Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_05_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 24,2007,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Also Present: Judy Gallent,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Absent: Nancy Seligson,Liaison Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary Wanda Spevedula,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO.2769 Mrs.Eleanor Leichter (adjourned 2/28/07;03/28/07;04/26/07) The matter was adjourned to June 27,2007. APPLICATION NO.2.—CASE NO.2777 Martin Bertels Martin Bertels appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Bertels stated that although there were other locations to place the condensing units the place he was requesting was closest to the inside equipment and was not under any windows in the house. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman YES Linda S. Harrington YES Frederick Baron YES Irene O'Neill YES Ronald Meister YES After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Ronald Meister, 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 Ronald Meister,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Martin Bertels has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install a central air conditioning condensing unit on the premises located at 2 Cottage Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502, Lot 172. The central air conditioning condensing unit has a side yard of 5 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a) and further the air conditioning condensing unit increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. 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,Martin Bertels has 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 air conditioning condensing unit will be placed behind a picket fence and the applicant will plant shrubs and thus it will barely be visible from the street or adjacent properties. 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 location for the placement of the unit. 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 placement of the air conditioning condensing units will not adversely impact the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created but due to the layout 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.3 CASE 2776 Eric and Ellen Marcus Rick Yestadt applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. The applicants are requesting a new front entrance with an open portico with steps. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman YES Linda S. Harrington 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 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 Linda Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Eric and Ellen Marcus have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front entrance with an open portico with steps on the premises located at 10 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Lot 184. The one story entrance steps as proposed have affront yard of 23.77 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B. (1) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in R-10 Zone District. 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, Eric and Ellen Marcus have 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 proposed front entrance will enhance the existing house. 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 front entry to provide protection from the rain and snow. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is minimal. 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 front entry will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created,but due to the original layout of the house. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,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.4 CASE 2779 Frank Alexander John Cotugno applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board....Mr.Cotugno stated that the applicants want to legalize an existing dormer. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman YES Linda S. Harrington YES Frederick Baron YES Irene O'Neill YES Ronald Meister YES After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Linda 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 Linda Harrington,seconded by Ronald Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Frank Alexander has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize a second story dormer addition on the premises located at 66 Sherwood Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 561. The second story dormer as built has a side yard of 5.7 feet where 10 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B.(2)(a)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. 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, Frank Alexander has 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 second story dormer addition as built is in keeping with the scale of the adjoining properties 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,other areas of expansion on the second floor are not feasible or practical due to the configuration of the home. The alternative would be to remove the addition which would put undo strain on the home owner. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The as-built dormer, as well as the entire left side of the home has a side yard setback of 5.7 feet whereas 10 feet is required. Although the variance is substantial,it is the minimum required to accomplish the goals of the project. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The addition dos not negatively impact the neighborhood. It is minimal in size and does not obstruct the light or view of any other property. There is no additional runoff as the house addition was straight up. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The original house was already non-conforming,thereby any work on the left side of the home would require 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,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.5 CASE 2780 Mark and Kristen DeFelice Joe Cermeli applicants architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Cermeli stated that his clients want to install a bay widow in one of their front yards. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman YES Linda S. Harrington 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 Frederick Baron,seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mark and Kristen DeFelice have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to install a bay window on the premises located at 42 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120,Lot 230. The bay window as proposed has a front yard of 12.58 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B.(1) and further the bay window increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6Zone District. 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, Mark and Kristen DeFelice have 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 replacement of two double hung windows with one bay window will not change the character of the neighborhood. The style window is complimentary to the home and 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. The applicant's desire to install a bay window in the proposed location can not be achieved by any means not requiring a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The bay window will only protrude approximately 12-3/4 inches from the existing home, occupying a total 7.3 square feet therefore it is not considered to be substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board feels that the bay window will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created as the house originally complied with the zoning regulation,until Colonial Lane was developed creating two front yards and the non-conforming condition. 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.6 CASE 2767 James H.Giffen Steven Silverberg applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Silverberg stated that his clients have reduced their request to 6 foot stone pillars with a 12 inch decorative top. Mr.Silverberg stated that there are other properties in the neighborhood that have gates and fences of considerable height, 1023 Old White Plains Rd.has received a variance for a 5 foot fence,and 6 Deerfield Road has a high fence. The Board questioned what the 12 inch decorative piece will look like and the exact dimensions of the pillars will be so they can make an informed decision. This matter was adjourned to the July 25,2007 meeting. APPLICATION NO.7 CASE 2781 Allison Abrahms Allison Abrahms appeared and addressed the Board requesting to install a central air conditioning condenser unit in her front yard.. The location is the best possible place as it is closest to the inside components of the system. 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: Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman YES Linda S. Harrington 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 Frederick Baron,seconded by Ronald Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Allison Abrahms has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to install a central air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 44 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221,Lot 305. The air conditioning condenser unit as proposed has a front yard if 15 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1) and further the condensing unit increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. 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, Allison Abrahms have 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 proposed placement of the air conditioning condenser unit will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The unit will be placed behind an existing flower bed and will be screened with shrubbery so that it will not be visible. 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. There is no place on the property where the unit can be placed without requiring a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that it 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 feels that the air conditioning condenser units will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The unit will be well screened. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created as the property is non- conforming. 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 2782 Frank Marcella and Virginia Picciotto Frank Marcella appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Marcella stated that they are requesting a 5 foot high fence at the edge of a retaining wall in the front of the property. The Board discussed this application,and suggested that the applicant set the fence back 4 feet and not exceed 4 feet in height which would not require a variance. The matter was adjourned to July 25,2007. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to July 25,2007 Francine M.Brill Zoning Board Secretary