Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_01_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 28,2015 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Also Present: Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Absent/Excused: Evans Simpson, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. MINUTES The minutes of December 3, 2014 were not discussed. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2973 Beth Feldman Donald Schweter, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating they are returning to the Zoning Board after having appeared before the Planning Board and the Coastal Zone Management Commission. The plan changes since the first time this was seen is the cellar is now a crawl space under the new addition,the vents will be field located. It is an existing two story house,the plan is to remove the roof and second floor keeping as many first floor walls as possible, and adding an L shaped addition across the back and side. This is an undersized lot at 5308 square feet in an R-10 zone. Mr. Wexler stated the side yard requirements can be for an R-6 zone. Mr. Schweter stated he is asking for a side yard setback of 2'9" if he uses the R-6 zone requirements rather than the R-10. Mr. Wexler read section 240-70 into the record. Aside Mr. Schweter stated they are eliminating the paved driveway completely, as part of the Planning approval which will be recorded with the deed that driveway will remain permeable in perpetuity. Mr. Wexler questioned if the 18.2 front yard requested variance is to the steps. The storm water calculations were done for the 100 year storm event, and cultecs are being placed in the rear of the property to improve water quality of the Sheldrake River. The Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments from the public. 1 Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Irene O'Neill After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: Evans Simpson WHEREAS, Beth Feldman, requested a variance to construct a second story addition and alteration on the premises located at 5 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 28. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 240-37 B. (1), 240-47B.(2)(a), 240-37B(2)(b) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the addition as proposed has a front yard of 18 feet 2 inches,where 30 feet is required, has a side yard of 5 feet 3 inches where 10 feet is required, has a total side yard of 20 feet 3 inches where 25 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R- 10 Zone District. 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. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The house is a small land a 1/2story structure which is very much in character with the community. The lot is a narrow lot only about 50 feet wide and has a setback on one side which is greater than an R- 10 allows but since it is a lot minimal in size the applicant can use the side yard setback of an R-6 zone and given that it is a small house it will not change the character of the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. In this case the applicant has an existing foundation which he is enlarging, he is on a narrow lot and the Board feels there is no other alternative. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The applicant is asking for a front yard of 18.2 where 30 feet is required but that dimension is only to the first riser of a low structure and then it goes about another 4 1/2 feet back to about 22 feet to a porch which is a low one story structure that is in front of the 2 1/2 story structure behind it. The 2 %story structure behind it will be the same foot print as the existing that is not 2 % stories but a little bit shy of 30 feet I don't the feeing and size of the majority of the area of the proposed addition in the required front yard would be substantial. Given the side yard requirements the required side yard is actually 8 feet in this case the request for a 2 foot 9 inches which is line with the existing house I don't feel it is substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 3 The house itself will still be a residence it will have lights at night like any other house, The applicant is removing approximately 800 square feet of driveway and replacing it with permeable gravel which will reduce a lot of the runoff on the site and the applicant is also taking it upon themselves to install dry wells to retain the additional water that the surface from the addition will create. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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 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: 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. 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 (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 Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2982 Eugene and Stephanie Pierce 4 Frank Marsella,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board requesting a variance for two central air conditioning condenser units he further stated they had been before the Board last year for a small addition. The site is an R 7.5 Zone, and a corner lot. The Board discussed the requested placement of the units and suggested alternatives. Mr. Marsella, stated placing the units in the front yard would require additional condensate line to the attic unit as the interior units have been installed already. Mr. Wexler discussed the Dba rating and suggested the applicant find a quieter unit. The Board discussed the application and suggested the units either be moved to the front yard and screened, or smaller quieter units be placed on the side, and suggested the applicant adjourn to February. Mr. Marsella asked for an adjournment to speak to the owners. Motion:To adjourn the application Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2983 Odette Gilmartin Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Larry Gordon, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating that the screened porch has been in existence since the early 1960's, the lot is nonconforming in an R-10 zone. The Board discussed the requested variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved 5 Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jeffery King. Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: Evans Simpson WHEREAS,Odette Gilmartin, requested a variance to legalize an existing screened porch on the premises located at 86 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 93. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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(3) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the porch as built has rear yard of 17.4 feet where 25 feet is required and further the porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for residence in an R-10 Zone District. 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. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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. 