Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_09_05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 5, 2006 Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Linda Harrington Also Present: Laurence Horvath, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Melissa Sasso, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Francine Brill, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 PM APPLICATION 1 CASE # 2727 - 1-3 Dillon (adjourned 6/28/06) Neil J. Alexander (applicant's attorney) appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Alexander stated that they were resubmitting plans showing the antenna facade mounted, similar in nature to the T Mobile Antenna array. Cingular has decreased the amount of antennas from 12 to 6 and to and will match the existing building paint. A letter from the tenants asking 6 questions was entered into the record. Mr. Alexander answered the questions and concerns of the tenants. Candy Benson of 1 Dillon Road expressed her concern that the self contained room doesn't seem to be a room. Mr. Ignacio Artaiz, AIA of URS Corp. stated that the landlord was giving them space in which they will build a 12 X 22 ft. room that will have a 2 hr. self contained capacity. The room will be equipped with fire prevention and detection equipment that will be monitored continuously. The room will be air conditioned with self-contained units most likely wall mounted. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes After review on Motion of Mr. Gunther seconded Mr. Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 5-0 Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 2 RESOLVED,that this is a unlisted action On motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Post Road Larchmont Realty, Inc. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans requesting a permit to erect a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 6 antennas and associated equipment necessary to operate the facility on the rooftop of the existing building on the premises located at 1-3 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 82; 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 240-69; and WHEREAS, Post Road Larchmont Realty, Inc. 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 Board finds that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The wireless telecommunications facility six antennas will be mounted below the parapet of the building and would not go above the line of the roof and these panels would match the brick by painting them in the same colors and patterns as the wall behind them. The panels should be separated and spaced to fit better with the lines of the building and all wiring would run through the parapet to the rear of the panels and not be seen. 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 feels that there is no other reasonable alternative. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the wireless telecommunications facility would have no adverse impact on the neighborhood or environment. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds 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 Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 3 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 The cables attached to the antennas are to come through the parapet and not to be seen. The antennas should be integrated visually into the fabric of the building by method of painting. 6. The paint should be durable and able to withstand weather conditions. 7. The applicant will maintain the antennas so they look like they belong in the fabric of the building. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE # 2732 BERNARD (adjourned 7/19/06) Application withdrawn. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE #2734 FLYNN (adjourned 7/19/06) Application postponed to October 25, 2006 APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE # 2736 MC CAULEY Mike Csenge (applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge stated that the lot is interesting in that the set backs over lap each other. The existing entrance stairs are non-conforming and are actually on town property. The side of the property on Thompson St. has evergreens which would screen the deck from the street. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 4 Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes 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 Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Matthew McCauley, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an elevated wood deck on the premises located at 91 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 124, Lot 653; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted 240-39B(1); 240-39B(2)(a); 240-69; and WHEREAS, Matthew McCauley. 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 Board has determined that the proposed wood deck 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: Due to the existing conditions, which were created at the time the dwelling was constructed, the new deck does not conform with the Zoning Regulations of today. No addition could be designed without an area variance. Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 5 C, Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board alleges that the proposed wood deck is over an existing concrete patio and does not create any additional impervious coverage to the existing site. Therefore the appellant alleges that the variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The proposed wood deck addition is in spirit and character with the surrounding neighborhood and will not have any adverse effect. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty is 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. 5. The applicant shall maintain the evergreen hedges on the Thompson Street side of the property. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a APPLICATION NO. 5 -CASE # 2738— PLESENT Carl Finer(applicant's architect) appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Finer stated that the steps are in the setback and have been there since 1996. The front portico would only be an additional three feet into the original non conformity. Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 6 Nuno Fernandez Diaz of 112 North Chatsworth appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Diaz stated that he does not oppose his neighbor's improvements but is concerned for safety issues in that the intersection is dangerous, and by enlarging the house at visibility will be reduced. Diana Morse Diaz also stated her concerns. When the actual plans were explained they withdrew their objections. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes 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. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Nora Plesent, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an elevated wood deck on the premises located at 110 North Chatsworth Avenue. