Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_10_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMAROENCK,OCTOBER 28,2015 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney,Alternate (Not voting) Also Present: Ronald Carpaneto, Director of Building, Lisa Hochman, Counsel,John H. Landi, Building Inspector. Absent: Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. The meeting was called to order at 7:46P.M. Mr. Wexler welcomed Ms. Cooney as the new alternate member and Mr. Sacks as the new member. Application No. 1 Case No.3004 Howard and Pam Mizrachi Mr. Mizrachi,the applicant addressed the Board, stating last month the Board had an issue with the sound levels. He further stated that he has researched options and handed the Board a paper showing the cost and noise differences between comparable units Marked Exhibit 1. The suggested Mitsubishi units would cost$7,770.00 more and not perceptibly quieter. Mr. Sacks stated that there are hedges and a fence that will buffer noise. Ms. O'Neill stated that the neighbors on that side have a unit. A photo showing the neighbors ac unit marked Exhibit 2 was entered into the record. Mr. Carpaneto stated the decibel level of the proposed unit is in the standard range, and the proximity of the unit to the neighbors is similar to other approved applications. The Board discussed the placement of the unit stating if the unit was to be placed in the rear it would be on the patio. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks. 1 After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: WHEREAS, Howard and Pam Mizrachi, requested a variance to install a central air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 15 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 45. 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), 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the air conditioning condenser unit as proposed has a side yard 4 feet 7 inches here 8 feet and further the air conditioning condenser unit 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. In reviewing the proposal and looking at the constraints of the lot there is not an alternative solution for the placement of the condenser, given the topo of the and size of the rear yard and the size of the dwelling it is the best location looking at site plan everywhere else would require a variance. 2 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. The Mizrachi's have provided a photograph of the neighbor's unit on the rear of their property and the Mizrachi's unit is proposed on the side which is in keeping with the neighborhood. Hedges and fences screen the unit creating a disturbance of the site line it is not a clean site line from the street.There is a masonry wall between the two properties to reduce the view and noise. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The Board finds in reviewing the case and placement of the condenser unit it is not substantial in nature it is a minor variance in respect to encroachment into the side of 4.7 feet where 8 is required it is placed almost abutting the side of the house as tight as possible. The unit is 36X36 standard size and the noise dba in the range of a vacuum cleaner and it will be cancelled by the neighbors unit. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the unit will not have an adverse environmental impact due to the mature plantings and masonry wall. 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: 3 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.2 CASE NO. 3006 Niall Duggan and Danielle Longhitano 738 Forest Avenue Niall Duggan and Danielle Longhitano the applicant's addressed the Board, stating they are in R-10 Zone on a narrow nonconforming lot. The previously existing rear dormer was built by the previous owners without a permit. While trying to legalize the rear dormer, Mr. Duggan stated they decided to request a small front dormer in keeping with the look of the house to increase the usable living space. Motion:To open the public hearing non pro tunc Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. The Board discussed the use of the interior space. Mr. Duggan responded that the rear closet dormer will become a master bathroom and the new front dormer will be a new closet. Ceiling heights were discussed. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks. 4 After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: WHEREAS, Niall Duggan and Danielle Longhitano, requested a variance to legalize an existing rear dormer and to construct a front dormer on the premises located at 738 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 23. 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(2)(a), 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the rear dormer as built has aside yard of 5.9 feet where 10 feet is required; has a total side yard of 23.1 feet where 25 feet is required. The front dormer as proposed has a side yard of 5.9 feet where 10 feet is required and further the dormers increase 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: 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 Board finds the existing rear dormer and proposed front dormer are in keeping with the existing character of the house and the neighborhood. The proposal does not involve expanding beyond the existing foot print of the house so it will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 5 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. The Board finds that the applicant's cannot achieve their goals by a reasonable alternative, due to the constraints of the lot size which is undersized for the district in which it is. And the placement of the house on the property as it is already nonconforming so any change to the house would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The Board finds it is not substantial for two reasons the rear dormer currently exists, but had not received a variance previously so there will be no change, the new front dormer will not expand the footprint of the house and is a relatively small space. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that variance will have no adverse impact there will be no additional runoff or effect the environment in any significant way. 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. The difficulty is self-created as the current owners wish to expand their space but this is not determinative. 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: 6 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.3009 Frank and Julie Douglas Mr. Wexler asked if the application is complete Mr. Carpaneto responded yes. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Diane Eton, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating they are proposing to a rear addition and extend the existing left side of house. The addition will be cantilevered over the basement wall. The addition will enlarge the kitchen and dining room on the first floor and enlarge one bedroom on the second. The spiral stair case off the deck will be eliminated. The Board discussed the application and the removal of the existing garage to be converted into living space. Mr. Carpaneto stated there is no requirement for an interior parking space. It was stated that the property is heavily screened between the house and neighboring properties. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill. 7 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks. After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: WHEREAS, Frank and Julie Douglas, requested a variance to construct a 1 story and a 2 story rear addition, rear deck and stairs to grade, interior alterations on the premises located at 210 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 416. 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), 240-38B.(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 rear addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.15 feet where 10 feet is required, has a total side yard of 17.35 feet where 20 feet is required and further the additions increase 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 proposed addition 8 extension is already in a nonconforming lot Yes this addition further ratifies the extension however given the nature of the site and the nature of the addition on the rear of the property no undesirable change will be produced because in rear yard and continuing the existing nonconformance. 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 reviewing the plans the applicant due to the fact that the property is existing nonconforming has very little alternative to achieve their goals C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The variance is not substantial in that this is extending an existing nonconformance further the applicant has attempted in the foundation of the house to conform. The variance is above grade. It lessens the square footage at grade level the variance is for 27 square feet on a 7500 square foot lot. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that no as stated the impact of the addition is quite minimal expect the rear yard which is heavily screened. 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: 9 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.4 CASE NO.3010 Gjoko Shkerli Mr. Wexler stated that the application was not complete. Mr. Mazin,the applicant's attorney, stated that he believed the application was not complete. He further stated the neighbor has agreed to allow parking on his lot. Ms. Hochman explained to the Board the 1998 resolution that staff found when researching the file which stated the building could be no higher than the sill of the Coughlin Building. Mr. Landi stated the zoning chart is inadequate and therefore not acceptable, he further stated that parking on the adjoining lot would constrict the property owner to increase his building as he would no longer have parking on his property. The Building department job is to review the applicant not do the applicants job for him. The staff review was to discuss code violations not search the code. The applicant was told to redo the application and put the resolution on it, and ask the Zoning Board if why they would allow the applicant to forgo the previous resolution. Parking requirements was discussed, Ms. Hochman stated that the Board must take into consideration the commercial and residential parking requirements. Mr. Landi stated parking calculations will be done by taking the whole building and calculate the grandfathered spaces and calculate the difference. PUBLIC COMMENTS 10 MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of March 23, 2015 Action:Approved Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=4, No=0,Abstain = 1). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks. Abstain: Evans Simpson. Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the minutes of May 18, 2015 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 2). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill. Abstain:Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks. Motion: To approve the minutes of June 24, 2014 with technical corrections Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks. Motion:To approve the minutes of September 16, 2015 with technical correction Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 2). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King. Abstain: Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks. ADJOURNMENT Motion:To adjourned the meeting at 9:49 P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Jeffery King. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11