Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_10_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 27, 2010 IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Application No. 1 Case No. 2876 CAD Signs Application of CAD Signs requesting a variance to install two internally lit wall signs on the premises located at 1380 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 196. Application No. 2 Case No. 2877 Sara and William Siegel Application of Sara and William Siegel requesting a variance to legalize swing set on the premises located at 52 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 412. lotm Roll Call. Present: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister Also Present: Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan Counsel, David Fishman, Liaison to Town Board. Absent/Excused: Robert Viner. CALL TO ORDER Va A motion was made to open the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Application No. 1 Case No. 2876 CAD Signs 1380 Boston Post Road lotm Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded Ronald Meister Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=4). Yes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Absent/Excused: Viner Alex Galeano of Cad Signs addressed the Board requesting an internally lit sign for the T-Mobile store located at 1380 Boston Post Road. The Board discussed the application. Mr. Wexler stated that the Board of Architectural Review generally supports internally lit signs, but the goose neck lighting must be removed from the plan. Mr. Wexler explained that there are only 4 members of the Board present and the applicant would be required to secure 3 favorable votes to be approved and anything less would be considered a denial of the application. The applicant requested the Board be polled. Counsel explained that the poll would not be an official vote and would not be binding on the members. Mr. Ryan corrected a typo in the Notice of Disapproval. The correct Town Code reference is Section 240-45 H8(c)[4]. IVa Motion: To close the pubic hearing Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=4). Yes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Absent/Excused: Viner Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, seconded by Frederick Baron Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=4). Yes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Absent/Excused: Viner After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Nays: None Absent/Excused: Viner WHEREAS, CAD Signs (the "Applicant") requested a variance to install two internally lit wall sign's for a T-Mobile store on the premises located at 1380 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 196. 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 240-45H8(C4). WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the 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 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 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 as the internally lit LED sign will be more attractive and suitable to the location than the alternative of a sign that would be externally illuminated. 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 the proposal to internally light the sign in this fashion can only be feasibly done with this technology and it is the least intrusive variance to achieve the applicant's goal. Another feasible method would be external lighting which this Board and Board of Architectural Review find less attractive and less suitable in this particular installation. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the internally lit sign is not substantial in that the sign will not be larger than the existing sign at this location. The internal lighting technology will be less intrusive than conventional external lighting. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: The Board finds there will be no adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood because there will be no greater light as a result of the internally lit sign than would result from an as-of-right sign. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the applicant's hardship is self-created, under the circumstances (a new tenant and new installation) this is not a controlling factor. 2. For 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 neighbor 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: 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. 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 six (6) months and completed within (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 direction of the Board. 6. The applicant is to state on the plan the clarification that the internal LED lighting shall be behind the letters contained in the sign only. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Iva ` Application No. 2. Case No. 2877 Sara and William Siegel Mr. Baron asked why the swing set at issue in this application is before the Board as it is not a building under Town Code in his opinion. The Board discussed whether the Board should review the application. Mr. Seigel, the applicant, explained how it came to be before the Board, stating the previous neighbor complained to the Building Department when he (the neighbor) was selling his home. The people who bought the neighbor's house have no problem with the swing set and have written a letter in support of the variance. All affected neighbors have written letters in support. It was stated that that the Board has granted variances for swing sets before and Mr. Carpaneto stated that if someone complains to the Building Department he has to act on the complaint. The Board and Counsel discussed the zoning code and whether or not it is in the Board's jurisdiction. Mr. Wexler suggested that the Board vote on the requested variance. Mr. Baron stated that he has no problem granting a variance as long as the opinion of the Board that a variance is not required is also stated. Mr. Ryan stated the Board can give the variance and make an ad hoc statement. David Fishman arrived and Mr. Wexler explained the previous discussion. Motion: To open the Public Hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=4). Yes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Absent/Excused: Viner William Siegel the applicant addressed the Board and explained his request. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=4). Yes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Absent/Excused: Viner OvE Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded. Ronald Meister Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=4). Yes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Absent/Excused: Viner After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister Nays: None Absent/Excused: Viner WHEREAS, Sara and William Siegel requested a variance to legalize a swing set on the Premises located at 52 Sheldrake Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 412. 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 240-37B(3)(b). WHEREAS, Sara and William Siegel submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has herd all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a 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 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 as in this instance the position of the swing set and the reason for the need for a variance is the position of a support for the swing set which is a diagonal brace which projects into the five foot required setback. The use of the swing set is in character with the use of a back yard where there are children living at the house. It is a better use in the back yard than any other place on the property and is a safer place for the children to play. 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 alternative locations for the swing set will invade the area of the applicant's limited back yard and unduly reduce the small open space available for the children to play in. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial in view of the fact that what is invading the yard is nothing more than a 2X4 on a diagonal member of the set, which has no impact. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: The Board finds that the placement of the swing set in one direction or another has no impact on the physical or environmental condiditons in the neighborhood. It will cause no additional noise, light or runoff. It will have no substantial impact on the community at large. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although this is self created as the applicant has already installed the swing set, this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For 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 neighbor 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: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and 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 six (6) months and completed within (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 direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Wexler asked counsel to clarify the code as to the swing set. Mr. Siegel stated that prior to the installation of the swing set he checked the web site and swing set was not listed when they looked for regulations. DISCUSSION Next meeting possible alternative dates Monday December 13, Wednesday December 15. Secretary will email the Board with the next meeting date when set. lotm MINUTES Motion: To approve the Minutes of September 15, 2010 with typographical corrections. Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Ronald Meister. NEW BUSINESS David Fishman stated that the Town Board has appointed a new alternate who should be available by December. Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m Action: Adjourned Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister Minutes Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary