Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_10_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 22,2014 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,Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Also Present: Ronald Carpaneto,Building Inspector,Kevin G.Ryan,Counsel,Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. APPLICATIONS WERE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO.2971 14 Harmony Drive Patrick Haggerty Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson,Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Daniel Graves,the applicant's architect,and the applicant,Mr. Haggerty,addressed the Board. Mr. Graves stated they are requesting a 16 square foot variance,to expand the dining room. He further stated that they have a building permit for the conforming part of the house already,and they are not building out just enclosing part of the porch that is there already. The Board discussed the application. 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 Moved by Jeffery King,seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote:Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=6). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate,Seth Marcus. After review,on motion ofJeffery King,seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(6-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Alternate,Seth Marcus. Nays: None 1 Absent/Excused: WHEREAS,Patrick Haggerty,requested a variance to enclose an existing front seasonal porch on the premises located at 1262 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409,Lot 409.7. 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 240-386(2)(a),240-38B(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 front seasonal porch as proposed has a side yard of 15 feet 11 inches where 8 feet is required,has a total side yard of 14 feet 8 inches where 18 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming 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: 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 home as modified will be in keeping with the other homes on Harmon Drive. 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 minor area variance, and there is no other means that the applicant can use to achieve the square footage because they are working within the footprint of the existing front porch. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 2 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It is in keeping with the other homes on the block. The addition will be to the frontage of the home on Harmony Drive,which as noted above will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Finally,the proposed construction will involve minimal square footage. 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 any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed construction will be minimal within the footprint of the existing porch. 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. 3 APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO.2973 Beth Feldman The matter was adjourned. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2975 Brian Olsen and Maria 7 Normandy Road Eric Jacobson,the applicant's architect,addressed the Board. Mr.Jacobson stated that the contractor worked off an old survey that measured the distance of the home to the side yard incorrectly. When the construction was completed the new survey showed a different measurement. As a result of the discrepancy between the two surveys,the new construction encroached 0.6 inches into the 10 foot side yard setback. The original 2009 survey was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. On the as built survey it shows the corner of the addition in the set back. The Board discussed the surveys and the projecting overhang. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson,seconded by Seth Marcus Vote:Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=6). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate,Seth Marcus. After review,on motion of Evans Simpson,seconded by Seth Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Alternate,Seth Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: WHEREAS,Brian Olsen and Maria Kondrachuk,requested a variance to legalize an encroachment into the side yard setback created after new construction to the second floor was 4 completed on the premises located at 7 Normandy Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130,Lot 447. 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 240-38B.(2)(a),240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the addition to the second floor as built has a side yard of 9.4 feet where 10 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-7.5 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. 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 0.6-foot encroachment of the second story construction proposed to be legalized is less than the 4-foot encroachment into the 10-foot side yard of the first floor of the existing house. As such,the footprint of the home will not increase and proximity to the neighboring property will not decrease. 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. At this stage,the only alternative would be to remove the existing construction. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 5 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The required side yard setback is 10 feet. The setback of the construction at issue is 9.4 feet and the requested variance is 0.6 feet. The length of the nonconforming segment is 5.3 feet. The nonconforming square footage is 3.18. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds the proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As previously stated the footprint of the house will not change and the second story is set back from the wall of the first floor. 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. 6 APPLICATION NO.5 CASE NO.2976 Susan Unger 25 Homer Avenue Joseph Gugulamino,representing Gordon&Yestadt,the applicant's architect addressed the Board, Commented[KGR11:Confirm spelling. stated they are here to legalize an existing wood deck that has been in existence for over 30 years and was in place when the Unger's purchased the house 29 year ago. He further stated the deck does not extend into the rear yard or side yard further than the house. He added that the Owner's intend to install a code compliant railing. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill,seconded by Jeffery King Vote:Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=6). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,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(6-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Alternate,Seth Marcus. Nays: None Absent/Excused: WHEREAS,Susan Unger,requested a variance to legalize an existing wood deck on the premises located at 25 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121,Lot 286. 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(3)and 240-69, 7 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 rear yard of 16.6 feet where 25 feet is required and further the deck 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: 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,as the deck currently exists and the house itself is closer to the rear and side property lines than the deck. 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. There really is no other appropriate location to place it on the property because the house is set back closer to the rear and side property lines. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance of 16 feet where 25 is required would typically be considered substantial. However,because the deck already exists and because the house itself is closer to the rear and side property lines than the deck,this factor is not considered dispositive in this case. Also,the deck is low to the ground at only 18 inches, which mitigates its visual impact. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 8 The Board finds that legalization of the deck will not have an adverse impact in part because the deck has existed for more than 30 years. In addition,deck is a considerable distance from any surrounding houses. Further,the deck is quite secluded, which also mitigates any negative impact. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created,given that the deck was built 30 years ago without a building permit or variance,but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented,where the current property owners did not install it and are planning to improve it from a safety code standpoint. 1. 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. 2. 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.1 CASE NO.2968 Jersey Mike's Subs 1262 Boston Post Road Kory Salomone the applicant's attorney,and Troy Davidson,Jersey Mikes'representative,addressed the Board. Mr.Salomone discussed his letter of October 15,2014,stating he feels the business meets both the definition of take out and luncheonette. 9 The Board discussed the definitions of luncheonette and take out in the Town Code,as well as the 300 foot requirement. Mr.Sacks questioned the proliferation of food establishments. Mr.Marcus asked Mr.Davidson the percentage of eat in vs take out,Mr.Salomone responded 50-50. The use of paper vs.dishes was discussed. Mr.Ryan read the definition of fast food into the record. Mr.Salomone stated fast food is ready to consume this is made to order. Mr.Ryan read the history of local Law No.4 Section 2B,1998 into the record. Donald Mazin Esq.addressed the Board stating he was there to represent Nautilus Diner,stating the proposed location of the Jersey Mike's shop is 81 feet from his client's diner and the code stated no fast food establishment may be added within 300 feet of an existing food establishments. He further stated that it will interfere with businesses that already exist. He added that for an establishment to be a luncheonette(and thus exempt from the 300-foot limitation)it needs a sit-down counter. He claimed that Jersey Mike's does not have such a counter and that the application should therefore be denied. Mr.Ryan stated the wording in the code is ambiguous. Mr.Mazin entered Local Law No. 1996 into the record marked exhibit 8. Mr.Ryan suggested that the applicant could revise and resubmit its plans. Mr.Salomone requested an adjournment to December 3,2014,to decide how he wants to proceed. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of September 17,2014 with technical corrections. Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson,Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote:Motion passed(summary:Yes=4,No=0,Abstain=2). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Abstain:Jeffery King,Seth Marcus. Minutes prepared by Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals 10 11