Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_07_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 25,2007,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: William Maker Jr.,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison 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 APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO.2767 James H.Giffen Steve Silverberg applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Silverberg explained that they have submitted a scale drawing and computer rendition of the gate posts with lights and wrought iron fence proposal. The applicant is requesting a variance for six foot stone pillars and gate. The Board had stated at the previous meeting that the applicant should have an electronic gate for safety,the applicant's attorney replied that the Board could not make the applicant install such a device. The Board discussed this and concluded that they could only base their decision on the five criteria. The Board felt the spears on the wrought iron gate could be dangerous and that the applicant should consider safety in the final design. Frederick Baron quoted Section 240-52B,and the Board stated that they want the columns to be six feet in height with no more than one foot decrotive light on top;and with the gate being only six feet in height maximum. 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 Ronald Meister,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,James H. Giffen has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct two six foot stone pillars and related 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. The stone pillars and iron gates as proposed have a height of six feet where four feet is required pursuant to Section 240-52B for pillars in an R-50 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 240-52B and WHEREAS,James H. Giffen 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 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 stone pillars will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. An attractive fence two feet over code does not unduly change the character of 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 feels that there is no reasonable alternative to allow the applicants to achieve their goals. The Board understands that the applicant has security problems and feels that a six foot entry gate is not unreasonable. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board feels that while the variance is deemed substantial with regard to the property 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 there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district as the property is large and the gates are to be no more than six feet in height from the ground. 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 as modified and agreed to at the meeting and require that the plans reflecting the modification be submitted for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of a building permit. 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.2.—CASE NO. 2785 ALAN AND AMY ROSEN Alan Rosen appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Rosen resubmitted the application correctly noticed stating that he is requesting a front porch. 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 Linda Harrington,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Alan and Amy Rosen have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a covered front porch and steps 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 covered front porch and steps has a front yard of 11.41.feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1),also has a front yard of 19.31 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); has a side yard of 6.32 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38(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 240-38B(1); 240-38B(2)(a);240-69 and WHEREAS,Alan and Amy Rosen 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 new porch will make the house appear more in character with the existing houses in the neighborhood. The new porch will provide the home owner with a protected font entrance to their home. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance: The house is already non conforming and 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 although substantial it is only 32% lot coverage when 35%is allowable. 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 front porch will improve the looks of the house. 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.3—CASE NO. 2786 MR.AND MRS.SHEPARD John Cotugno applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Cotugno stated that the proposed portico would be less than what is already there,and that the second floor addition is staying in the existing footprint. 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 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 environmental pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ronald Meister, seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr. and Mrs. Shepard have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct one and two story addition and portico on the premises located at 13 Hommocks Road a.k.a.2 Rockridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412,Lot 231. The portico as proposed has a front yard of 26 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)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 240-38B(1); and WHEREAS,Mr.and Mrs. Shepard 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 portico addition is not out of scale of the adjoining properties. There are similar structures located on both sides of the street as well as throughout 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 house is already non conforming and 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 front portico will improve the looks of the house. 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. 2787 LAURA AND MATTHEW NOLL Laura Noll appeared and addressed the Board. Ms.Noll 3 letters in support of the application into the record marked Exhibit A,B,C. Mr.Katz of 18 Orsini Drive appeared and stated that he is against the granting of a variance as the placement of the units would greatly impact his quality of life. Jessica Lee of 142 Murray Ave.appeared and stated that air conditioning condenser units are very annoying. Frank Angeleno father of Laura Noll appeared and stated that the Nolls offered to move the units as far away from the neighbors windows as possible. Mr.Angeleno stated that they would be willing to baffle the units and landscape to accomodate the neighbors. The Board discussed the application and stated that they needed to know the decibel rating of the units and asked the applicant to see if they could find another solution with the placement of the units. On motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Linda Harrington the matter was adjourned to the next meeting. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2788 STEVE AND CATHY CLEMENS The applicants requested to be removed from the agenda,as they are not proceeding with the application. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the meeting calendar,the August 22 meeting is cancelled due to vacation schedules, On motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Linda Harrington two meeting were scheduled for September,Wednesday September 5,and Tuesday September 25,voted unanimously 5-0. MINUTES On motion of Frederick Baron seconded by Linda Harrington the minutes of 4/26/07,5/24/07,6/27/07 were approved unanimously 5-0. OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the Leichter application and asked the Building Department to communicate to the Applicant and their attorney that the application must be properly renoticed with the correct dimensions and that no further adjournments will be accepted. If the applicant does not comply with this request,they will be removed from the agenda and be in violation. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Frederick Baron seconded by Linda Harrington the meeting was adjourned unanimously 5-0. Francine M.Brill Recording Secretary