Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_05_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes DRAFT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 18,2015, HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel Absent/Excused:Jeffery King, Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate Mr. Wexler, Chairman, explained that at this time there are only four members present and stated that the applicant would need three votes in favor to be approved. If any applicant would like to adjourn the matter he or she may request to do so. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:46P.M. MINUTES The discussion of the minutes were postponed to the end of the meeting. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2989 Michael Mendelsohn 40 W.Garden Rd.Adjourned The matter was adjourned. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2990 Robert and Barbara Barber 7 Leafy Lane The public hearing continued. This application seeks to re-apportion the land to the adjacent property owners. A variance is required because with such reapportionment,the lot coverage of the subject property would be 39%where 35% is required. The application was previously approved in 2008. Mr. Barber stated that pursuant to a request by the Board, a survey has been supplied to calculate the impervious surface. A new Notice of Disapproval was issued by the Department of Building. Meredith Brawer,the proposed purchaser and adjacent property owner residing at 11 Leafy Lane, stated that the new border would be more natural and esthetically pleasing. The Board discussed the application There were no public questions or comments. 1 Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. Absent:Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Alternate WHEREAS, in connection with a proposed reapportionment of the subject property Robert and Barbara Barber requested a variance in an R-7.5 zone district on the premises located at 7 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126, Lot 485 and 477. 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) and 240-38F. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the proposed re-apportionment of Parcel 485 to Parcel 477 would create a rear yard setback of 5 feet(measured to the attached garage)where 25 feet is required, and further the lot coverage would be 39%where 35% is required 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. 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. 2 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 because the topography of the land as well as the structures thereon the will stay exactly as they are now. 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 any other method because the proposed reapportionment is intended to create a clearer visual definition between the common property line. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed reapportionment would allow only an additional 300 sq. feet of buildable floor area. Which is not substantial given the size of the lot.. 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 the environment because no changes are proposed with respect to either the existing structures or the topography.. 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: 3 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2991 Dan and Tania Thomas 10 Myrtle Blvd. Mr. Marcus stated that he is a neighbor of the applicant but he has no bias or conflict of interest with respect to this application. Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Gregory Lewis,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating this is a 159 ft. addition requiring a front, side and rear yard setback variance. The proposed addition is on top of the existing structure, with a bay window in kitchen and a second story master bath and enlarged master bedroom. Tania Thomas stated that there is no view of or access to the rear yard to watch 6 year-old playing outside.Therefore,they propose to reconfigure the kitchen with a door to the side yard and windows to view the rear. Also the house has only one full bathroom. Mr. Lewis stated that there is a 30 ft. natural rock wall in rear yard. The applicants also seek a variance for two air conditioning condenser units in the rear yard. The Board discussed the requested variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson. IV9� Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). 4 Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Seth Marcus, seconded by Evans Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Arthur Wexler Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Dan and Tania Thomas requested a variance to construct an addition in the rear yard and add two air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 10 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 347. 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), 240-39B.(3), 240-39B.(2)(a).240-38B.(3) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the rear one-story addition as proposed has a rear yard of 18.3 feet where 25 is required. The rear two-story addition has a rear yard of 21 feet where 25 is required, has a side yard of 5.7 feet where 8 feet is required. The air conditioning condenser units have a rear yard of 17.5 feet where 25 feet is required, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a 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: 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 because the addition would be built at a considerable distance from neighbors and the properties are 5 separated by a rock wall and the addition will not be visible from the street or adjacent 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 any other feasible method because the house is already nonconforming with respect to the required rear-yard setback so any addition would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed addition will be primarily within the existing footprint 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 addition would have a negligible environmental impact because it is not causing any substantial increase in lot coverage and will not be visible from street or to neighbors. 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. 6 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.2992 Brooke Leahy 89 W. Brookside Dr. Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mrs. Leahy stated that she purchased the subject property in 2010 and received an area variance to legalize a pre-existing air conditioning unit. She further stated she is now selling her home and has recently learned that an additional air conditioning unit purchased after 2010 requires a variance. Ms. Leahy presented a new survey to the Board, marked Exhibit A. The Board discussed the size and placement of the units. Mr. Wexler suggested that the applicant go back to the surveyor to get measurement to the property line. