Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_02_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 28,2007,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Irene O'Neill Frederick Baron Also Present: Laurence Horvath, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Andrea Bell, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Francine M. Brill, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 p.m. Arthur Wexler , Chairman stated that there were only four Board members present and that an applicant would need a vote of 3 in favor to be approved. If any applicant wishes to adjourn the matter they have the right to do so. APPLICATION NO. 1 —CASE NO. 2761 XIALO-LI Joe Powell and Helen Xialo-Li of 7 Rock Ridge appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Powell stated that they staked out the spot ere they would like to put the 8X12 foot Home Depot shed. The Board discussed this application and stated that they felt that the shed was too large and obtrusive on the spot requested, and felt that there were alternative spots that should be explored. The matter was adjourned to the March 28, 2007 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 2—CASE NO. 2762 BURKE/POLLACK Craig Rowe of Tramontano & Rowe landscape architects appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Rowe stated that the entire 18X36 foot pool will be in the City o New Rochelle. The pool is set level with grade. The equipment slab should be lower than the pool will be behind a wood fence and screened. Madie Ferencz of 76 Vine Road appeared to address the Board and voiced her objection to the pool. The Board questioned whether the applicants had selected a side and rear yard, and whether the pool could be rotated. Pat Garin of 68 Vine Road appeared and addressed the Board stating that he was against the pool where proposed. The Board feels that there are other alternatives and that the matter should be adjourned to March 28, 2007. APPLICATION NO. 3—CASE NO. 2763 Mr. and Mrs. Asaff Mark Mustacato applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Mustacato stated that that they were here to rectify and legalize an existing one story study. Two letters were entered into the record from David and Suzanne Wahrhaftig of 100 Carleon Ave., marked Exhibit A; and Alan and Carolyn Murray 116 Carleon Ave., marked Exhibit B both in favor of the application. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Frederick Baron Yes After review on Motion of Mr.Wexler seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 4-0 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, and seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. B. Asaff, have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing one story on the premises located at 110 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 188, 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 240-36(B)(2)(a)and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. B. Asaff. 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 character of the neighborhood. The one story enclosed porch does not change the foot print of the house or side yard setback. 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 there is no 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 variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this 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. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 2764 MICHAEL DICKEY MORGAN Michael. Morgan the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Morgan states that he is adopting another child and needs to enlarge his residence. Tanya Barth applicants architect appeared and explained the plans for the house renovations. Sid Burke of RGR landscape architect explained the landscaping requests. The Board discussed the application, and concluded that the applicant should reexamine his plans and reduce the impact and scope of his requests. The matter was adjourned to the March 28, 2007 meeting. Arthur Wexler was called away due to a family emergency. Linda Harrington took over as Acting Chair. Linda Harrington , Acting Chair said that since there was only three Board members to hear a case the vote must be unanimous and if any one wished to adjourn to next month they were welcome to do so. APPLICATION NO. 9 CASE NO. 2769 MRS ELEANOR LEICHTER Applicant requested to be adjourned to March 28, 2007. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE 2765 MR.AND MRS. PETER MARKEY Peter Markey appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Markey stated that the house was built in the 1920's and he wishes to convert an existing garage to a family room. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler not present Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Frederick Baron Yes After review on Motion of Ms. Harrington seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 4-0 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, and seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Markey, have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to convert an existing garage to a family room on the premises located at 45 Hillside Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 262, 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 240-36(B)(2)(a)and 240-38B3; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Markey, 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 or any detriment to nearby properties created as a result of the conversion of this garage into a family room. No change will occur to the character of the neighborhood because the attached garage has existed in its present location since the construction of the house and garage in 1928. The construction preceded the adoption of the Zoning Code by the Town and consequently is now non-conforming. Changes to the facades will be executed in the most consistent architectural manner with the house itself. 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 believe that a reasonable alternative exists to create a family room on this property without the requested variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the requested variance is not substantial given that the garage has stood in this location for almost 80 years. 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. Since the structure is not a new addition to the neighborhood, in itself it will have no adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions. The change in use from garage to a family room should have no impact as well. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this difficulty is not self-created as it is the result of existing non-conformities in the relationship of the attached garage to side and rear yard setback requirements. 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. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2766 THE GAP Jeff Jacobs of WD Partners appeared and addressed the Board. A letter from the Board of Architectural Review approving the two additional signs was read and entered into the file. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler not present Linda S. Harrington Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Frederick Baron Yes After review on Motion of Ms. Harrington seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 3-0 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, and seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, The GAP, has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to add two signs on the premises located at 1340 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 410 Lot 268, 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 240-45H.(8((b)(2)(c)(3) and; WHEREAS, The GAP, 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 in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties would be produced by the addition of the proposed signs. The site is located in a retail/commercial district and the proposed signs are of at least comparable character to surrounding properties. The Board notes the approval of this application by the Town of Mamaroneck Board of Architectural Review in reaching the finding that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood. 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 a sign is the only reasonable method in which the applicant can achieve its goal of equally promoting its separate brands, including the "Baby Gap" brand. This store has several entrances under one roof that serve each of theses separate brands, requiring alternative signage. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the requested variance is not substantial. The proposed signs are small in size, measuring approximately 4 square feet. The total square footage of all proposed signs (including the existing signs)on each of the front and rear elevations would total 12 square feet, far less than the total permitted by the Zoning Code for one sign. 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 proposed wall mounted signs will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In particular, the approval of these signs will not create any parking or access modifications and will not create any blight due to the additional signage. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this difficulty is not self-created. Without the use of the requested signs, the Gap would be unable to adequately promote one of its brands. 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. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 2767 MR. J. H. GIFFEN Steven Silverberg applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Silverberg explained that the applicant wanted the gates to keep the public from using his property like a public park. The stone pillars and cast iron gate would be 35 feet from the property line attached to the already existing 4 foot fence surrounding the front of the property The Board discussed the application and they were not comfortable with a 10 foot fence, however they do see a necessity for a gate and felt that 6 feet would be adequate. The matter was adjourned to the March 28, 2007 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 8 CASE NO. 2768 STANLEY AND PATRICIA RAMSEY Stanley Ramsey appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Ramsey states that they bought the house in May 2006, they placed a shed on the concrete slab that was in the back corner of the property when they purchased the house. In December of 2006 his neighbor told him the shed was illegal because it sits in the setback and he wanted it screened. The concrete slab is within 6 inches of the property line and plants cannot survive in that small space. Mr. Ramsey offered to give the neighbor trees to plant on his property to screen the shed. Andrew Tucker of 124 Murray stated that he found out the shed was illegal when he was landscaping his yard. The Board discussed the application and suggested the applicant explore other alternatives. The matter was adjourned to the March 28,2007 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 9 CASE NO. 2769 MRS ELEANOR LEICHTER The applicant requested an adjournment because their were only four Board members present. MINUTES The minutes were not discussed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:40p.m. Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary