Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_09_05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Minutes 9/5/07 page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 5,2007,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: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Absent: Nancy Seligson,Liaison Eunice Tecun,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. 7 CASE NO.2794 EVE ZEESE AND TODD STEVENS The Board found a mistake in the notification and suggested the applicant adjourn the matter to correct the error. The applicant requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO. 2769 Eleanor Leichter Donald Mazin Applicant's attorney appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Mazin stated that this is an amended request and prior testimony and exhibits are applicable. Mr.Mazin stated that in a letter Mr. Jacobowski the Building Inspector at that time stated that the applicant had the right to park in the space, 5 years after the temporary approval. The Board asked counsel if they had the right to grant a variance to allow parking on Town property. Kevin Ryan replied that it is a jurisdictional question and in short the answer is no. Donald Mazin stated that he would like to meet with the Boards Counsel to discuss the application Debra Kling 200 East Garden Rd. stated that the neighbors on the parking area side said that the parking area partially is on there property. Nina Leichter stated that the neighbor never complained at any of the previous hearings and that only the flower bed is on his property not the parking area. Minutes 9/5/07 page 2 The Board discussed this application, and its findings revealed that the Benefits to the applicant does not outweigh the detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. After review on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Linda Harrington the following Resolution was proposed and DENIED 4-1 Poll Board: Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington No Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister Yes On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Ronald Meister,the following resolution was DENIED WHEREAS,Eleanor Leichter has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize and allow to remain the off street parking area as it presently exists on the premises located at 202 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 91;The development and use of an unenclosed off-street parking area within twenty five(25)feet of the front lot line and closer than five(5)feet to the property line is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-79B in any Residence District. Additionally,the parking spaces created are only 13.7& 17.3 deep where a depth of twenty(20)feet is required by definition pursuant to Section 240-4 for a parking area in an R-10 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 240-79B and 240-4;and WHEREAS, Eleanor Leichter 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 would NOT outweigh 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 proposed use is atypical and inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood as the proposed area is unattractive and there are no similar approved non-conforming unenclosed front yard parking areas in 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 feels that the applicants can park in their driveway and garage and therefore the parking area is not necessary. Minutes 9/5/07 page 3 C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the accessory parking area is substandard in size and that the applicant has alternatives such as parking in the driveway and in the garage. The Board further finds that the proposed area would impinge on the property of the applicant's neighbor. Further,as the proposed parking spaces are substandard in length,vehicles parked in the spaces could extend into the Town of Mamaroneck right-of—way,thus violating parking rules at that location prohibiting over-night parking on the public street. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board to allow a private use to encroach upon property of the Town and to violate Vehicle and Traffic Code. D. Whether the proposed variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the proposed variance would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The parking area creates a dangerous condition in that it is located on the curve of the road which fronts the property,with a limited sight line distance for approaching traffic to view vehicles backing out of the parking area. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that this is a self created difficulty as the applicant has ample space in her driveway and garage to park and has continued to use the parking area for a period of years after having had previously received a temporary variance to park in this space,which by its own terms expired after sixty(60)day period in 1987 and which was not extended or renewed at that time. 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.2—CASE NO. 2789 Nancy Ossenfort Application adjourned. APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. 2790 ANNEMARIE MATTIOU AND JACK WEISS Jim Fleming applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Fleming stated that the applicant wants a portico to enter the house which would enable them to have a first floor powder room off the entry. The house sits on a corner lot and is already nonconforming. Mr. Fleming stated that there was an error on his plan the side yard variance request is actually for 9 inches not 2 feet 8 inches. 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 Minutes 9/5/07 page 4 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Annemarie Mattiou and Jack Weiss have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a covered front entry portico and steps on the premises located at 48 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114,Lot 542. The front portico with steps as proposed has a front yard of 21 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);has a side yard of approximately 9 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 240-38B(2(a);240-38B(2)(a); 240-69 and WHEREAS,Annemarie Mattiou and Jack Weiss 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 portico will make the house appear more in character with the existing houses in the neighborhood. In this instance given the location of the house on a property that is sub standard,given the curvature of the Street and the fact it is on a corner it will not be out of character with the neighborhood because the actual structure(i.e.,front wall)will be approximately 25 feet from the property line and in character with homes on Valley Road,which is located in a high density small home part of town. