HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_04_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
APRIL 25, 2012 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/12, 1/25/2012,
2/29/12,and 3/28/2012)
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, Lot 118.
APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/12, 1/25/2012,
2/29/12,and 3/28/2012)
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, Lot 128.
APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2906 Andrew Fineberg(adjourned 3/28/12)
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.4 CASE NO. 2907 Joseph R.Crocco (adjourned 3/28/2012)
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.
APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2908 Stephan Laurans
Application of Stephan Laurans requesting a variance to construct a kitchen addition a deck expansion
and porch with a roof and columns on the premises located at 2 Briar Close and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105, Lot 461.
APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2909 Daniel Cohen
Application of Daniel Cohen requesting a variance to construct a front portico on the premises located
at 60 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405,
Lot 208.
1
Vi Roll Call.
Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building
Inspector(Not voting), Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel (Not voting), Lisa Hochman, Counsel (Not voting), Ernest
Odierna, Liaison (Not voting),Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Vu CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:50P.M.
APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2892 ADJOURNED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2893 ADJOURNED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2906 ADJOURNED NO ONE APPEARED
The Chairman, Mr. Wexler explained that there are only four Board members present and an applicant
would need three votes in favor to pass, if the applicant wishes to adjourn for a full Board to hear the
application they may do so.
Vu APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2907 JOSEPH Crocco 2500 Boston Post Road ( Pepe Porsche)
The matter was postponed until all the applicants representatives arrive.
Vu APPLICATION No. 5 Case No. Stephen Laurans 2 Briar Close
Donald Z. Schweter the applicants architect addressed the Board. Mr. Schweter entered 6 letters from
neighbors in favor of the plans into the record marked EXHIBIT 1
Mr. Schweter explained the application stating they are requesting to replace a small door with a wider
one,the new door will be 40 inches wide,with an open end gable for airiness.
The side elevation shows the simple portico.
The Board discussed the application with regard to the front yard measurements.
Mr. Wexler asked about the overhang projection and whether the application was noticed correctly, to
which Mr. Carpaneto responded that the measurement is and always has been to the foundation.
2
A discussion regarding the code ensued.
Mr. Wexler stated the Board requires that both the foundation and overhang be shown on the plan and
be renoticed.
Mr. Ryan stated that he will have to research the code and prior applications as the applicant stated that
8 Boulder was approved for the same type of overhang.
The application was held over for counsel to review the wording of the code.
Vu Vu APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 2907 Joseph R.Crocco (adjourned 3/28/2012)
2500 Boston Post Road
Continuation
Mr. Crocco, the applicant's architect, stated that the required letter from the property owner was sent
to the Building Department, and the new corrected notice requesting continuation of parking in the
front of the building was sent to the required neighbors.
Mr. Crocco futher stated that as the Board requested they searched the building department files for
coverage precentages of the neighboring properties, the apartment building on the corner of Dillon is
at 100%,the car dealership, next door is in New Rochelle,the Jeep dealership is partially in the Town
and New Rochelle.
The applicant is asking for 32.6%where 25% is permitted,the building is already over the coverage at
29.5%.
Mr. Crocco stated that they have been before the Board of Architectural Review and received approval
of the plan.
The new notice of disapproval was read into the record.
Mr. Ryan stated that Porsche rejected the site without the addition,the building front is already
encroaching into the front yard setback and parking was previously approved.
Criteria for approval was discussed.
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.
3
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Motion:to approve the requested variance
Action:Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Frederick Baron
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous e (summary:Yes=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus,Alternate.
IIVa
After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed
and ADOPTED
Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King
Nays: None
Absent: Marcus
WHEREAS,2500 Boston Post Road Associates LLC, by its Managing Partner Jonathan Wade,
requested variances 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, located in the "SB"Zoning District. [FRAINCINE: CONFIRM]
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 to
Section 240-45A.(3) regarding maximum building coverage of 25% (See 240-46C.) and 240-45B(1)
regarding parking in the front of any building (See 240-46);
WHEREAS,2500 Boston Post Road Associates LLC(Managing Partner Jonathan Wade)
submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application.
4
WHEREAS,the addition as proposed has a building coverage of 32.6%where 25% is required
pursuant to Section 240-45A.(3) (See 240-46); and the addition proposes parking in front of the building,
although it has a front yard setback of 51 feet 4 inches where 75 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-45B(1). (See 240-46);
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 hearing
thereon;
WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6
NYCRR §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 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.
By way of introduction,the Board notes that the applicant is seeking to increase the
building footprint by a nearly imperceptible 3 percent (32.6—25= 7.6; 7.6/25 =3.04) to
allow it to meet the standards of a modern automobile showroom. In addition the
variance to permit parking in the front yard setback is a continuation of the previous
circumstance,which involved parking in the front yard setback. The Board further notes
that, given the irregular shape of the lot,the front yard setback increases to greater than
75 feet toward the western border of the lot.
