patio on the premises located at 11 Glen Eagles Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 108,Lot 181. The addition as proposed has a third story where 21/2 stories is required pursuant to Section 240-37D(1); a Floor Area Ratio of 5060 sq. ft. where 4877 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-59.9B(2), Line 13; and further, the addition as proposed has a lot coverage of 35.78% where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-37F 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 240-37D(1),Section 240-59.9B(2),Section 240-37F; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John Hillman 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 by the granting of the area variance: After listening to the presentation made,reviewing the plans and going to the site,the Board believes that addition as presented will not result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. The ridge line of the house will remain the same, the height of the structure will remain the same, the setback from the rear property line of the main structure is greater than 55.4-ft. where 25-ft.is required therefore setting the house itself way back from the rear property line. The area of the back from the backside of the house, the front of the house is not to change. The push-out of a dormer on the rear of the house is not out of character with homes in the neighborhood. The Board feels that the creation of the third floor is only about 100-sq. ft. greater than what would determine this house to be a 2'/2-story building as a small in comparison to what a full 3-story house would be. B. Whether the benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by some method other than an area variance: Given the fact that the house already is a 21/4-story house and the addition of the 100- Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 14 sq. ft.upstairs would be hard to achieve that area without increasing the footprint of the house on the first floor or enlarging the second floor. C. Whether the requested area variance is substantial: The Board feels that the area variance is not substantial in that the additional 100-sq. ft. that makes it a 3-story house versus a 2'/2-story is small in proportion to the floor area that is the potential of a third floor that is allowed as a 3-story house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the definition of a 3-story house in this instance will not have a detrimental affect, since the ridgeline will not change at all. The bulk of the house will increase,not substantially to make it out of character with what's there now. E. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: In this case the Board does not think it is determinative. It's a small portion of the existing third floor,and in that case,the Board feels that the variance be granted as the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to nearby properties. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any discussion. There was none, so the motion was carried 3 to 1. Ms. Harrington said I think that I'm very sympathetic to the neighbors. I think adding anything to the bulk of this house is detrimental to the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. Zoning Board March 23,2005 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther,seconded and unanimously approved,the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Marguerite Roma Prepared by Francine M.Brill