Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_10_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Town of Mamaroneck µ Zoning Board of Appeals MIMED TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2005 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Absent: Linda S. Harrington 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 1. CASE NO. 2672 - DOWICZ Chris Dowicz approached the Board and stated his desire to construct a family room and bedroom addition. James Fleming (applicant's architect)stated the variance request is for a modest addition and does not produce any negative effects on neighbors. Mr. Fleming continued to say the square footage was reduced from the original plans to accommodate the newly imposed side line. Mr. Fleming responded to concerns of drainage saying drainage of the project will be designed under the Town of Mamaroneck's Soil Erosion & Surface Water Runoff Control Plan requirements. Natural runoff will always occur, and most likely will be partially mitigated by virtue of this proposed construction. Edward Ryan (52 Edgewood Avenue resident)submitted a four-page document to the Board in opposition of this application stating the proposed addition totally eliminates the light and space currently enjoyed by the resident at 52 Edgewood Avenue. Mr. Ryan also stated the addition would destroy the ambiance of light, air, and space of the neighborhood and create more extreme water flow problems. Mr. Ryan continued to say if the fourteen foot variance was granted, it would destroy the value of a neighbors backyard as an enjoyable place to sit, work, and live. 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 October 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2672— DOWICZ After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED on a vote of 3-1. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 2 of 17 On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Chris Dowicz submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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; 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 WHEREAS, Chris Dowicz 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: The variance request is for a modest addition, and does not produce any negative effects on neighbors. The owners' need the added space, for their young family, and the position of the proposed addition is the best suited for that expressed purpose. In addition, the position of this proposed addition is not generally visible from outside of the site. Drainage of the project will be designed under the Town of Mamaroneck's Soil Erosion & Surface Water runoff control plan requirements. Natural runoff will always occur, and most likely will be partially mitigated by virtue of this proposed construction. In addition, "starter homes" simply do not exist in this area anymore, and the concept is outmoded. The owner of this home intends to remain here and enjoy the property and surrounds. This house is the smallest in the area and with the addition requested only modestly brings it closer to others surrounding it. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Other solutions are not available, although researched, such as a shorter, unusable addition, which would still require an area variance, yet a smaller one; and addition placed two stories on the right side of the front of the house, where it Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 3 of 17 could be constructed without a variance is not practical although legal as to zoning, and no side addition could be built. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: It is the minimum variance that could achieve the owner's goal. The proposed lot coverage of 29% is below the Town permitted of 35%. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The addition produces no negative effects on the community in general. In fact, it enhances property value, and makes the house "up-to-date." The addition is quite ordinary in scope. Screening, which should consist of at least 6-foot Evergreen trees, will be placed on the southwest side of the property to mitigate views of the addition and the neighbor at 52 Edgewood. A hedge preservation plan for the east side of the property between the applicant's property and the property at 7 Judson will be submitted to the Director of Building. Blasting will not be allowed. Any fill added to the property needs to be submitted to the Director of Building for approval. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The conditions of the through lot and the original placement of the house on the site all indicate that this is not self-created. Given that adding to one's house as one's family requires is in itself quite normal, and would need to request a variance in most solutions, the Board believes it is not self-created. 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. Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 4 of 17 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. 2. CASE NO. 2673 -WOOD Susan Wood (applicant)approached the Board and stated the multi-page document she submitted should provide the Board with the information they requested. Ms. Wood continued to say the fence is needed for safety and protection from traffic and to block the noise. Ms. Wood expressed her desire to have the six-foot fence instead of the four-foot that's allowed without a variance because she feels that every foot will help reduce the noise from Weaver Street. Edmund Dawson (on behalf of Dr. Gershenson -435 Weaver Street resident)expressed their concerns saying the fence will block their view of Weaver Street making it very dangerous to back out of their driveway. 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 October 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2673—WOOD After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr.Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Susan Wood submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans 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; 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, Susan Wood 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 October 26, 2005 Page 5 of 17 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: 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 several feet back from the adjoining road and well behind a row of tall trees and shrubs. The fence as requested will reduce traffic noise and provide a safe play area for the applicant's daughter. The proposed fence will not be more than 210-feet in length and 6-feet in height. The fence will be placed 15 feet from Weaver Street, except for the portion adjacent to the neighbor's driveway which will be positioned at a greater distance away from Weaver Street, as noted on page 10 of the applicant's submission. Further, the Board requested the color of the fence facing toward Weaver Street be dark in color and more sympathetic to the environment to lessen any visual impact. The Board also requested the applicant provide substantial screening to further soften the impact from the road in those areas not already screened by existing shrubs and trees. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The applicant could not achieve their goal of reducing the noise from traffic or provide protection for their daughter without the proposed fence; therefore, there is no other method other than an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: Given the fact that the applicant feels this fence is necessary for protection and to reduce noise from traffic and the fact that it will be placed back from the road and behind a tall row of existing trees and additional shrubs to be added, the Board doesn't find it substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: 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 fence will be placed 15 feet from Weaver Street, except for the portion adjacent to the neighbor's driveway which will be positioned further away from Weaver Street, as noted on page 10 of the applicants submission. The fence shall not be placed in an area that would block the neighbor's line of sight when pulling a car onto Weaver Street leaving their driveway. It will not produce any additional unwanted environmental runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board does not find the fence is a self-created difficulty because it is needed for protection and to reduce noise from an increased amount of traffic on the road. Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 6 of 17 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. 5. The applicant shall be required to maintain or replace all shrubs and trees placed on the street side of the fence so as to ensure the fence is screened from view, reducing the visual impact of the height and length of the fence. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. 3. CASE NO. 2674— DUANE READE The applicant in writing requested the application be adjourned to the next meeting on November 30, 2005. 4. CASE NO. 2684 -GACCIONE Larry Gordon (applicant's architect)stated to the Board the applicants' desire to construct a front alcove entrance. Mr. Gordon continued to say the proposed construction is designed to compliment the existing structure and that the proposed addition will add a small entrance area and closet to the front of the house. Mr. Gordon affirmed the lot coverage will increase by only.3%from 20.5%to 20.8% and that the proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. 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 October 26, 2005 Page 7 of 17 I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on October 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2684—GACCIONE After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Richard Gaccione submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front alcove entrance on the premises located at 14 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Lot 76. The addition as proposed has front yard of 24.58 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36 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-15 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-36 B(1) and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Richard Gaccione 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: The proposed construction is designed to compliment the existing structure. The proposed addition will add a small entrance area and closet to the front of the house. The lot coverage will increase by .3% from 20.5% to 20.8%.The proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. The scale of the structure will continue to be appropriate within the context of the neighboring residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: By constructing the front alcove entrance, the applicant will gain a small entrance area and closet. The applicants' goal can not be achieved via an alternate method and the applicant can not achieve their goals without an area variance. Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 8 of 17 C. Whether the area variance is substantial: Because the lot coverage will increase by only .3%, the Board believes the requested area variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The addition will not have appreciable effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self created. Because of the size of the property and the siting of the house it will not be possible to add space to the structure without building in the required setbacks. 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. 5. CASE NO. 2688 -PARAS Frank Marsella stated to the Board the applicants' desire to construct a second story master bathroom addition over the existing first floor footprint. Mr. Marsella affirmed the lot coverage will not increase and that the proposed construction will not have an impact on the neighborhood. The Board finds that the record made by the applicant is sufficient, the benefit to the applicant Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 9 of 17 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 October 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2688— PARAS After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Liz and Antonio Paras submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story master bathroom addition on the premises located at 2 Boulder Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110, Lot 499. The master bathroom addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.4 feet where 10 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-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 240-38 B(2)(a)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Liz and Antonio Paras 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: The proposed construction is designed to compliment the existing structure. The proposed addition will add a master bath over an existing first floor foot print. The lot coverage and footprint will not change. The proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. The scale of the structure will continue to be appropriate within the context of the neighboring residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 10 of 17 feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: By constructing the proposed addition, the applicant will gain a master bath. The applicants' goal can not be achieved via an alternate method and the applicant can not achieve their goals without an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: Because there is no change in the lot coverage, the Board believes the requested area variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The addition will not have appreciable effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self created. The house is a pre-existing non-conformity. 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. 6. CASE NO. 2689 - HALPERIN Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 11 of 17 Steven Halperin (applicant)stated to the Board the applicants' desire to enclose an existing seasonal porch in order to create a play room for their young children. Mr. Halperin continued to say the new play room will be adjacent to the existing living room and dining room. Mr. Halperin affirmed the lot coverage will not increase and that the proposed construction will not have an impact on the neighborhood. 