A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
the area variance:
The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby property owners by the granting of the
requested variances because the site had continuously been used for automobile
sales,that the site is surrounded by similar uses (i.e., car dealership, shopping center
and general commercial use);that the proposed variances will not be of such a
nature as to affect either the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties;
and that the proposed changes will enhance the appearance of the site and thus
benefit the surrounding area.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicants other than an area variance:
5
The Board finds that an increase in the showroom area of the dealership without the
requested variances would cause a material reduction in the service area contained
in the building and thus would not meet the business requirements of the
applicant/proposed lessee. With the requested variances,which are minimal,the
applicant will be able to increase the showroom area in accordance with modern
automobile retain standards and maintain adequate auto servicing capacity.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The Board finds that the requested variances are not substantial because the 3
percent incremental increase in building coverage will not be perceptible, and
because the lot is already 100% covered in impervious surfaces. As to the variance
for parking in the front yard setback, this is merely a continuation,with minor
variations, of the condition that prevailed for earlier automobile dealerships as this
location.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:
The Board finds that the proposed variances will not have an adverse impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because these will not
increase impervious surfaces at the site, which is already 100 percent covered with
impervious surfaces, and will not increase light or noise impacts at the site because it
will merely duplicate the type of operations that have historically been conducted
there.
E. Whether the difficulty is self created:
The Board finds the difficulty is self-created to the extent that the applicant/proposed
lessee is seeking to meet its minimum generic site requirements by obtaining the
requested variances. But the Board finds that this factor is not determinative in the
circumstances presented.
2. For reasons stated above,the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of this 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,THEREFORE, BE IT
6
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 Boards and as agreed to by the
applicant.
2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for
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 and
completed within (2)years of the date of said permit.
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.5 CASE NO. 2908 Stephen Laurans 2 Briar Close.
Reconvened
Section 240-51 of the Town Code was discussed
Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant has a number of possibilities they can renotice the application to
show the overhang, ask for an interpretation of the code, push back the overhang so as not to be
required to renotice. Meanwhile the Board will research the history of how overhangs have been dealt
with in the past i.e. 8 Boulder and Mountain Road.
Mr. Schweter stated that his client wants the portico and asked for an adjournment to renotice.
Mr. Ryan asked the secretary to look into getting the stenographers minutes regarding Boulder and
Mountain.
Motion:To adjourn the public Hearing
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
7
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous e (summary:Yes=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus,Alternate.
Mr. Ryan stated the applicant can ask for an interpretation of the Code in writing.
APPLICATION NO.6 CASE NO. 2909 Daniel Cohen. 60 Howell Avenue
Leslie Cohen,the applicant, addressed the Board. Mrs. Cohen stated that the entrance to the house is
akward and hazardous, they are asking for variance to get a safer and nicer entry.
Motion: To open the public Hearing
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous e (summary:Yes=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus,Alternate.
The Cohen's brought photos of the entrance and gave them to the secretary, who marked them Exhibit
land
Mr. Wexler discussed the plan, and questioned contractor. The contractor John Sullivan responded to
Mr. Wexler's questions.
The Board discussed the application stating it was not adequate, a side elevation is required as well as a
site plan.
Mr. Wexler further stated that that the dangerous condition was not improved by the plan and
suggested that a platform elevated to the same level as the threshold was needed to correct the
problem
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Gordon Oppenheimer, a neighbor stated he has no objection.
Gayle Heiler also a neighbor stated that she no objection.
8
Motion:To adjourn the matter
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus.
Vu MINUTES
Motion:To approve the Minutes of December 5, 2011 with technical corrections by counsel
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill.
Abstain:Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus.
Motion:To approve the minutes of January 25, 2012 with technical corrections by counsel
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill.
Abstain:Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus.
Motion:To approve the minutes of October 26, 2011with technical corrections by council
9
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill.
Abstain:Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus
Motion:To approve the minutes of February 29, 2012 with technical corrections by counsel
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill.
Abstain:Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus.
Motion: To approve the minutes of September 26, 2011 and June 22, 2011 with technical corrections
by counsel.
Action:Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill.
Abstain:Jeffery King.
Absent: Seth Marcus.
Vu ADJOURNMENT
10
Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 10:01P.M.
Action:Approved
Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill.
Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1).
Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill.
Abstain: None
Absent: Seth Marcus,Jeffery King
NEXT MEETING
The next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is tentatively changed to June 6 at 7:30 P.M.The secretary
will confirm the date.
Minutes prepared by
Francine M. Brill
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary.
11