Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_03_16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THETOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 16, 2011 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK MINUTES Application No. 1 Case No. 2879 Mr.and Mrs. Steven Circelli Application of Mr. and Mrs. Circelli requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition over the existing footprint on the premises located at 9 Harmony Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 613. Application No.2 Case No. 2881 Mr.Andrew H.Steuerman Application of Mr. Andrew H. Steuerman requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition and a new deck on the premises located at 255 Griffen Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 341, Lot 1. Application No.3 Case No. 2882 Mr.Colin A. McGranahan Application of Mr. Colin A. McGranahan requesting a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 3 Hawthorne Road and known on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 512. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Robert Viner Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector(Not voting), Lisa Hochman, Counsel (Not voting). Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus,Alternate, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, David Fishman, Liaison. Call to order at 7:48 Vu APPLICATION NO. 1 Case No.2879 Mr.and Mrs.Steven Circelli Public hearing continued. Michael Csenge,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating the application was adjourned at the December meeting. At that time the Board asked that the dormer be pulled back and photos be provided. Photos were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 2. 1 The Board discussed the plans, and the light impact on the adjoining neighbor's house, suggesting that the addition be decreased and made asymmetrical decreasing the room size keeping the character of the house. Mr. Csenge stated that he has the authority to accept the Board suggestion. There were no questions or comments from the public. IIVa Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. IIVa Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED (4-1). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill,Viner Nays: Meister Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Circelli requested a variance to construct a second floor addition over the existing footprint on the premises located at 9 Harmony Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 613. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference Section 240-39B(2). WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application. WHEREAS,the Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR §617 et seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and 2 WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§ 267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance. The Board finds that there will not be an undesirable change specifically in relationship to the property to the left given that the applicant has agreed to push back the projected dormer extension on the second floor to a distance that will align itself with the left jam of the most right forward window on the second floor towards the street. This will create no intrusion into the plane of the roof line that presently exists for approximately 9 feet from the front face of the building that faces Harmony Drive, 3 more feet then proposed which allows the steep roof slope of the existing roof to remain intact, and maintain the character of the house. Reducing shadows to the house on the nearby property on the left creating less impact on 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 finds that the benefit cannot be achieved by other feasible means The Board finds that given the complexity of the house and the floor elevations of the second floor, the size of the house, the existing side conditions,the existing front yard setback all those conditions would create a condition that would require more than one variance to achieve the goal the applicant is looking for and be a much more costly construction than what is presently presented. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that given that the required setback as the existing house sits 6 feet back the projection sits back causing 18 inch differential not a substantial change. Intrusion is mostly an eighteen inch projection except at the dormers. Increasing the extent to which the existing structure is nonconforming. Total of the 2 side yards is also nonconforming but this construction does not increase that nonconformity. The intrusion into the side is only a foot and a half for most of the addition but the dormers 3 are two feet and the reason for that is the dormers add character to the side elevation and make it more pleasing to look at and blends in more with the character of the neighborhood. When looking at the house it is less of a projection of height to the adjoining property. There is no incremental variance,just a substantial change which increases the extent that the existing structure is nonconforming. The total of the two side yards are nonconforming but this addition does not increase that nonconformity. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: The Board finds that the proposed addition will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood because there will be no increase in runoff or ground coverage and any change in lighting will be insubstantial. The front is being pushed back to mitigate the sunlight issue. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created but this factor is not determinative 2. For reasons stated above,the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighbor or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 4 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. As conditioned or modified pursuant to direction of the Board. 6. The outside face of the addition align's itself with the left side of the window on the second floor on the west elevation, closest to the street. 7. The plans must be resubmitted to the Building department consistent with the findings of the Board. 8. The builder must take good care in maintain the architectural character of the building. 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. 2881 Andrew Steuerman Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. Zachary Swetter,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. The Board discussed the application and concluded that a variance was not required for the proposed plan submitted. After discussion the application was removed. Vu APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2882 Mr. Colin A. McGranahan Larry Gordon, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating the house is nonconforming and they are just continuing the nonconformity. The Board discussed the application. 5 Mr. Gordon stated that they looked at alternatives but the neighbors would have been greatly impacted by any other location. The porch is already nonconforming,they are just enclosing it and adding a second floor. There were no questions or comments from the public. IIVa Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approve, Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. IIVa Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED. Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister,Viner Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS, Mr. Colin A. McGranahan requested a variance to construct a second floor addition on the premises located at 3 Hawthorne Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404 Lot 512. WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference Section 240-36B(1) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application. WHEREAS,the Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR §617 et seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and 6 WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§ 267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties this construction is consistent with architecture of nearby homes in addition the second story of the house is effectively screened from Palmer Avenue in the front yard where the variance is requested is effectively screened by a fence and a line of tall trees. To the extent that the addition can be visible from Palmer Avenue it would be an enhancement to the character of the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the applicant has considered and found unreasonable alternatives that do not involve the necessity of a variance and the Board agrees with that. This construction has the benefit of providing easier access to the exterior of the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial although there is a measureable difference between 20 or so feet from the front property line where 40 feet is required there is no change of footprint of the house. In light of the change in the second story is not considered substantial. The adjacent houses on Palmer Avenue provide substantial open space back from the street so even though this variance extends into the font set back the general appearance of the area is a very open one. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: The Board finds no adverse impact on physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The footprint is not being changed there will be no changes in runoff, impervious surface, lighting will be insubstantial. 7 E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that while the difficulty might be considered self-created because the applicant's purchased the home with the knowledge of the existing nonconformity,that factor is not determinative. 2. For reasons stated above,the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighbor or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. As conditioned or modified pursuant to direction of the Board. 6. To the extent practical the home owner maintains the effective screening of the front of the house from Palmer Avenue by suitable shrubary that is as close as possible to the existing landscape. 8 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The next meeting was scheduled for April 27, 2011. MINUTES Motion: Minutes of February 23, 2011 Action:Approved with technical changes by counsel. Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:04p.m. Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 9