Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_12_03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 1 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 3, 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,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson, Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector(Not voting), Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel (Not voting),Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50P.M. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of February 26, 2014. Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by.Arthur Wexler Vote:Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King Motion:To approve the minutes of March 26, 2014 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded.by Evans Simpson Vote:Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson Motion:To approve the minutes of April 23, 2014 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by.Evans Simpson Vote: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Motion:To approve the minutes of May 28, 2014 Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote:Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks 2 Motion:To approve the minutes of June 25, 2014 Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2968 Jersey Mike's Subs WITHDRAWN by Applicant APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2973 Beth Feldman No one appeared,they are appearing before the Planning Board December 10, 2014. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2977 Amanda and Eitan Arbeter Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Mr. Arbeter,the owner, addressed the Board stating they purchased property with generator in place April 2014. He further stated that Con Edison upgraded their meter and had no documentation regarding the generator and would not turn the generator back on until a permit is granted and a Letter of Completion is received. Anywhere on the property would require a variance except the front which would be cumbersome to move. Mr. Carpaneto stated that he measured the distance the generator is from the property line and an as- built survey is not a requirement. The Board discussed the request. 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 3 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,Alternate. 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, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus WHEREAS,Amanda and Eitan Arbeter, requested a variance legalize an existing generator located at 21 Carriage House Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 340, Lot 519. 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 240-35B(2)(a) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the generator as installed has a side yard if 13 feet where 15 is required for a residence in an R-20 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. 4 The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.This generator has been located in this position for six years. During that time there have been no issues or complaints from the direct neighbors,the unit is located topographically below the adjacent house and is shielded by plantings and rocks, it is quite isolated which should minimize any noise generated when it is running. It is also not visible from the street or any neighbor. 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 applicant would need a variance no matter what side they put the generator on,the front of the house which is an as-of-right location is a less attractive location and would possibly disturb the neighbors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The distance in which this encroaches into the side yard is just two feet so relatively minimal given the fifteen foot requirement. The unit itself is modest in size. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The generator currently exists in that location, and has not created an adverse impact as perceived by the neighbors.The generator emits sound at very low level of 66 Dba. 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: 5 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. 2978 CASE NO.4 Donna Russo and Juavier Tandazo Mike McCann,the applicant's architect, stated there was a permit issued to install the units but they were placed in a different location when the applicant's realized they would not have any back yard as most of the rear yard is a large rock out cropping. The Board discussed the placement of the units, and possible other locations which would require less of a variance as the applicant has the hard ship of two front yards, and units in the front yard are a last resort. Mr. Carpaneto stated that there was no permit for the AC units only the house. Mr. Wexler stated the owner should be here when something is to be legalized, and the architect should have advised the applicant to come before the Board with a variance request rather than place them first in violation of the ordinance. Mr. King stated a side yard variance would be a better location. The applicant was requested to bring more information regarding the size and Dba levels of the units as well as possible other locations. The matter was adjourned to January 28, 2015. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2979 Judson Oswald Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved 6 Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Mr. Oswald stated that they replaced an existing fence that was in disrepair. They did so without a permit and placed the unfinished side to face the neighbor's property. After fence was installed they received a notice from the building department that a permit and a variance was required. American Secured Fence installed the fence without a permit. The Board discussed the request, the survey shows a PVC fence that was there when the property was purchased, and the applicant stated the wood fence was placed in the same location. Mr. Wexler stated that the fence is obvious from Boston Post Road. Mr. King stated that although one of the neighbors gave a letter in support,that neighbor may someday sell and the Board must think of future owners. Mrs. Oswald stated the fence company will not help. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the 6 foot fence abutting a commercial property is legal, but not the one on the residential property line. Mr. Wexler suggested that the case be adjourned, and the applicant lower the side and reverse the fence. Mrs. Oswald stated the apartment building is landscaping the fence with arborvitae. The applicant requested an adjournment. The applicant was advised to get an accurate survey,to consider turning the fence around and shortening, and to inquire about getting the fence company to appear before the Board. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2981 Russell Ellis and Anna Racey Michael Csenge,the applicants' architect, addressed the Board, stating the applicants are proposing to remove a 3 car garage which was built as a carriage house in 1890 and replace it with a 2 car garage. The existing garage set back is less than a foot from the side and rear property lines. The proposed garage will be three feet from the side and rear property lines. The front of the garage is to remain the same,there will be no windows or openings in the rear and property line side. Lot coverage is decreasing by.2% The existing flat roof is in disrepair. The new pitched roof will have a bigger impact as it is going up 22%2 feet as opposed to the original 12 feet. Mr. Ellis stated that the building is getting to be a safety hazard, it was constructed with stand-up concrete and not reinforced, the foundation is rough and the roof structure is failing. 7 Mr. Sacks stated it sits on a hill will be an obtrusive structure, but the roof may look like another ridge line. Mr. Ellis stated that the height is necessary as there no basement and no storage in the house. The Board discussed the placement and size and height of the proposed garage. Mr. Wexler suggested a change in the bulk of the proposed building,to which Mr. Ellis responded that he had no objection. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approve, 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,Alternate. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler , seconded by—Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: None WHEREAS, Russell Ellis , requested a variance Anna Racey located at and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block , Lot . 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-, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application, 8 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 the existing garage which is less than 1 foot from the side and rear property lines will be replaced by a garage that is 3 feet from the property lines. The garage will be smaller than the existing garage by 20% in coverage and footprint. The Boards finds that this will not make an undesirable change. 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 in viewing the site plan and seeing the long driveway and the position of the existing house it would be not be feasible for the applicant to achieve place the garage 5 feet from the rear and side property lines due to the existing position of the residential structure. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. D. The Board finds that the proposed construction will replace an existing accessory structure that is virtually on the property lines. Although the proposed construction will be 2 feet into a 5 foot setback, this will be a smaller encroachment than the existing condition. E. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board feels that the structure is smaller it is the same exact use as the structure that it is replacing. There will be no greater light or noise than the existing condition. F. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 9 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: SPECIAL CONDITION: The "man-door"will be set back 3 feet from the front face of the building to create a niche and re-center the gable over the garage door. 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. Condition The Board requests that the applicant revise the plan so that the area in front the bulk will be reduced by creating a recess on the left of the front side of the garage by setting the facade back three feet. The 2'-10" mandoor will be set back 3 feet from the base of the front face of the garage creating a niche that will create a more pleasant appearance, plans to be submitted to the building inspector for a permit. Centering the gable over the garage doors. 10 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary