Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_07_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 04. 4 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 26, 2005 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Linda S. Harrington Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Tina Dinunzio, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Daniela Gerardi, Recording Secretary APPLICATION NO. 1 -CASE NO. 2654 (adjourned 4/27/05; 5/18/05; 6/21/05) 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. The application was denied because the Board felt that the proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and it would create a detriment to nearby properties. The Board feels that the proposed legalization of a monument sign will have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions and adding an additional sign would have a substantial impact on the neighborhood. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on July 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2654—AMERICAN SIGN CRAFTERS After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was unanimously denied, 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 Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was DENIED: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, American Sign Crafters submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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; 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), only two signs are permitted per establishment when located in a "B" Business Zone District; and WHEREAS, American Sign Crafters 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 does not outweigh 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 Town Board changed the sign law in November`2004 to only two signs to lessen the impact on the panoramic views of neighboring residents and to stop the proliferation of signage on the Boston Post Road. B. The proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and it would create a detriment to nearby properties. Also the Board finds that the location of the present building bearing two signs is more than adequate for the announcement of the business within. C. The applicants could achieve their goals via an alternate design D. The proposed legalization of a monument sign will have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions on the neighborhood. E. The Board views adding an additional sign would have a substantial impact on the neighborhood. F. The Board feels the difficulties were self-created. The applicant installed the sign without the benefit of a sign permit and has been in violation for several months. G. The denial 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 due to its small size and placement. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 -CASE NO. 2669 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 3 of 10 Application of Robert B. Temple requesting a variance to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 4 Senate Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112, Lot 638. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 23.85 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); a side yard of 6.6 ft. where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); a lot coverage of 44.5%where 35% is permitted 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. Keith Akroyd (works with the applicant's architect)stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a family room addition to expand the first floor area. Mr. Akroyd stated to the Board that the applicant is planning on removing the patio and will not replace it After reviewing the plans, members of the Board stated that the approval would be granted if the 8 ft. side yard is maintained. Mr. Akroyd assured the Board that the side yard would not be affected. The Board finds that the record made by the applicant is sufficient, the benefit to the applicant outweighed any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding properties and granted the variance. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on July 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2669 -TEMPLE After review, 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert B. Temple submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 4 Senate Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112, Lot 638. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 23.85 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(3); and the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(3) and Section 240-69 for a residence in an R- 6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, Robert B. Temple 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: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 4 of 10 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 nor will it create a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is modest in size. B. The applicants can not achieve their goals via an alternate design due to the placement of the house on the property and the layout of the interior floor plan. One of the purposes of the proposed addition is to provide extra living space for the family. The proposed family room addition will have a minimal change in lot coverage. The applicant must maintain the 8 ft. side yard. C. The design of the proposed addition is consistent with the existing dwelling and will not materially increase the mass of the structure. The existing building is on a legally non- conforming lot. The side and rear setbacks are less than what is required for an R-6 Zone under the existing zoning regulations resulting in a very tight site. The lot coverage will be greater than allowed. D. The variance requested is not substantial; the existing building is already nonconforming due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. The proposed addition will not have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions on the neighborhood. The existing house is very modest in size and the proposed addition is modest in size as well. E. There appears to be no indication that the first floor addition will cause additional significant runoff or other undesirable results. F. The existing building is legally non-conforming now, therefore, the Board finds that the difficulties were not self-created. There will be a minimal change in lot coverage. 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 due to its small size and placement. 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. I. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 5 of 10 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—CASE NO. 2670 Application of Susan and Herb Myers requesting a variance to construct a vestibule and a 2-story addition on the premises located at 7 Meadow Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 231. The vestibule as proposed has a front yard of 35.25 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); the 2-story addition has a front yard of 29.4 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. Robert Keller (applicant's architect) approached the Board and stated the plans were revised to show the front vestibule was no longer proposed and a front yard variance was not needed. The Board agreed that the 2-story 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. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on July 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2670 -MYERS After review, 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. Baron, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Susan and Herb Myers submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 2-story addition on the premises located at 7 Meadow Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 231. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 35.25 ft. