Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_05_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 24, 2006 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Absent: Linda Harrington Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Wanda Sepulvda, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Francine Brill, Recording Secretary 1. Marsh Steve Marsh (applicant)stated that he took the Boards previous recommendations and revised the plans, The new revised plans have lowered the roof height while maintaining the overall square footage of the house, by raising the eves. Peter Gaito(architect)affirmed that the plans are to the specifications that the Board recommended. The Board felt that these plans would have complied with the Building Departments enforcement of the New York State Building Code and Town Codes: therefore a variance would not be required. Nina Ressio(11 Holly Place)questioned if the other variance(screening)would remain in place. The Board stated that all previous regulations were still affect. 2. Paterno(Marsh) Steven Marsh stated that he needed an extension to the variance granted November 23, 2005 in order to proceed with the project. No one spoke in opposition to the variance application. The Board moved to extend the application stating that all the same conditions apply. The Board thus granted the variance on a vote of 4-1 (see certification below). CERTIFICATION EXTENSION 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 May 24, 2006. CASE NO. 2601/2666-PATERNO 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 Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Joseph Paterno has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting an extension for a variance granted November 23, 2004 to subdivide an existing lot on the premises located at 50 Sheldrake Avenue and know on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 417. The subdivision as proposed creates"Lot A"with a lot width of 75 ft. and a street line frontage of 80 ft. 1 in.where 85 ft. is required for both, pursuant to Section 240-37A(2); and also creates"Lot B"with a lot width of 75 ft. and a street line frontage of 80 ft. I in. where 85 ft. is required for both pursuant to Section 240-37A(2)for a lot 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 240-37A(2); and WHEREAS, Joseph Paterno 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED an extension of twelve months, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the granting of an extension of the variance granted for an additional six months. 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. 3. Goodman Robert Goodman (applicant)stated that his purpose was to legalize an already existing central air conditioning unit, installed November 2005. The unit needs to be near the furnace to operate at peak efficiency, any other place on the property that was at all feasible would still require a variance. Mr. Goodman also stated that the as built survey shows the unit to be at 5.8 not the 6.5 feet that was noticed. The Board stated that the unit either has to be moved to comply with the 6.5.foot notice or be re-noticed at 5.8 feet. Mr. Goodman agreed to move the unit in order to be in compliance. 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. 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 May 24, 2006. CASE NO. 2718-Goodman 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 Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert and Gail Goodman submitted an application to the Building Inspector, to legalize an existing air conditioning condensing unit on the premises located at 27 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 252. The central air conditioning condensing unit to be legalized has a side yard of 6.5 feet where 8 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38 B.(3)for central air conditioning condensing units 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.(3); and WHEREAS, Robert and Gail Goodman 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 location of the condensing units is at the furthest possible distance from the property line in the rear and the only feasible location on the property— which is also the least intrusive location, far from visibility and noise creation regarding all neighbors, therefore, it will not produce an undesirable change in the character of 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: The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance because the unit must be located near the furnace to operate properly. Any other location in the side yard would still require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The area variances sought are the minimum necessary to achieve the applicant's goals and relatively small in comparison to the entire lot layout; therefore, the Board does not find the area variance to be substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The proposed area variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because of the type of unit being installed and their physical placement. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels the difficulty was not self-created but was created by the original placement of the house on the property. 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. Public notice did not reflect what was shown on the as built survey. Applicant agreed to move condenser back to comply with the public notice. 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. 4. O'Neill Mike Csenge (applicant's architect)stated that the applicant's goal was to add a small addition to an already non-conforming house on a non-conforming lot. He stated that the proposed addition would not alter the set back any further only the entrance stairs will. Arthur Wexler wants the shape of the roof line changed, to be more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 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 May 24, 2006. CASE NO. 2722 -O'NEILL 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, Mr. and Mrs. O'Neill have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story addition on the premises located at 57 Vine Road; 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(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 7.5 Zone District; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. O'Neill submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The proposed addition is in keeping with the existing dwelling and the surrounding residential neighbors. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The house is already non-conforming and any change 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 proposed addition requiring a variance is for approximately 90 sq.ft.of new living area in line with the existing dwelling along the side of the property. The addition does not change the set back only the stairs do. 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. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels that the difficulty was not self created as the house is already non- conforming on a non-conforming lot. 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. 5. Bernstein Judith Bernstein (applicant)stated she is proposing to construct a second floor addition to her 1928 house. The house was originally built with a second floor balcony, the results of which have been 70 years of water damage because of the flat roof. The problem has been costly and impossible to completely stop. Ms. Bernstein stated that the addition will increase the living space of her home, correct the problem of water leakage caused by the flat roof; and the house will blend in with the surrounding residential neighbors. Ms. Bernstein also stated that the neighbors she has spoken to have no objections to the proposed addition and attached a petition signed by 8 neighbors stating they were in support of her plans to the record along with picture of the neighboring houses. 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 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 May 24, 2006. CASE NO. 2724-BERNSTEIN 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. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ms. Bernstein have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor addition to the premises located at 24 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map pf the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222, Lot 425; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37. B(1); has a rear yard of 23 Feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37 B>(3)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bernstein submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The proposed second floor addition does not alter the foot print of the house and is in keeping with the surrounding residential neighbors. 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 goal. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial.The design uses only the existing footprint as parameters for expansion. 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. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels that the difficulty was 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. 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. Minutes The Zoning Board approved the minutes of 4/26/06 and 9/7/05, 9/27/06, 3/1/06, 3/22/06 Adjournment Francine M. Brill Secretary to Zoning Board