Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_02_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 29, 2012 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2888 Paul Feldman (adjourned 9/26/2011, 10/26/2011 and 12/5/2012, 1/25/12) Application of Paul Feldman requesting a variance to construct a garage and master bedroom addition on the premises located at 6 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 422. APPLICATION NO. 2 Case No. 2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2012, 1/25/12). Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fourth and fifth apartment in a legal three family residence on the premises located at 38 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot118. APPLICATION NO. 3 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2012, 1/25/12). Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fifth apartment in a legal four family residence on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot128. APPLICATION NO.4 Case No. 2894 Stefan Magel—10 Dimitri Place (adjourned 10/26/2012, 12/05/2012, 1/25 2012) Application of Stefan Magel requesting a variance to legalize an and elevated deck and patio on the premises located at 10 Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 540. APPLICATION NO. 5 Case No. 2899 Pietro Catizone and Gina Proia—9 Overlook Terrace Application of Pietro Catizone and Gina Proia requesting a variance to construct a second floor wood frame addition over existing garage and family room and a shed roof dormer at the south west corner of the existing building and install air conditioning units in the side rear on the premises located at 9 Overlook Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 376. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2900 Polly Kolotas—47 Fernwood Drive Application of Polly Kolotas requesting a variance to construct a covered entry on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 508. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO.2901 Mr.and Mrs.A. Papandreadis—7 Adrian Circle 1 Application of Mr. and Mrs. A. Papandreadis requesting a variance to construct a roofed front entry platform and replace the screened porch in the rear with a sunroom on the premises located at 7 Adrian Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 307, Lot 92. APPLICATION NO.8 CASE NO. 2902 Sharyn Klein—22 Kolbert Drive Application of Sharyn Klein requesting a variance to legalize an existing generator on the premises located at 22 Kolbert Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 308, Lot31. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, Alternate, Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Ernest Odierna. APPLICATION No. 1 CASE NO.2888 Paul Feldman (adjourned 9/26/2011, 10/26/2011, 12/5/2011, 1/25/2012) Application of Paul Feldman requesting a variance to construct a garage and master bedroom addition on the premises located at 6 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 422. Continuation of the public hearing Mr. Zachery Schweter, the applicant's architect, stated there were changes to the plan since the previous Board meeting, although a rendering of the difference between the grassy area and wooded cliff area in the backyard of the site has been depicted more clearly the site plan. There were no questions or comments from the Board members. There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. Ryan noted that the Board members can discuss their views on the plan based on their site visit. Mr. Meister stated that the Board had a site visit to the property, during which they had no substantive discussion, but did question the applicant and architect and several alternatives were demonstrated. Mr. Schweter asked for a non-binding straw pole. 2 Comments were off the record. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus,Alternate, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister,Seth Marcus,Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, seconded by, Irene 0' Neill. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 2,Abstain =0). Yes: Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. WHEREAS, Paul Feldman,the applicant, requested a variance to construct a garage and master bedroom addition located at 6 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 422; WHEREAS,the applicant application for a variance submitted to this Board showed a proposed addition with a front yard of 14.7 feet where 30 feet is required under Section 240-37B(1)for a residence in the R-10 Zone; 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 (the "Ordinance")with particular reference to Section 240-37B(1) as noted above, and Section 240-69 because the proposed construction would increase the extent by which the building fails to meet the requirements of the R-10 Zone; WHEREAS,after discussing the application with the Board over the course of several public hearings,the applicant revised the plan such that, among other things,the construction would have a front yard of 16.6 feet where 30 feet is required instead of the original proposed 14.7 foot front yard; 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; 3 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 notes that the neighborhood is characterized by many large houses on small lots. The Board also notes that the turnaround at this corner of East Drive is very narrow,which makes access and parking difficult. The Board finds that the proposed construction will be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and therefore will not change the character of the neighborhood. The Board also finds that there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood by the granting of the variance because it will allow additional off-street parking which will free up some of the space on East Drive. The Board further finds that the proposed construction will leave a substantial distance between the new garage and the property line with the adjacent neighbor and will therefore not be a detriment to that 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 has discussed the application at length to determine whether the applicant can achieve his goals by other methods not requiring an area variance. The Board has made site visits and listened to several presentations by the applicant. On the basis of this review,the Board finds that alternative methods of meeting the applicant's objectives are not possible without some variance. Specific alternatives to modify the plan as suggested by the Board to decrease intrusion of the construction into the front yard would be cause the construction to obstruct the view from the kitchen of the grassy area in the back yard,which would interfere with monitoring of children playing in the area which is adjacent to the street and which is bordered by a very sharp drop off on the east side protected only by a low stone wall. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The requested variance is substantial. The construction would significantly intrude into the front setback. However, in light of(1)the large area remaining between the new structure and the adjacent property to the left(as seen from East Drive), (2)the lack of construction on the right side of the property(as seen from East Drive), and (3)the fact that the construction will not increase the percentage of the lot covered by the building,we do not feel that that factor is determinative. 4 D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. We do not find that the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Any runoff associated with impervious surfaces to be constructed will be accounted for by the Building Department which will enforce erosion and sediment control code requirements to ensure that there will be no adverse drainage impact. Further, the neighboring property to the left(as seen from East Drive)will not be impacted by light or noise. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the applicant's difficulty is self-created to the extent the applicant acquired the property with the knowledge of the difficulty of situating a desirable improvement on the property. However, based on the extensive effort by the applicant to accommodate the concerns of the Board consistent with the objective of the project, the Board does not consider this factor to be dispositive in the circumstances. 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 29, 2012. 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. 5 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2892 Saul Reuda—38 Lester Place (adjourned 10/26/2011. 12/05/2011, 1/25/20120) Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fifth apartment in a legal four family residence on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot128. Continuation of the public hearing. Mr. Wexler asked a question to clarify the application in denial states it is a legal nonconforming four family dwelling in a legal three family. Discussion Mr. Engel,the applicant's, attorney addressed the Board. Mr. Engel stated that Mr. Reuda purchased the building in 1997 and it is in exactly the same configuration as when he purchased it; there have been no modifications by Mr. Reuda. According to Mr. Engle,what exists at the property now was either done without permits or papers are missing from the file as the building is larger than the records show. The applicant wishes to legalize two existing apartments. Mr. Engel submitted financial information to show undue hardship. He presented the history of the rents for the last ten years. He had hoped to have tax schedule E for 2011, but this was not yet available. He showed the relative rents for 5 and 4 apartments. Mr. Engle offered an excel spread sheet for 38 Lester Place showing the profit margin in regard to the question where there could be reasonable profit without the requested variance. According to Mr. Engel,two tenants are no longer there. The projection for 2012 shows expenses at the 2011 rate. With 5 apartments rented there would be a $28,000 profit over the course of a year. With 4 apartments rented there would be$16,500 profit per year. With 3 apartments the number would go down to almost 0. According to Mr. Engel,the property is being taxed at 7 units, and Con Ed has installed 5 meters in in main house with 3 in the rear. There are no records in the Town with regard to the Con Ed installations. Mr. Engel stated that one unit in the rear and one in the main house have been vacated. Mr. Wexler asked what the applicant's goals are. Mr. Engle responded 4 units in the main house and one in the rear,which, according to Mr. Engel, is already legal. Mr. Meister asked what the applicant intends to do with the vacated apartments. Mr. Engle stated the apartments vacated would either be kept vacant or enlarged. Mr. Ryan stated that it is his 6 understanding that the basement or ground floor apartment would be joined with the upper floor. Mr. Engle stated that was just a concept. Mr. Reuda stated that to make the apartments larger, he would have a hard time renting and would prefer to keep them vacant. Mr. Ryan stated it is the applicant's burden to prove undue hardship and the only way to do that is with expert testimony. A licensed appraiser would preferable rather than a realtor. The Board asked for expert testimony. The Board also stated that it wishes the applicant to explain what in its view would be a reasonable profit. Mr. Engle stated $28,000 per year is a low but reasonable profit. Mr. Wexler noted that if the Town is taxing on 7 units and the number of units decreases, then the taxes will go down. Mr. Engel stated that the property was purchased in 1998 at$302,500.00. Nothing is owed. The Board asked what is the return expected on this investment. Mr. Engle stated he would get numbers based on the present day value of the property. Mr. Ryan stated one way to analyze the issue is that an investment of"X"was made and to look at what is being made on that investment. Mr. Meister asked Mr. Ryan if a factor regarding use variance is specific to the parcel or consistent throughout the zone. Mr. Ryan noted that that question sets up another threshold:the problem confronting the applicant in a particular use variance needs to be unique to that property if the problem confronts everyone you don't have uniqueness. Mr. Engle stated that the file is sparse, records of the Town do not match the house, and therefore it is unique. Mr. Ryan read Mr.Jabowski 12/5/1995 letter into the record. This letter stated that violations on the property must be corrected, Mr. Reuda bought the property in 1997. Mr. Engle stated that Mr. Reuda did not get a bank mortage, or do a title search, he only went to the assessors. Mr. Engle submitted that the applicnat's difficulty is not self-created as he relied on the Assessors office. Mr. Baron stated that the letter in the building department is contrary to the assessment, in purchasing a piece of property in 1997 he did not do due dillengence. Mr. Wexler asked what prompted the applicant to appear before the Board. Mr. Reuda responded that he received a violation from the Fire Department. Mr. Baron asked for a projection for a three family rent role, as well as an apartment layout. Mr. Marcus would like the applicant to present case law in support of his position. Mr. Engle stated he would consider the Boards comments. Public Comments Mike Charitou, 211 Croton Lake Rd Mount Kisco,the developer of Varela Estates, spoke. 