Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_02_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 27, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2921 MICHAEL CHARITOU ("Maphyan Holding LLC") Application of Michael Charitou ("Maphyan Holding LLC") requesting a variance to construct a common driveway on the premises located at 529 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 163. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2923 Richard Fraser Application of Richard Fraser requesting a variance to construct a rear two story addition, second floor addition over existing and a front entry portico on the premises located 67 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 67. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2924 Peter Kinsman Application of Peter Kinsman requesting a variance to legalize an air conditioning unit on the premises located at 5 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 20. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2925 David R.Saabye Application of David R. Saabye requesting a variance to install a central air conditioning unit on the premises located at 20 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block as 222, Lot 374. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2928 Michael Stern Application of Michael Stern requesting a variance to install 20 KW on the premises located at 9 Woody Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block as 224, Lot 198. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2929 David Reid Munroe Application of David Reid Munroe requesting an extension to a variance to construct a new one story addition with roof deck and a new front porch on the premises located at 9 Woody Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block as 210, Lot 50. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel. 1 Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. The Chairman stated that there are only four members present tonight and the applicants would need at least three votes in favor to be approved, anyone who would like to adjourn the matter may request to do so. The Chairman further stated Application No. 4 will not be heard as there was no sign posted. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2921 Michael Charitou ("Maphyan Holding" LLC) The applicant was not present the matter was postponed. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2923 Richard Fraser Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Mike Csenge,the applicant's architect addressed the Board, and explained the variance requests. The Board discussed the application. Mr. Wexler asked about the purpose of the dormers Mr. Csenge answered they are decretive for a non- living space. The front portico is approximately 6X9. Public comments Sandra Weed, of 6 Hawthorne Road, stated she is concerned with water problem in the neighborhood if a basement is put in it may be worse. She stated there is an underground stream, the Town drainage pipe is damaged and properties flood. Something has to be done about the water problem. Mr. Carpaneto stated that in order to get a building permit the plan has to pass erosion regulations and install erosion controls as required. Mr. Csenge stated the landscape architect Jim Lotto found water at the level cultecs would be installed, and designed the erosion system accordingly. 2 Mr. Wexler stated the Town has a good review of erosion control, but the existing ponding is not part of the consideration. Ms. Weed showed the Board a copy of an easement for the Town regarding the damaged pipe. Mr. Carpaneto will look into the pipe easement issue. Tim Oberg of 1213 Palmer Avenue stated he is concerned that water will come into his back yard. Mr. Wexler stated a variance could be granted but if the applicant can't solve the erosion controls the building permit will not be issued. Ms. Weed asked about trees being removed, Mr. Wexler stated a permit is required. Gail Heiler, 1 Meadow Place, stated the property has two separate tax lots, Mr. Wexler stated the whole property is taken into account. Ms. Heiler further stated that the third floor makes the house appear enormous, and asked if there is a need the third floor. Jan Gould of 11 Hawthorn stated his concern regarding the water issue,the drainage pipe has been broken for many years and if the Town repairs it; it may alleviate the water issue. Mr. Wexler stated what is in front of the Board are a portico and the roof being raised.The Zoning Board deals with t visual aspects and the impact on the street. Eliminating the dormers to bring down the bulk of the addition was discussed. Mr. Wexler suggested the applicant ask for a temporary adjournment so the applicant and architect can discuss the change. Motion: To approve a temporary adjournment 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, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2921 Michael Charitou ("Maphyan Holding LLC") continuation Mike Charitou,the applicant, addressed the Board showing 2 options. The Board discussed the options and stated that they can't entertain granting a variance until the property is subdivided. Ms. Hochman stated that sequencing is a challenge the Planning Board would like to know if a variance would be granted for a shared driveway before subdividing. Mr. Baron suggested that the Planning Board request an advisory opinion from the Zoning Board. 3 Ms. Hochman will convey to the Planning Board the subdivision has to come first before the Zoning Board can grant a variance. A condition of the subdivision can be made that the Zoning Board has to approve a shared driveway. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2923 Richard Frazer reconvened Mr. Csenge stated the applicant will remove all 3 third floor dormers, bringing down the bulk. The height does not change the roof line but has a lower impact on the street. Plans should be corrected removing the dormers and submitted to the Building Department. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved 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, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None WHEREAS, Richard Fraser, requested a variance to construct a rear two story addition, second floor addition over existing and a front entry portico on the premises located at 67 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 67. 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 240-36B(1), 240-36(B)(2)(a) and 240-69, WHEREAS,for the reasons set forth in the application, the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the front portico as proposed has a front yard of 25 feet 6 inches where 40 feet is required, the second floor addition has a front yard of 30.8 feet(having overhangs of 6 inches) 4 where 40 feet is required,; has a side yard of 8.3 feet where 10 feet is required and further the addition increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-15 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 even though the variance requested is approved on the fact it is consistent with the neighborhood and will not produce a detriment to nearby 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 a method that would not require a variance. Because the current dwelling is already nonconforming and because the construction dictates in the front of the house the addition of the second floor and it is required. The need of a portico is to protect the house entrance from the elements it is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method that would not require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the requested variances are not sub given the additional size of the second floor and the fact that it is on the existing foot print. There is no increase in net difference to either the neighbors to the east or west. