Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_03_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 22, 2006 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Laurence Horvath, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Melissa Sasso, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Daniela Gerardi, Recording Secretary 1. Ferrira Joel Negrin (applicant's attorney)stated a location plan had been submitted to the Board. Mr. Negrin continued to say the location plan shows the existing lot coverage at 53.44% and the proposed lot coverage at 33.78%. Chair Gunther stated the Board can not make a decision without comments from the Planning Board. The Board adjourned this application until they receive comments from the Planning Board. 2. Carcano James Carcano (applicant)stated the variance proposed is a 3 1/2 ft. variance and is needed to construct another bathroom. Steven Chirogianis (applicant's architect)stated to the Board that the proposed addition would continue along the same plane as the existing dwelling and would not change the character of the neighborhood. Adrienne Silver(27 Rockland Avenue)stated she is in favor of the addition. Ms. Silver stated her kitchen and dining room overlook the house but she doesn't believe the addition will change the look of the neighborhood. The Board recommended that the architect consider revising the plans to show a break in the wall to lessen the impact of the addition. The Board adjourned the application to its next meeting on March 22, 2006. 3. 95 Colonial Avenue Jonathan Kraut (applicant's attorney)stated the applicant is requesting a variance to legalize two central air conditioning condensers. Mr. Kraut continued to say the existing air conditioning compressor units lie within the requisite side yard setback requirements. Mr. Kraut also stated the deficiency is about 4.5 feet shy of the requirement as a result of there being no other possible location for the compressors due to the configuration of the property and the location of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 2 of 5 existing structure. Mr. Kraut stated that the requested variance is necessary and minor and will not result in any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Jean Emerich (93 Colonial Avenue)stated the air conditioning units are very loud and are not covered. Ms. Emerich also stated the units make a crackling noise and it's very irritating. Mr. Kraut indicated that he would speak with his client regarding Ms. Emerich's concerns and would also look into whether the condensers could be relocated elsewhere on the property to avoid the need for a variance. The Board adjourned this application to its next meeting on April 26, 2006. 4. Lyons Michael Csenge (applicant's architect)stated the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. Mr. Csenge also stated the proposed addition is in keeping with the existing dwelling and the surrounding neighbors and would not have any adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Csenge continued to say the applicant has viewed alternative designs for the proposed addition, which would not require an area variance, but these alternatives would not meet the applicant's needs. Mr. Csenge stated that the area of the proposed addition requiring the variance is a triangular piece of approximately 19.85 sq. ft. out of a proposed 325.60 sq. ft. addition. Mr. Csenge declared they are decreasing the existing lot coverage from 31.06%to 26.78%with the removal of the patio. Zoram Najdorski (140 East Brookside Drive)stated he opposes the proposed addition. Mr. Najdorski continued to say he feels the addition will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will have an adverse impact on the physical conditions of the neighborhood. Thomas Wyatt (attorney for the resident of 130 East Brookside Drive)stated his client opposes the proposed addition. Mr. Wyatt continued to say the proposed addition is increasing the size of the house by 50% and it's the smallest lot in the area. Mr. Wyatt also stated that no other variance has been granted in the area that is this substantial. The Board adjourned the application to its next meeting on April 26, 2006. 5. Pincon The Board stated that the applicant should submit a plot plan to complete the application and should provide written evidence relating to the five statutory factors for issuing a variance. The Board adjourned the application to its next meeting on April 26, 2006. 6. Murphy Sean Murphy (applicant)stated to the Board he is requesting a variance to construct an addition on the second floor. Mr. Murphy continued to say he is proposing to add a master bath and closet space over the existing first floor sunroom and that, therefore, the footprint will not change. Mr. Murphy avowed the addition is very modest and will look like the rest of the house. Mr. Murphy affirmed other solutions had been sought but none were feasible. Mr. Murphy continued to say the exterior porch space was most obvious and logical and the existing sunroom roof is ideal for the solution. No one spoke in opposition to the variance application. The Board found that the plans and other information submitted by the applicant is sufficient and that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding properties. The Board thus granted the variance. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 3 of 5 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 March 22, 2006. CASE NO. 2713—MURPHY After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, 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, Sean Murphy, CSM Management, LLC submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 186 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112, Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector that the addition as proposed has one front yard of 21.0 feet, has a second front yard of 24.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39 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- 6 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector had 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.(1) and Section 240-69 as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Sean Murphy 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: This is a typical request to construct an addition on the Second Floor for the ultimate benefit of the owner, who desires to upgrade the house by addition of a needed master bath. The house has been in disrepair for a long while, and the general restoration of the house really should include this extra bath and closet space. The addition would be located above Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 4 of 5 space that is currently utilized as a first floor sunroom, and thus does not change the existing footprint. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: While other solutions to achieve a space as required here have been sought, none are feasible. The existing sunroom roof is ideal for the solution and the exterior porch space was most obvious and logical. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance requested is not substantial because this is the minimum variance that can be asked for to achieve the applicant's goals. The room would be above the sunroom space, a modest bath and closet and would sit on an existing structure. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The addition is very modest, and looks like the rest of the house. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The variance is for a structure to be constructed on an existing foundation and the corner lot restrictions and irregular lot shape impose a greater burden. 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 Zoning Board Minutes March 22, 2006 Page 5 of 5 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. Rush Douglas Cutler (applicant's architect)stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition to the existing one level residence. Mr. Cutler continued to say that, although the proposed addition will technically make the structure a three-story building as per zoning regulations, the proposed design appears to be a two-story building and the overall structure remains under the height limitations of the code. Mr. Cutler avowed that the existing basement is partially below grade by several feet in the front and side yards; however, it is considered a story pursuant to the towns's zoning regulations. Mr. Cutler affirmed that the pre-existing space located in the basement can no longer be used and must be modified to include the addition of water release ports which denies the owner the use of approximately 50%of his home. Mr. Cutler also stated that the existing home, which was constructed in 1960, was built on grade approximately 10 feet above sea level. Peter Rush (applicant)stated he would provide a flood certificate to the Board. Mr. Rush also stated he is proposing to replace lost space with a second story addition comprised of sleeping rooms within the existing footprint of the building and that, as a result, the proposal did not involve an increase in the property's impervious surfaces. The Board adjourned this application to its next meeting on April 26, 2006. Adjournment Daniela Gerardi Secretary to Zoning Board