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Iqq After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus, Arthur Wexler Nays: None 7 Absent/Excused: Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Brooke Leahy requested a variance to legalize 2 air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 89 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 423. 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)(a), 240-37B(2)(a) and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the air conditioning condenser(number 1) has a side yard of 5 feet where 10 feet is required, sir conditioning condenser unit(number 2) has a side yard of 6 feet where 10 feet is required and further the air conditioning condenser unit 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. 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 because the condition exists and has existed for a long time. 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 any other feasible method because relocation of the air-conditioning units to conform with setback requirements would be impractical and cost-prohibitive. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 8 The Board finds that the variance is substantial in percentage terms of the setback however the encroachment into the setback is only in two small areas,which are shielded from neighboring properties. 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 physical or environmental impacts because the action will not result in any new development on 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. 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. 6. Applicant shall submit to the Department of Building an updated survey reflecting the actual dimensions of the encroachment including distance to the property lines. 9 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.2993 Rodney and Lori Dente 15 Little Farms Rd. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Evans Simpson. Ms. Dente addressed the Board stating that when they build an—as-of-right addition fourteen years ago, they also installed a patio over existing ledge rock. They have recently sold the residence and realized that the patio required a variance and are before the Board to legalize the patio. The Board discussed the application including questions about lot coverage. Mrs. Dente stated the patio consists of pavers over gravel and sand dust. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Iqq After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Seth Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson, Arthur Wexler Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Rodney and Lori Dente requested a variance to legalize an existing on grade patio on the premises located at 15 Little Farms Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211, Lot 373. 10 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 240-50. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the patio as built has a side yard of 1 foot where 5 feet is required 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 because the patio is built over ledge rock and has been in place for 14 years. 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 any other feasible method because the rear yard of this house is extremely narrow with a great amount of ledge rock underneath; there is very little space between the rear of the house and property line. The placement of the house on a small lot with two front yards dictates that this is the only possible location for a patio. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance initially seemed substantial given the distance to the property line but because the house itself is only nine feet from the property line,the Board does not find that the addition of a flat patio is substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 11 The Board finds that the patio will not have an adverse impact as it has been in existence for 14 years and underneath most of the patio is ledge rock, an impervious surface. Therefore,the patio would not generate any visual impacts or add to surface water 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. 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.2994 Kurt and Sarah Lippincott 54 Myrtle Blvd. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved 12 Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Evans Simpson. Steven Secor, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that there is no available parking area on the property and the applicants have been parking their cars in the Town right of way which is a dangerous situation. He further stated that they have looked at several different schemes and feel that the one presented is the best possible solution to allow parking on their own property. They are requesting a cutout to allow for 3 cars, 18 feet deep in the front yard. The Board discussed the magnitude of the request and suggested the applicant present other scenarios such as less deep cutout,terraced wall possibly parallel parking. Mr. Secor stated that borings were done and at 12 feet deep there was no ledge rock. The Board discussed the height of the wall and Mr. Secor stated that the wall is required for stability of the house but that they would examine whether the wall could be slightly stepped down. Mr. Wexler stated that that the Board would like to see scenarios that soften the impact of the wall to make it look less like a fortress. PUBLIC COMMENTS Rick Plate of 68 Myrtle Blvd. stated that the existing wall is high but visually continuous to neighbor. He asked what distance the proposed wall would be from the house. The Board discussed safety backing out from the parking area and whether there would be a railing on top of the wall and how planting could soften the visual impact of the wall. Motion:To adjourn the matter to June 24, 2015 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of December 8, 2015 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill. Abstain: Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the minutes of January 28, 2015 Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1). 13 Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Abstain: Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the minutes of February 25, 2015 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 1). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King. Abstain: Irene O'Neill. The minutes of March 25, 2015 were tabled. ADJOURNMENT Motion:To adjourn the meeting at 9:05 P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Arthur Wexler. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals 14