Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_02_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 25,2015 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Also Present: Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel Absent: Irene O'Neill, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:55P.M. MINUTES The minutes were tabled. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2979 Judson Oswald continuation The Oswald's appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Oswald stated as requested they had an updated survey done, reached out to the contractor regarding the height and direction the fence was installed. The installer will cut the fence down to the proper height. Mrs. Oswald requested that the orientation of the fence remain as is, and entered photos of neighboring houses showing the fences also wrongly installed marked Exhibit 1. The permissible height of a fence between residential and commercial property is 6 feet. The Board discussed the requested variances and possible alternatives. Board members voiced their disapproval of the fence facing the wrong way to the residential neighbors, and suggested that the applicant either turn the fence around or face both sides. Public Comments Frank Marsella, stated if the commercial property owner put up the fence the unfinished side would face the Post Road as of right. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=4, No= 0,Abstain = 1). Yes: Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. Abstain:Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Absent: Irene O'Neill. 1 After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED (4-1). Ayes: Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus Nays: None Abstain: Arthur Wexler Absent: Irene O'Neill WHEREAS,Judson Oswald, requested a variance to legalize an existing fence with unfinished side to the abutting neighbor located at 10 Copley Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 123. 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 240-52E, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the fence as built has the unfinished side to the abutting neighbor where the finished side shall face the neighboring lot or lots for a fence 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; WHEREAS,the applicants have requested permission to amend their request so that the fence shall only be 5 feet high where it was currently 6 feet on each of the sides facing neighboring residential properties,while leaving the fence at a 6 foot height facing the commercial property in the rear; WHEREAS,the applicants have agreed that the outward side of the fence on the north side of the property will show a finished side so that no variance would be required on that side,while the outward side of fence portions on the south and east property lines will be unfinished; 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. 2 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 fence on the back side is consistent with the balance of the commercial side facings of other properties adjacent to this. 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 at a reasonable cost by a method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the proposed height and exterior of the proposed fencing is consistent with the current character of the neighborhood,will therefore will not have a discernable difference from similar fences on nearby properties, and is therefore not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that any impact of the variance would only be negligible in that it will not affect runoff or light and will not cause an adverse aesthetic impact. 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 as discussed above. 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.2982 Eugene and Stephanie Pierce continuation Frank Marsella,the applicant's architect, relocated the proposed AC units to the front yard on Valley Road in response to the Boards concerns at the last meeting. The units will be 24 feet from the street and be screened for both visual and noise abatement. The units are the same as originally proposed, as the applicant's had already purchased them. The Board had discussed the request. 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 Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. Absent: Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus Nays: None 4 Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill WHEREAS, Eugene and Stephanie Pierce, requested a variance to install two central air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 26 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 569. 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(1), 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,to install two central air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 26 Valley Road 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. Locating the two condensing units on the elevation of Valley Road rather than on the east elevation will reduce any noise impact to the neighboring residence. The condenser units are in keeping with the neighborhood as there are other homes in the immediate vicinity with similar units on similarly small lots in the relatively congested neighborhood 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. A variance would be required to locate the units anywhere on the lot due to the size of the property. By locating the two condensing units in the front yard. 5 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial given that all the lots in the neighborhood are small and have similar set back issues for such units. Although the units will have a 6 foot setback versus 30 feet, they be farther from any neighbors than would be possible with a side-yard placement and will face the street rather than the neighboring property. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that there will be no adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as the applicant has elected to plant at least eight evergreen shrubs as shown on the site plan,will limit the visual and noise exposure to pedestrians and vehicles on Valley Road. 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: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans, including the planting of at least eight evergreen shrubs, 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. 6 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.2986 Kristen Lathrop Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Jaclyn Tyler,the applicant's architect, stated the applicant is requesting a variance to build over an existing nonconforming first floor which encroaches 8'10%" closer to the front property line than permitted as of right. The applicant is currently building an enclosed porch that previously received a variance. The Board discussed the requested variance. Public Comments Andrew Saines, of 1 Durham Road stated he feels the house is already too close to the road and will loom over the road and be an eyesore. He further stated that the applicant is presently in litigation against the Town and that the applicant's fence is actually on Town property. Mr. Wexler stated the applicant is burdened by two large setbacks as they are a corner lot. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. Absent: Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Seth Marcus, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus Nays: None 7 Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill WHEREAS, Kristen Lathrop, requested a variance to construct a second story playroom addition on the premises located at 4 Durham Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 227, Lot 197. 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(1), 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application, second story playroom addition as proposed has a front yard of 31 feet (York Road)where 40 feet is required, and further increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R- 20 Zoning 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. To the contrary to the extent that the home owner is improving the property there will be a net benefit to the neighborhood as the proposed design is consistent with the existing home and with other properties in the neighborhood. 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. There is an existing nonconformance on this corner lot which is burdened by two front yards. The 8 requested variance will not create any further encroachment as the proposed addition will be on top of the existing footprint. