Loading...
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 Case 2707 ELK Homes Withdrawn. 2.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