Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007_11_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Minutes 11/28/08 pagel MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 28,2007,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Absent: Linda S. Harrington 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 Minutes not discussed APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO.2795 RECK The client requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE NO.2796 FELDMAN 6 East Drive Clark Neuringer applicant's architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Neuringer stated that the addition is a 240 square foot 1 story structure to increase the size of the kitchen and dining room. Mr. Neuringer stated that when the house was built it conformed to all zoning regulations, but the zoning law changed making the front portion of the house non-conforming. Mr.Neuringer stated that the size of the addition is minimal,it will square off the front of the house and be in scale and design of the existing structure. The Board discussed the addition and felt that the stone plane should be broken up and Mr. Neuringer stated that he would do so at the Board's request. The Board discussed this application and voted as follows; After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Ronald Meister, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. 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. Minutes 11/28/08 page2 On motion of Ronald Meister,seconded by Fred Baron,the following resolution was ADOPTED by a vote of 4-0: WHEREAS, Valerie and Paul Feldman are requesting a variance to construct an addition to the existing kitchen on the premises located at 6 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 107,Lot 422. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 17 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37b(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-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 240-37b(1); and 240-69 and WHEREAS,Valerie and Paul Feldman 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 design and overall character of the addition is in keeping with the existing structure and will fully blend in with house and neighborhood. The house is well screened from the street and the adjacent neighbors are in favor of the addition. 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 applicants cannot achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative, due to the uniqueness of the property and the layout of the existing residence. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial due to the small area of the addition in relation to the original placement of the house on the property prior to the current zoning laws. 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 because the relatively minor addition will blend well with the existing structure, and because the front of the property is in any event well-screened from the street. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created due to unique arrangement of the house and lot. Minutes 11/28/08 page3 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 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. This approval shall not be construed to permit any other variation,whether or not relating in any way to the variance granted herewith. 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.3—CASE NO.2797 KLUFER/HABER 41 Eton Road Rick Haber appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Haber stated that they were requesting a one story addition replacing an existing glass enclosed porch and patio on the rear of the premises. The Board questioned the impervious surface coverage,as to whether it was included in the calculations. Fred Baron asked whether the tree in the rear yard would need to be removed,Mr. Haber replied yes. The Board discussed the application and voted as follows: After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. 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 Frederick Baron, the following resolution was ADOPTED by a vote of 4-0: WHEREAS,Elizabeth Klufer and Rick Haber have requested a variance to construct a one story addition on the premises located at 41 Eton Road and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 211,Lot 613. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.5 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B.(2)(a)and further the addition increases the extent;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 240-37B.(2)(a);and 240-69 and Minutes 11/28/08 page4 WHEREAS,Elizabeth Klufer and Rick Haber 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 addition is located at the rear of the residence and replaces an existing glass enclosed porch. Furthermore the architectural character of the proposed addition is very much in keeping with the house,and its modest scale will present no detrimental effect on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. 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 there is no feasible alternative whereby the applicants can achieve their goals,because the existing house intrudes into the required side yard setback, and because the existing arrangement of the interior spaces as well as the large ledge rock on the side of the house prevent expansion in any other direction. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it replaces an existing Structure with very little additional area.. 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. The proposed addition conforms to the residential nature of the neighborhood,is to be located at the rear of the house,and is modest in scale and character. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty is not self created,it is the result of an existing non-conformity in the relationship of house to side yard set back. 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 Minutes 11/28/08 page5 RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is granted,subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans 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. The Board discussed Section 240-50 regarding lot coverage and requested clarification from the Town Board. APPLICATION NO.4—CASE NO.2798 ALLISON AND CHARLES OPOLINSKY 133 Griffin Avenue Frank Giuliano the applicant's landscape architect appeared and addressed the Board. Mr.Giuliano stated that his clients wish to install an in ground swimming pool 18X38 feet protruding 5 feet into the rear yard setback. Town regulation requires a pool to be 15 feet from the house thereby requiring a rear yard set back. The Board discussed the location of the pool and it was decided that the pool be moved 8 feet into the side yard. The Board discussed the application and voted as follows: After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler,seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. 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 by a vote of 4-0: WHEREAS,Allison and Charles Opolinsky requesting a variance to install an in ground pool on the premises located at 133 Griffen Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 305,Lot 835. The in ground pool as proposed has a rear yard of 15 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(b)for a swimming pool in an R-20 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 192-5A(1)(b);and WHEREAS,Allison and Charles Opolinsky 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 Minutes 11/28/08 page6 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 as the pool will be a fine addition. 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 there is no place else on the property to accommodate a pool even of this modest size. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance from a 20'rear yard setback to a setback of 15' for a ground level structure 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 there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district because the pool will be at the back of the house will not be visible from offsite. In addition,the applicant has presented at least one letter from a neighbor indicating no objection to the variance. No neighbor has expressed any opposition.. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty requiring the variance,while self created in the sense that the applicable areas requirements were in place prior to the plan to construct the pool,this is not dispositive as to the application and the 15' separation of the pool from the house is required as a matter of safety. 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 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. Minutes 11/28/08 page7 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.5—CASE NO. 2799 DUANE READE Duane Reade requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO.-6 CASE NO. 2800 DAVID AND ELIZABETH FLORENCE 7 France Place Elizabeth Florence appeared and addressed the Board. Mrs.Florence stated that when they bought the house 14 years ago a stockade fence was in place. When the fence deteriorated it was replaced with a fence of the exact height that was presently there not realizing the height restriction. The Board discussed the application and its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and there fore voted as follows: After review, on motion of Ronald Meister, seconded by Frederick Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,4-0. 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was ADOPTED by a vote of 4-0: WHEREAS, David and Elizabeth Florence requesting a variance to on the premises located at 7 France Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 514. The fence as built has a total height of 6 foot 6 inches where 5 feet is permitted(in the side and rear yards)pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in an R7-5 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 240-52A;and WHEREAS, David and Elizabeth Florence 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: Minutes 11/28/08 page8 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 in this instance that the fence existed at that height in the past and the replacement, while of the same dimensions at the previous fence, is a vast improvement because the old fence had deteriorated. 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 a fence of this dimension has been in that location for over 15 years,it is 6 foot 6 inches at only a small portion of its length. To remove the fence and replace it with another new fence at 5' in height would be unfeasible in that this would be unduly burdensome with little benefit to the surrounding community. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial it is only a 20%increase of 12 inches and is well screened. 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. The fence replaces one that has been in the same location at the same dimension for decades. The neighbors are reportedly accustomed to it. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although self created,was unintentionally caused by the replacement of the existing fence,and in any event the fact that the difficulty may be self created is not dispositive as to the application. 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. The variance be limited to the construction shown on the plans 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. Minutes 11/28/08 page9 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Ronald Meister the meeting was adjourned by a unanimous vote Francine M.Brill Board of Appeals Secretary