Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_03_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 28, 2012 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPLICATION NO. 1 Case No. 2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2012, 1/25/12,2/29/12). 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. 2 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2012, 1/25/12,2/29/12). 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, Lot 128. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2904 Beth Feldman Application of Beth Feldman requesting a variance to construct a kitchen, mud room and master suite addition and rebuilding of a cellar window well on the premises located at 656 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110, Lot 1. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2905 Renee and Fred Feuerbach Application of Renee and Fred Feuerbach requesting a variance to enlarge a first floor sun room above the garage. Alter the roof line from shed roof to gable roof. Add new deck railings at the south end of the enlarged sunroom. Add new windows and sliding glass door to deck on the premises located at 188 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 445. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2906 Andrew Fineberg Application of Andrew Fineberg requesting a variance to construct a two story addition to the existing structure with a new dining room, den and family room on the first floor and new master bedroom, master bath, two walk in closets, bedroom and laundry room on the second floor. On the premises located at 87 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 328. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2907 Joseph R.Crocco Application of Joseph R. Crocco requesting a variance to construct an addition to an existing auto-mobile dealership on the premises located at 2500 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 123. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate, Also Present: Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, Ernest Odierna, Liaison. Vu CALLTO ORDER The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:51P.M. Mr. Wexler asked if Application No. 6 is noticed correctly. There was a discussion regarding the application and Mr. Ryan stated that if there is an increase in compliance it must be noticed correctly but the Board can review the noticed aspect of the application. APPLICATION NO. CASE NO. 2892 Saul Reuda The matter was adjourned. APPLICATION NO. CASE NO. 2893 Saul Reuda The matter was adjourned. Vu APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE No. 2904 Beth Feldman- 656 Forest Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Donald Z. Schweter the applicant's architect addressed the Board, listing the previous granted variances and the new requested variances. He stated that they are now asking for less than previously requested and approved they are not asking for the second floor addition as it is too costly. The Board discussed the new proposal and the previously granted variances. Mr. Schweter explained the plan. Mr. Wexler stated the only new variance is the front facing Forest Avenue. Mr. Marcus asked if the driveway was being reduced to improve drainage, and whether there could be a condition to an approval that future owners be put on notice to keep it the way it is proposed with permeable surface. Mr. Ryan stated that possibly there can be a note recording such on the Certificate of Occupancy. 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=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Mr. Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Marcus, King Nays: None WHEREAS, Beth Feldman requested a variance to construct a kitchen, mud room and master suite addition and rebuilding of a cellar window well on the premises located at 656 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110, Lot 1. WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-38B.(3), 240-38B(1), 240-38B.(1), 240-38B(1) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application, the mud room addition as proposed has a rear yard of 7.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38.B(3), the cellar window well as proposed has a front yard of 11.39 feet on Villa Lane where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1),the deck as proposed as proposed has a front yard of 22.03 feet on Campbell Lane where 30 feet is required to Section 240- 38B.(1),the kitchen addition as proposed has a front yard on Forest Avenue of 26.84 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) and further,the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R7-5 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 the changes to the structure are minute and will be imperceptible from the street. The Board notes in general that this is a very difficult property because it has three front yards . As a result, the building envelope is extremely small and it would be almost impossible to do any work on this property without a variance. The change on the Forest Avenue front of the house is not major in that it is essentially a continuation of the front face of the house roughly 3 feet into the setback. The variance will not involve changing the footprint, but will simply allow an enclosure over an existing pavement. 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 nothing could be done on the property without getting a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the most substantial setback encroachment will be on the Campbell Lane side the back of the deck, but that this will be barely visible as it is screened with foliage from the street. Thus, although this variance will be relatively substantial it will not significantly impair the health, safety or welfare of the community. The Villa Lane variance and the rear variances are both insignificant. The Forest Avenue variance will encroach an additional 3 feet into that set back, but the structure will be consistent with other nearby homes,will simply straighten out the existing wall of the house on that side, and involves only one story. As such,the Board does not consider this a substantial variance in the circumstances presented. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood . Concerns regarding lot coverage and runoff which will be addressed by the homeowner by the replacement of the impervious surface in the driveway with permeable pavers in the driveway,which will a condition of the variance. There will be no other physical, environmental noise, runoff or other impacts other than of a temporary nature due to construction. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is 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 March 28, 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. Vu APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 2905 Renee and Fred Feuerbach—188 Rockingstone Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Seconded by Frederick Baron. FRANCINE: CHECK ON WHO MADE AND SECONDED MOTION TO OPEN HEARING. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Mr. King stated that he knows the applicant but will be fair and impartial. Bud Motzkin, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. He stated that the lot is irregular and the house is smaller than nearby houses. There is substantial distance between neighbors. The sunroom presently exists, and the applicant wants to expand it by five feet to make a more livable room. As the room is above an existing garage there will be no increase in the footprint of the home. 