HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_06_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
June 28, 2006
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Frederick Baron
Irene D. O'Neill
Arthur Wexler
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. Case 2707 ELK Homes
Withdrawn.
2. Case 2725 Gooley
L. Gordon (architect)stated his clients are asking to place 3rd air conditioning condenser unit on the side of
their house,within the 10 feet set back requirement by 8%inches.
Jeffrey and Debra Harwin of 53 Fernwood Road sent a letter stating they have no objections to the
installation of the air conditioning unit in that location.
Board asked about the other two units, Ron Carpaneto stated that they were grandfathered in.
After review on Motion of Ms. Harrington seconded Ms. 0' Neill, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously 5-0
RESOLVED,that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant
to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Thomas Gooley has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with
plans requesting variance to install a central air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 47
Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot
508; 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 240-37B(2)(a); and
WHEREAS, Thomas Gooley 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:
No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood,
and no detriment to nearby properties will be created. They will be adding a
small air condenser unit along side of existing larger units.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicants other than an area variance:
There is no reasonable alternative way to provide a connection to the existing
equipment.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The variance is not substantial. The unit as proposed has a side yard of 9 feet 3
%inches where 10 feet is required.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:
The variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. It would be located next to two units,
placed so it is hidden from the street by the side projection of the house.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
This has not been a self created difficulty. The mechanical room is located
adjacent to the proposed unit location. This location is the most direct
connection.
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.
3. Case 2727 Post Road Larchmont Realty
Neil Alexander(applicant's attorney) stated that Cingular Wireless is requesting a permit to erect a wireless
telecommunications facility, on the premises located at 1-3 Dillon Road. Mr.Alexander stated that they have
already appeared before the Board of Architectural Review, and have changed there plans in order to
comply with the Boards suggestions.
The Zoning Board could not hold a formal public hearing because the notice was for 65"6" height of
the antennas whereas the new design is for 75 feet. The Board listened to complaints of residents of the
building at 1-3 Dillon, that they never received a mailed notification and the Board requested that the
applicant also send notices to all residents of the building. There was a discussion as to the location of the
antenna array and suggestions as to how to make the equipment fit in and blend with the building better.
The case was adjourned to July 19, 2006
4. Case 2726 Phillips
John Phillips presented his request for a variance to build a second story addition to his house at 2
Maplewood Street Mr. Phillips stated that the addition would not change the foot print of the existing non
conforming house, and that the encroachment into the set back is only 9 inches.
Arthur Wexler questioned survey
After review on Motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously 5-0
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant
to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, John Phillips has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with
plans requesting a permit to construct a 2nd floor addition on the premises located at 2 Maplewood Street
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 369; 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(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.
WHEREAS, John Phillips 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:
No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
any detriment to nearby properties will be created. On the contrary, the purpose
of the requested area variance is to enable the proposed 2nd floor addition to be
built on the foot print of the 1st floor(which is nonconforming in the triangular
area)without awkward indentation of the 2nd floor where it abuts the existing
house, and enabling the Tudor style roof skirt to continue around the base of the
2nd floor addition in an uninterrupted manner.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicants other than an area variance:
There is no acceptable architectural solution possible without the requested area
variances.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The requested variance is not substantial. Because it is for a triangular area of
less than one (1)square foot
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:
The requested variance will have no adverse impact on physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The neighborhood is
residential and of a distinct character. The variance will simply allow the proper
architectural treatment for this proposed residential addition, in conformity with
the neighborhood
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
The area variance requested is the result of an existing non-conforming condition
in the relationship of the house to the setback requirements along Murray
Avenue, and are 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.
5. CASE NO. 2728 Murray
Mr. Murray the applicant, stated that the only place on his property, 9 Ellsworth Road, that would work and
not inconvience the neighbors is the spot they are requesting a variance for. Mr. Murray stated that the
neighbors whose property the unit will be closet to have no objection, in fact the neighbor suggested the
spot.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously; 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant
to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, James Murray submitted an application to the Building Inspector, to legalize an
existing air conditioning condensing unit on the premises located at 9 Ellsworth Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 239. The central air conditioning
condensing unit to be legalized has a side yard of 4.2 feet where 10 feet is permitted pursuant to Section
24037 B (2)(a) and further the air conditioning unit 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, 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.(2)(a); and
WHEREAS, James Murray 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:
Given the location, set back of about 30 feet from the front and the fact the unit
will be concealed by vegetation that will remain green all year the installation of
the air conditioning unit will not produce an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood, nor would it create a detriment to nearby properties.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicants other than an area variance:
There is no reasonable alternative to the placement of the unit as both side yards
are already non-conforming
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The variance is not substantial given the small size of the unit
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 its physical placement. By placing the unit in the front of
the house there is less of a chance of noise reverberation.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
The Board feels the difficulty was not self-created and that the placement of the
unit in any other area would also require a variance.
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.
6. Case 2729 Derby
Doug Streeter(Applicant's contractor)explained why they needed a variance in order to obtain a Certificate
of Occupancy. He stated that the large addition was meant to fit quite tightly against the set backs.
Unfortunately when an as built survey was done the corner of the garage was over the set back. Mr. Streeter
placed into record a letter from a neighbor a at 105 N. Chatsworth Ave. stating that they are in favor of the
variance and an estimate to reconfigure the garage at a cost of$21,600.00.
Mr. Gunther Chair stated "amazing such a large extension, that you allowed something like this to happen
Mr. Baron stated he wanted it quite clearly understood the Board was in no way surrendering their rights to
deny future requests for variances.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington,the following resolution was proposed
and ADOPTED unanimously; 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant
to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Witt Derby submitted an application to the Building Inspector, requesting a Certificate
of Occupancy for the premises located at 105 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224 Lot 615. The addition as built has a rear yard of 23.8 feet
where 25 is required pursuant to 240-38B.(3)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.(3); and
WHEREAS, Witt Derby 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
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 wants it clearly understood that it is not making a resolution.
Board finds that in view of the fact the project is complete and that the variance is
for less than 6 sq. feet and that if the applicant was required to correct it would
not change the roof line significantly therefore the no feasible alternative other
than a variance.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicants other than an area variance:
Given the fact the project is completed and, the expense to alter it is 21,600 there
is no feasible alternative other than a variance.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The Board does not believe the requested variance is substantial.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:
The requested variance will have no adverse impact on physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
The Board believes there is no self created difficulty. The contractor was
cognizant, although unfortunately the contractor didn't notice the pin moved
during the chipping process. Unfortunately encroachment took place.
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.
7. Case 2730 Vincinelli
Requested to be heard in July.
8. Case 2731 Smith
Mr. Smith presented, requesting a variance to place an air conditioning condenser unit in their side yard of 9
feet where 10 feet is required.
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and
ADOPTED unanimously; 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant
to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Gunther the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, Jeffrey Smith submitted an application to the Building Inspector, to legalize an existing
air conditioning condensing unit on the premises located at 86 N. Chatsworth Avenue Road and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117, Lot 183. The central air conditioning
condensing unit to be legalized has a side yard of 9 feet where 10 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-
38B(2)(a)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 240-38B(2)(a); and
WHEREAS, Jeffrey Smith 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 neighborhood in general will not be effected by the placement of this air
conditioning condenser unit on the side of the house as it will be concealed by
bushes.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicants other than an area variance:
There is no other reasonable alternative place for the equipment to be installed.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The Board does not believe the requested variance is substantial, as it is only for
1 foot.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:
The requested variance will have no adverse impact on physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
The Board believes there is no self created difficulty.
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
Adjourned 9:55 PM
Francine M. Brill
Secretary to Zoning Board