Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_06_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 27,2007,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: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Wanda Spevedula,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO 1 CASE NO.2769 Mrs.Eleanor Leichter(adjourned 2/28/07;3/28/07;04/26/07; 05/24/07) Applicant requested a postponement. The Board discussed the application as to whether they can grant a variance on the Town's right of way and concluded that if so that it must be re-noticed at the correct dimensions 13.7 feet and 17.3 feet deep not 15 and 18 as the original notice requested. Jeffery Schaffer of 200 East Garden Road spoke against the variance,and asked if the variance was not granted who would enforce the violation. Ronald Carpaneto stated that it would be the Building Department. The matter was postponed to July 25,2007 for a final hearing,no further adjournment to be granted. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE no. 2767 James H.Giffen Jenna Carreri of the law firm Silverberg,Zalantis LLP stated that their clients are requesting a gate and rock pillars on the entrance of his property. The proposed gates are 20.5 ft from the road and 11.7 feet from the property line. The columns are to be 6 feet high with a twelve inch decorative top light not yet chosen. The Board wanted to know if the gates would have a call box to facilitate truck deliveries,and why did the gates were moved closer to the road as they decreased in height. The Board stated that the information they received by hand at the meeting was not what the Board requested at the previous meeting,and that they could not reach a decision on the matter. The Board suggested a postponement for the client to get a clear design of what the gate and posts will actually look like,and to decide whether the gate would have a call box for deliveries. Jeffery Waldhuter of Bruce Road stated that he was worried about the safety issues on Old White Plains Road and as long as the safety issues are addressed he is in support of a gate. On motion made by Arthur Wexler and seconded by Fred Erick Baron the matter was adjourned to July 25, 2007. APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO.2783 Katie and Glen Dropkin Liam Winters the applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Winters stated that the house is more modest in size than most of the surrounding houses and that the applicant wants to make an unusable screened porch into usable interior space. Mr. Winters entered 4 photos of neighboring houses into the record marked exhibit A 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 Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda Harrington 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 environmental pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ronald Meister, seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Katie and Glen Dropkin have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to replace a screened porch with new interior space to be used as a home office/study on the premises located at 4 Highwood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110,Lot 440. The office study as proposed has a side yard of 6 feet where 10 feet is required 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,Katie and Glenn Dropkin 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 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 feels that there will be no undesirable change by cleaning up the screened porch and creating an interior space 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 feels that there is no reasonable alternative to allow the applicants to achieve their goals. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board feels 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 feels that there will be no adverse impact as the house is well situated and has existing landscape elements that hide it. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels that the difficulty is not self created. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the property. 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 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 NO.2784 David and Kathleen Wit Kathleen Wit appeared and addressed the Board. Mrs.Wit state that they want a terrace to access there outdoor space form the kitchen. 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 Members Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler Yes Frederick Baron Yes Linda Harrington 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 environmental pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Frederick Baron, seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,David and Kathleen Wit have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a side yard terrace on the premises located at 23 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503,Lot 661. The terrace as proposed has a side yard of 1 foot where 5 feet are required pursuant to Section 240-50 for a terrace in an R-15 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,David and Kathleen Wit 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 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 feels that the proposed terrace will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed flagstone terrace will be conservative in size(375 sq. ft. and will be constructed of the same flagstones which already exist on the walkways around the 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 feels that there is no reasonable alternative to allow the applicant to achieve their goals. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board feels that the variance although deemed substantial since it is within 1 foot of the property line,it is a flat surface and not considered 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 there will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the area,a separate dry well will be installed to handle any additional water runoff E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels that the difficulty is not self created. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the property. 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 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 NO.2785 Alan and Amy Rosen Alan Rosen appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Rosen stated that he was requesting a variance to have a front entry to his house. Mr. Rosen entered a letter in favor of his project Marked exhibit A; and photos Marked Exhibit B. The Board discussed the application and stated that in there opinion the request is for a front porch not a front entry which has a completely different ramification on the neighborhood. Robert Davis Counsel stated that the measurements were correct but not the wording,and if the Board was not happy with the notice as written they can not vote on the application. The Board suggested that the application be re-noticed. The meeting was adjourned due to a blackout in the building. Francine M.Brill Zoning Board Secretary