Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_12_05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 5, 2011 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2888 Paul Feldman Adjourned to January Application of Paul Feldman requesting a variance to construct a garage and master bedroom addition on the premises located at 6 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 422. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO. 2890 Michael Witek Application of Michael Witek requesting a variance to construct a second floor on the existing house on the premises located at 716 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 211. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2891 Herbert Meyers Application of Herbert Meyers requesting a variance to install a 14 KW standby generator on the premises located at 7 Meadow Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of The Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 231. APPLICATION NO.4 Case No.2892 Saul Rueda Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fourth and fifth apartment in a legal three family residence on the premises located at 38 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot118. APPLICATION NO. 5 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fifth apartment in a legal four family residence on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot128. APPLICATION NO. 6 Case No.2894 Stefan Magel Application of Stefan Magel requesting a variance to legalize an existing basement powder room, and elevated deck on the premises located at 10 Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 540. APPLICATION NO. 7 Case No. 2896 Edward and Stephanie McFadden Application of Edward and Stephanie McFadden requesting a variance to legalize the installation of a bay window on the premises located at 15 Mardon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 893. ROLL CALL. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate 1 Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. Application No. 4 Case No.2892 and Application No.5 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011) The matter was adjourned to January 25, 2012 as the applicant did not have the signs posted. Application No. 1 Case No. 2888 Paul Feldman (adjourned 9/26/2011,10/26/2011) The matter was adjourned to January 25, 2012 at the applicant's request in a letter dated 11/16/11. Application No.2 Case No. 2890 Michael Witek (adjourned 9/26/2011,10/26/2011) Continuation of the public hearing James Fleming the applicant's architect addressed the Board stating the property is burdened by 10 foot side yard if the property was in an R6 zone it would require less of a variance. Mr. Fleming described the changes to the plan stating he decreased the bulk of the rear portion of the addition. He entered a letter dated 11/9/2011 entered into the record marked Exhibit 12-1. Mr. Wexler asked if the rear bedroom could be minimized further. Mr. Wexler explained that there are only four Board members present and an applicant would need three votes in favor to pass, if the applicant wishes to adjourn for a full Board to hear the application they may do so. Mr. Fleming continued stating the applicant has reduced the impact by reducing the rear bedroom by 3 feet. Mr. Meister questioned the shadow study, Mr. Fleming explained the sun diagram. Mr. Meister then stated he observed the sun hitting the lower frame of the neighbor's window in the late afternoon. Mr. Fleming stated that it normal to add a second floor to a house. The shadow cast by the addition will be minimal. Angela Black the neighbor at 718 Forest Avenue questioned how the shadow cast by the addition will affect her yard. She also stated her house is small and she feels the addition will overpower her house. 2 Mr. Fleming stated in the winter it will affect her yard some and in the summer there will be much less effect. Mr. Black stated that his back lawn he is in shadow this time of a year. He further asked about previous addition granted to enclose the porch and was told it is not a concern of the zoning Board. Photo 12-2 was shown contending that the sun is past the house. Mr. Black stated that the house casts a shadow now, a second floor will add more. Mr. Fleming showed Al site plan indicating where 12-2 photo was taken on the property. Mr. Black stated he wants to be able to see out of the kitchen window. Mr. Wexler stated it will not change his present view. Mr. Wexler explained that if the applicant built an addition that did not require a variance there would be a larger mass in the rear yard impacting the Black's more. Showing what he was expressing on drawing A3 creating a strange looking house, less attractive and having more impact on the neighbor's Mr. Wexler stated he would like to see the rear bedroom smaller,which would benefit the neighbor's view. Mr. Fleming stated he talked to the owner and will remove one more foot of the rear room. Making it 14 feet, and will move the window wherever Mr. Wexler requires. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, Alternate. Vi Motion:To approve the variance request as amended to reduce the second floor rear bedroom by(1)foot. Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron,seconded by Mr. Meister. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, Alternate. 3 After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS, Michael Witek, requested a variance to construct a second floor on the existing house located at 716 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Lot 211. 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 240-37(2)(a), 240-37 (B)(b) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the second floor as proposed has a side yard of 6 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37(2)(a) has a total side yard of 13 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37(2)(b) and further the second floor increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 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 there will be an impact on the neighboring properties particularly the property at 718 Forest Avenue, as there would be with any construction on the back or side of this house. 