Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_04_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 23, 2014 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks. Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused:Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Jeffery King, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50P.M. Acting Chairperson O'Neill opened the meeting, noting the presence of only four members and stating that any applicant would need at least three in favor to be approved. Ms. 0' Neill stated that if any applicant would like to adjourn the matter he or she may request to do so. MINUTES The minutes of February and March were tabled. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2957 Zachary and Allison Gibbs Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus. Zachary Gibbs the applicant addressed the Board, stating that he was in the process of closing open permits and was notified that two air conditioning units on the property are non-conforming. Two were in place when he bought the property one of which is non-conforming. A new one was put in by him for the addition. This is also non-conforming. The units are not visible from the street. Mr. Gibbs further stated the neighbor's house is 10 feet from the property line. The Board discussed the application. 1 There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Evans Simpson. After review, on motion of Mr. Marcus, seconded by Mr. Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: O'Neill, Marcus, Simpson, Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: Wexler, King WHEREAS,Zachary Gibbs, requested a variance to legalize 2 existing air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 90 West Garden and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 850. 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. (2)(a) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application, air conditioning condenser unit# 1 has a side yard of 3.6 feet where 8 feet is required, air conditioning condenser unit#2 has aside yard of 4 feet where 8 feet is required, and further the air conditioning condenser units increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming residence in an R-6 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: 2 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 granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. There are currently three units,two of which needs to be legalized. One unit was preexisting and legal, i.e., it was in place when the current restrictions on the location of air condition units was enacted. One of the two other units was in place when the applicant purchased the property, but was had been installed after the restrictions on the location of air conditioning units had been enacted. The third unit was installed alongside the two pre- existing units. Given that two of the three units have been in place for a period of years and that one of these is legal,the legalization of the remaining two units would not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or nearby properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. We find that this is the best location and the only practical location for the units; again we note that there was already one unit present. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. Given that 8 feet is required and the set back at present is only 3.6 feet we do find that the request is substantial. However this factor is mitigated again by the fact that there was an existing legal unit placed within the setback for many years and posed no significant detriment to the neighborhood or the immediate neighbor and there is no record of complaints with regard to the existing condition. In fact, the applicant represents that the immediate neighbor expressed support for the application. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The units are relatively small and masked by hedges that exist,with regard to site lines there shouldn't be a significant effect. While there is a possible noise effect from the air conditioning units,the neighboring properties also have central air conditioning units, in which case any noise from these units will not be greater than the noise from the neighbors' units. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 3 The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under 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 reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Any future condenser units be shall be the quietest available units of comparable quality to the existing. 2. All screening vegetation shall be maintained. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus. 4 APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2959 Damian and Cherie Schaible Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Mr. Schaible the applicant stated he spoke to neighbors and no one voiced a concern with the plan as what is there now is unsightly. He had no letters from neighbors. Dan Sherman,the applicant's architect, stated the applicants are requesting walls in excess of 4 feet, and the pool to be less than 15 feet from the house. The back yard is presently taken up with dry wells. The pool design and pool patio is dropped down 3 feet. The Board discussed the plan and safety measures, including to prevent someone from the possibility of falling off the walls or into the pool. The pool will be surrounded by fencing to state code requirements, and the wall levels will be planted to prevent the possibility of climbing. Mr. Carpaneto stated the walls will have to be unscaleable. Mr. Simpson stated that 3 neighbors will be looking at the walls and this could have a profound impact on them. He further stated he would like to hear from the neighbors. Mr. Sacks stated that 26 Marbourne Drive has a drainage problem now and might be happy if this could be improved. The plant maintenance was discussed. Mr. Sherman stated there will be a drip system installed to water the plants along the terraces. Ms. O'Neill stated a condition could be made that the plantings must be maintained and replaced if necessary. Mr. Simpson noted that each retaining wall is 6 feet and top wall with fence is 9 feet. He inquired whether each of the 6 foot walls requires a variance. The Board discussed the distance of the pool from the house, Mr. Schaible stated it will be 12 feet from the corner of the house. Mr. Sacks stated he would like to hear from the applicants' engineer with respect to the stormwater collection system in the back yard and whether the pool could be reoriented to cover more of the back yard. Photos were entered into the record marked Exhibit 1. Mr. Schaible requested an adjournment. 5 APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2960 Nathan Anderson Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Gregg Lewis,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, noting that the presence of the owners. Mr. Lewis further explained that the plan is to convert the existing garage to great room, change a powder room to full bath, and enclose the existing porch and covered patio. The existing footprint is not changing. Photos were entered into the record marked exhibit 1. Mr. Carpaneto stated a garage is not necessary but the applicant must be able to legally park two cars. Mr. Lewis stated the angel of the garage is difficult,the neighbor's driveways is also at the property line and they do not use their garage either. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the requested variance. Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Marcus . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). 6 Ayes: O'Neill, Marcus, Simpson, Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: Wexler, King WHEREAS, Nathan Anderson, requested a variance to enclose two roofed over areas and convert garage to living space located at 146 East Valley Stream Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 638. 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), 240-37B(2)(a) and Section 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the 26 square foot roofed area as proposed to be enclosed has a side yard of 11 feet 8 inches where 15 feet is required,the 75 square foot roofed area as proposed to be enclosed has a side yard of 7 feet 8 inches where 10 feet is required,the 220 square foot garage conversion as proposed has a side yard of 6 feet 4 inches where 10 feet is also required; and further the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. WHEREAS,the Board examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The footprint of the existing structure will not change. The owners are primarily altering the use of the interior space rather than changing the exterior therefore no change will be apparent. The exterior will be a positive cosmetic change to the exterior.The project as described will create a more attractive building as viewed from nearby properties. 7 B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. Any such alternative would require changing the footprint and create additional variances as opposed to working in the existing area. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not alter the currant footprint or configuration of the 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 proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed additional impervious surface is only 116 square feet, which will not result significant additional runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 8 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.4 CASE NO.2961 Nick and Janice Raikhouski Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Open Public Hearing Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board explaining the proposed addition on the second floor over the existing nonconforming structure. He further stated that nonconformity is not unusual in the neighborhood. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Simpson, seconded by Mr. Sacks the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: O'Neill, Marcus, Simpson, Sacks 9 Nays: None Absent/Excused: Wexler, King WHEREAS, Nick and Janice Raikhouski, requested a variance to construct a second bedroom addition located at 101 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112, Lot 357. 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 240-39(B)(1) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the second floor addition as proposed has a front yard of 25.1 feet where 30 feet is required and further the addition increases 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 granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed changes being contemplated are within the existing footprint of the home. In fact the proposed nonconforming setback is similar to those in surrounding 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 benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. Due to the fact that the house is already nonconforming and the foot print is not being enlarged the Board did not see a reasonable alternative that would not also require a variance. 10 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. This is due to the fact the proposed construction conforms to the existing footprint of the house and does not significantly increase the bulk of the residence. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. To the contrary, the Board finds that the proposed addition,with reinforcement of the existing streetwall,will have a positive impact due to the fact there will be more uniformity with the facades of surrounding homes. Also,the construction will involve no increase in noise, light or runoff from the property. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 11 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. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 12