Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_04_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONINGBOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 27, 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 Absent: Arthur Wexler Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Peter Paden, Counsel Tina Dinunzio, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 1111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion regarding previous open Minutes. APPLICATION NO. 1 —CASE 2652 (adjourned 3/23/05) 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 appeared to address the Board, along with Gail Asher of 87 Mill River Road, South Salem, New York (applicant's architect). 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 Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill 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. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Paul and Linda Ardleigh have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(1), Section 240-39F; and WHEREAS, Paul and Linda Ardleigh 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. In fact, the renovation to this home will enhance the neighborhood. This home does not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood and is rather misshapen. We have had communication from surrounding neighbors that have no problem with this; we have heard nothing negative about it. The Board doesn't think that this will be a detriment to the neighborhood. It should also be noted that this is the only 1 1/2 story home on the block. It's the smallest house on the block as well. The minimal increase in square footage of 454 sq. ft. by moving the front of the house forward is the minimum necessary to alleviate a functional requirement for making reasonable size rooms in the property and most of the intrusion on front of the property is from the front porch. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goal via any alternate design that would be any less intrusive. C. The variance is substantial in as much as there is 3% extra of lot coverage and another almost 6-ft. going into the front yard, but that should not determine the outcome of this variance request. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The minimal, additional amount of footprint should not cause any additional or a detrimental environment. E. While this is a self-created difficulty it is preferable to what's standing on the lot now and shouldn't be determinative of the request for 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 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, THERFORE, 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 filling of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void id construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the dated 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 267a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATIO NO. 2 CASE—2653 Application of Mr. & Mrs. John Risner requesting a variance to construct a 2'% story addition on the premises located at 38 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123, Lot 451. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 17-ft. 7 in. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); a lot coverage of 41.80% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; a floor area ratio of 2417 sq. ft. where 2280 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-59.1 B(2) Line 4; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Mike Csenge of 493A Fifth Avenue, New Rochelle, New York (applicant's architect) appeared to address the Board Mr. Csenge entered a letter from 14 of the Risners neighbors marked Exhibit 1 approving the Zoning Board granting the necessary 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 Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes On motion, of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, 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. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. John Risner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 2'% story addition on the premises located at 38 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123, Lot 451. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 17-ft. 7 in. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); a lot coverage of 41.80% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; a floor area ratio of 2417 sq. ft. where 2280 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(3), Section 240-39F; Section 240-39F; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. John Risner 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 chance will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created: The Board finds after examining both the property physically by visiting it as well as examining the plans presented by the applicant, there is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood noting that the house immediately to the east of it is similar in size to what is currently there. While there are other houses on the block that are smaller in size, the positioning location, which is at the end in relation to other house, is in uniformity with what currently exists and the proposed addition. Secondly, whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: The Board notes that since this is a previously nonconforming property, any addition to the structure will require a variance. The applicant has offered an alternative plan to reduce the impact of floor area ratio excess by cutting it almost in half to only 90 square feet beyond what is allowed. The applicant has taken the initiative to lower the roofline thereby reducing the impact of massing that would be apparent from nearby properties. B. Whether the variance is substantial: In this case, because of the increase in floor area ratio that normally is required, the request is substantial. However, not totally determinative because of the diminutive nature of the increase of floor area ratio over what is required, this application when implemented is not a substantial variance. It should also be noted that the applicant has volunteered to reduce the size of the originally requested addition to be sure there is not negative impact. C. Whether the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district No it will not. The Board finds that the environment impact, because of an addition of less than 266 sq. ft. in this residential area, will not impact runoff or other environmental conditions of the site or surrounding properties or the neighborhood in general. The record should also note that the size of the increase in footprint is only 131-ft., and no impact on environmental conditions.. D. Lastly, whether there is any self-created difficulty: There may be some in this case because the applicants desire to increase the habitable area of their home, but it is not determinative. The resolution should also note that the Board is only approving the plans submitted with a date of March 22, 2005 and no other. E. The granting of this 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. 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THERFORE, 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 filling of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void id construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the dated 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 267a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 -CASE NO. 2654 Application of American Sign Crafters requesting a variance to legalize a monument sign on the 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 District Zone. The application was adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 4-CASE NO. —2655 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 permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. The application was adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 5-CASE NO. 2656 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 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 an a service Business Zone District. is located 7-ft. from the front property line where 25-ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79B for a parking area in an R-10 Zone District. The application was adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 6-CASE NO. 2657 Application of John Schudy requesting a variance to reconstruct a rear deck with hot tub and new steps on the premises located at 807 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207, Lot 393. The rear deck as proposed has rear yard of 18 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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- 10 Zone District. 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 Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes On motion, of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. O'Neill 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. John Schudy have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to reconstruct a rear deck with hot tub and new steps on the premises located at 807 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207, Lot 393. The rear deck as proposed has rear yard of 18 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-10 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(3), Section 240-39F; Section 240-39F; and WHEREAS, Mr. John Schudy 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. There is an existing deck on the property that is in desperate need of repair. It should be noted that the existing deck had required a variance that was granted in past years. The rebuilding of the deck, including a hot tub and new steps, will be unobtrusive and will not impact any neighboring properties. The home that will be most directly affected would look over deck from the side of the building and sits much higher than the property in question. The property in question is sufficiently screened from its neighbors and surrounding properties. It does not appear that the steps will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The area in question is in rear of the house and it is mostly screened by shrubbery and trees. It should be noted that the Town has had communications from some of the neighbors expressing their agreement to the new deck, steps and spa and have not heard any negative comments from the neighbors. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via any alternative that would be less intrusive. C. The variance request at 7-ft is substantial, but should not determine the outcome of the variance request. D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the deck will not create any additional runoff. E. This is not a self created difficulty, as the property is already nonconforming due to zoning changes over the years. It's not unreasonable to request a variance, nor for it to be granted. F. The granting of this 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 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 and/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THERFORE, 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 filling of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void id construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the dated 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 267a(2)of the Town Law. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting date of this Board is scheduled to be held on May 25, 2005. ADJOURNMENT Marguerite Roma Recording Secretary Prepared by Francine M. Brill