6 A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties, in part due the fact that this porch has existed in place for decades. The porch fits with the house and the house design is appropriate for the neighborhood.The porch has existed for many years and is the same color as the house. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. This is a nonconforming lot and the location of the porch is appropriate given the placement of the rooms in the house and this just finishes off a corner. There is no other location on this nonconforming irregularly shaped lot that would not require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The porch is only about 168 square feet lot and coverage is under the requirement for this size lot. As a result the Board concludes that this is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that given this is a preexisting condition the existence of this porch will not cause any negative environmental impact,the runoff has been the runoff for many years and approval of this variance will not change anything. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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 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 7 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. 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 (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 Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2984 Stephanie and Brian Garvin Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mr. King stated for the record that he has a contractual agreement with Mr. Lewis but can be impartial. Greg Lewis,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that the addition is not coming any closer than the existing sunporch. He further stated that the setback goes through the addition on the front part of the house. Mr. Lewis handed the Board a plan entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the requested variance, Mr. Wexler stated the stairs should be included in the requested variance and the request is larger than the Notice. Aside The Board discussed the Town code for steps encroaching into the front yard. The disapproval is 22.1 feet, but with the steps the applicant is requesting 20.1 feet. Mr. Lewis stated that he can reduce the porch size by two feet and put the stairs further back as the owner would like to start construction sooner rather than later. 8 The Board discussed the requested variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Action: Close Public Hearing, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, seconded by Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: Evans Simpson WHEREAS,Stephanie and Brian Garvin, requested a variance to construct a great room on the premises located at 59 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 135. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 240-39B(1)and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the addition as proposed has a front yard of 22.1 feet where 30 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. 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. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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 detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. It fits within the character of the existing homes,the variance request is only moving forward, it doesn't affect the side yard setbacks. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. Since they are doing an addition to the house that will increase the square footage. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It will only exceed the setback b y a relatively small amount of total square footage and where the existing nonconforming structure already exceeds the setback by a substantial amount, and the relative size to the total structure is small and fits within the total coverage ratio. (35%) D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that any detriment to the environment will be minimal. There may be some slight additional runoff but since coverage is not an issue that should be taken care of by the balance of the impervious area. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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 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. 10 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. 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 (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. 6. The Board wants new plans be issued that show the proper dimensions and show the risers and steps will fit within the requested variance beyond the 22.1 feet as requested. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2985 Angela Pane Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Joan A. Benner,the owner's daughter, addressed the Board stating that they sold the house and realized that the deck that has been in existence for over 40 years never had a permit and is nonconforming. The Board discussed the requested variance. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance 11 Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: Evans Simpson WHEREAS, Angela Pane, requested a variance to legalize an existing deck on the premises located at 1 Edgewater Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 47. WHEREAS,the Building Director 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 240-39B(2)(a), 240-37B(2)(b) and 240-69., WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the deck as built has a side yard of 2.25 feet where 8 feet is required; has a total side yard of 6.75 feet where 18 feet is required and further the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a deck in an R-6 Zone District. 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. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; 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 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. 12 A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The deck in question is in keeping with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. Given the requirements of the size of the lot as this is a 25 foot lot and anything built on the lot would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. In that it is an existing deck and also the size of the property is not considered to be substantial, also taken into consideration the shape of the lot itself and the size of the deck is not relative to the property. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that there will not be an adverse impact on the neighborhood as the deck is existing the ground underneath is permeable and will not increase storm water runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, 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 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: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 13 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. 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 (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 Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. MINUTES The minutes were not discussed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 14