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(1); the 2-story addition has a front yard of 29.4 ft.where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); and further, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-36B(1); Section 240-36B(1); and Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, Susan and Herb Myers submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 6 of 10 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 nor will it create a detriment to nearby properties. B. The design of the proposed addition is consistent with the existing dwelling and will not materially increase the mass of the structure. C. The applicants can not achieve their goals via an alternate design due to the placement of the house on the property and the layout of the interior floor plan. D. Difficulties were not self-created. One of the purposes of the proposed addition is to provide extra living space for the family. E. The variance requested is not substantial. The proposed addition will not have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions on the neighborhood. F. There appears to be no indication that the 2-story addition will cause additional significant runoff or other undesirable results. 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 due to its small size and placement. 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. I. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 7 of 10 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. 4 -CASE NO. 2671 Application of Mr. and Mrs. August Propersi requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition, rear wood deck and front entry steps on the premises located at 15 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 41. The front entry steps as proposed has a front yard of 10 ft. 4 in. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 2.5 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a total side yard of 14.1 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); a lot coverage of 50.78% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F; 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. Michael Csenge (applicant's architect)stated the applicant's desire is to construct a second floor addition over the existing first floor. Mr. Csenge submitted a letter signed by the neighboring residents stating they had no objection to this project. The Board agreed that the second floor addition, rear wood deck, and front entry steps 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. CERTIFICATION As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on July 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2671 —PROPERSI After review, 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 Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. August Propersi submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 15 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 41. The front entry steps as proposed has a front yard of 10 ft. 4 in. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 2.5 ft. where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a total side yard of 14.1 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); a lot coverage of 50.78% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F; 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(1); Section 240-37B(2)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b); Section 240-37F; Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District; and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 8 of 10 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. August Propersi 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 nor will it create a detriment to nearby properties. Due to the existing conditions which were created at the time that the existing dwelling was created are not in conformance with the present Zoning Regulations, any addition or expansion of the existing dwelling can not be constructed or designed to comply with the Zoning Regulations. B. The proposed second floor addition, rear wood deck, and front entry steps will increase the lot coverage to 50.78%from existing lot coverage of 47.82%, where 35% is permitted. The proposed addition is mainly a second floor addition over the existing first floor which is not conforming. C. The design of the proposed addition is consistent with the existing dwelling and will not materially increase the mass of the structure. The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition, wood deck to the rear, and alterations to the existing dwelling. D. The applicants can not achieve their goals via an alternate design due to the placement of the house on the property and the layout of the interior floor plan. One of the purposes of the proposed addition is to provide extra living space for the family. The applicant is proposing to improve the look of the house and make the house appear more welcoming. E. The variance requested is substantial; however, the difficulties were not self-created. The existing building is already nonconforming due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years. The proposed addition will not have an adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions on the neighborhood. F. There appears to be no indication that the second floor addition will cause additional significant runoff or other undesirable results. 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 due to its small size and placement. 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. I. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 9 of 10 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. 5—CASE NO. 2672 Application of Chris Dowicz requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition on the premises located at 53 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125, Lot 171. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 16 ft. where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1)for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Application stricken from agenda due to improper placing of the notification sign. APPLICATION NO. 6—CASE NO. 2673 Application of Susan Wood requesting a variance to construct a fence on the premises located at 296 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 602. The fence as proposed has a height of 6 feet where 4 feet for a front yard and 5 feet for the side and rear are required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-10 Zone District. Application stricken from agenda due to improper notification. APPLICATION NO. 7—CASE NO. 2674 Application of Duane Reade requesting a use variance in order to obtain a 24 hour permit for operation of its business on the premises located at 1275 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Lot 449. The use variance is pursuant to Section 240-30A(1). Warren Goodman (applicant's attorney)stated the applicant's desire for a use variance so the business can operate on a 24 hours basis. Neighboring residents complained about the noise and their concerns of the business operating 24 hours a day. The Board felt this application should be adjourned to the next meeting on September 7, 2005. APPLICATION NO. 8—CASE NO. 2675 Application of Becky and Josh Shapiro requesting a variance to construct new front entry steps and a sun room on the premises located at 15 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 348. The front entry steps as proposed have Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes July 26, 2005 Page 10 of 10 a front yard of 27.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1), the sun room over the garage has a side yard of 5.2 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a) and further the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Application stricken from agenda due to improper notification. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther the meeting was unanimously adjourned. Daniela Gerardi Zoning Board Secretary