Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_01_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 27,2010,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 Also Present: Kevin G.Ryan, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building David Fishman,Liaison Absent: Ronald Meister NinaCrescenzi,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:55P.M. APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO. 2848 MetroPCS New York,LLC Mr. Ryan stated that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting and that a draft negative declaration and certification had been distributed to the Board for review. Lucia Chiocchio,the applicant's attorney,was present. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the Negative Declaration was ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Ayes: Baron,Wexler,Harrington,O'Neill,Viner Nays: On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Baron,the following resolution dated January 27, 2010 was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. RESOLUTION On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Baron the application of MetroPCS New York, LLC (the "Applicant") for an area variance was APPROVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck(the"Board")upon the following resolution,which was adopted by a vote of 5-0.. WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans for a building permit to construct a public utility facility consisting of six panel antennas at a height of approximately eighty feet, six inches above grade level as well as an equipment shelter at a height of seventy-three feet, six inches(collectively,the"Facility")on the roof of an existing building located at 811 1 Richbell Road and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 8, Lot 86(the`Building"); and WHEREAS,the Building is located in an RTA Zone District; and WHEREAS, on April 24,2001 Nextel Communications was awarded use and height variances to construct a public utility facility on the rooftop of the Building, which would otherwise not have been a permissible use in the RTA Zone; and WHEREAS, because the Facility violates the height requirements of the RTA Zone District, the Building Inspector declined to issue a building permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with Section 240-43.D(2) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck Code (the "Zoning Ordinance"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant has submitted an application for an area variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, the Board has previously determined that this is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and MEQRA and has adopted a Negative Declaration, dated January 27, 2010, a copy of which is on file with the Building Department; and WHEREAS, after publication of notice, this Board has held public hearings for the application on the following dates:June 30,July 22,October 28 and November 25,2009;and WHEREAS, the Board of Architectural Review has reviewed the proposed plans for the Facility and has issued a favorable opinion dated December 17,2009; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted an application to the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board requesting site plan approval for the Facility; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, including the Title Sheet (T1), last revised on 09/15/09,Plot Plan and Property Owner's List(Z1),last revised on 09/15/09, Setback Plan,Bulk Table and Notes(Z2),last revised on 09/15/09,Roof Plan,Equipment Plan and Details(Z3),last revised on 09/15/09, Elevation and Details(Z4),last revised on 09/15/09,Partial Basement Plan and Details(Z5),last revised on 09/22/08 and Screenwall Plan and Sections (Z6), last revised on 09/22/08, 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, Applicant has reviewed the plans for the Facility to provide stealth screening designed to match the appearance of the existing roof structures of the Building such that the Facility will appear to be just another building component both in scale and facade; and WHEREAS, the Applicant provided information demonstrating that the proposed location of the Facility meets requirements imposed by the Federal Communications Commission("FCC")with respect to regulations governing the implementation of wireless Enhanced 911 Phase II automatic location identification; and WHEREAS,the Applicant provided information demonstrating that the cumulative radio frequency emissions associated with the Facility and the existing Nextel facility complies with the FCC regulations and standards governing such emissions; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 2 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the Applicant from the granting of the area 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 Facility will be co-located on the rooftop of a building that already has unscreened cellular telephone antennas and equipment. In addition, the Applicant has responded to comments from the Board to redesign the Facility such that its proposed antennas are fully screened and the screening is integrated into the existing rooftop structures. One stealth enclosure will completely screen all antennas. Screening that is designed to match the existing building will also enclose the equipment cabinets. Therefore, the visual impact of the Facility has been mitigated. As such, the character of the neighborhood will remain the same and there will be no detriment to nearby 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 the technical information provided by the Applicant shows that the requested height variance is the minimum necessary to provide wireless service to this area of the community,consistent with FCC requirements. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the Facility is a stealth structure and will not exceed the height of the existing chimney. In addition, the Building has an existing wireless facility structure installed by Nextel Communications,which exceeds the height restrictions of the RTA Zone. 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 because the Applicant's visual analysis demonstrated that the Facility would be adequately screened to mitigate any visual impact. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Although it could be said that the need for the variance is self-created in that the Applicant has chosen a site with height restrictions that do not permit construction of the Facility as-of-right,such a consideration is not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this area variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For the reasons stated above, this area 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 area variance be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is limited to the construction shown on Title Sheet (T1), last revised on 09/15/09, Plot Plan and Property Owner's List (Z1), last revised on 09/15/09, Setback 3 Plan, Bulk Table and Notes (Z2), last revised on 09/15/09, Roof Plan, Equipment Plan and Details (Z3), last revised on 09/15/09, Elevation and Details (Z4), last revised on 09/15/09, Partial Basement Plan and Details (Z5), last revised on 09/22/08 and Screenwall Plan and Sections(Z6), last revised on 09/22/08,as same may be conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board. a. The Director of Building shall have authority to approve any minor changes to the above plans as may be necessary in connection with the site plan approval issued by the Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck. 2. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within one (1) year of the filing of this Resolution, provided that, at the discretion of the Director of Building, this time period may be extended to the extent permitted by law. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one (1) year and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit,provided that, at the discretion of the Director of Building,this time period may be extended to the extent permitted by law. Vote: In Favor: Wexler,Baron,O'Neill,Harrington,Viner Against: None Mr. Meister took no part in the discussion or decision. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the New York State Town Law. Ms. Chiocchio thanked the Board. APPLICATION NO.2- CASE NO. 2854 Francis and Lisa Ballard On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Mr.Viner the Public Hearing was opened. John Scarlato Jr., the applicant's architect, appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Scarlato explained the changes to the previous submitted plan regarding the front porch and steps. The front porch was reduced to 5 foot 8 inches deep and the steps were recessed. The Board,architect and the applicants discussed the front porch plans. No members of the public expressed a desire to speak. On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the Public Hearing was closed. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Ayes: Baron,Wexler,Harrington,O'Neill,Viner Nays: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Francis and Lisa Ballard requested a variance to construct a front porch and stairs on the premises located at 134 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block119,Lot 49 and; WHEREAS, the front porch as proposed has a front yard of 24.1 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and 4 WHEREAS, the front porch as proposed has a side yard of 7.9 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and WHEREAS,the stairs, as proposed,have front yard of 22.3 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and WHEREAS, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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); Section 240-38B(2)(a);and Section 240-69 and; WHEREAS, Francis and Lisa Ballard submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;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;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 front porch and steps will have a desirable effect on the character of the neighborhood because the porch will balance the scale of the house and blend better with the neighboring homes. 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 is unable to achieve their goal by any other method because the current house does not meet the setback requirements. The house is 30 feet from the curb on the north side and slightly less on the south side; therefore, the applicant has no choice but to extend forward into the front yard setback. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there is currently a small porch and hedges where the proposed porch is to be constructed. Also, given the reduced depth of the proposed porch presented in the revised drawings,a smaller porch would not be feasible. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or 5 environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district because the addition of the minimal front porch will not generate noise, light or runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: Although the difficulty is self-created, the Board does not deem this to be a determinative factor in this case. 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 is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the applicant at the January 27,2010 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit 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 six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. 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. 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 Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. 2855 Beth Feldman Mr. Wexler stated that there seems to be a discrepancy between the notification and plans presented. Mr. Schweter, the applicant's architect, stated that it was brought to his attention hours earlier and he suggested a way to correct the problem without the need for a variance for that part of the plan. Mr. Schweter suggested raising the grade of the property under the deck so it would be less than 18 inches above ground and therefore not have to be counted in the coverage calculations. Mr. Wexler stated that the plans would need to be adjusted and sent to the Town of Mamaroneck consulting engineer for approval. On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Ms. Harrington,the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Schweter made a presentation explaining the proposed construction. 6 Mr.Wexler asked if anyone from the public had any comments or concerns. Mr. Lapkin who resides at 654 Forest Avenue, commented on the aesthetics of the proposed addition and the impact of construction on the shared driveway. Mr.Ryan stated that the Lapkins'issues and concerns could be included in the conditions of approval. On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron,the Public Hearing was closed. After review,on motion of Ms. Harrington,seconded by Mr.Viner,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Ayes: Baron,Wexler,Harrington,O'Neill,Viner Nays: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Beth Feldman requested a variance to construct a kitchen,mud room and master suite addition and rebuilding of a cellar window well on the premises located at 656 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Blockl l0,Lot 1 and; WHEREAS,the mud room addition as proposed has a rear yard of 7.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3);and WHEREAS, the cellar window well as proposed has a front yard of 11.39 feet on Villa Road, where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and WHEREAS,the deck as proposed has a front yard of 22.03 feet on Campbell Lane where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1);and WHEREAS, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R7-5 Zone District;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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(3); Section 240-38B(1);and Section 240-69 and; WHEREAS, Beth Feldman submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;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;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 there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood because the applicant has voluntarily undertaken to remove impervious surfaces and add more dry wells 7 in order to alleviate an existing drainage problem,which will produce a positive change 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 finds that the applicants cannot achieve their goal by any other method because the house is already non-conforming with respect to the front yards. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that although the variances appear substantial, it will result in a reduction in lot coverage and impervious surfaces. As a result,the variances will have a minimal effect on surrounding properties. 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 bulk of the addition is within the setback on a sizeable corner lot and will not result in any increase in light or noise.In addition,it will result in a reduction of runoff due to the removal of impervious surface and the installation of drywells. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this is not determinative in this case. 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 is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the applicants at the January 27,2010 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicants shall submit 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 applicants shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. 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. 8 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. 6. The applicants shall insure that no construction vehicles will impede access or egress through the shared driveway to the neighbor's home. 7. The applicants shall be required to repair any damage to the shared driveway. 8. This approval is contingent upon approval by the Town of Mamaroneck Consulting Engineer with regard to applicants' drainage plan and applicants' stated intent to raise the grade beneath the proposed deck. 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. 2857 Carlo Castorino On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Baron,the Public Hearing was opened. William Sharman,the applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Sharmin stated that the lot is undersized,with a nonconforming small house. There is no first floor bathroom or family room and the applicants wish to enlarge their living space. Lot coverage is not an issue as the asphalt driveway was removed and changed to gravel when the deck was put up a year ago. No members of the public expressed a desire to speak. On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Baron the Public Hearing was closed. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Viner, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Ayes: Baron,Wexler,Harrington,O'Neill,Viner Nays: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Carlo Castorino requested a variance to construct a family room over an existing rear yard deck on the premises located at 47 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Block122,Lot 110 and; WHEREAS, the family room addition as proposed has a rear yard of 23.1 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3);and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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(3);and; WHEREAS, Carlo Castorino submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;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;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: 9 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 to the neighborhood because the addition will be at the rear of the house, behind the garage, and thus not visible to 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 finds that the applicant cannot achieve its goals by any other feasible method because the house is located on a small lot with little room for expansion. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition extends less than two feet into the required 25-foot setback. 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 addition will not result in increased runoff,noise or light. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created but this factor is not determinative in this case. 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 is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the applicant at the January 27,2010 meeting of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit 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 six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 10 4. 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. 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. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Ms. O'Neill,the meeting was adjourned Minutes prepared by Francine M Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11