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance: Minutes 9/5/07 page 5 The house is already non conforming and the Board feels that there is no reasonable alternative to allow the applicants to achieve their goals. The design of the house, which includes a bay window, and the layout of the corner lot is such that the proposed portico location is the only possible place to construct it. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board feels that the variance is not substantial it is modest in size only 4 '/z feet out from the house. The covered portico above that is small in nature and has no impact whatsoever. 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 there will be no increase in drainage,noise. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels that the difficulty is not self created,the irregular shaped corner lot was not created by the applicant. 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. 2791 ROBIN AND WILL GENSBERG Will Gensberg,Jacob Goldberg applicant's architect,and Cliff Davis applicant's lawyer appeared and addressed the Board. Jacob Goldberg stated that the applicants would like to increase the garage to a 2 car garage with a second floor; attached to the house by a mud room. Minutes 9/5/07 page 6 The Board suggested that the applicant's reconsider the plan and down size there request,a 28 ft high structure 16 feet from the property line has a enormous impact on the neighborhood. Robert Cammer of 18 Little Farms Road was against the project as shown,but not against the applicant's right to enlarge their home. He also stated that he believed that the applicant would work from home and questioned the need for a use variance. Clifford Davis applicant's attorney stated that all that is needed is a area variance. Mr.Davis entered a packet Marked exhibit D into the record. Arthur Wexler stated that it is very rare to give front yard variances,the location of the house and the mass of the addition makes it difficult. The Applicant requested an adjournment,date to be set. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2792 JULIEANN CIARDULLO/MARIUS GRISKONIS John Ciardullo applicant's father and architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Ciardullo stated that they would like to straighten the driveway and widen the entrance so that the both garage bays could be utilized. Mr. Ciardullo stated that the garage was enlarged with a variance in 2002 and they already exceed the lot coverage at 43%. Ms. Hannah Duben of 44 Edgewood Ave. appeared and stated that being the next door neighbor most affected is in support of the plan. The Board discussed the project and approved it with modifications. 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Linda Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Julieann Ciardullo and Marius Griskonis have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to relocate a driveway on the premises located at 40 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123,Lot 259. The driveway as proposed has a side yard of 2 feet 6 inches where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 79B and further the proposed driveway will not increase the lot coverage for a R-6 Zone District Minutes 9/5/07 page 7 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 240-78B and WHEREAS,Julieann Ciardullo and Marius Griskonis 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 finds relocating the driveway of the same length 2.6 feet from the property line would not be out of character with the community. 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 given the location of the existing garage approximately 1.3 feet off the side property line and the access to that garage is approximately 2 '/2 feet off the side property line the rotation of the new proposed driveway will be in line with the openings the driveway and. There is no alternative to approach the driveway at that point. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board feels that the reduction in the side yard from 5 feet required to 2.6 feet for a driveway is not substantial due to the fact it is at grade level and the impact will be negative. 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 there will be no additional runoff and drainage as the amount of impervious surface will not increase above the existing 43%. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board feels that the difficulty is not self created, Given the existing condition of the garage which is 1.3 feet off the property line was not self created and every garage should have an access. 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 Minutes 9/5/07 page 8 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. 6 CASE NO. 2793 MARK AND MAGGIE ROSEN Linda Harrington recused herself. Mark Rosen applicant,Elizabeth DiSalvo applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Rosen stated that they just bought the house and wanted to add a small master suite above an existing family room in the rear of the house. Mr.Rosen entered a packet of photos into the record marked exhibit A. Brian Harrington,742 Forest Avenue stated he was against the plan as proposed,as it would be adding to the nonconforming conditions that already exist,and it will block morning light to his house. Juan Galan 746 Forest Ave. stated that the area is overcrowded and the addition will create a large wall as a view in his back yard,leaving his back yard in shade. Linda Harrington,742 Forest Ave. stated that the applicant bought an undersize house and now want the neighbors to swallow the addition. The Board suggested that the applicant resubmit a new plan that would be more pleasing to the neighbors and would be less in mass. The applicant requested an adjournment,date to be set. MINUTES On motion of Linda Harrington,seconded by Irene O'Neill the minutes of February 28,2007 were approved unanimously 5-0. Minutes 9/5/07 page 9 The minutes of July 25,were not discussed. ADJOURNMENT Francine M.Brill Recording Secretary