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 Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved VI' 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,Jeffery King, 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, O'Neill, Meister, Marcus Nays: None WHEREAS, Renee and Fred Feuerbach, requested a variance to enlarge the first floor sunroom above the garage. Alter the roof line from shed roof to gable roof. Add new deck railings at the south end of the enlarged sunroom. Add new windows and sliding glass door to deck located at premises located at 188 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 445. WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-38B(1), 240-38B(1) and 240-69 WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,The addition as proposed has a front yard of 21.5 feet(Valley Road)where 30 feet is required pursuant to 240-38B(1), has a front yard of 24.5 (Rockingstone Avenue)where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Boards finds that there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties because this project will actually improve the appearance of the home. Further, there are no houses in suffiently close proximity that could be affected by the change. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. Due to the irregular shape the property, the house already encroaches into the affected setbacks. As a result the applicants could not achieve their goals without need for a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that given the location of the house the modest size of the addition is not substantial. The Board notes that this project will not change the footprint of the house and will merely alter the sunroom which currently sits on top of the garage. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the proposed construction will have a positive impact on the appearance of the residence. The Board further finds that the project will involve no impacts on the environmental conditions given the modest size of the addition and the fact that it will create no additional impervious surface. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds the applicants' difficulty is self-created, but that this 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 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 March 28, 2011. 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 2906 Andrew Fineberg—87 Rockland Avenue Mr. Wexler recused himself. Mr. Baron,the acting Chair, advised the applicant that there are now only 4 members to hear the case and a vote of 3-1 will be necessary to approve the application. Vi 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=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. The applicant request an addition a two story push out requiring a front yard variance. An addition to the garage is also being proposed. Mr. Yestadt stated that the property is adjacent to the Sheldrake River,the proposal is compliant for wetlands disturbance and coverage. He showed the Board a tax map to show adjacent houses proximity to the project marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the proposal. The existing house is grandfathered into the front yard.The design of the front facade is complementary to the neighborhood. Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant could show alternatives and why they would not work. Mr. Yestadt stated that an alternative involving a hip roof created an incongruous appearance. He said stepping the facade back would compromise the ability of the addition to meet the applicants' space requirements. The size of the proposed garage was discussed. Mr. Marcus asked if the architect could show alternatives. The distance from the curb to the property line was discussed. Public comments Beverley Nalven of 91 Rockland addressed the Board stating that the addition is massive and there is no way to screen it as the property line is in the center of brook and the property is relatively elevated. She state she believes the project will lower the value of her property. She also stated that the project will negatively affect the viewshed from her property. Andrew Fineberg,the owner, asked whether a variance would be required if they reduced the plan to conform to the setbacks. The answer was that no variance would then be required. He also asked if a request for a lesser variance might gain approval. Mr. Baron responded that this might be possible, but the Board would of course need to review the plan. Carrie Fineberg stated that they previously tried but couldn't figure a solution without a variance that would look appropriate. Mr. Ryan stated that applicants have come before the board and demonstrated that an as of right would result in a monstrosity,that is a relevant consideration for the board to grant a variance. Mr. Marcus stated if the applicant feels it is more desirable to seek a variance,they must show alternatives that they think are not good. Mr. Baron stated the Board is required to balance the needs of the applicant to the neighbors and community at large. Mr. Marcus stated that a neighbor expressed some concerns, and that must be taken into account. The applicant requested an adjournment to the next Board meeting. BREAK Application 7 Case No. 2 Joseph R.Crocco—2500 Boston Post Road 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=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Donald Mazin,the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board. Mr. Mazin stated that the applicant wishes to extend the enclosed area of the building. He noted that the entire parcel in currently impervious. The applicant desires to open a Porsche dealership, but Porsche requires a larger showroom space than the existing building provides. An additional 1200 square feet is required. Porsche will not change their requirements. Mr. Crocco, the applicant/architect, explained the plan to extend the enclosed area. This will increase the building coverage area from 29.5%of the lot to 32.6%of the lot. The Board discussed the application and discussed alternatives such as increasing building area in the rear. Mr. Crocco stated that Porsche requires frontage. Mr. Wexler asked if there has been a study of building coverage in other dealerships in the area. Mr. Ryan asked the applicant to find out the building coverage for CVS and other nearby commercial uses. The applicant is appearing before the Board of Architectural Review in April for the changes to the facade and the signage. The matter was adjourned to April. Mr. Ryan asked the applicant to supply a letter from the landlord authorizing the proposal. Motion:To adjourn the matter Action:Adjourned 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,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. MINUTES Motion:The minutes of October 26, 2012 were approved, subject to technical corrections by counsel. Action: Approved 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,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 9:36 P.M. Action:Adjourned Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Minutes Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary