Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_10_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 25, 2006 Present: Frederick Baron Irene D. O'Neill Arthur Wexler Linda Harrington Also Present: Laurence Horvath, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Absent: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman arrived 8:10 pm Francine Brill, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 PM Arthur Wexler, Acting Chair stated that Mr. Gunther was going to be late and that only four members were present so far this evening. The Board would be happy to hear your application and proceed. If anyone wishes to have the application postponed till later in the proceedings just let us know when called. APPLICATION 1 CASE # 2742 Sganga Application withdrawn. APPLICATION 2 CASE # 2748 LAVAN Postponed till Chairman Gunther arrives. APPLICATION 3 CASE #2734 FLYNN David Varnish architect and Steven Taylor architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Varnish stated that they have taken the Boards previous suggestions and changed the plans. The new plans rotate the garage to facing the front yard, decreased the master bath size and reduced the driveway. The applicant asked about a second curb cut and was informed that it must be approved by the State and the Town. Thomas Gunther, Chairman arrives and the proceedings continue. Mr. Varnish entered into the record a new Zoning Analysis cover sheet correcting the lot coverage as Exhibit A and a photo rendition of what the proposed garage would look like as exhibit B. The Board discussed this application. Mr. Gunther stated that if the applicant were to shrink the garage about four feet deep and not go for the curb cut, maintain the shrubbery that he would be willing to approve the application M. Varnish stated a revised proposal, the garage would be moved back closer to the pool 2 feet and reduced in depth 2 feet , making the front yard 29ft. 6 in. The garage width would be 30 feet instead of 28 feet making the side yard 18 ft. 1 in. 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 Members 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 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, Mary Flynn , has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two car garage on the premises located at 580 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 225 Lot 245, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted 240-36(B); and WHEREAS, Mary Flynn. 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 feels that in this application no undesirable change will be made to the neighborhood. The house is a one story stone structure screened 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 sees no reasonable alternative. The goal is to enlarge the house to accommodate the growing family and there is no other way that would not also require a variance. 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 have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The applicant will not apply for an additional curb cut. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty is not self-created; The house is not a large house , the direction the applicant is taking is the only way. 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 of the garage with the following conditions. The garage shall not exceed 24 feet deep by 30 feet wide, moved back two feet towards the pool leaving the front yard 29 feet 6 inches from the edge of the property. The turn around area will be gravel and there will be no new curb cut. 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. 2 CASE #2748 LAVIN Roger Lavan the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Lavan stated that he would like to reduce the variance request from an 8 foot fence height to 6ft. 6 in. fence height. Mr. Lavan stated that the fence will be reduced in height and will only be between his property and 38 Dante Street, and the remaining property will have the original chain link fence. Allison Horvath of 38 Dante Street appeared and addressed Eugene Laska of 34 Dante Street stated that he is against any fence over what the code allows 5 foot.. Thomas Gunther Chairman stated that the Board must consider the character of the neighborhood and the Town is against the creation of large barriers, the Board believes there are other ways to mitigate sound problems. Peter Gajda of 38 Dante Street stated that 8 foot fence meets their needs even though an eyesore, a 6 ft. 6 in. fence might be acceptable. The Board discussed this application. And its finding revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows. Record of Vote Board Members 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. Baron, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Roger Lavan, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing 8 foot high wood fence where only a 5 foot high fence is permitted as of right, on the premises located at 51 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 636, 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 240-52A; and WHEREAS, Roger Lavan 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 applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the existing wood fence so that it does not exceed 6.5 feet: 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 fence is to mitigate sound emanating from the Applicant's property to the neighbors residing at 38 Dante Street. The fence will help alleviate the situation to some degree. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Although there are other sound mitigation measures that can be undertaken that would not require a variance. The Board feels that the reduction of the 8 foot fence to 6.5 feet in that section only is acceptable. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The variance is not substantial in regard to the regulations regarding a fence going from 5 feet to 6 1/2 feet it is only 1 ft. 6 in. higher than what is permitted as of right. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The variance should have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood provided that the facing of the fence face the neighbor's property so as not to present an eyesore. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The difficulty may be self-created to some degree, but this factor is not determinative. In addition, the fence is desired by some of the immediate neighbors and its advantages outweigh any adverse consequences. 