Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_09_07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Linda S. Harrington Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Also Present: Peter Paden, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Daniela Gerardi, Recording Secretary APPLICATION NO. 1 —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 applicant notification to neighbors. There was significant discussion with the applicant and the Board's Counsel concerning Notification law requirements and it was noted that in the absence of full compliance any resolution by the Board could be contested by others on grounds of an improper hearing. The applicant was advised to re-notify neighbors as required and the application would be moved till the next Board meeting. APPLICATION NO. 2—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. Susan Wood (applicant)approached the Board and stated her desire to erect a 6-foot high stucco fence on the back and side of the property line. Ms. Wood continued to say the fence is needed for safety and protection from traffic and to block the noise. Some residents expressed their concerns with the fence saying they feel that the noise would be redirected toward them if the wall was built. The Board requested that the applicant provide them with a building plan for the fence, a landscaping plan, and a plot plan. The application was adjourned to the September 27, 2005 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 3—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 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 2 of 15 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. Robert Tanes (Duane Reade representative)stated other businesses in the neighborhood, such as CVS, operate on a 24-hour basis and that Duane Reade should be given the same opportunity. Neighboring residents registered an objection to the application based on noise from the air conditioning units, the pickup of garbage during the early morning hours, and the fact that the planting/screening was never completed. The neighborhood residents also expressed their concerns about Duane Reade staying in business since the store is practically empty during the day. The Board adjourned this application to the next meeting on September 27, 2005, pending the applicant making a sufficient showing regarding the Zoning Law requirements for a Use Variance. APPLICATION NO. 4—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 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 was not heard due to improper notification of neighbors by the applicant and will be held over till the next Board meeting. APPLICATION NO. 5—CASE NO. 2676 Application of Thomas Gooley and Polly Kolotas requesting a variance to construct a second floor master bath and bedroom on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 508. The addition as proposed has a total side yard of 22 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37 B.(2)(b), and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Larry Gordon (applicant's architect)approached the Board and stated the applicant's desire to add a new master bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Gordon continued to say the new proposed addition walls will align with the existing exterior walls. 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 September 7, 2005. CASE NO. 2676—GOOLEY AND KOLOTAS After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 3 of 15 On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Thomas Gooley and Polly Kolotas submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor master bath and bedroom on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 508. The addition as proposed has a total side yard of 22 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37 B.(2)(b), and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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 240-37 B.(2)(b), and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Thomas Gooley and Polly Kolotas 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 outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. 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: In this case, the variance that is sought after constructing a second floor master bath and bedroom would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The new proposed addition walls will align with the existing exterior walls. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Given the conditions of the house as they presently exist, the Board does not see any alternates that the applicant can develop on this house without the need for a Zoning Variance. The addition would increase the extent by which the building is non-conforming. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: It appears that it is in character with the neighborhood and not substantial in relation to the homes that are around it. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 4 of 15 The Board finds that since the footprint is only minimally being enlarged, the runoff of this house will be minimal, if at all. The Board finds there will be no impact on air quality or any other things that will affect the district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Given again the location of this house being that it was sited on the property given the fact that footprint basically is not being enlarged that is not self-created, because of the need and desire of the applicant. The Board finds no self created condition. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 6—CASE NO. 2677 Application of John and Maria Wurpel requesting a variance to construct a one and two story addition to the side and rear yard on the premises located at 67 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 160. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 10.5 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B.(3) 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. Eric Jacobsen (applicant's architect)approached the Board and stated the applicant is proposing to build a single story addition and enclose an open air second story porch. Mr. Jacobsen said the proposed addition includes remodeling the kitchen, adding a family room and bathroom addition, enlarging a second floor bedroom and remodeling a second floor bath. Mr. Jacobsen continued to Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 5 of 15 say the applicant would not be increasing the existing non-conformities, the porch area and roof above are in need of repair and currently exist within the setback, and a 10-foot easement exists on the right side of the property—limiting the additions to that side. 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 September 7, 2005. CASE NO. 2677—WURPEL After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John and Maria Wurpel submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one and two story addition to the side and rear yard on the premises located at 67 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 160. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 10.5 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B.(3)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; 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; and WHEREAS, John and Maria Wurpel 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 outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. 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: In this case, the variance that is sought after constructing a one and two story addition would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition includes remodeling the kitchen, family room, and bathroom; Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 6 of 15 enlarging the second floor bedroom and remodeling the second floor bath. The proposed single story addition will be 11-feet off the rear property line where 10.5 feet currently exists. The applicant also proposed to enclose an open air second story porch that is 10.5 feet off rear property line where a 25-foot rear yard variance is required. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Given the conditions of the house as they presently exist, the Board does not see any alternates that the applicant can develop on this house without the need for a Zoning Variance. The addition would not increase the existing non-conformities. The porch area and roof above are in need of repair and currently exist within the setback. A 10-foot easement exists on the right side of the property, limiting additions to that side. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: It appears that it is in character with the neighborhood and not substantial in relation to the homes that are around it. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that since the footprint is only minimally being enlarged, the runoff of this house will be minimal, if at all. The Board finds there will be no impact on air quality or any other things that will affect the district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Given again the location of this house being that it was sited on the property given the fact that footprint basically is not being enlarged that is not self-created, because of the need and desire of the applicant. The Board finds no self created condition. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 7 of 15 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. 7—CASE NO. 2678 Application of Westchester Car Wash Group, LLC for the renewal of a variance dated October 20, 2003 to maintain an awning sign at the High Tech car wash facility located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 326.1. Kevin G. Ryan (applicant's attorney)stated the applicant is requesting the renewal of an area variance dated October 20, 2003 for the maintenance of an awning sign at the High Tech car wash facility. Mr. Ryan continued to say that no changes will be made to the car wash facility, including the awning sign. 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 RENEWAL 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 September 7, 2005. CASE NO. 2678—RENEWAL/WESTCHESTER CAR WASH, LLC After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. WHEREAS, this application 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; and On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Westchester Car Wash, LLC requested a renewal of a variance issued October 20, 2003 to maintain an awning sign. The awning letters as exist measure 2.0 ft. in height and the awning numerals as exist measure 1.0 ft. in height where 6 in. is the maximum height permitted for awning graphics pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign Law; and further, the lettering consists of two separate lines where a single line is the maximum for awning lettering pursuant to Section 175-15C of the Sign Law for a business use in an SB Zone District on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 326.1; 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 175-15C; and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 8 of 15 WHEREAS, High Tech Car Wash submitted an application for an extension of a variance issued October 20, 2003 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 Town Law§175-15 and New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The variance does not create any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, as it merely permits the continuance of an existing condition; B. The non-complying condition appears to be the only reasonable alternative, because the awning, which was replaced after storm damage, cost$15,000.00 and the letters cannot be removed without replacing the awning; C. The variance is not substantial; D. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the environment; E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance shall expire two years from the date hereof in accordance with Town Code §175-15(c). This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 8—CASE NO. 2679 Application of Patricia Cayton requesting a variance to legalize an existing 10 foot high fence in the rear yard on the premises located at 25 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 216, Lot 361. The fence as built has a height of 10 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-6 Zone District. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 9 of 15 Sharyn Boswell (current home owner)stated to the Board that the original application was submitted by the previous owner, Patricia Cayton, and she would like to continue with the application. Ms. Boswell continued to say they are requesting a variance to legalize an existing 10-foot fence in the rear yard. Mrs. Boswell affirmed that the existing rear yard fence provides noise and visual privacy that both the applicant and the neighbor desire. Julie Doherty(27 Harmon resident)would be happy with a 6-foot fence. The Board approved the legalization of the fence at 6-feet only. 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 September 7, 2005. CASE NO. 2679 -CAYTON/BOSWELL 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 Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Patricia Cayton (Sharon Boswell, the current owner, continued with the application) submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing 10-foot high fence in the rear yard on the premises located at 25 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 216, Lot 361. The fence as built has a height of 10-feet where 5-feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence 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 240-52A; and WHEREAS, Patricia Cayton 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 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 proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor will it create a detriment to nearby properties. The Board, in considering the as built conditions has decided to grant a lesser variance to allow Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 10 of 15 a 6-foot high fence, not the proposed 10-foot high fence. The fence, as now to be shortened to 6 feet in height, will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to make sure that the side of the fence which is facing the neighbors is as aesthetically pleasing visually as the side facing the applicant. The fence is designed to prevent noise from the nearby Route 95 highway, provide privacy from the neighbors behind them, and offer safety for small children. There are no properties that would be impacted except for two neighbors in the back. The Board has been told by one of the neighbors in the back that they are in favor of this alternate proposal and it would be beneficial to both parties. B. Whether the applicant can achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: The fence has already been built so in order to meet the height requirement the applicant would have to cut the fence so it will be lowered to no more than 6 feet in height. A six-foot fence was granted with the agreement of the neighbors. C. Whether the variance is substantial: Given the fact that the applicant feels this fence is necessary for privacy and noise and it will not impact anyone except for the rear neighbors, the Board doesn't find it is substantial when it will be cut down to no more than 6 feet in height. The fence was built illegally by the previous property owner. D. The Board doesn't find that this variance will have an adverse impact on any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Board has had no negative comments from any neighbors. It won't produce any additional environmental runoff or other negative conditions in the area. E. This is not a self-created difficulty, because the previous owner built the fence. The Board does not find this is a self-created difficulty of the current applicant. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 11 of 15 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 9—CASE NO. 2680 Application of David Bader requesting a variance to legalize a covered porch and front steps on the premises located at 11 McKenna Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207, Lot 522. The front steps as proposed have a front yard of 19.89 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), also the covered porch has a front yard of 26.39 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Sophia Gruzdys (applicant's architect)approached the Board and stated the applicant is requesting to legalize the 9-foot by 4-foot covered landing and new entrance stairs at the front of the house. Ms. Gruzdys continued to say the slope of the existing roof is too shallow to adequately protect from rain and snow and the front steps would provide protection to the occupants when entering the front of the house. Ms. Gruzdys also stated the proposed configuration is a modification to the previously approved application, and there is no change in the proposed area of walks, steps, and patios as previously approved. She also stated the previously approved semi-circular entrance stairs exceeded the owner's budget and the proposed stair configuration maintains the previously approved area of walks, steps, and patios. 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 September 7, 2005. CASE NO. 2680— BADER After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr.Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, David Bader submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize a covered porch and front steps on the premises located at 11 McKenna Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207, Lot 522. The front steps as proposed have a front yard of 19.89 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), also the covered porch has a front yard of 26.39 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District; and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 12 of 15 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; and WHEREAS, David Bader 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 outweighs any detriment to the adjoining properties or community in the vicinity of the house. 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: In this case, the variance that is sought is to legalize a covered porch and front steps. In granting the variance for the legalization, the porch and steps the Board finds that the addition is in character and special alignment with the rest of the neighborhood. The covered porch would also protect occupants from rain and snow when entering the front of the house. The 9-foot by 4-foot covered landing has a front yard of 26.39 feet and the new entrance stairs have a front yard of 19.89 feet. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Given the conditions of the house as they presently exist, the Board does not see any alternates that the applicant can develop on this house without the need for a Zoning Variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: It appears that the proposal is in character with the neighborhood, adjoining properties and not substantial in relation to the homes that are around it. 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 since the footprint is only minimally being enlarged, the runoff of this house will be minimal, and all required run off holdings have been met by the applicant The Board finds there will be no impact on air quality or any other manner that will negatively affect the district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds the construction of the covered porch and front steps were a self- created condition because it was completed without a variance but granted the legalization because it was a minor modification. The Board also noted that the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 13 of 15 addition as built is a technical alteration to reduce building costs, from the plan previously authorized by the Building Department. The applicant made the alteration in good faith, assuming the prior approved plans were sufficient evidence of approval to proceed. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 10—CASE NO. 2682 Application of Thomas J. Hory requesting a variance to construct a 6 foot high fence at 1032 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 346, Lot 219. The fence as proposed has a height of 6 feet where 4 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-20 Zone District. Thomas J. Hory(applicant) approached the Board and stated his proposal to construct a 5-foot fence with a 1-foot open topper on the front yard. Mr. Hory continued to say the fence would provide protection from truck and traffic noise and would discourage wildlife from crossing. Mr. Hory stated the fence would be placed 18-feet from the curb on the interior of the existing evergreen hedges and 64-feet from the house. The Board requested the applicant grow plants in between the 20-foot high green hedges to further soften the impact from the road. 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, Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 14 of 15 I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on September 7, 2005. CASE NO. 2682 - HORY 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 Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Thomas J. Hory submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 6-foot high fence on the premises located at 1032 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 346, Lot 219. The fence as proposed has a height of 6 feet where 4 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-20 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-52A; and WHEREAS, Thomas J. Hory 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: The Board, in granting the variance to install a 6-foot high fence finds that the fence will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because of its planned placement location. The fence will reduce truck and traffic noise to the homeowner and prevent wildlife from coming directly onto their property and mitigating the danger of a traffic collision between deer and car/truck traffic in that area. The proposed fence will be a 5-foot solid green wood fence with a 1-foot open topper. The fence will be placed 18-feet from the curb on the interior of the existing 20-foot evergreen hedge. The fence will be screened by the Arborvitae trees. The fence will be 64-feet from the house. The Board requested the applicant grow small greenery in between the Arborvitae trees to further soften the impact from the road. B. Whether the applicant can achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 7, 2005 Page 15 of 15 The applicant could not reduce the noise from trucks and traffic or get protection from wildlife and the danger they present without the proposed fence. C. Whether the variance is substantial: Given the fact that the applicant feels this fence is necessary for privacy, protection from wildlife, and to reduce noise from trucks and traffic, and that fact that it will be placed well back from the road and behind a tall row of existing trees the Board doesn't find it is substantial. D. The Board does not find that this variance will have an adverse impact on any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Board has had no negative comments from any neighbors. It will not produce any additional unwanted environmental runoff. E. The Board does not find the fence is a self-created difficulty because it is needed for protection from wildlife, and to reduce noise from an increased amount of commercial traffic on the road. 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. ADJOURNMENT Daniela Gerardi Secretary to Zoning Board