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 October 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2689— HALPERIN After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Steve Halperin submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to enclose a seasonal porch on the premises located at 16 Huguenot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129, Lot 143. The seasonal porch to be enclosed has a side yard of 5 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a), has a rear yard of 17 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-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 240-38B(2)(a), Section 240-38B(3), and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Steven Halperin 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: Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 12 of 17 The proposed construction is designed to compliment the existing structure. The newly enclosed space will be contained within the boundaries of the existing structure. The existing roof line, eaves, and overhangs will remain and will not be extended. The materials used to infill the walls will match or be consistent with those of the existing structure. The proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. The scale of the structure will continue to be appropriate within the context of the neighboring residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: By enclosing the existing seasonal porch, the applicant will be gaining a play room for their children adjacent to the existing living room and dining room. The existing structure presently extends into the required side yard setbacks on both sides, as well as the required rear yard setback. Adding to the house in any other location will increase the extent of nonconformity. Furthermore, this is the most practical location for this construction, within the boundaries of the existing structure. It allows for the addition of the desired space without significantly altering the appearance or the mass of the house. There is no other method by which the applicant may feasibly achieve the desired benefit, other than an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: Because the existing seasonal porch is built in the required side yard and rear yard, and because the proposed work falls within the footprint of the existing seasonal porch, and will be contained within the existing second floor overhang, the Board believes the requested area variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The addition will not have appreciable effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self created. Because of the size of the property and the siting of the house it will not be possible to add space to the structure without building in the required setbacks. 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. Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 13 of 17 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. 7. CASE NO. 2690 -PURTILL John Cotugno (applicant's architect)stated to the Board the applicant's desire to construct a second story addition in the rear. Mr. Cotugno continued to say the proposed construction is designed to compliment the existing structure and that the proposed addition will add a bathroom. Mr. Cotugno affirmed the proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. 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 October 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2690— PURTILL After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Sabra Purtill submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story addition in the rear on the premises located at 4 Spruce Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 595. The second story addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.9 feet where 10 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-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 240-38B(2)(a) and Section 240-69; and Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 14 of 17 WHEREAS, Sabra Purtill 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: The proposed construction is designed to compliment the existing structure. The proposed addition is to construct a bathroom. The materials used to infill the walls will match or be consistent with those of the existing structure. The proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. The scale of the structure will continue to be appropriate within the context of the neighboring residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: By constructing the proposed addition, the applicant will gain a bathroom. Possible alternative locations for an addition that would comply with zoning are not practical due to the layout of the home, and are not feasible or structurally efficient. Furthermore, this is the most practical location for this construction, within the boundaries of the existing structure. It allows for the addition of the desired space without significantly altering the appearance or the mass of the house. There is no other method by which the applicant may feasibly achieve the desired benefit, other than an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The existing two-story non-conforming single family home, as well as the proposed addition, has a side yard setback of 7.9 feet, thus a 2.1 foot variance is required. The Board believes the requested variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The proposed work will not negatively impact the neighborhood. The addition is minimal in size and will not obstruct the light or view of any other property. The addition will not have appreciable effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 15 of 17 The difficulty was not self created. Because of the size of the property and the placement of the house it will not be possible to add space to the structure without building in the required setbacks. 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. 8. CASE NO. 2693—ABROMOWITZ AND SAMUELS Gerald Markel (applicant's architect) stated to the Board the applicant's desire to extend an existing deck. Mr. Markel continued to say the proposed construction is designed to compliment the existing structure and that the proposed addition will provide a safe area for active children to play and be in visual contact. Mr. Markel affirmed the lot coverage will increase by only 1% from 28% to 29% and that the proposed construction will not have an impact on the neighborhood. 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 October 26, 2005. CASE NO. 2693—ABROMOWITZ AND SAMUELS Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 16 of 17 After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Adam Abromowitz and Lori Samuels submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story addition in the rear on the premises located at 11 Cornell Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 201, Lot 159. The deck to be extended has a side yard of 15.2 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B.(2)(a), and further the deck 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 240-38B.(2)(a)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Adam Abromowitz and Lori Samuels 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: The proposed construction is designed to extend an existing deck. The proposed construction will not result in any change in the character of the neighborhood. The scale of the structure will continue to be appropriate within the context of the neighboring residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: By extending the existing deck, the applicant will provide a safe area for active children to play and be in visual contact. There is no other method by which the applicant may feasibly achieve the desired benefit, other than an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board believes the requested variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: Town of Mamaroneck October 26, 2005 Page 17 of 17 The proposed work will not negatively impact the neighborhood. The addition is minimal in size and will not obstruct the light or view of any other property. The addition will not have appreciable effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self created. Because of the size of the property and the placement of the house it will not be possible to add space to the structure without building in the required setbacks. 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 On a motion made by Mr. Gunther the meeting was unanimously adjourned. Daniela Gerardi Zoning Board Secretary