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 4 CASE #2749 SHEINDLIN John Sheindlin the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Sheindlin stated that he wanted to extend an existing deck to add a BBQ pit on it. 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 Members 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. O'Neill, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John and Sue Sheindlin, have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear wood deck on the premises located at 23 Fenbrook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 309, Lot 11, 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 240-34B(3); 240-69 and WHEREAS, John and Sue Sheindlin 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 the proposal for an outdoor detached pergola in the backyard will be out of view from all neighbors. In addition, it will be placed on an existing deck so as not to create any changes in the "look or feel" of the backyard as it stands presently. 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 finds the proposed location offers most logical placement of the BBQ on the existing deck. There is no alternative on this property due to the lack of backyard space for this project. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not a substantial change to the deck that exists already. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: As has been stated, the pergola will be placed on an existing deck, so there will be very little alteration to the existing structures. Therefore, there will be no impact on the physical or environmental conditions. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this is not a self created difficulty. The deck exists and they would like to add a barbeque area to one section. 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 NO. 2750 INFELLICE John Infellice applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Infellice stated that he just purchased the parcel of county land adjoining his property, and entered Real property Transfer Report and the Indenture in to the record. The Board found that with the addition of the new parcel Mr. Infellice only needed a side yard variance. 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 Members Yes/No/Abstained Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene D. O'Neill No Arthur Wexler Yes Linda Harrington Yes After review on motion of Mr. Gunther seconded by Ms. Harrington the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 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 Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John Infellice, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one story screen porch on the premises located at 115 Harmon Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 215 Lot 231 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 240-39(B)(a) and WHEREAS, John Infellice 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 there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood, as it is just the addition of a screened in porch where a patio already exists. 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 finds there is no alternative solution due to the small side yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial the project is small in size and scope. 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 the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, as the patio already exists. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: This is not a self created difficulty. No matter what the applicant does he would need 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. APPLICATION NO.6 CASE NO. 2752 ARDLEIGH Paul Ardleigh the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Ardleigh stated that he had previously been granted a variance and had not gotten a permit in the required time limit.. Mr. Ardleigh explained that his home is a 1927 one and a half story English style cottage that he bought in 1971 and rented for the past 24 years. The plans are to make a two story updated home that is more retirement friendly. 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 Members 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 Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 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 Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Paul and Linda Ardleigh, have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front yard addition on the premises located at 28 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 120 Lot 67. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 24.48 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); the proposed addition will result in an overall lot coverage of 42%where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F for a residence in an R-6 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 240-39B(1), and 240 39F; and WHEREAS, Paul and Linda Ardleigh, 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 variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or result in a detriment to nearby properties. In fact, the renovation to this home will enhance the neighborhood. This home does not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood and is unusually shaped. It should also be noted that this is the smallest house on the block and the only 1 'h-story home on the block. The minimal increase in square footage of 454 sq. ft by moving the front of the house forward is the minimum necessary to alleviate a functional requirement for making reasonable size rooms in the property and most of the intrusion on the front of the property is from the front porch. 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 finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative that would be any less intrusive. 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 an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The minimal, additional amount of footprint should not cause any detriment to the environment. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: While this is ax self created difficulty it is preferable to what's standing on the lot now and shouldn't be determinative of the request for 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. MINUTES The minutes of 9/27/2006 were approved unanimously 5-0 The revised minutes of 1/26/2005, 3/2/2005, 3/23/2005, 4/27/2005, and 5/18/2005 were approved. MEETING ADJOURNED 9:30 p.m. Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary