Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_04_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 26, 2006 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Robert S. Davis, 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 his client was able to get the lot coverage down to the permitted lot coverage of 35%. Mr. Negrin also states the neighborhood consists of single-family, two-family, and multifamily homes therefore, building a house on the proposed Lot A will not affect the character of the neighborhood. Jim Lotto (applicant's landscape architect)stated drainage plans were submitted to the Town's consulting engineer and a surface water control plan will be provided even though the Town does not require it. Donald Mazin (attorney for residents at 1055 Palmer Avenue)submitted a petition signed by all the adjacent neighbors opposing this application. Mr. Mazin stated many of the neighbors, including his client, are opposing this application because they feel it will create a detriment to the neighborhood. The Board Members stated they were not in favor of granting the variance. Board Member Arthur Wexler, stated if the existing house was to be destroyed then the owner would not be able to rebuild it due to zoning regulations. The Board adjourned this application till the next meeting on May, 24, 2006. 2. Carcano James Carcano (applicant)stated the plans were revised so the addition didn't cause an alley between the two homes. Steve Chirogianis (applicant's architect)stated to he was able to push the wall in to create a break in the wall. 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 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 2 of 19 properties, The Board thus granted the variance on a vote of 4-1, Board Member Arthur Wexler opposed the granting of the variance (see certification below). 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 April 26, 2006. CASE NO. 2710—CARCANO After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, 4-1. 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. On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, James and Stephanie Carcano submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct a two-story rear addition on the premises located at 15 Hudson Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 369; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector the addition as proposed has The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.4 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-39 for a residence in an R-10 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 240-37B(2)(a) and Section 240-39 as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, James and Stephanie Carcano 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: The board believes there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood based on the size and scope of the proposed changes Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 3 of 19 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 area variance is only required due to the need for side yardage to comply with the existing building code. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance requested is not substantial because the house is already non-conforming. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The proposed addition will continue along the same plane as the existing dwelling; it does not increase the nonconformity. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The variance requested is not self- created. The house is already non-conforming. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 4 of 19 Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Sworn to before me this day of , 2006 3. 95 Colonial Avenue This application was adjourned by the applicant to the next meeting on May24, 2006. 4. Lyons This application was withdrawn. 5. Picon Thomas Hayes (applicant's Architect)stated the applicant is proposing to construct a wood deck addition to an existing wood stair and platform at the rear yard of the existing dwelling. Mr. Hayes continued to say the deck shall be constructed adjacent to an existing fence facing a side front yard and shall not have any impact on the neighborhood or environment. Mr. Hayes also stated while other solutions to achieve a space as required here have been sought, none are feasible. Mr. Hayes stated the existing dwelling is located on a corner property with a front yard and a side front yard, the proposal of the deck in any other location would adversely affect the neighborhood. Mr. Haynes stated the variance requested is not substantial because this as the minimum variance that can be asked for to achieve the applicant's goals. Mr. Haynes avowed the deck is modest and will allow just enough space for the applicant to sit on the deck with their family and enjoy their rear yard. Mr. Haynes stated the deck shall be securely located at the rear of the dwelling in a fenced area and the deck shall not impact the character of the neighborhood nor the existing landscaping. Mr. Haynes continued to say the deck was designed in the same aesthetic of the existing stair and platform, thus maintaining continuity. Mr. Haynes affirmed the variance is for a wood deck to be constructed at the rear of the dwelling because the corner lot restrictions allow the applicant virtually no expansion possibilities. 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 (see certification below). 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 April 26, 2006. CASE NO. 2712—PINCON Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 5 of 19 After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, 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. Baron, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Hubert and Sheila Picon submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct a rear deck on the premises located at 18 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502, Lot 109; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector the addition as proposed has a rear yard of 12 feet 10 inches where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)for a residence in an R-7.5 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 240-38B(3) as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Hubert and Sheila Picon 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: The applicant is proposing to construct a wood deck addition to an existing wood stair and platform at the rear yard of the existing dwelling. The deck shall be constructed adjacent to an existing fence facing a side front yard and shall not have any impact on the neighborhood or environment. 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 dwelling is located on a corner property with a front yard and a side front yard, the proposal of the deck in any other location would adversely affect the neighborhood. 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 deck Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 6 of 19 is modest and will allow just enough space for the applicant to sit on the deck with their family and enjoy their rear yard. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The deck shall be securely located at the rear of the dwelling in a fenced area. The deck shall not impact the character of the neighborhood nor the existing landscaping. The deck was designed in the same aesthetic of the existing stair and platform, thus maintaining continuity. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The variance is for a wood deck to be constructed at the rear of the dwelling because the corner lot restrictions allow the applicant virtually no expansion possibilities. 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. Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Sworn to before me this day of , 2006 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 7 of 19 6. Rush Douglas Cutler (applicant's architect)stated that the Board was provided with a flood certificate. Mr. Cutler states the proposed new addition will increase the overall attractiveness of the neighborhood and will blend better architecturally into the existing neighborhood than the existing building. Mr. Cutler also stated the new second story will be lower in building height than the adjacent and neighboring properties. Mr. Cutler continued to say the existing average grade of the property is below the elevation of the public street making the building height appear even lower than most properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Cutler affirmed the proposed addition will be confined to the existing foundation of the building. Mr. Cutler stated alternatives have been considered however, they would not create other issues and possible further non compliance. Mr. Cutler also stated adding to the building at grade may disturb low lands adjacent to sensitive marsh/wetlands and would require variances. Mr. Cutler stated the existing basement is only 2 feet short of the average 5 feet grade below the basement ceiling line as defined by the ordinance. Mr. Cutler continued to say the additional 2 feet in height, relative to the 32 feet average building height proposed, is not substantial, since the average building height is still below the maximum height of 35 feet as permitted by zoning ordinance. Mr. Cutler affirmed the proposed building is a vertical addition, not a horizontal extension and the building footprint will remain the same and maintain the existing site coverage. Mr. Cutler avowed the existing building was built in 1960 and was filed as a one-story building and the building conformed to the zoning requirements at that time. 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 (see certification below). 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 April 26, 2006. CASE NO. 2715— RUSH After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, 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 Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Rush submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to add a second floor addition to the existing dwelling and front entry porch and stairs on the premises located at 28 Pryer Manor Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 506, Lot 96; and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 8 of 19 WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector the addition for the front entry steps as proposed have a front yard of 21 feet where 22 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 52 A, the front entry porch has a front yard of 25.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B. (1), the second story addition as proposed is actually a three and one half story addition where two and one half stories is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37 D. (1)for a residence in an R-10 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- 52 A , Section 240-37B. (1), and Section 240-37D.(1) as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Rush 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: The proposed new addition will increase the overall attractiveness of the neighborhood. The addition will blend better architecturally into the existing neighborhood than the existing building. The new second story will be lower in building height than the adjacent and neighboring properties. The proposed roof will be relatively shallow, an 8 vertical to12 horizontal pitch. The existing average grade of the property is below the elevation of the public street making the building height appear even lower than most properties in the neighborhood. The addition is confined to the existing foundation of the building. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Alternatives have been considered however, they would create other issues and possible further non-compliance. Adding to the building at grade may disturb low lands adjacent to sensitive marsh/wetlands and would require variances. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 9 of 19 The existing basement is only 2 feet short of the average 5 feet grade below the basement ceiling line as defined by the ordinance. The additional 2 feet in height, relative to the 32 feet average building height proposed, is not substantial. The average building height is still below the maximum height of 35 feet as permitted by zoning ordinance. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The proposed building is a vertical addition, not a horizontal extension. The building footprint remains the same and maintains the existing site coverage. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The existing building was built in 1960 and was filed as a one-story building. This building conformed to the zoning requirements at that time. