Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_05_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MAY 28,2014 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,Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Also Present:Ronald Carpaneto,Building Inspector,Lisa Hochman,Counsel. Absent/Excused:Seth Marcus,Jeffery King,Kevin G.Ryan,Counsel. The Chairman,Mr.Wexler,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. Mr.Wexler stated that 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 7:45 P.M. MINUTES The minutes were tabled.. Nr,_;< APPLICATION NO.1 CASE NO.2859 Damian and Cherie Schaible continuation Mr.Schaible the owner/applicant,and Dan Sherman,the applicant's architect,and the engineer Commented[LH11:Name? addressed the Board. Mr.Schaible stated that he is requesting 2 variances;one pertains to the distance of the pool from the house and the other is for retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height. Last month the applicant was asked to bring the engineer to discuss drainage,and to get comments from the effected neighbors. The Board discussed the proposal and discussed possible alternatives to the placement of the pool and the height of the proposed walls and the material to be used. Board member.Simpson stated that he is concerned that approval could create a precedent. Drainage was discussed. The planting plan was discussed. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 John Carnochan,of 26 Marbourne Drive,stated that the neighbors most impacted are the Lees who he stated objected to the application,but are not present. Mr.Carnochan further stated that he believes he is impacted because he will see the proposed development through the Lees property. Lois Carnochan stated that the drawings make the proposed development look like a hotel and in the winter it will be quite visible. She further stated that she is concerned about drainage impacts. Mr.Wexler questioned the magnitude of the plan and how to soften the impact. He further stated that the hemlocks shown on the lower part of the plan are actually on the Lees property. Mr.Wexler asked if there was an alternative to their request for variances for wall heights. Mr. Sherman responded possibly a smaller pool moved to the left of the property. Mr.Wexler asked the applicant to temporarily adjourn the matter,to which Mr.Schaible responded yes. Motion: To temporary adjourn the matter Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Seconded by Irene O'Neill. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO.2962 Matthew and Diane Lovett Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Amanda Linhart the applicant's architect addressed the Board,stating the nonconforming house was built in 1915 and is located in the rear of the property. They propose to increase lot coverage from 39% to 40%by adding only 79 square feet to the lot coverage. Mr.Wexler asked whether any impervious surface could be eliminated. The Board discussed the application There were no public questions or comments. 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 2 Moved by Irene O'Neill,seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote:Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. After review,on motion of Ms.O'Neill,seconded by Mr.Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King,Seth Marcus WHEREAS,Matthew and Diana Lovett requested a variance to construct two rear yard additions on the premises located at 39 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck(the"Town")as Block 122,Lot 278;and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240- 39B.(3)and 240-69;and WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals (the"Board"for reasons set forth in such application;that the second floor addition over the existing first floor as proposed has a rear yard of 7 feet 8 inches where 25 feet is required,that the two story addition as proposed has a rear yard of 11 feet 9 inches where 25 feet is required,that the proposed development would result in a total lot coverage of 40%where 35%is permitted;and further that the proposed additions increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R- 6 Zone District;and 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;and 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. 3 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 property under consideration is a pre-existing nonconforming residence located close to the rear lot line. As a result,virtually any construction to extend the back of the house would require a variance. The two additions as proposed will not be visible from the street and partially shielded from neighbors. 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 because,given its location near the rear lot line,any expansion not requiring a variance would impact the front of the house,which would be much less attractive.. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition increases square footage by less than 80 square feet resulting in a 1%lot coverage increase. . D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that due to the small increase in square feet and lot coverage,the variance will not have an adverse impact with respect to light,noise or runoff or erosion. 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: 4 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. 2963 MARSH Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Seconded by Evans Simpson. Stephen Marsh,the applicant,addressed the Board stating his request to expand the left side of the house and create a two story addition. He further stated that anything in the rear and side yards requires a variance as the house is legally nonconforming. The Board discussed the application. 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 Evans Simpson,seconded by Irene O'Neill. After review,on motion of Evans Simpson,seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. 5 Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King,Seth Marcus WHEREAS,Stephen Marsh,requested a variance to construct a two story addition and a second floor addition over the existing garage on the premises located at 22 Orsini Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 1,Lot 174;and 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),240-39(2)(a)and 240-69;and WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals (the"Board")for reasons set forth in such application;that the two story addition as proposed has a rear yard of 14 feet 5 inches where 25 feet is required and that the second floor addition over the existing garage has a side yard of 5 feet 11 inches where 8 feet is required and further that the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-6 Zone District;and 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;and 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 proposed renovation is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the Board expressed that the proposed addition would enhance the appearance of the house. 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 because the pre-existing nonconforming setbacks would require a variance for any reasonable proposed addition. 6 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the Floor Area Ratio("FAR") for the house will be 15%below the maximum FAR presented and would not increase the extent to which the house already projects into the rear yard setback. 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 because it will not create any substantial drainage issues,and no aesthetic issues. 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. 7 APPLICATION NO.1 CASE NO.2959 Damian and Cherie Schaible Reconvened The Board continued to discuss the proposed plan. Mr.Wexler discussed the elevations and the height of the walls,and suggested the applicant try to make the walls 5 feet therefore not requiring a variance. Mr.Sacks stated that he would like to see the scope of the project lessened. Mr.Simpson voiced concern regarding the railing and also stated that he has reservations regarding the placement of the pool and the scope of the proposed plan. Mr.Sherman suggested making the lower walls 5 feet,therefore not requiring a variance. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of April 23,2014. Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill,Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote:Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. ADJOURNMENT Motion:To adjourn the meeting at 9:36 P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,Chairman,seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote:Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Evans Simpson,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Minutes prepared by Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 8