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 120, Lot 328; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted 240-38B(1); and WHEREAS, Nora Plesent, 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 A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board believes that given the location of this house askew from the front property line at an angle of approximately 20% with an overhang of approximately 2 ft. from the first floor at the elevation of the second floor. The introduction of a portico 2 1/2 ft. past that elevation, affording the Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 7 applicant a dry area for entering the house would not be a detriment to the immediate area. In fact would probably add very nicely to the character of the house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The applicant cannot do this because the house presently sits at the front of the set back line and any attempt to provide a safe haven from the rain to enter the house cannot be done without an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: No. the variance is not substantial because the present structure is approximately 25 ft. from the front property line with open sides. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board believes it will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. F. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Given the location of the existing house and how it is sited this 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 APPLICATION NO. 6—CASE 2739 -PIGNALOSA Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 8 Steven Pignalosa appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Pignalosa explained that he wanted to add an additional condenser unit to make a 2 Zone system in his home. A letter from Tom Broderick of 6 Colonial Avenue, in favor of the proposed placement, was entered into the record The Board discussed this application , and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes 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 Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Steven Pignalosa has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install a central air conditioning condenser on the premises located at 10 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 120, Lot 328 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(2)(a); 240-69; and WHEREAS, Steven Pignalosa 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 condenser will not be readily visible from the street and will be set back far enough so as to be unobtrusive to the visual and audible character of the street. The neighbor next door at 6 Colonial Avenue has submitted a letter indicating his approval. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 9 While there is one place where the condensing unit could be located that would not require an area variance, but it would be to the detriment of both this property and the adjacent property. Further, as a result the condensing unit would be plainly visible from the street, which would detract from the visual attractiveness of the area. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is for placement of a central air conditioning condenser next to an existing condenser is not substantial. The physical change will be minimal. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The chosen units are brand new 2006 models that are the quietest that can be purchased from Carrier Corporation. The level of sound is said to be no greater than normal conversation (as per Carrier) and should be unobtrusive to any of the normal usage areas of the property, the adjacent property, and any of the surrounding public areas. The located chosen is in a setback of the house and has a bush in front of it. The visual and audible impact to the surrounding environment should be negligible. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The need for a second condenser is being created by the construction of an addition, therefore the difficulty is 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, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans 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 the application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 10 APPLICATION NO. 7—CASE-2740—BARBER Robert Barber appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Barber stated that the porch is a pre exiting condition dating to 1960. In fact it was there prior to his purchasing the house. The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Record of Vote: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill Yes Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes 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. Baron, seconded by Mr.Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert J. Barber have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to request a Certificate of Occupancy for a breakfast room and deck addition Permit# 16273 on the premises located at 12 Elkan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 407, Lot 422 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 240-42B.(2)(a); 240-69 and WHEREAS, Robert J. Barber 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 deck has been its current location for approximately 47 years. All of the units comprising the building have similar decks. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 11 The expense that the applicant would incur in removing the deck would not be reasonable C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial 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 any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There would be a greater impact if the deck was to be removed. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: There is no self created difficulty because the same structure has existed for over 40 years before the applicant's ownership. 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, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans 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 the application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 8—CASE 2741 —HERZBERG Gilbert Herzberg appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Herzberg stated that the driveway has a steep slope and a small drain. He needs to rebuild the retaining wall and while doing that would like to widen the driveway to enable him to park cars side by side. The house and driveway already exceeds the allowable lot coverage by 6 %. A letter from Patricia Healy Bainton, 42 Villa Road , in favor of the variance was entered into the record and marked exhibit#1. Zoning Board September 5, 2006 Page 12 The Board discussed this application, and suggested that the applicant come up with a new plan that does not impact the environment quite so much. Application adjourned to the next meeting September 27, 2006 MINUTES Minutes were not discussed. MEETING ADJOURNED 9:35 p.m. Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary