Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_09_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 25,2007 page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 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: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Kathy Maranon,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 7:45 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes were postponed. APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO. 2789 NANCY OSSENFORT Nancy Ossenfort,Applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Ms. Ossenfort stated that she wanted to legalize and reconstruct an existing rear addition on her home which she purchased in 1996. The addition has been there about 50 years,during the residence of the four previous families. The side yard set back is 4.25 feet where 10 feet is required and will not change the foot print will remain the same. The application was first submitted in 2005,and the Board asked why it had not been acted upon sooner Ms. Ossenfort stated that there were more pressing repairs that needed to be done and it had to be postponed. 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; 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 Irene O'Neill, seconded by Fred Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED by a vote of 5-0: WHEREAS,Nancy Ossenfort,has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to legalize/reconstruct a rear addition on the premises located at 1268 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 404,Lot 531 and September 25,2007 page 2 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 240-36B(2)(a);and 240-69 and WHEREAS,Nancy Ossenfort 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 benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. The proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The structure is currently not legal and needs to be rebuilt. It is deteriorating because it was built on the ground without proper foundation many years ago. It is being rebuilt on the existing footprint of the structure that will be demolished. Due the original placement of the structure and the placement of the house on the lot the owners have little choice but to have a side yard of 4.25 ft where 10 feet is required. 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 applicant cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative,the addition will be on the same footprint as the existing building and there is no practical alternative place to construct it. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial due to its original placement on the property prior to the current zoning laws, and the footprint of the house will not change as a result of the addition. 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 adverse impact on the neighborhood or district. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created it existed for many years and predates the applicant's ownership of the home. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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. September 25,2007 page 3 3. For the reasons stated above, 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. NOW,THEREFORE,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 and shall not be construed to allow any other variation, whether or not relating in any way to the variance granted hereunder. 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 hereby approved 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. 2791 ROBIN AND WILL GENSBERG Jacob Goldberg applicant's architect and Robin Gensberg applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Goldberg described the changes made to the plans as per the Boards suggestions at the 9/5/07 meeting. Mr. Goldberg stated that the new plans show that the garage was set back 2.6 feet further, The width of the garage was reduced from 25.9 feet to 20 feet,the back stair case was reduced to the state required 3 feet,the overall footprint was reduced 20%, and the garage was 30%less in volume. As the Board requested the roof was rotated and the slope lowered to minimize the massing of the project. Robert Cammer, 18 Little Farms Road stated that he is not against the applicants request for a two car garage, but is against the length of the link between the two structures because it makes it like two attached houses. Mr. Cammer stated that his main concern is the effect the removal of the tree will have on water retention in the area. Robin Gensberg the applicant stated that whether or not they get a variance the garage was being demolished because of its bad condition. Ms. Gensberg also stated that an arborist that she hired said the tree must come down and that she is willing to plant replacement trees somewhere else on the property. Arthur Wexler asked if the link could be reduced, and Mr. Goldberg answered that the utility pole is in the way and can not easily be relocated. The Board discussed the application and felt that a planting plan must be made and be part of the plan before a vote could be made. Poll Board Board Member Yes/No/Abstained Arthur Wexler, Chairman Yes Linda S. Harrington Yes Frederick Baron Yes Irene O'Neill Yes Ronald Meister No Motion to adjourn to the next meeting October 24,2007. September 25,2007 page 4 APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. 2793 MARK AND MAGGIE ROSEN Mark Rosen the applicant appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Rosen entered a packet of photos marked exhibit B into the record. Mr. Rosen stated that he took the Boards suggestion and came up with two options(A or B)in the style of a Dutch Colonial,for the second story addition on the rear of his house. Mr. Rosen stated that the addition is conservative in size and he and his family prefer option B. 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: After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Ronald Meister, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0.,Linda Harrington recused herself. 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 by a vote of 4-0: WHEREAS, Marc and Maggie Rosen have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 744 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 38. The second story as proposed has a side yard of 6 feet 2 1/2inches 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-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 240-38B(2)(a),and Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Marc and Maggie Rosen 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 side yard of 7 feet 5 inches where 10 feet is required is a smaller variance than was originally requested and is not a substantial detriment to nearby properties. Further,the redesign of the addition in the Dutch Colonial style will result in a more aesthetically appealing design when viewed from neighboring properties,as corroborated by one of the neighbors in attendance at the September 25,2007 continued hearing. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: Based on a review and comparison of the original plan,as well as,plans A and B submitted on September 25, 2007, the Board finds that the objectives of the applicant cannot be achieved via a reasonable alternative. September 25,2007 page 5 C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial as the footprint of the house will remain the same. 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 proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the environment or district because it will not result in a net increase in impervious surfaces on the affected property and surrounding homes are similarly constructed E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self created. 2. For the reasons stated above,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. 3. For the reasons stated above,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. NOW,THEREFORE,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 marked "Option B" and shall not be construed to allow any other variation,whether or not relating in any way to the variance granted hereunder. 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. 2. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans hereby approved in connection with the application and marked as"Option B". 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. 2794 EVE ZEESE AND TODD STEVENS Elizabeth Di Salvo the applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Ms.Di Salvo stated that although it is a 4 bed room house,two of the bedrooms are less than 8 feet wide. The applicants want to bump out 4 feet in the rear allowing them to create a first floor dining area and a second floor master bedroom. Ms. Di Salvo stated that although a side yard addition would not require a variance it would create more massing to the structure that would be visible from the street at considerably more expense to the owner. Todd Stevens the applicant stated that the only house impacted by the addition is the house in the rear which is not close to the project and screened from both sides of the rear property line. Mr. Stevens stated that he would be willing to add more landscaping if required. September 25,2007 page 6 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: 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 Frederick Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED by a vote of 5-0: WHEREAS,Eve Zeese and Todd Stevens,have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two story addition on the premises located at 9 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 394 . The two story rear addition as proposed has a rear yard of 16.5. feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 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 240-36B(3),240-69;and WHEREAS,Eve Zeese and Todd Stevens 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 this application presents the best idea for adding on to this home. The home has a very large front yard and is set back on the lot. The plan as presented preserves the appearance and character of the home, it keeps a nice front yard for the neighborhood. The addition will not impact the view from the street. The closest neighbor who will be impacted is in the rear of the property and there is landscaping between the two properties. The house is more than 50 feet back from the front property line giving the applicant not much opportunity to enlarge his house. 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 while the Applicant can achieve their goals by building an addition parallel to the front property line, this is the best plan for an addition considering the fact that it places the addition in the back of the house where it is not very visible from the street, while having little if any impact on any of the neighbors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: September 25,2007 page 7 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial considering the size of the property and the placement of the addition. 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 will not have a negative impact as a matter of fact it will have a positive impact. This house was burdened with very small rooms this plan will give the applicants living space while preserving the character of the house and the neighborhood. F. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that, while the difficulty is technically self-created, the house is on a nonconforming property and in any event this factor is not determinative in light of the factors discussed above. 2. For the reasons stated above,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. 3. For the reasons stated above,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. NOW,THEREFORE,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 shall be construed to allow any other area variation, whether or not relating in any way to the variance granted hereunder. 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. 2. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans hereby approved 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 Minutes of 7/25/07 were postponed. Minutes of 9/5/07 were discussed and corrections made. On motion of Frederick Baron, seconded by Ronald Meister the minutes were approved with corrections by a vote of 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Arthur Wexler seconded by Ronald Meister voted 4-0 at 9:55 PM. Francine M.Brill Recording Secretary