7 Mr. Charitou stated that there is one legal apartment in the rear, one in the front and many attempts to legalize 1 apartment with no approval, referring to the application of Feb 29, 1932. Mr. Baron stated that Mr.Jabowski 's letter states it is a legal three. Mr. Wexler stated in reality there are 7 meters and 5 units. Mr. Charitou stated that the value of his property is going down because of the condition of 38 Lester. Mr. Charitou stated that when someone buys they search the records in the Building Department. Mr.Jay McCareins of 4 Varela Road stated that when he went into contract he was concerned about Lester Place, and knew it was coming before the Board. When someone breaks a law they should not be rewarded,the owner needed to do his due dilligence when he bought. Also parking in the area is terrible, 38 Lester no longer has a garage for tenants as it is now an apartment. Safety is an issue in the neighborhood as the area is unkempt, and causing devaluation of his home. He further stated that he believed 38 Lester would be required to be compliant with Town Code as a 3 family. Keith Macksoud of 38 Varela (the converted garage)the rear house, stated cars have permit parking, and all residents at 38 park on the property, and the area is not disreputable. Thomas Liquard, 6 Varela, stated he bought 2 years ago, and if he had known there was an illegal apartment house he would never bought there. There is trash in corner, and parking is terrible all the time. Mr. Reuda's, hardship is his own fault because he did not do due diligence, clearly the building was never intended to be apartments and the area cannot support this amount of parking A photo of garbage on the side of the rear house was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 2. The picture was taken from the window of 2 Varela and shows "the mess"that was in place 2 months prior to the date of this hearing. Ms. Karen Heggerud, of 10 Varela stated they have been tenants for about 1 year looking to purchase in the area,they are waiting to see what happens with this Board, as there is garbage on street, parking on both sides although it is not allowed on one side, she is concerned for emergency access. Parking is worse at night. Theresa Balduzzi, of 38 Lester Place in the rear, stated that there are tensions, the problem is luxury homes were put in an area that is half industrial. The area is blighted.The sidewalks are not in great shape. People from out of the area park and walk to the train. The apartments were started when economy went down. Mr. Wexler stated that it is in a 7.5 zone which is a single family zone. Board has to go through the process and weigh the facts. Mr. Engle stated the applicant's options are to either bring the building back to what is permitted by code or ask for a variance to legalize. 8 Mr. Charitou stated that Mr. Reuda should fix violations first. Motion: To adjourn the matter Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Mr. Wexler asked for an earlier meeting,the meeting was scheduled for 6:15 P.M. March 28, 2012. The Board asked that the applicant supply new documentation in a more timely fashion. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2393 Saul Reuda—30 Lester Place(adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2011, 1/25/2012) The Application was also adjourned to 6:15 P.M. March 28, 2012. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2894 Stefan Magel—10 Dimitri Place (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2011, 1/25/2012). Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fifth apartment in a legal four family residence on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot128. Continuation of public hearing. Mike Csenge,the applicant's architect addressed the Board and handed in a new plan to all members showing the changes to the stair case that the board requested. The Board reviewed the changes to the plan. There were no questions or comments from the Board. There were no questions or comments from the Public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved 9 Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Arthur Wexler Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus: O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS,Stefan Magel, requested a variance to legalize an elevated wood deck on the premises located at 10 Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 540. 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(3) requiring a rear yard of not less than 25 feet, and 240-50 WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application to this Board for a variance to permit an elevated wood deck with a rear yard setback of 16 feet 4 inches, where 25 feet is required under Ordinance Section 240-39(B)for a residence in an R-6 Zone District WHEREAS,the applicant revised the proposed deck to reduce the degree of intrusion into the rear yard such that the rear yard would be 19 feet 2 inches rather than 16 feet four inches; 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. 10 The Board finds that,with regard to a deck with a rear yard variance of 19 feet 2 inches, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The proposed deck would be in character with the neighborhood and other nearby houses,which have small yards containing decks similar to that under consideration. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The Board finds that the proposed deck, as modified by the applicant, is of reasonable size; and that in view of the nature of the property and the placement of the house on the property the applicant would need a variance to construct any serviceable deck, as some intrusion into the rear yard would be unavoidable. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the intrusion into the rear yard is substantial, but that this factor is not determinative because there are many nonconforming decks in the area, including in the yard of the house directly behind the applicant's property. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. Based on the record before it, the Board finds that there is no increase in noise, pollution, runoff or other environmental issues as a result of this construction. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that it is self-created as the home owner wishes to have a suitable deck for entertaining and family use, but it is not determinative in 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 the reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application,while also preserving and protecting 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: 11 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 29, 2012. 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. 5 CASE NO.2899 Pietro Catizone and Gina Proia—9 Overlook Terrace Application of Pietro Catizone and Gina Proia requesting a variance to construct a second floor wood frame addition over existing garage and family room and a shed roof dormer at the south west corner of the existing building and install air conditioning units in the side rear on the premises located at 9 Overlook Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 376. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Pietro Catizone,the applicant, addressed the Board stating he recently purchased and is proposing a second floor extension over the garage area. The present garage is not in character with the house or neighborhood. The extended second story will be in the same architectural design of the house. In 1924 the area was subdivided. In 1926 the Town acquired a portion of the rear portion of the property for park purposes. This left the rear yard nonconforming. Presently the garage is conforming as an accessory structure, but it will not be when attached. A small dormer extend inset will be to mirror opposite end. 12 Mr. Catizone further stated that he is proposing to place two air conditioning units behind the garage as this would be, in his view,the most logical and least intrusive spot. The units would be 8 feet 3 inches from the side. A letter from 11 Overlook Terrace was entered into the record in support of the variance and marked Exhibit 1. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. 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). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus, O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS, Pietro Catizone and Gina Proia, requested a variance to construct a second floor frame addition over existing garage and family room and a shed roof dormer at the south west corner of the existing building and install air conditioning units in the side rear on the premises located at 9 overlook terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 376; 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(2)(a) requiring a least side yard of not less than 10 feet; 240-38B(3), requiring a rear yard of not less than 25 feet; and 240-69, prohibiting an increase in the extent by which a building fails to meet the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. 13 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 side yard of 6 feet where 10 feet is required, has a rear yard where 7 feet 3 inches is required where 25 feet is required, the air conditioning units as proposed have a side yard of 8.30 feet where 10 feet is required, has a rear yard of 5 feet where 25 feet is required and the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming 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 the proposed construction will actually result in a significant improvement to the character of the neighborhood by significantly improving the appearance of the house. The current architectural style of the garage and family room is not consistent with the Tudor-style home. The proposed construction will involve a Tudor-style finish which will materially improve the appearance of the home. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicants to pursue, other than an area variance. The Board finds that,given the position of the residence on this property together with the reduction of rear yard caused by the action of the Town,the applicants would not be able to update and improve the home without an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that,while the variance is substantial, this factor mitigated by the fact the variance is necessary due to the awkward placement of the house on the property, which in turn is due at least in part to the Town's acquisition of a portion of the rear part of the property. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. 14 The Board finds that it will not have an adverse environmental or physical impact for the following reasons. Because the footprint of the house will not change with the addition, there will be no change in impervious surface or existing drainage. Noise associated with the air conditioning condensers will be minimal because they will be placed at the rear of the garage a significant distance from other homes and the park below. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the applicants' difficulty is self-created because the owner desires to alter the property, however 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 29, 2012. 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. 2900 POLLY KOLOTAS 15 Application of Polly Kolotas requesting a variance to construct a covered entry on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 508. Motion:to open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by: Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Mike Csenge,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. He stated that the applicant is proposing a roof over the front entry. This construction will require a side yard setback variance and a variance to allow an increase in lot coverage. The existing left side yard is nonconforming. Mr. Csenge explained that with the proposed construction the home will not get any closer to the side property line than the present distance. A photo showing the front of the house was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by: Ronald Meister, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. 16 After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus, O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS, Polly Kolotas, requested a variance to construct a covered entry on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 508; 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)(b), requiring combined side yards of not less than 25 feet; 240-37F, prohibiting lot coverage greater than 35%; and 240-69, prohibiting an increase in the extent by which a building fails to meet the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located; WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board to permit a covered entry addition with a has a side yard of 12 feet 1 inch where 15 feet is required, an increase in lot coverage to 39.85%where35% is required, and an increase of 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 the modest change presented by the proposed construction will improve the appearance the property, and is consistent with both the design of this dwelling and surrounding residences. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 17 The Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve her goal of having a covered entry without the necessity of an area variance because the house, including the front entrance, already intrude into the set back and are thus nonconforming. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial in that the side variance if 12.1 where 15 is required is the same as existing protrusion of the house into the side yard setback and the increase in lot coverage is quite minimal at less than approximately 11 square feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that there is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because of the de minimis nature of the construction. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that,while the difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the house knowing of this nonconformity and that any increase in nonconformity would require a variance, In light of all the circumstances previously described and the fact that it is a 6,000 square foot lot in an R-10 Zone,this factor is not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant February 29, 2012. 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. 18 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 NO. 2901 Mr.and Mrs. A. Papandreadis Application of Mr.and Mrs.A. Papandreadis requesting a variance to construct a roofed front entry platform and replace the screened porch in the rear of her home with a sunroom on the premises located at 7 Adrian Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 307, Lot 92. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Mark Mustacato, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, describing the plan to rebuild the front entrance and rear porch. Mr. Mustacato noted that the new front entrance will have an increased set back compared to the existing condition. The Board discussed the plan. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). 19 Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by: Seth Marcus, Alternate, seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. After review, on motion of Mr. Marcus, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus, O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Papandreadis, requested a variance to construct a roofed entry platform and replace the screened porch in the rear with a sunroom located at 7 Adrian Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 307, Lot 92. 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), requiring a front yard of not less than 40 feet; 240-35(3), requiring a year yard of not less than 40 feet; and 240-69, , prohibiting an increase in the extent by which a building fails to meet the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to construct a roofed front entry with a front yard of 37 feet where 40 feet is required, a sunroom with a rear yard of 38.85 feet where 40 feet is required, and an increase of the extent by which the building fails to meet the requirements 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: 20 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 such detriment to the neighborhood or nearby properties as the proposed changes to the existing changes to the house will be within the existing footprint. The proposed front entry will not create any additional nonconformity with regard to the front of the house as this will not be the furthest intrusion into the front yard setback. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicants to pursue, other than an area variance. The Board finds that due to the nonconforming nature of the existing house there is no alternative that would achieve the applicants'goals without a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance could be considered substantial, but the variance is mitigated by the fact that the existing house is already nonconforming and the proposed variance would not add meaningfully to the existing nonconformity. 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 impact on physical or environmental conditions created with regard to additional noise runoff or light. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the applicants' difficulty is self-created because the owner desires to alter the property, however 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 21 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 29, 2012. 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.8 CASE NO. 2902 Sharyn Klein—22 Kolbert Drive Application of Sharyn Klein requesting a variance to legalize an existing generator on the premises located at 22 Kolbert Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 308, Lot 31. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by: Ronald Meister, seconded by Seth Marcus Moved by Seth Marcus,Alternate, seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Sharyn Klein,the applicant, addressed the Board stating that she placed the generator next to the AC units which were grandfathered without realizing that a permit and variance was required. She asked to be allowed to keep them there. 22 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. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Frederick Baron. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus, O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS, Sharyn Klein, requested a variance to legalize an existing generator located at 22 Kolbert Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 308, Lot 31. 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 240-35-B(2)(a), requiring a least side yard of not less than 15 feet. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the generator as installed has a side yard of 11.5 feet where 15 feet is required 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. 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 23 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 there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood. Property sizes in the neighborhood are substantial. As a result, there will be a considerable distance from the generator to the nearest neighboring residence. Further,the generator as placed is next to two air conditioning units and screened from the street and neighbors. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The Board finds that given the location of the house on the property,the yards other than the front yard would require a variance. The only other place the unit could be placed is around the corner on the rear of the house and there is an overhang of the roof prohibiting the placement there because of height clearance requirements for generators. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds the variance is not substantial,given that the generator is just 3.5 feet in height and has a footprint of about 6 square feet, which is very small relative to the size of the lots in the neighborhood and the distance to the closest neighboring 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 generator will not have adverse impact on the neighborhood as it turns on for just a few minutes each week for self-maintenance. The only time there will be a potential of noise is when there are severe conditions and power is out. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created but given the in circumstances presented this factor is not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 24 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 29, 2012. 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. MINUTES The approval of minutes was tabled to March 28, 2012. ADJOURNMENT Motion:To adjourn the meeting at 11:33P.M. Action:Adjourned Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Minutes Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 25