Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_02_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 26,2014 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. 2954 9 Ellsworth Road Application of James Murray requesting a variance to construct a covered entry and entry vestibule on the premises located at 9 Ellsworth Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 239. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2955 26 Valley Road Application of Eugene and Stefanie Pierce requesting a variance to construct first floor renovation and addition and second floor addition and bathroom renovation 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. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2956 255 Griffen Avenue Application of Andrew Steuerman requesting a variance to construct a second story addition 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. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson Also present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel Absent: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus The chairman stated that there are only(3) 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. °VIE APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2954 James Murray 9 Ellsworth Avenue Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Mr. Mike Csenge,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. The proposal is for a one story covered vestibule. The issue before the board is lot coverage as the house is already nonconforming. 1 Permitted lot coverage is 35%. The existing dwelling is at 43.4%; the proposed is 44.2%which is an increase of 46.3 square feet. The present entry is in need of repair. The proposal is for a one story roofed structure. The Board discussed the application. No correspondence from neighbors. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approve Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 2). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King. Abstain: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Simpson, seconded by Mr. King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously 3-0). Ayes: Wexler, King, Simpson Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill, Marcus WHEREAS,James Murray, requested a variance to construct a covered entry and entry vestibule on the premises located at 9 Ellsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 214, Lot 239. 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 240-37F, 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 total lot coverage of 44.2%where 35% is permitted for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. 2 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 the neighborhood will be enhanced by the attractive nature of the addition.This is a cosmetic enhancement of the property and does not encroach upon the setback. In the Board's view it will make a desirable change. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that because the structure is already non-conforming with respect to lot coverage any alteration to the property of this type will require an area variance, even the proposed structure which will involve a net coverage increase of just 46 square feet. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that 46square feet is not a substantial addition. It is .8%of the lot coverage. 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 adverse impact as it is a very small addition. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. Yes this is a self-created difficulty in so much as the applicants want a mud room and entry to their house however, but this is not a determinative factor under the circumstances. 3 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. Vu APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO. 2955 Eugene and Stefanie Pierce 26 VALLEY ROAD Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Frank Marsella,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating this lot is in an R7.5 zone district and the property is 31% undersized at 5, 180 square feet. Also it is a corner lot and therefore further constrained with 2 front yard setbacks. Mr. Marsella explained the two requests, stating that they are still below maximum allowable coverage. The Board discussed the requested variance. 4 Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. 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. After review, on motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(3-0). Ayes: Wexler, King, Simpson Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill, Marcus WHEREAS, Eugene and Stephanie Pierce, requested a variance to construct a first floor renovation and addition and a second floor addition and bathroom renovation 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 24038B.(1), 240-38B(2)(a), 240-38B (3), 240-38B(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 front yard of 20.4 feet where 30 feet is required, has a side yard of 9.7 feet where 10 feet is required. The first floor kitchen has a rear yard of 24 feet where 25 is required, has a side yard of 6.3 feet where 10 feet is required and further the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming 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 5 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 no undesirable change or detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds that the addition is in keeping with surrounding homes 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 there is no other feasible method not requiring a variance to achieve the benefits to the applicants that will be presented by the first floor renovation and the second floor addition because the lot is both a corner lot with two front yards and the lot is undersized making it impossible to do anything to this house without a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds the variance is not substantial in that the size of increase in square footage is minimal compared to the size of the lot. The second story addition is to be built over an existing 1%2 story structure,which means that this will involve no increase in setback encroachments or lot overage. Because the first floor addition is to be built in line with the existing roof line above,there will effectively be no increased encroachment into the rear setback. 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 adverse impact. The second floor addition is to be built over the exiting 1st floor sunroom and the extension in the rear of the house is keeping with the existing roof line. The architectural plan is in keeping with the Dutch Gable. 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. 6 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. Vu APPLICATION NO.3 CASE NO.2956 Andrew Steuerman 255 Griffen Avenue Mr.Taborga,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating the first floor family room is severely damaged. He entered photos into the record, which were marked Exhibit 1, showing rotted floor joists under the existing family room. Mr. Steuerman stated he was in the process of renovating the room and found structural damage, including mold in the crawl space under the room. As the structure must be replaced, the applicant is taking the opportunity to redesign it. As part of the redesign, a mudroom will be added. The structural modification will follow the line of the existing building along with total area variance requested will be 33.7 square feet. Mr.Taborga stated it is 89 square feet not a large encroachment. The Board discussed the requested addition, and found that the entrance overhang was not included in the requested variance. Mr. Wexler suggested the Board can grant the main 7 construction and the applicant can request a variance for the overhang in a separate application. He further asked that the overhand be deleted from the plans as approved. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson . 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=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson,Jeffery King. Absent: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(3-0). Ayes: Wexler, King, Simpson Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill, Marcus WHEREAS,Andrew Steuerman, requested a variance to construct a second story addition on the premises located at255 Griffen Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 341, Lot 1. 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) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the second story addition as proposed has a front yard of 31.9 feet where 40 feet is required, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-20 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. 8 WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that the addition as proposed will be in keeping with the size and scale with the buildings along Griffen Avenue. It is to be tastefully done and will blend in with the existing structure. 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 the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means. Since the entry and addition is properly positioned in relation to the rest of the house, the requested variance is unavoidable. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds given the size of the property and the fact that it has two ( 2)front yards and the requested construction will be kept in line with the existing building frontage, the 31.9 foot setback from Carriage House Lane,the proposed construction comes no closer to Carriage House Lane than the existing structure. 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 size of the lot, the addition of approximately 90 square feet of impervious surface relative to the existing condition is minimal. Everything else, including light and noise emanating from the property will remain substantially the same. 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. 9 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. SPECIAL CONDITION: 1. The plans presented show a covered entry way. This variance does not include the covered entry way. This feature shall be removed from the plans submitted for a building permit. 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 January 22, 2014 with technical corrections Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). 10 Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson,Jeffery King. Absent: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11