Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_09_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27,2005 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 Jennifer Luongo, 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. Chris Dowicz approached the Board and stated his desire to construct a family room and bedroom addition. James Fleming(applicant's architect)stated the interior addition has not been confirmed and the addition is for a growing family. Mr. Fleming continued to say the variance request is for a modest addition and that it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Edward Ryan(52 Edgewood Avenue resident)submitting a multi page document in opposition stated to the Board that the"through lot"is not wholly owned by the applicant;therefore,the applicant can not build on it. Mr. Ryan also discussed several other points concerning use of the property, drainage issues,the rear street setback area and other concerns.(see the record for full details) Other neighboring residents expressed their concerns about mitigation if the variance was applied for.With a question or dispute of ownership and other implications regarding the proposal the application was adjourned to the October 26,2005 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 that she was changing her original proposal of a 6-foot high stucco fence for a wood 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.Annette Gershenson(435 Weaver Street)expressed her concerns with the fence saying she feels the fence will block her view of Weaver Street when backing out of her driveway making it very dangerous. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 2 of 19 The Board reminded the applicant of the request made of her at the prior meeting which was not met,that of providing the Board with a building plan for the proposed fence,a landscaping plan detailing how it would be shielded to lessen its impact on the surrounding neighborhood,and a plot plan showing its exact placement on the property.The application was adjourned to the October 26,2005 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 Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412,Lot 449.The use variance is pursuant to Section 240-30A(1). The applicant in writing requested the application be adjourned to the next meeting on October 26, 2005. 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. Elizabeth DiSalvo(applicant's architect)stated the applicants'desire to construct a sunroom over the existing garage,construct a new entry and mudroom over the existing brick porch,and relocate the front steps.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 27,2005. CASE NO.2675—SHAPIRO After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.O'Neill,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Becky and Josh Shapiro submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 3 of 19 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;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(1)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Becky and Josh Shapiro 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.The garage on which the sunroom will be constructed is located approximately 5-feet from the side lot line, but there are no structures nearby except a free-standing garage on the neighboring property. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative. The new sunroom will be built over an existing garage and the new entry and mudroom will be constructed over the existing brick porch. The new front entry steps will be relocated and will extend into the front yard a slightly greater distance. C. The variance requested is not substantial. The existing house is already nonconforming due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years,and the footprint of the house will not change as a result of the addition. D. There appears to be no indication that the variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or cause additional significant run-off or other undesirable results. E. The difficulty was not self-created. It is due to the placement of the home on the lot at the time of original construction. 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 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 4 of 19 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.5—CASE NO.2681 Application of Melvin Berning requesting a variance to construct a two-story garage addition,a second floor expansion and front porch addition on the premises located at 1 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313,Lot 272.The front porch addition as proposed has a front yard of 23 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34 B(1),the two-story garage addition has a front yard of 24 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1)and the second floor expansion has a front yard of 27.3 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34 B(1)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District. Justin Minieri(applicant's architect)stated the applicant's proposal for an additional bedroom,a mudroom,additional storage space, improvement of access to the garage,and to repair the front porch. Mr. Minieri continued to say the existing house is non-conforming on a corner lot which aggravates the condition with the requirement for 2 front yards and an expansion can not be achieved without a variance.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 27,2005. CASE NO.2681—BERNING After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 5 of 19 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, Melvin Berning submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a two-story garage addition,a second floor expansion,and front porch addition on the premises located at 1 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313,Lot 272.The front porch addition as proposed has a front yard of 23 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34 B(1),the two-story garage addition has a front yard of 24 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(1)and the second floor expansion has a front yard of 27.3 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34 B(1)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 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 240-34 B(1)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Melvin Berning 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 two-story garage addition, a second floor expansion, and front porch addition would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood,which consists of large homes. 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 surround it. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 6 of 19 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,and all measures to mitigate any increase in runoff will be handled by the building inspector as part of the building process according to the Town of Mamaroneck building codes. The Board finds there will be no impact on air quality or any other impacts that will affect the district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Given again the location of this house, how it is sited on the property and the fact that the property is burdened by two front yards,this is not a self-created difficulty. 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.2683 Application of Scott and Elka Raved requesting a variance to construct dormers to a second floor loft on the premises located at 30 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212,Lot 440. The dormers as proposed have a front yard of 24.75 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37 B(1)and further the addition Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 7 of 19 increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Scott Raved(applicant)stated his proposal to construct dormers to a second floor loft. Mr. Raved stated the existing building was constructed in 1920 prior to the Zoning Ordinance therefore the existing structure is non-conforming. Mr. Raved continued to say the proposed dormers do not change the footprint of the house or its use, but adds headroom to an existing room. Mr. Raved added the loft room has headroom of approximately 8-feet at the roof peak but is sharply reduced at the edge of the room. Mr. Raved stated the proposed dormer rests on the original structural wall and adds headroom to the exterior of the room but does not increase the living area of the house. Mr. Raved added there is no increase in the footprint or in the height of the structure,only expanded headroom at loft level. Mr. Raved avowed that the exterior cladding would match the existing exterior shingles,the roof would be replaced with asphalt shingles,and the existing figures in the bath would be replaced. Board member Arthur Wexler requested the plans be amended to change the dormer on the right front portion of the house from a gable dormer to a shed dormer.The applicant would have to submit plans to the Director of Building.