Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_07_19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES July 19, 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 Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Francine Brill, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 PM 1. Case 2732 Bernard Mike Csenge (applicant's architect)of 493 Fifth Avenue, New Rochelle stated the applicants want to build an elevated wood deck over an existing driveway. In their opinion it appears to be the least obtrusive way to create an outdoor living area. The size if the deck is 15 feet deep and 18 feet wide, the width is to accommodate the garage door. The Board believes the size is excessive and the placement is offensive, and that other alternatives should be explored. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Arthur Wexler, and unanimously approved, case#2732, James Bernard,was adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting September 5, 2006. 2. Case 2730 Vincinelli John Cotugno(applicant's architect)presented saying that they are trying to increase the out door living space with the smallest possible deck. There was a discussion as to the placement of the deck on the property. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Sansbury, 13 Dante Street stating that they would be out of town for the hearing but they would like it known that they are against the deck, as they feel it would reduce the value of their property and quality of life, was read into the record. Mr. and Mrs. Vincinelli stated that they were surprised by the letter as they spoke to their neighbors only last week and they believed the neighbors had no problem with the deck. After review on Motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Mr.Wexler, 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, Paulo Vincinelli has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting variance to a rear yard wood deck on the premises located at 15 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block122, Lot 608; 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 240-39B(3); and WHEREAS, Paulo Vincinelli 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, The deck is 5 feet above grade, small in nature, and only in the setback at its furthest point. 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. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial. The proposed deck has a rear yard setback of 24.0 feet where 25 feet is required and the total lot coverage will be 36.4%where 35% is permitted. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The building of a 140 sq.ft. deck will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood or environment. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: This has not been a self created difficulty. The existing house is non-conforming with respect to the side and rear yard setbacks. 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. Suitable screening will be planted and maintained . The plants shall be 8 foot evergreens spaced at 5 feet apart, maintained and topped at no higher than 10 ft. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. 3. Case 2733 Seymour Jeffrey Seymour(applicant)stated he was proposing to install 2 air conditioning units on the side of his property. He also stated that he believes this is the least conspicuous spot, and the best location from an engineering standpoint. The Board discussed the fact that the three other sides of the house would not require a variance, but that the location would probably be the most practical. The proposed location is the noisiest corner of the property due to the proximity of the falls and 195. 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 Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Jeffery Seymour has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting variance to install 3 air conditioning units on the premises located at 72 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block217, Lot 443; 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, Jeffery Seymour 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: An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will not be created. The central air conditioning compressor units will be predominantly hidden from the street and sidewalks of Cooper Lane and Falls Road. The units will not be visible to any neighboring properties due to substantial mature hedges/landscaping (hedges measuring approximately 20'.6'h' and 9' in height)currently existing between the property and the closest four neighboring properties. Undesirable/detrimental noise will not be created due several factors; (a)a substantial amount of constant noise is already being created by the waterfall on Falls Road which is located on the same side of the property as the proposed a/c units, (b)a substantial amount of constant noise is already being created by the close proximity of US 1-95, and (c)the two closest contiguous properties have exterior central air conditioning condensers, both of which are located in the area between their homes and the common property lines. B Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The air conditioning condenser units in a location where they will be least visible to both the street and the neighboring properties, and also to place them In a location which is practical from the standpoint of connecting them to the remainder of the central a/c system C, Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial. The approximate size of each of the two(2) central air conditioning condensers is approximately 2'x 2'and 3'x 3'. 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 not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.. The Board has received a letter from the neighbors at 4 Falls Road who will be most affected by the installation of the units. They indicated that they have no objection to this proposal E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: There has not been any 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. 4. CASE 2735 Flynn Mary Flynn of 580 Weaver Street presented stating that as her family is enlarging she would like to make her existing garage into living space and build a two car garage with storage space and a changing room on her property. Ms. Flynn stated that she doesn't want to change the character of the stone house so she is therefore seeking a variance David Varnish (applicant's architect)said that lot coverage is not a problem and ways to add on to the house is limited. The Board feels that the size of the proposed garage is excessive and that the applicant should think of other choice such as pushing the garage back or making it smaller. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Baron, and unanimously approved, case#2734, Mary Flynn, was adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting September 5, 2006. 5. CASE 2735 Radcliffe Dr. Radcliffe of 71 Chester requested a variance to construct a cantilevered bay window. He stated it is not a large variance only 2 feet and is in keeping with the character of the house. After review on Motion of Mr. Gunther seconded 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, Dr. Radcliffe has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting variance to install a cantilevered bay window on the premises located at 73 Chester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 504, Lot 302; 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(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, Dr. Radcliffe 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. The bay window is of modest size. Its character will be very much in keeping with the style of the house. All the exterior materials used in the new construction will match those of the existing house. B Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board does not feel that there is a reasonable alternative possible .without the requested variance as the house is already nonconforming. C, Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial. It involves a projection from the face of the house of a little over two feet, resulting in an increase in nonconformity of seven feet into the required front yard setback. 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 variance requested is the result of an existing non-conformity in the relationship of the house to the setback requirements along Chester Place, and is not a 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. 6. Case 2737 Dell Berning Justin Minieri (applicant's architect)of 55 Webster Ave, New Rochelle stated that the Dell Berning's wanted to construct a portico and garage. After review on Motion of Mr. Gunther seconded 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 Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Melvin Dell Berning has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting variance to construct a roof canopy over the garage doors and to replace a front porch on the premises located at 1 Boulder Brae and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 313, Lot 272: 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 240-34B(1)and WHEREAS, Melvin Dell Berning 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 portico and canopy while respectful, enhances the charming architectural character of the neighborhood and does not produce a negative impact. B Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The proposed locations are dictated by the existing entry points. C, Whether the area variance is substantial: We do not feel that the variance is substantial, 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 house is located on a corner opposite the Winged Foot Golf Course. It obstructs no one's view or infringes on anyone's privacy. The proposed volumes are minimal and open air structures. The canopy does not increase the ground footprint and the portico slightly increases the footprint of an already existing portico. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty is not self created, the proposed project can not be achieved with out an area variance due to the placement of the house. 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. MEETING ADJOURNED 9:35 Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary