Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_03_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK March 28,2007,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Also Present: Laurence Horvath,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Absent: Linda S. Harrington Denise Carbone,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES Postponed. APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO.2761 Xailo-Li(adjourned 1/24/07,2/28/07) The applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 2- CASE NO. 2764 Michael Dickey Morgan(adjourned 2/28/07) Michael Dickey Morgan appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Morgan stated that they have reduced there original request down to one variance request to enlarge the house to accommodate his enlarging family. Tanya Barth applicants architect stated that the original house plans have not changed,the size of the deck was reduced and the lot coverage is below 35%. 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, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Fred 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 Irene O'Neill,seconded by Fred Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Michael Dickey Morgan has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 11 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 30; The rear addition as proposed has rear yard of 23 feet 1 inch where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3);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, Michael Dickey Morgan 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 Board finds that the addition will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties. Granting the variance has no impact on the appearance of the house from the street and minimal impact on adjacent properties. The design seeks to preserve the scale and character of the existing cape style residence. In addition the two adjacent property owners as well as a property owner across Kenmare have submitted letters in support of the project. 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 no reasonable alternative is viable without demolishing a large portion of a structurally sound house and building within the setback requirements. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds the variance is not substantial the home will have a rear yard of 23.1 feet where 25 is required. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds the proposed variance will not adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Adjacent neighbors have supported the proposed addition. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created. The minimum lot depth for an R-6 Zone is 100 feet with a buildable depth of 45 feet;because the depth of the property is less than 95 feet it would be very difficult to achieve his goals. 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. 3 CASE NO. 2767 J.H.Giffen (adjourned 2/28/07) Steven Silverberg applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Silverberg stated that the Giffen's have a 12 acre parcel and they want to put two six foot pillars and a gate on the driveway of the property to deter people from trespassing. 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, Chairman No Frederick Baron No Irene O'Neill No Ronald Meister No On motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was DENIED: After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick Baron, the following resolution was proposed and DENIED unanimously,4-0. WHEREAS, J.H.Giffen has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct two stone pillars and iron gates on the premises located at 1000 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 315,Lot 235 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 240-52 B and WHEREAS, J.H. Giffen 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 finding as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance would not outweigh the detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. NOW,THERFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application is hereby denied. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. CASE 2768 STANLEY AND PATRICIA RAMSEY(adjourned 2/28/07) Patricia Ramsey appeared and addressed the Board. Mrs. Ramsey stated that when they bought the house in 2006 the shed was already in place and they had no idea it was illegal. At the February meeting the Board suggested that the two neighbors try to come to a mutual agreement. Andrew Tucker of 124 Murray Avenue appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Tucker state that when he was landscaping his property it came to his attention that the shed was not legal and he approached the Ramsey's. He would like the shed to be screened by foliage 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, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick 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 Frederick Baron,seconded by Ronald Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Stanley and Patricia Ramsey have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing storage shed on the premises located at 62 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 119,Lot 94.and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B.2(c)and 240-38B(3)(b);and WHEREAS, Stanley and Patricia Ramsey 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 Board finds that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The shed in question has been in existence in the same location for at least the last 30 years. 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 to meet the goals of the applicant. 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 in the neighborhood. The shed is a pre-existing structure. The shed has existed in its present location for at least 30 years. Therefore,no noticeable change will occur in the neighborhood. In addition,two of the applicant's neighbors do not oppose the location of the shed. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created. When the applicants purchased the property,they were not aware that the shed did not comply with the existing zoning regulations. 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. 5. Foliage must be maintained, Ivy on the north side of the shed , and evergreens of sufficient height on the west side. The foliage must be kept healthy and replaced if necessary. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.5 CASE NO.2769 Mrs.Eleanor Leichter(adjourned 2/28/07) Donald Mazin the applicant s attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Mazin requested an adjournment to next month because there are only four Board members in attendance. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2770 Leblang Julia Leblang appeared and addressed the Board. Mrs. Leblang stated that they are requesting the rear porch to be able to enter and exit the house to the back yard safely The original plans had the house at ground level but in the process of building they found that they had to raise the house because of the water table on the property. 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, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick 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 Arthur Wexler,seconded by Ronald Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Julia and Stuart Leblang have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear porch on the premises on the premises located at 19 Stonewall Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 689. The porch as proposed has a rear yard of 37 feet 3 inches where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3);and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans 240-35B(3) WHEREAS, Julia and Stuart Leblang 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 Board finds that given the limited scale and nature of the requested variance (less than 3 feet) it will not produce an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby communities. In addition the house to the right of the applicant's property is closer to the rear property line. 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 variance is necessary to allow for the safe and convenient exit from the first floor level of the house to the backyard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial the steps only exceed the required setback by 2 feet 9 inches. 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 there will be no additional runoff due to the material and construction of the steps and the variance will not otherwise have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels that this is not a self created. Due to the level of the water table on the property, the variance is necessary to permit the house to be raised to the level proposed in the application. 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. 7 CASE NO. 2771 Howe John Power applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Powers stated that the Howe's want to raise the roof in order to facilitate a second floor master bedroom suite to allow for an eight foot ceiling throughout the entire space. 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, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously4-0. 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 Irene O'Neill,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Bob and Althea Howe have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second floor living space on the premises located at 2 Dudley Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 313, Lot 201. The roof structure as proposed has a front yard of 11.3 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B.(1); and further,the proposed roof structure increases the extent by which the building is non conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-69 and WHEREAS, Bob and Althea Howe 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 Board finds that changes made to the residences will be in the rear of the property and not viewed from Dudley Lane or Boulder Brae Lane therefore no undesirable change will be produced in the character of 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 that the layout of the master bedroom suite and bathroom where the roof is to be raised already exists. It would be cost prohibitive to relocate all of the plumbing for the bathroom and relocate the furnace and ductwork to accommodate a 50 foot front setback. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The roof will be raised to gain usable area of 40 square feet,but the addition will not change the footprint of the residence. 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 this variance will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. In addition there will be no increase in roof area and consequent runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this is not a self created difficulty do to the location of the house on the property. 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 2772 REDDICLIFFE Connie Reddicliffe appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Reddicliffe stated she was requesting a variance to construct a front portico on her home. She stated that she has lived in the house for eleven years and always thought that the house should have a portico. A portico would dress up the entrance and give her protection from the elements 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, Chairman Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Frederick 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 Ronald Meister,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Connie Reddicliffe have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front portico on the premises located at 24 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120,Lot 7. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 27 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1) 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 Section 240-39B(1)and WHEREAS, Connie Reddicliffe 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 Board finds that there will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The portico will enhance the house and thus the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance: The Board finds that there is no reasonable alternative to create a dry entryway at the front of the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The requested variance is less than 3 feet of a 30-foot 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 Board finds that the addition of the portico will not have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created in that the location of the front door is at the limit of the set-back. 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. MINUTES The Minutes of November 15, 2006 on Motion of Frederick Baron, seconded by Arthur Wexler were unanimously Approved. The minutes of January 24,2007 on Motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Ronald Meister were unanimously Approved. The Minutes of February 28, 2007 on Motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Frederick Baron were unanimously Approved. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Frederick Baron the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 PM Francine M.Brill Zoning Board Secretary