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 27,2005. CASE NO.2683—RAVED After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.O'Neill,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Scott and Elka Raved submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct dormers to a second floor loft on the premises located at 30 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212,Lot 440.The dormers as proposed have a front yard of 24.75 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37 B(1)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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(1)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Scott and Elka Raved submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 8 of 19 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.The dormers that will be constructed on the second floor loft will not alter the footprint of the existing residence. Due to the proximity of the home located behind this property, the owners have little choice except to add to the second floor on the front. B. The applicant cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative.The dormers will be added to an existing loft area thereby creating more headroom and usable space on the second floor. C. The variance requested is not substantial. The existing house is already nonconforming due to changes in the zoning requirements over the years,and the footprint of the house will not change as a result of the addition. D. There appears to be no indication that the variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or cause additional significant run-off or other undesirable results. E. The difficulty was not self-created. It is due to the placement of the home on the lot at the time of original construction. 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 27,2005 Page 9 of 19 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.2685 Application of Robert and Jennifer Lynch requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 80 West Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 865.The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.9 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39 B(2)(a),has a total side yard of 15.8 feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-6 Zone District. Robert Lynch(applicant)stated his proposal to add a second floor over an existing first floor area to enlarge an existing bedroom and add a walk-in closet.Mr.Lynch also stated the existing front open porch will receive a 6-foot by 3-foot roof over. Mr.Lynch continued to say the present building is non-conforming and the addition decreases the front yard setback 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 27,2005. CASE NO.2685—LYNCH 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.Baron,seconded by Ms. Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert and Jennifer Lynch submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 80 West Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 865.The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.9 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39 B(2)(a),has a total side yard of 15.8 feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-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 240-39 B(2)(a),240-39B(2)(b),and Section 240-69;and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 10 of 19 WHEREAS, Robert and Jennifer Lynch 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 addition would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 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. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 11 of 19 G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.8—CASE NO.2686 Application of Jeanne and Matthew Peloso requesting a variance to construct a rear dormer on the premises located at 6 Mardon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 55.The dormer addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a),and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R- 6 Zone District. Ethelind Goblin(applicant's architect)stated to the Board the applicant's desire to add a second floor dormer over the existing first floor outside wall which lies 7.3 feet from the property line,where 8 feet is required.The applicant is proposing to raise the roof at the back of the house in order to add a second bedroom and to reverse and improve the layout of the stairs.Ms. Goblin continued to say the project involves creating a new gable perpendicular to,and 3-feet 2 inches higher than the existing gable over the back half of the house in order to add a second bedroom and to reverse the direction of the stairs in order to lengthen the run and make them code compliant.Ms.Goblin avowed the project does not involve any changes to the existing building footprint or lot coverage.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 27,2005. CASE NO.2686—PELOSO After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 12 of 19 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,Jeanne and Matthew Peloso submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a rear dormer on the premises located at 6 Mardon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 55. The dormer addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a),and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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 240-38B(2)(a)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Jeanne and Matthew Peloso 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 rear dormer addition would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 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. B. 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. C. 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 27,2005 Page 13 of 19 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. D. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Given the location of this house and the way it is sited on the property the applicant has no other alternative than to apply for a variance.The property is already non- conforming according to the present town code. Therefore,the difficulty is not self- created. E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.9—CASE NO.2687 Application of Dr.Zahi and Monique Fayad requesting a variance to construct a kitchen addition and new deck on the premises located at 57 Moran Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504,Lot 168.The kitchen addition as proposed has a front yard of 22.6 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Rick Yestadt(applicant's architect)stated to the Board the applicant is proposing to enlarge the kitchen and family room for a growing family.Mr.Yestadt avowed the proposal is for a 12-foot 9- inch by 21-foot addition in the rear to accommodate a larger kitchen and family room.The proposal Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 14 of 19 includes a renovation of the kitchen,an addition to the family room,and a new deck. 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 27,2005. CASE NO.2687—FAYAD 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. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Dr.Zahi and Monique Fayad submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a kitchen addition and new deck on the premises located at 57 Moran Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 504,Lot 168.The kitchen addition as proposed has a front yard of 22.6 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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 240-376(1)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Dr. Zahi and Monique Fayad 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 kitchen addition and new deck would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 15 of 19 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. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. F. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 16 of 19 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.2692 Application of Nancy and Mark Abrams requesting a variance to construct a bay window addition on the premises located at 1 Daymon Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112, Lot 648.The bay window addition as proposed has a front yard of 16.70 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. James Fleming(applicant's architect)stated to the Board the applicant is proposing to install a bay window in the front of the addition.Mr.Fleming continued to say this application is an adjustment to the original approved design of two double-hung windows.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 27,2005. CASE NO.2692—ABRAMS 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.Baron,seconded by Ms. Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Nancy and Mark Abrams submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a bay window addition on the premises located at 1 Daymon Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112,Lot 648.The bay window addition as proposed has a front yard of 16.70 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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)and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Nancy and Mark Abrams 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 September 27,2005 Page 17 of 19 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 bay window addition would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 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. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. 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: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 18 of 19 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 Pamela Gerardi _—j Formatted:Font:10 pt Secretary to Zoning Board Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes September 27,2005 Page 19 of 19