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. 5 The Board finds that additional impervious amount of construction is approximately 120 square feet and this will not have a substantial detriment this will be addressed by the engineers prior to the issuance of a building permit. The front portico is only 16 square feet which is minimal. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds it is self-created but not determinative in this case. 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 February 27, 2013. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. The dormers shown on the plan on the front elevation be removed and new plans be submitted to the Building Department for approval. 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. 2924 Peter Kinsman 6 Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Mr. Kinsman the applicant addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler stated he was not sure of the exact measurement and suggested that someone from the building department physically measure the ac unit's placement, as the applicant would be taking a gamble if the measurement is incorrect. Motion: To adjourn the matter to March 27, 2013 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2928 Michael Stern Michael Stern addressed the Board stating they plan to remove the temporary shed and place the generator in approximately same place. Bill Cerman asked how much noise the generator will produce, Mr. Wexler responded that it would be less than a vacuum cleaner and less intrusive then the shed there now. Laura Stern added quite a few generators in neighborhood. Motion:To close the public hearing 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, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King 7 Nays: None WHEREAS, Michael Stern, requested a variance to install a 20 KW standby generator on the premises located at 9 Woody Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224, Lot 374 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). WHEREAS,for the reasons set forth in the application, the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for a generator as proposed has a side yard of 2 feet where 10 feet is required for a generator 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 not be the property line that the generator will be close to is against a nature preserve,there are no houses on that side there is no demarcation of the property line. The closeness to the property line is not relevant as it is virtually not visible from the street unless you pull up and look for it. 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 only appropriate place for a generator at the house any other location would intrude upon landscaping a screened porch and other amenities of the house and would require a variance of their own. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 8 The Board finds it is not once again there is no neighbor on that side of the property where the unit is to be placed there is no neighbor to encroach upon. Therefore the distance of the unit to the nature preserve property line is not nearly as relevant as would be if there were a neighbor on that side of the property. 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 a small increase in sound when the unit tests weekly for a 10 or 15 period or during power outages the noise is similar to air conditioning compressors It will not run full time unless there is a power outage and air conditioning units will not be running. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the variance is self-created 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 February 27, 2013. 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. 9 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.2929 David Reid Munroe Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Justin Mineri the applicants architect addressed the Board stating that inadvertently they allowed the variance to expire and are before the Board requesting an extension there will be no changes to the plan. The Board discussed the variance extension. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested extension to the variance dated June 22,2011 Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Frederick Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None WHEREAS, David Reid Munroe, requested a variance to construct a new story addition with roof deck, and a new front porch on the premises located at 767 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 50. 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 240-37B(1), 240-51A and 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. WHEREAS,for the reasons set forth in the application, the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for a proposed front porch has a front yard of 7+-feet where 30 feet is required,the proposed one story addition has a front yard of 11+-feet where 30 feet is also required, the masonry steps as proposed have approximately 52 square feet within the front yard setback,where 40 feet is required and the stairs project 12 feet into the front yard setback where 8 feet is required and further the addition increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R- 10 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds with the changes being proposed are of a very small scale compared to the existing nonconformity. Passersby will not likely notice any changes as a result of these variances. The variances are necessary because of minor structural changes that are being made to the house, which was built close to the street and is therefor nonconforming. 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 house as built is to a large extent outside of the currently permitted building envelope. As a result,to make any changes other than a direct replacement would require variances. However, direct replacement would not achieve the objectives of the applicant. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 11 The requested variances are substantial in terms of numerical deviations from the area requirements for this lot. However,the variances deviate minimally from the existing nonconforming structure and will largely be unnoticeable,the changes will not have a significant negative effect. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that the proposed variances will be virtually unnoticeable and will involve no additional noise, light or runoff. Accordingly,there will not be adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that although the need for the variances is self-created in this issue,this is not dispositive 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: 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 February 27, 2013. 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. 12 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. MINUTES The minutes of January 23, 2013 were postponed to March 27, 2013. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 13