Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_02_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THETOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 23, 2011 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA Application No. 1 Case No. 2879 Mr.and Mrs. Steven Circelli-ADJOURNED Application of Mr. and Mrs. Circelli requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition over the existing footprint on the premises located at 9 Harmony Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 613. Application No.2 Case No. 2880 Mr. Richard Cohn Application of Mr. Richard Cohn requesting a variance to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 20 Wagon Wheel Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334, Lot 13 & 14. Application No.3 Case No. 2881 Mr.Andrew H.Steuerman-ADJOURNED Application of Mr. Andrew H. Steuerman requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition and a new deck on the premises located at 255 Griffen Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 341, Lot 1. Application No.4 Case No. 2882 Mr.Colin A. McGranahan-ADJOURNED Application of Mr. Colin A. McGranahan requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 3 Hawthorne Road and known on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 512. Application No.5 Case No. 2883 Mr. Scott Winters Application of Mr. Scott Winters requesting a variance to construct a second story bedroom addition and first floor den enlargement on the premises located at 241 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 84. Application No.6 Case No. 2884 Mr.Angelo Bruno,Owner/Ryan Webler,Contract Vendee Application of Angelo Bruno, Owner/ Ryan Webler, Contract Vendee requesting a variance to construct a two story addition extending the kitchen and bedroom space and a new powder room on the first floor on the premises located at 748 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 48. 1 Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, Alternate, Ronald A, Carpaneto, Director of Building, Lisa Hochman, Counsel Mr. Wexler stared that there is a problem with notification of some of the applications appearing on the agenda. Ms. Hochman explained that the Town Code requires that signs remain posted 14 days prior to the first hearing date and must be corrected and reposted if a meeting is adjourned. Signs must be posted on all sides of the property with street frontage. Ms. Hochman further stated the Zoning Board has no discretion to alter the requirements of the Town Code with respect to questions involving notice. Therefore,three matters were struck from the agenda, as indicated below. Vu APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2879 MR.AND MRS.STEVEN CIRCELLI The application was adjourned, as the sign was not in place. Vu APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2880 Mr. Richard Cohn Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Richard Cohn of 20 Wagon Wheel Road,the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Cohn explained that the original deck is small and inadequate for his family and he is proposing to replace and enlarge the deck slightly. Mr. Cohn stated that he has worked with the Director of Building and his architect for the smallest encroachment possible. The Board discussed the impact of the deck and the fact that impervious surface is being reduced from 39%down to 35.4%. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Frederick Baron Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). 2 Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Absent: Robert Viner. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED. Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Viner WHEREAS, Richard Cohn requested a variance to construct a wood deck on the premises located at 20 Wagon Wheel Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334, Lot 13 &14; WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with Particular reference Section 240-35B(1) and 240-35F; WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS,the Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR §617 et seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§ 267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance: The Board finds that the granting of the variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because the sits on top of a hill and, as a result, the deck is not visible from surrounding properties. In addition,the design of the deck is consistent with the style of the house and the other decks in the neighborhood. The site is well screened by tall evergreens,which surround the property, and the house is far away from its neighbors so the deck would be nearly invisible from Katie Lane and the surrounding properties. 3 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 no other practical location for a deck on this house because the proposed location is adjacent to the kitchen and provides easy access to the exterior. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because deck protrusion into the setback is very small and the deck will not be visible from surrounding properties.The Board further notes that the application will result in a reduction of impervious surface on the property. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: The Board finds that the deck will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood due to the reduction in impervious surface and the fact that the proposed deck will not be visible from surrounding properties. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Boards find that the difficulty is self-created because the applicant is seeking to expand the size of the previous deck; however this is not determinative. 2. For reasons stated above,the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighbor or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 1 4 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2881 Mr.Andrew Steuerman 255 Griffen Avenue The application was adjourned as the sign on Carriage House was not up when Mr. Wexler viewed the property. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2882 Mr.Colin A. McGranahan 3 Hawthorne Road The application was adjourned . Vu APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2883 Mr.Scott Winters 241 Rockingstone Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Eric Jacobson, architect, the Board representing the property owners. Mr.Jacobson stated that the lot is nonconforming and they are requesting a front yard variance. Two photos were entered into record marked Exhibits 1&2. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, seconded by Irene O'Neill After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED. 5 Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Viner WHEREAS, Scott Winters requested a variance to construct a second story bedroom addition and first floor den enlargement on the premises located at 241 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 84. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the front yard setback requirements of Section 240-39B(1) of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS,the applicant is in possession of a pre-existing undersized lot located in an R-7.5 district; and WHEREAS, according to Section 240-70B of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code"),front, rear and side setbacks for the R-6 district shall apply; and WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application. WHEREAS,the Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR §617 et seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§ 267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance: The Board finds that the granting of the variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because the design will enhance the appearance of the house. The construction is relatively far from the adjacent houses and quite far from the houses across the street and thus there will not be perceptible impact upon them. The Board notes that the proposed addition is in the same architectural style as the existing house and consistent with the styles of the neighboring houses. 6 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 cannot be achieved by other feasible means because given the interior layout and location of bedrooms in the house;this is the best area to locate the proposed addition. The Board further notes that the proposal will improve the appearance of the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment is only six feet into the front yard setback, relatively far from neighboring houses and results in no change to the existing footprint of the house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: The Board finds that the proposed addition will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because there will be no change in runoff or ground coverage and any change in lighting will be insubstantial. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Boards find that while the difficulty might be considered self-created because the applicants purchased the home with knowledge of the existing nonconformity,that factor is not determinative. 2. For reasons stated above,the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighbor or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant. 1 7 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Application No.6 Case No.2884 Mr.Angelo Bruno Owner/Ryan Webler,Contract Vendee Motion: Open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Nestor Kyritsis,the applicant's Architect addressed the Board requesting a rear yard variance to maintain the current 24.8 foot setback with a two story addition to fill out the rectangular footprint of the house. The plan will reduce the current impervious surface area from 37.2%to 35% by removing the rear slate patio and some of the walkway. Mr. Webler entered into the record a letter from the next door neighbor in support of the application, marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus, Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, None seconded Ronald Meister 8 After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED. Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Viner WHEREAS, Ryan Webler requested a variance to construct a two story addition extending the kitchen and bedroom space and a new powder room on the first floor on the premises located at 748 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 48. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference Section 240-37B(3) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application. WHEREAS,the Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR §617 et seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§ 267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance: The Board finds that the granting of the variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because the encroachment into the rear yard set back is only 2 inches and the application will result in a decrease in impervious surface on the property. 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 cannot be achieved by other feasible means because the cost of any other alternative would be prohibitive. 1 9 C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it encroaches only two inches into a twenty-five foot setback. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: The Board finds that the deck will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because there will be no resulting increase in sound, light or water runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Boards find that while there is likely a self-created difficulty in the extension of the house,this factor is not determinative. 2. For reasons stated above,the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighbor or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to direction of the Board. 10 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of October 27, 2010 and December 15, 2010 subject to technical corrections by counsel. Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus, Alternate. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed Section 240-70B and sub standards lots stating the zoning code idea is to maintain the space between the buildings and this seems to fly in the face of not decreasing the extent of nonconformity.The section has been in the code since 1996. ADJOURNMENT Motion:Adjourn Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. At 9:04 Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11