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. Once again there will be no additional encroachment over the existing condition as the proposed construction will be over the existing footprint. 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 construction will create no additional impervious surface and that runoff will be removed from the property as it is now. 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 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. 9 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2984 Stephanie and Brian Garvin Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Paige Lewis,the applicant's architect addressed the Board stating the applicants are returning tonight with a revised plan for the front steps with a 20.1 foot setback versus the required 30 feet. The Board discussed the request and possible alterations to the plan. Greg Lewis, architect, addressed the Board stating they have were informed by the Board last month to change the steps and remove them from the plan as they had not been properly noticed. Although the applicants had previously proposed orienting the stairs to the side rather than directly to the front of the front door,the applicants now feel that orienting the stairs directly to the front is a better, more street friendly solution. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Seth Marcus Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. Absent: Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill WHEREAS,Stephanie and Brian Garvin, requested a variance to construct steps on the premises located at 59 Hillcrest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 122, Lot 135. 10 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), 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the steps as proposed has a front yard of 20.1 feet where 30 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-6 Zoning 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 fact most of the homes in the neighborhood have steps approaching the front entrance door directly from the front rather than from the side. Further, a lot of homes on this particular street are much closer to the front property line than the 20.1 feet that the applicant is requesting for the riser of the first step. 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 that the applicant's specific objective is to have front steps to their front door directly from the yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It is about 8 square feet of coverage on a lot that is over 8,000 square feet. At its highest point the proposed non- conforming construction will be 16 inches above grade. 11 D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that it will not have an environmental impact as it is simply too small to have any impact. 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: 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. 6 CASE NO.2987 Chris Gianutsos Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. 12 Greg and Paige Lewis the applicant's architects addressed the Board. The owners Chris and Annmarie Gianutsos were also present. Mr. Lewis stated they are proposing a 602 sq. ft. addition over an existing nonconforming first floor,the existing house meets the front and rear yard setbacks but not the side yards. The Board discussed the plan and the distance between neighbors, as well as the elevation and mass of the addition. Although shown on the plans, the air conditioning units are not part of the variance request. There were no public questions or comments. 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:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. Absent: Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Seth Marcus, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill WHEREAS,Chris Gianutsos, requested a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 162 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 199. 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), 240-37B(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 second floor addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 feet where 10 feet is 13 required; has a total side yard of 12.5 feet where 25 feet is required, and further the addition increases 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 proposed addition is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and character of the neighboring properties and to the extent the change will actually improve the character of the neighborhood. The Board has considered the additional massing that will result from the addition, but finds that overall the addition will be an aesthetic improvement that will benefit neighboring properties. 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. Given the existing footprint of the property and setback lines,the applicant would need a variance for any reasonable second floor addition. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that, in terms of square footage of the house is substantial, and that the applicant is looking for a fair amount of additional area. However,this is mitigated by the fact that the addition will stay within the existing footprint of the house and will therefore are not increase the nonconformity of the home with respect to setbacks. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 14 The Board finds that the variance will not increase the footprint of the house, so there will not be any additional runoff. Nor will there be any noise impact. 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: 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. 7 CASE 2988 7900-9828 Water St. LLC Stephen Moser, the applicant's architect, representing Thomas Kolberg principle of the applicant corporation, addressed the Board. Mr. Moser stated that the applicant was before the Board last month to legalize a screened porch, in order to sell the house. The new owner now would like to construct a second floor addition and place air conditioning units on the side of the house. 15 Mr. Moser showed plans of the second floor and elevations, stating the plan is to enclose the porch and build above it. The lot is nonconforming for an R-10 zone; the setbacks do not conform to an R-6 The Board discussed the proposed plan and the placement of the AC units, and suggested that the AC units be move to an area on the property that would not require a variance. PUBLIC COMMENTS Michael Richter of 88 Briarcliff, stated he was adverse to the AC units being adjacent to his house as he doesn't believe there is enough room to safely walk pass the units. Howard Ives of 84 Briarcliff, stated if the AC units are moved to his side they will be right under his bedroom window, he also asked that the second floor window not be placed directly across from his window. Mr. Moser stated that the AC units would be moved to the rear to accommodate the neighbors, and would do his best to stagger the window. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=6). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill WHEREAS,7900-7928 Water St. LLC c/o Kane International, requested a variance on the premises located at 86 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 93. 16 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.(3), and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the addition as proposed has a rear yard of 17.4 feet where 25 feet is required; and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R- 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 two story construction sits on the existing footprint of an enclosed porch therefore will not further encroach on any setbacks. The proposed construction is not visible from the street. 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. Due to the fact that the existing house is nonconforming any reasonable alternatives would require an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial given the fact that the footprint of the house is not enlarged. 17 D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that no light or air of neighbors will be hindered by this addition. Also, as there will be no increase in impervious surfaces, drainage will remain as is. In addition,the applicant pledged to work to improve existing drainage in order to minimize any ongoing impacts to neighboring properties. 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: 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. 18 ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 10:36P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 19