HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_12_04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
December 4,2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2946 BLD Diner
Application of BLD Diner requesting an interpretation and variance to build a new diner on the premises
located at 2399 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck
as Block 505, Lot 433.
APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2952 Marcia Levy and Mark Cannon
Application of Marcia Levy and Mark Cannon requesting a variance to legalize air conditioning
condenser units on the premises located at 2 Locust Ridge and known the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109, Lot 285.
APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2953 Russell Hodge
Application of Russell Hodge requesting a variance to install 2 central air conditioning condenser units
on the premises located at 100 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 287.
NEW BUSINESS
The Planning Board requests the Zoning Boards opinion regarding a shared driveway at 529 Weaver
Street.
CALL TO ORDER
The Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m.
Roll Call.
Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King
Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel,
Absent/Excused: Evan Simpson
1
The chairman stated there are only four(4) members present at this time and that any applicant would
need at least three votes in favor to be approved. Mr. Wexler stated that if any applicant would like to
adjourn the matter he or she may request to do so.
The applications were taken out of order.
APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2952 Marcia Levy and Mark Cannon 2 Locust Ridge
Motion:To open the public hearing
Action:Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King.
Diane Blum,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Ms. Blum stated the units were installed in
2005 by the previous owners. The new owners bought this year and discovered the units were never
filed for. Ms. Blum further stated that all yards are non-conforming with only one possible small area
conforming. The units are small and hidden by evergreens and the location has the least impact.
The Board discussed the application.
There were no questions or comments from neighbors.
Motion:To close the public hearing
Action:Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Jeffery King.
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=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus.
Absent: Evan Simpson.
After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed
and ADOPTED
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King
Nays: None
2
Absent/Excused: Evan Simpson
WHEREAS, Marcia Levy and Mark Cannon, requested a variance to legalize air conditioning units
on the premises located at 2 Locust Ridge and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of
Mamaroneck as Block 109, Lot 285.
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.(1), 240-37B.(1), 240-37B.(1) and 240-69.
WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set
forth in such application,the existing air conditioning unit labeled A/C#1 has a front yard (South Drive)
of 25.50 feet where 30 feet is required,the existing air conditioning unit labeled A/C#2 has a front yard
of 26 feet where 30 feet is required and has a front yard of 26.90 feet(Locust Ridge Road)where 30 feet
is required and further the air conditioning units 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,given that these
condensing units have been in this location since 2004. The units themselves are
minimal in size and the site where they are located is highly screened by evergreen
shrubs and is not visible from either road on which the property sits.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
3
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
other method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. The applicant would
not be able to place the units in a conforming location on the property. As a result they
would need to request an area variance for any location on the property. The only
other location that might accommodate these units would put them in greater proximity
to the neighbors and would be more intrusive in the environment.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The units are fairly small and are
well hidden behind the existing shrubbery.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The Board finds that given the units are already in place it would not change the
environmental conditions in the neighborhood. In addition the current placement of
the units places them the greatest distance possible from any neighboring homes and
therefore is the most desirable location.
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:
4
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. If in the future the property owner should need to replace this equipment the Board
requires that the new unit will have a lower Dba level.
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.2953 Russell Hodge 100 North Chatsworth Avenue
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action:Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Christy Hodge and Russell Hodge,the applicant's addressed the Board. Ms. Hodge stated that there
was an existing patio in the rear when the house was purchased making it difficult to find a place to
install the units, as even the rear of the property is nonconforming.
The Board discussed the location and suggested that the units should be moved further to the front of
the house on the side or to the front yard.
Mr. Wexler suggested the applicants adjourn and ask their HVAC installer if the unit can be put in the
front yard or further to the front, citing safety reasons.
Ms. Hodge stated she would like to avoid front yard for esthetic reasons.
The applicant's asked for an adjournment.
App asked for an adjournment.
Motion:To adjourn the matter to January 22, 2014
5
Action:Approved
Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Jeffery King.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus.
Absent: Evan Simpson.
APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2946 BLD Diner 2399 Boston Post Road
Public hearing continued
Ms. O'Neill recused herself.
Motion: Motion to readopt the motion as reflected in the minutes of October 23, 2013.
Action: Approved
Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Seth Marcus.
Reinsert the motion to allow parking in the front of the building.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 0, Abstain = 1).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jeffery King, Seth Marcus.
Abstain: Irene O'Neill.
Absent: Evan Simpson.
On motion of Mr. Marcus seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") granted the application of BLD Diner 2399 Boston
Post Road Corp. (the "Applicant") for an area variance (the "Variance") upon the following
resolution, which was adopted by vote of 4-0, with 0 recusal(s) and 0 abstention(s)
WHEREAS, BLD Diner 2399 Boston Post Road Realty Corp., requested a variance to build a new
diner on the premises located at 2399 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 433.
6
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 240-45B(1), prohibiting parking in front of a building in the SB Zoning District where a proposed
building will be less than 75 feet from the front property line.
WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to allow parking in front of the
building where no parking is permitted in front of the building when the building will be less than 75 feet
from front property line.
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. Without expressing
any opinion regarding the relocation of the building to the adjacent portion of the
development site or the hours of operation of the restaurant in the new building,the
Board finds that the proposed parking within 75 feet of the front property line is
consistent with other uses in the immediate area and that the proposed circulation
pattern will be an improvement over the existing condition. Accordingly,the granting of
the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.
7
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 proposed parking will be
an improvement over the current parking,which is also in front of the building and less
than 75 feet from the front property line. Even if the applicant were to renovate the
existing building rather than construct a new building,the parking would be in front of a
building less than 75 feet from the front property line.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial given the fact that the existing
parking for the restaurant is in front of the building and less than 75 feet from the front
property line.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The proposed parking within 75 feet of the front property line and in front of the
building will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood given that it will merely replace existing parking which is also less
than 75 feet from the front property line and in front of the building.
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:
8
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.
BLD Diner Case No. 2946 Request For Interpretation Public Hearing resumed.
Mr. Madden, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board. Mr. Madden stated as per the Board's
request the applicant is in the process of merging the two parcels so they will be under the same
ownership and merged as one lot.
Mr. Ryan requested that a survey of the property showing the two parcels merged be submitted. In
order for the 24 hour use to continue the two parcels have to be merged for zoning purposes and
the business must not be closed for more than one year.
The Board discussed the interpretation draft resolution.
There were no questions or comments from the public.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded Jeffery King.
Motion: To approve the Zoning Code Interpretation
Action: Approve
9
Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Jeffery King.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 0, Abstain = 1).
Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jeffery King, Seth Marcus.
Abstain: Irene O'Neill.
Absent: Evan Simpson.
On motion of Mr. Marcus seconded by Ms. O'Neill, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") granted the application of BLD Diner 2399 Boston
Post Road Corp. (the "Applicant") for an area variance (the "Variance") upon the following
resolution, which was adopted by vote of 4-0, with 0 recusal(s) and 0 abstention(s)
WHEREAS, BLD Diner 2399 Boston Post Road Realty Corp., requested a variance to build a new
diner on the premises located at 2399 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 433.
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 240-45B(1), prohibiting parking in front of a building in the SB Zoning District where a proposed
building will be less than 75 feet from the front property line.
WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to allow parking in front of the
building where no parking is permitted in front of the building when the building will be less than 75 feet
from front property line.
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
10
WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
4. 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.
F. 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. Without expressing
any opinion regarding the relocation of the building to the adjacent portion of the
development site or the hours of operation of the restaurant in the new building,the
Board finds that the proposed parking within 75 feet of the front property line is
consistent with other uses in the immediate area and that the proposed circulation
pattern will be an improvement over the existing condition. Accordingly,the granting of
the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.
G. 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 proposed parking will be
an improvement over the current parking,which is also in front of the building and less
than 75 feet from the front property line. Even if the applicant were to renovate the
existing building rather than construct a new building,the parking would be in front of a
building less than 75 feet from the front property line.
H. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial given the fact that the existing
parking for the restaurant is in front of the building and less than 75 feet from the front
property line.
I. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
11
The proposed parking within 75 feet of the front property line and in front of the
building will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood given that it will merely replace existing parking which is also less
than 75 feet from the front property line and in front of the building.
J. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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. 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.
7. 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.
8. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the
Resolution.
9. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
10. 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.
NEW BUSINESS
12
Kevin Ryan explained the Planning Boards request for the Zoning Board of Appeals thoughts regarding
the proposed shared driveway at 529 Weaver Street. All that is being asked is a sense of the ZBA's
direction.
Michael Charitou the applicant showed the plan for the subdivision and shared driveway.
The Board discussed the shared driveway.
Mr. Charitou stated both home owners would be responsible for maintenance of the shared driveway
and there would be an easement agreement.
Mr. Wexler stated the zoning board has no problem and requested Mr. Carpaneto to convey their
opinion to the Planning Board.
MINUTES
Mr. Ryan suggested adding a note after the BLD resolution in the October 23, 2013 minutes indicating
re-adoption Dec 4, 2013.
Motion:To approve the minutes of October 23, 2013 with technical corrections.
Action:Approved
Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Jeffery King.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Minutes prepared by
Francine M. Brill
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
13