4 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 there is an alternative but questions whether it is a reasonable alternative. The alternative that would not require a variance would likely have a much greater impact on the neighboring house and entire neighborhood, being much less attractive and not in keeping with the architecture of the entire area to achieve the same square footage without a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that it presents an addition along the same footprint as the existing house with the addition of a second floor bedroom. When compared to the alternative that the applicant can do as of right the variance is not nearly as substantial as some of the as of right alternatives which would achieve the same effect internally in the house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that there are no physical or environmental impacts with regard to noise although there is some impact on the neighboring house with regard to light, it is not apparent that any impact will be substantial. From evidence presented a couple of minutes of sunlight at the bottom of the window in the dead of winter will be the impacted and would not be deemed substantial adverse impact. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds the difficulty is self-created but 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 internet 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: 5 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 December 5, 2011. 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. Vu Application No.3 Case No.2891 Herbert Meyers Mr. Meyers, addressed the Board, stating that there was a request to show the position of the generator on the site plan Marked Exhibit 1 Mr. Meyers showed a board with four photos Marked Exhibit 2 showing the proposed location. In the upper left corner Mr. Wexler stated there is a discrepancy between the notice and what is being requested tonight on Exhibit 1. What was originally asked for was 35 feet now you are asking for 26 feet and the application must be renoticed. ASIDE A site plan is necessary to show the actual placement of the generator. Motion:To adjourn the matter to be renoticed correctly. Action:Adjourned, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Ronald Meister. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2894 Stefan Magel Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved 6 Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, Alternate. Michael Csenge,the applicant's architect, stated that the wood deck was there legally prior to when the owners bought, and then expanded without a permit. Mr. Csenge entered a new survey into the record marked Exhibit 1 showing the current conditions today. In 2000 the patio was put in and the deck enlarged. Mr. Wexler added size in both depth and width. Mr. Csenge stated he was here because the owners found out they had done something wrong and wanted to correct it now. The conditions were discussed, to the steps 16.4 and the deck is 19.2 to the property line. Coverage is fine. There were no public comments or questions. Ms. Brill read the corrected notice of disapproval into the record and confirmed that the mailing was correct and received. Motion:To close the Public Hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. Aside: In 1990 there was a variance for part of the deck it was changed after 2000. Mr. Wexler reminded Mr. Csenge that there are only 4 members present board. Motion: To reopen the Public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus, Alternate. Mr. Ryan asked the board to discuss the conditions. Mr. Wexler asked what the benefit to the applicant is. Mr. Csenge to enlarge the deck,took away driveway to make more living space. 7 Mr. Baron asked about the placement of the stair case from the deck and stated if this was presented as a new application he would not be in favor of the plan, Mr. Csenge stated he would not design it this way either. Mr. Wexler stated the garage cannot be used at present. Mr. Csenge stated the garage is now used as storage. Mr. Ryan suggested the board discuss the reasons the variance should be granted if the board is so inclined as to grant the variance; as the applicant's answers are conclusory; applying a standard as if this has not been built Motion: To approve the requested variance. Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS,Stefan Magel, requested a variance to construct a second floor on the existing house located at 10 Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 540. 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 240-39(3), 240-50, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the elevated wood deck as built has a rear yard setback of 16 feet 4 inches where 25 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39B(3). The flagstone patio as built has a side yard setback of 2.9 where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-50. 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 8 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 desire of the applicant with young children is to have them enjoy the back yard of their house and given the gravel driveway that exists as of the year 2000. Given the fact that the previous owner was granted a variance for a wooden deck that was not suitable for the needs of a family with young children. That the increase in the size of the wood deck in line with the deck which would satisfy the use of an outdoor deck today. The deck being a structure that is almost in line with the existing first floor which would make it a useable and safe environment for the people who want to enjoy it especially for young children. By reducing the gravel driveway and making an area in the back that has much more green area in relationship to the size of the property is a benefit. To try to achieve the need they have for the use of their outdoor area cannot be achieved without a variance because the house presently exists 30.9 feet from the rear property line. That would yield a deck that is probably 5 foot 10 inches taking out the hand rail would leave a deck of 5 feet wide which would not be usable for today's needs. 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 that there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood or environment that the deck presently exists in the rear. The only change will be positive because of the removal of a good portion of the gravel driveway that has been replaced with grass is a benefit. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that given the fact that a variance was granted to allow for a deck to be built at 20.4 feet from the rear property line and the new deck is now 19.2 feet and is now one foot closer to the property line than previously been approved thru a variance is not substantial. The fact that the steps are closer at 16.4 feet from the property line does not have the same impact as the deck does because they are descending down to almost grade in fact if you take the first two steps off they would be below 18 inches in height. The impact of the steps is not the same as the deck itself 9 because the steps descend closer to the grade as they protrude out from the deck and at two steps down they are below 18 inches. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood there will be no more light or sound or runoff, in fact there will be less runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created The Board finds that this is self-created as it has been built, but not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet 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 December 5, 2011. 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. 10 Mr. Baron stated he was in favor with the side variance on the patio of but opposed in regard to the deck because of the steps. Mr. Ryan stated the motion is as given you can't have half for and half against. Mr. Meister asked if the applicant can ask for two variances. Mr. Csenge asked if the variance is split he has to be able to explain it to the owner, in theory he could get approval for one part and not the other, conceivably something might have to be dismantled. Mr. Ryan asked does the applicant wish to wait for a full board. Mr. Csenge requested an adjournment to the January meeting for a full Board. Vi Motion:To adjourn the matter Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Csenge for a Google earth satellite photo of the property and neighboring properties. Vu ` Application No.7 Case No.2896 McFadden Mr. Carpaneto gave a description as to why the applicants are here. Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Mrs. McFadden the applicant explained that they had a leak in the dining room windows causing interior damage. The contractor stated that the opening was framed for a bay window,the neighbors have bay windows and it seemed consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. She stated she had no idea variance was required. The window gives the small dining more light and expanse,there are three letters from neighbors in support of the window. The window extends 20 inches over an existing garden. 11 R-6 Zone requires 30 feet front yard. Mr. Meister asked the applicant if they ever thought of grills, Mrs. McFadden stated yes but it looked strange and would have interfered with light. Mr. Meister stated his initial reaction was it looked big an inconsistent. Ms. McFadden if you look at left side of the house there is a picture window with grill and it looks funny, it looks like an obstruction. No public questions or comments. Va Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Close Public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. 0:0ZMotion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approve Moved by Ronald Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron. After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS, Edward and Stephanie McFadden, requested a variance to legalize the installation of a bay window on the premises located at 15 Mardon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 893. 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.(1), and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application, the bay window as installed has a front yard of 24 feet where 30 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39B.(1) and further the bay window increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. 12 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 several nearby properties themselves have bay windows and this change will be consistent with the style and character of the neighborhood. The applicant put this window in to avoid a problem with leaking windows. The windows would have to be replaced in any event. 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 while it would not be unreasonable to replace the windows with windows of a similar original type this variance allows the construction of a more attractive window that is beneficial to the interior of the house and also makes the exterior more attractive. If the front of the house was conforming the bay window would be as of right. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds the variance extending only a short distance beyond the existing nonconforming house is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that the window does not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood or environmental condition light, sound or permeability. 13 E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that while the difficulty can be considered self-created as the house was purchased with the existing windows it is not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet 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 December 5, 2011. 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. Vu MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of June 22, 2011 Action:Approved 14 Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Abstain: Ronald Meister. September Motion:To approve the minutes of September 26, 201 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, Alternate. ADJOURNMENT Vu Motion:To adjourn the meeting at 10:06 P.M. Action:Approve Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, None seconded. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 15 16