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 10 of 19 Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Sworn to before me this day of , 2006 7. Sickles Ned Stohl (applicant's architect)stated the applicant is proposing to create front yard additions and these additions will not create an undesirable chance in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. Mr. Stohl continued to say the variance is only an anomaly that is the result of a curving street line. Mr. Stohl also stated the odd dip in the property line creates the pre-existing non-conformity. Mr. Stohl affirmed there is no neighboring house on the addition side and there is no front yard facing the variance across the street. Mr. Stohl continued to say the house is the only house facing on this section of the street and the original house was sited so that the front is not parallel to the street. Mr. Stohl also stated the architecture of the proposed addition is in keeping with the neighborhood. Board Members questioned whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance and Mr. Cutler responded that while other solutions have been sought, none will achieve the applicant's goals. Mr. Stohl avowed the variance of 12.4 feet occurs only at one point at the corner of the house and the new variance is a small portion of the street frontage, less than 15% of the front property line. Mr. Stohl finished by saying the area of the variance is a tiny portion of the property, less than 1%. Meg Feinberg (31 Bonnie Briar Lane)stated she was in favor of the application. 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 (see certification below). 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 April 26, 2006. CASE NO. 2714—SICKLES 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. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 11 of 19 WHEREAS, Mr. Sickles submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct front yard additions on the premises located at 43 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224, Lot 771; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector the 2 'h story addition as proposed has a front yard of 12.4. 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 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 240-36 B.(1)and Section 240-69 as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Mr. Sickles 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: No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to nearby properties will be created. The variance is only an anomaly that is the result of a curving street line. The odd dip in the property line creates the pre-existing non-conformity. There is no neighboring house on the addition side. There is no front yard facing the variance across the street. The house is the only house facing on this section of the street. The original house was sited so that the front is not parallel to the street. The architecture of the proposed addition is in keeping with the neighborhood. 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 have been sought, none will achieve the applicant's goals. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance of 12.4 feet occurs only at one point at the corner of the house. The new variance is a small portion of the street frontage, less than 15% of the front property line. The area of the variance is a tiny portion of the property, less than 1%. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 12 of 19 D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance proposed is very small, and the large open space of the property surrounds the area of the variance. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The property line anomaly and the sitting of the original house result in the 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. Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Sworn to before me this day of , 2006 Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 13 of 19 8. Ross Doris Erdman (applicant's architect)stated the applicant is proposing to construct a garage that will match the house on the property in design and material and will allow for an improvement on the site that will be an asset to the surrounding properties and neighborhood. The Board stated a variance is not necessary. 9. Gebhart Rob Gebhart (applicant)stated he is proposing to replace an existing deck with a new structurally sound deck of the same size. Mr. Gebhart continued to say there is no reasonable alternative way to provide a stair from the deck without causing a need for a variance and because of the topography the amount of steps required causes them to have 57 square feet into the set back where 40 square feet is allowed. Mr. Gebhart affirmed for the best of the rear yard, the ability to access directly from the deck is very important and a stair is needed in this location for the supervision of young children. Mr. Gebhart stated this location gives him the ability to conveniently and quickly access the rear yard. Board Members questioned whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance and adjourned the application to the next meeting on May 24, 2006. 10. Bonnie Briar Country Club Kevin Burke (General Manager of Bonnie Briar Country Club)stated the proposal for two fences which would be constructed along Weaver Street and along Fenimore Road. The proposed fence along Weaver Street would be 6 ft. in height and the proposed fence along Fenimore Road would be 8 ft. in height. Mr. Burke stated the proposed fence would be a cedar tongue and groove wood fence approximately 275 ft. long and its needed for protection from trespassers. Elizabeth Vardell (18 Athea Lane)stated she was opposed because there is limited visibility on the corner of the area where the proposed fence is to be located and feels if the fence is constructed it will make the location even more dangerous for drivers. Lisa Young (14 N. Chatsworth Avenue)stated she is also opposed to the granting of this variance because she also feels the fence would make it hazardous for drivers. Board Members suggested the applicant choose a different fence design to lessen the impact for the surrounding neighbors and adjourned the application to the next meeting on May 24, 2006. 11. MARSH Stephen Marsh (applicant)stated to the Board his proposal for visual changes to the previously approved renderings for 48 Sheldrake Avenue complying with all the restrictions previously set forth. Mr. Marsh also stated the overall height, size and footprint of the foundation, remain exactly the same and the setbacks and lot coverage did not change. Peter Gaito (applicant's architect)stated the modifications of the plans will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood and the current design of the house has been designed in order to be appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Gaito continued to say the modifications to the plans help to further blend the new construction into the old by using similar details to other houses in the area including the redesigned traditional windows, wood siding, and a front porch. Mr. Gaito stated the goal of the re-design was to create usable space above the garage. Mr. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 14 of 19 Gaito affirmed the footprint of the house remains identical to the one previously approved and the overall height and size of the building is identical. A resident from 11 Holly Place stated she was opposed to the revised plans stating it will produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. Jim Lawless (49 Sheldrake Avenue)stated the Board approved very specific plans and then applicant must comply to those regulations and adhere to the conditions that were imposed. The Board adjourned the application to the next meeting May 24, 2006. 12. Marsh Stephen Marsh (applicant)stated to the Board his proposal to relocate the front steps to the front of the house. Mr. Marsh continued to say the relocation of the front steps will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood and it will present a clean neat and functioning entrance to the house. Peter Gaito (applicant's architect)stated the applicant's goal is to create a look that will be consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood and it will allow the applicant to create a functioning garage on the right side of the house. Mr. Gaito continued to say the variance that is required in order to re-locate the front steps to the front of the house is not substantial and the front steps that currently exist outside the set back are simply being moved over slightly. Mr. Gaito affirmed the addition of the garage structure is within the set backs and conforms to the overall size limitations currently set forth in the zoning code. Jim Lawless (49 Sheldrake Avenue)stated he was concerned about drainage because permeable surface will be replaced by a driveway. 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 (see certification below). 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 April 26, 2006. CASE NO. 2720—MARSH 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, Stephen Marsh submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct a front stairway on the premises located at 50 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 417.1; and Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 15 of 19 WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector the front steps as proposed have a front yard of 20 feet 6 inches 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 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 240-37 B(1) and Section 240-69 as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Mr. Marsh 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: The relocation of the front steps to the front of the house will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The goal was to create a look that will be consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood. The applicant must use the stone from the existing steps to build the new steps to match the rest of the house. B Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Due to the existing location of the house, any change to an already non- conforming building necessitates the need for a variance. While other solutions have been sought, none will achieve the applicant's goals. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial, the front steps currently exist outside the set back, the stairs are simply being moved over slightly. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: There is no adverse impact on the environment as a result of granting this variance. In fact, by relocating the steps to the front of the house, the applicant will be able to rebuild the garage as a front entrance above grade garage. This will allow the applicant to eliminate the impervious surface that surrounds the house as a driveway and replace it with grass and landscaping. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 16 of 19 E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The relocation of the steps from the right side of the house to the front of the house will improve the overall character of the house, by providing a more pleasing formal entrance to the house. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and 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. The applicant must provide an Erosion Control Plan. 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. Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Sworn to before me this day of , 2006 13. Wender Sam Wender (applicant)stated to the Board his proposal to build a deck off a sunroom. Mr. Wender stated the deck will be surrounded by a 6 foot hedge and the hedge will block any visibility of the deck from the street. Mr. Wender also stated there are no neighboring homes alongside the property line of the proposed deck and the deck will provide a vantage point from Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 17 of 19 which to keep an eye on his children while they play in the yard. Mr. Wender stated he has no backyard and would not be able to achieve his goal without a variance. 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 (see certification below). 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 April 26, 2006. CASE NO. 2723 -WENDER 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 Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Wender submitted an application to the Building Inspector requesting a variance to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 115 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212, Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the application was premised on a determination by the Building Inspector the deck as proposed has a front yard of 16 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B (1); 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 240-37 B(1) as more fully set forth in the preceding paragraph hereof; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Wender 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: Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 18 of 19 The property is surrounded by a 6+ foot hedge that will block any visibility of the deck from the street. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The existing dwelling is located on a corner property with a front yard and a side front yard, the proposal of the deck in any other location would adversely affect the neighborhood. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial; the deck is 14 feet in depth and is not visible from the street. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The proposed deck will not impede on any environmental or physical conditions in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The deck will provide a vantage point for the applicant to keep an eye on their children as they play in the yard. 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. Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes April 26, 2006 Page 19 of 19 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Sworn to before me this day of , 2006 Adjournment Daniela Gerardi Secretary to Zoning Board