Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_01_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 23, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2921 MICHAEL CHARITOU("Maphyan Holding LLC") Application of Michael Charitou ("Maphyan Holding LLC") requesting a variance to construct a common driveway on the premises located at 529 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 163. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO. 2922 Craig Mcllhenny Application of Craig Mcllhenny requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition and new front entry on the premises located at 192 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 440. APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO. 2923 Richard Fraser Application of Richard Fraser requesting a variance to construct a rear two story addition,second floor addition over existing and a front entry portico on the premises located at 67 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 67. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2924 Peter Kinsman Application of Peter Kinsman requesting a variance to legalize an air conditioning unit on the premises located at 5 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as block 409, Lot 20. APPLICATION NO.5 CASE NO. 2925 David R.Saabye Application of David R.Saabye requesting a variance to install a central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 20 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as block 222, Lot 374. APPLICATION NO.6 CASE NO. 2926 James and Joy Norgaard Application of James and Joy Norgaard requesting a variance to construct a kitchen over an existing patio space. New roof over kitchen lied into new vaulted roof over existing living room. With a new roof over entire structure on the premises located at 435 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as block 107, Lot 767. APPLICATION NO.7 CASE NO. 2927 Robert and Jola Thun 1 Application of Robert and Jola Thun requesting a variance to install a fence atop an existing wall on the premises located at 8 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as block 212, Lot 301. Roll Call. Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:54 P.M. Mr. Wexler the Chairman wished everyone a happy new year. Mr. Wexler stated that Applications 1, 3 and 4 would not be heard this evening as the signs were not properly located. The Chairman stated that there are only 4 members present at this time one member will be arriving late and the applicant's would need at least three votes in favor to be approved, anyone who would like to adjourn the matter may request to do so. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2922 Craig Mclhenny Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. Absent:Jeffery King. Mr. Mclhenny,the applicant, addressed the board and explained his request to enclose a drafty first floor sunroom and add a second floor bedroom addition above as well as add a front portico. A letter from the Feuerbach's at 188 Rockingstone Avenue stating they are in favor of the proposal was read into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the plan and Mr. Baron asked if the applicant could decrease the impervious surface,to which Mr. Mcllhenny responded he would remove the pavers in the rear of the property. Coverage is currently at 59.3 There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved 2 Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Fred Baron Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Marcus, King Nays: None WHEREAS,Craig Mcllhenny, has requested a variance to construct a second floor addition and a new front entry on the premises located at 192 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 440. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 Sections 240-38B(2)(a), 240-38B(2)(a), 240-38B(3), 240-38C(3), 240-38F and 240-69; WHEREAS,for the reasons set forth in the application, the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the second floor addition as proposed has a front yard of 17 feet 10 inches (with overhangs of approximately 10 inches)where 30 feet is required : has a side yard of 5 feet 7 inches where 10 feet is required: has a rear yard of 10 feet 11 inches where 25 feet is required: has a floor area ratio of 736 feet at 2 % stories where 800 feet is required; has a lot coverage of 61.6% (lot coverage is currently 59.3%)where 35% is required; and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; NOW THEREFORE,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the flowing findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 3 1. The Board finds 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 granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds that, even though multiple variances have been requested,the proposed construction will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to surrounding properties in that the foot print of the home will only being increased by a minimal amount of 60 sq. ft. In fact, the increase in square footage will bring the home more into alignment with the minimum requirements of the Town Cord for a two story building. The proposed structure above the first floor sunroom on the side of the house will afford the applicant the ability to have a three bedroom house and make the character of the home more consistent with the neighboring structures. In addition,there is a large (i.e., 13-foot) right-of-way in front of the house, which adds to the 17-foot front yard and will thus mitigate the visual aspect of the proposed construction of a slightly larger home. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than one requiring an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method that would not require a variance. The lot is 3,100 square feet,which is about 40% of the lot area required for a minimum lot in this zone. It is therefore virtually impossible to make any improvement to the home without a variance. C. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the requested variances are not substantial given the size and the position of the house, its setbacks, and its lot coverage. In view of these factors, the increase of the dimensions of the home by virtue of the requested variances would be minimal,with a total increase in the footprint of the home limited to a modest 60 square feet. D. Whether the requested variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds the introduction of a small 200 square foot addition on the second floor, with just a 60 square foot increase in the footprint of the home,will result in no increased runoff, noise, or light that will adversely affect the community at large. E. Whether the applicant's difficulty is self-created. 4 The Board finds that the applicant's difficulty is self-created, but that this is not determinative in this case. 2. For reasons stated above,the Board further finds that the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the Board further finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application,while preserving and protecting 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: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant January 23, 2013. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in the New York Stated Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2925 David R.Saabye Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). 5 Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Mr. Saabye the applicant addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler stated after the air conditioning unit is installed the applicant would need a as built survey which may show the need for a further variance. Mr. Ryan stated that the application does not have exact dimensions, and the Board can't work with approximations. Mr. Wexler asked the applicant to obtain a survey and to show the exact placement of the unit on it for the Board to review. Motion:The matter was adjourned to February 27, 2013 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, None seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2926 James and Joy Norgaard Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Liam Winters the applicant's architect addressed the Board, and entered 16 photos into the record marked Exhibit 1. Mr. Winters stated the patio is not used and the owner would like to enlarge the living space into that area. Mr. Winters further stated that the owners showed the plans to the owners of 292 and 294 Murray, and stated they expressed no concerns. Mr. Wexler clarified for the record that plan A.001.01 is existing conditions of the first floor. Mr. Winters stated the house was built in 1952 and the small kitchen is the original. The Board discussed the roof, elevations and impacts. Motion: To close the public hearing 6 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Marcus, King Nays: None WHEREAS,James and Joy Norgaard, has requested a variance to construct a kitchen over an existing patio space A new roof over the kitchen tied into a new vaulted roof over existing living room. With a new roof over the entire structure on the premises located at 435 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107 Lot 767. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 Sections 240-37B.1, 240-37B.3 and 240-69; WHEREAS,for the reasons set forth in the application, the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the addition as proposed has a front yard of 29.8 feet(with an overhang of 2 feet)where 30 feet is required, has a rear yard of 10.6(with an overhang of 2 feet),where 25 feet is required, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; NOW THEREFORE,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the flowing findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds 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 granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties. 7 The Board finds the proposed construction will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to surrounding properties because the all the work will be on the same footprint as the existing screened porch. The porch is presently unattractive and will be replaced with construction that will incorporate architectural features from other portions of the house. As a result, the renovated side of the house will present a better view to the neighbor on that side of the house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than one requiring an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a feasible method not requiring a variance because the porch to be renovated is already non- conforming. C. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the proposed variance is not substantial because there will be no further intrusion into the setback by the closing the porch. D. Whether the requested variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the requested variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as the structure will cause no sound, light or other environmental impacts. E. Whether the applicant's difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created but this factor it is not determinative in this case. 2. For reasons stated above,the Board further finds that the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the Board further finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application,while preserving and protecting 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: 8 GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant January 23, 2013. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in the New York Stated Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO.2927 Robert and Jola Thun Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Robert Thun,the applicant, addressed the Board, stating they are requesting a variance to fence in the rear of the property to keeps their dogs safe. The retaining wall is 2 feet at its highest and the fence atop it is only 3%2 feet in height. He entered 3 letters from neighbors at 42 Ellsworth, 14 Stoneyside and 47 Ellsworth in support of the requested variance into the record marked Exhibit 1. Mr.Thun also entered photos into the record marked respectively Photo 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Board discussed the placement of the fence and stated they would rather see the fence on the inside of the planted tree line. The two different fence types was discussed, Mrs. Thun stated that she felt that it would be more esthetically pleasing. Mr. Baron stated that he has a problem with a fence being 1%2 feet over code. Mr. Wexler stated that the aluminum fence should be on the inside of the plants on Ellsworth but could then be on the wall facing the neighbors. There were no public questions or comments. 9 Mr. Ryan stated that the variance should be granted with the condition that the plant screening must be maintained and the fence is to be place on the inside of the plantings. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=4, No= 1,Abstain =0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. No: Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED (4-1). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: Marcus WHEREAS, Robert and Jola Thun, has requested a variance to install a fence atop an existing wall on the premises located at 8 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212, Lot 301. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 Sections 240-50A and 240-50A; WHEREAS,for the reasons set forth in the application, the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the fence as proposed atop the existing wall has a total height of 5 %2 feet where 4 feet is permitted,for a fence in a front yard, and 5%2 feet where 5 feet is permitted for a fence in a rear yard. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, as a result of a discussion between the applicant and the Board, the applicants have agreed that the fence along the front yard paralleling Ellsworth Road would be placed inside the existing shrubbery as close to the shrubbery as the applicant can feasibly place it, and that the shrubbery must be maintained and replaced, in case any of the shrubbery dies; 10 WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; NOW THEREFORE,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the flowing findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds 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 granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds that the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the fence proposed by the applicants will be esthetically attractive fence and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. As such, the proposed fence will complement both the applicants' home and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than one requiring an area variance. The Board finds the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than one requiring an area variance because the applicants' purpose,to contain children and pets in their yard, can only be achieved with a fence and that the proposed fence, as modified after discussion with the Board, involves the minimum variance necessary to achieve the benefit sought. C. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variances will not be substantial in light of the modifications discussed and agreed to by and among the applicants and the Board. The total wall and fence at the rear yard will not exceed six feet. The fence along Ellsworth Road will be set back from the street and placed inside permanent shrubbery. D. Whether the requested variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds the variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the fence is esthetically complementary to the neighborhood, the excess height of the rear yard will not be generally visible, and the fence along Ellsworth Road will be screened. 11 E. Whether the applicant's difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the applicants' difficulty is self-created but this factor is not determinative under this circumstance presented in this case. 2. For reasons stated above,the Board further finds that the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the Board further finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application,while preserving and protecting 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: CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant January 23, 2013 and discussed above, including without limitation,that the fence along Ellsworth Avenue will be placed on the inside of a line of shrubs running parallel to Ellsworth Avenue and that these shrubs shall be maintained and, in case any shrubs die, shall be replaced by the property owner. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in the New York Stated Town Law. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of September 5, 2012 12 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the minutes of November 28, 2012 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. ADJOURNMENT Motion:To adjourn the meeting at 9:22P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals. 13