Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_06_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 22, 2011 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPLICATION NO. 1 Case No. 2885 David Reid Munroe Application of David Reid Munroe requesting a variance to construct a new one story addition with roof deck, and a new front porch on the premises located at 767 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 50. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2887 Lara Gordon and Robert Freeman Application of Lara Gordon and Robert Freeman requesting a variance to construct a new kitchen addition on the premises located at 4 Kenmare Road and known on Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 391. Vi Roll Call. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Alternate Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Director of Building, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Ronald Meister, Robert Viner, David Fishman, Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:52p.m. Vu APPLICATION No. 1 CASE No. 2885 David Reid Munroe—767 Forest Avenue The proposed porch has a front yard of 7+-feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(1), the proposed one story addition has a front yard of 11+-feet where 30 feet is also required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the proposed fence has a height of 8 feet where 4 feet is required pursuant to section 240-52A; the masonry steps as proposed have approximately 52 square feet within the front yard setback where 40 feet is required and the stairs project 12 feet into the front yard setback where 8 feet is required, both pursuant to Section 240-51A and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. 1 Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mr. Wexler stated that there were only four Board members present and that an applicant would need a vote of 3 in favor to be approved. If any applicant wish's to adjourn the matter they have the right to do so. Justin Minieri,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. He entered photos into the record marked Exhibit 1. Mr. Minieri stated that they were presented with a dilemma,the house was originally a small cottage which is nonconforming and any work would require a variance. The wood deck is in disrepair and the applicant is proposing to replace it in the same location, over the existing storage area, which is also in need of repair. The applicant proposes to create an extra bedroom in the storage space. The side and front yard dimensions would not change. Also the house presently does not have a front door;the proposal is to replace the basement steps with a small front porch and entry door in the corner, taking less footprint then the current stairs. A variance is also needed for a trellis arbor and entry gate where the wing wall currently is. The Board discussed the trellis and wether it is a design feature of the house or a fence. Mr. Ryan read the definition of a fence into the record and stated that a variance is required for the trellis. Mr. Munroe entered letters from the neighbors into the record marked Exhibit 2. 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 Seth Marcus, Alternate. Motion:To approve the following requested variances with respect to the house.The proposed porch has a front yard of 7+-feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the proposed one story addition has a front yard of 11+-feet where 30 feet is also required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(1), the masonry steps as proposed have approximately 52 square feet within the front yard setback where 40 feet is required and the stairs project 12 feet into the front yard setback where 8 feet is required, both pursuant to Section 240-51A and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill 2 After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Meister,Viner WHEREAS, Mr. David Reid Munroe, requested a variance to construct a new one story addition with roof deck, and a new front porch on the premises located at 767 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map as the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 50. 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 Section 240-39B(2). WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for the following variance(s)to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application:The proposed porch has a front yard of 7+-feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the proposed one story addition has a front yard of 11+-feet where 30 feet is also required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the masonry steps as proposed have approximately 52 square feet within the front yard setback where 40 feet is required and the stairs project 12 feet into the front yard setback where 8 feet is required, both pursuant to Section 240-51A and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 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 the granting of the variance. The Board finds that the changes being proposed are of a very small compared to the existing nonconformity. Passersby will not likely notice any changes as a result of these variances. The variances are necessary because of structural changes that are being made to the house,which was built close to the street and is therefore nonconforming. 3 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 house as built is to a large extent outside of the currently permitted building envelope. As a result,to make any changes other than a direct replacement would require variances. However, direct replacement would not achieve the objectives of the applicant. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The requested variances are substantial in terms of numerical deviations from the area requirements for this lot. However,the variances deviate minimally from the existing nonconforming structure and will largely be unnoticeable,the changes will not have a significant negative effect. 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 variances will be virtually unnoticeable and will involve no additional noise, light or runoff. Accordingly,there will not be an adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that although the need for the variances is self-created this issue,this is not dispositive 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 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 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 June 22, 2011. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building as part of any application for a building permit in connection with this approval. 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. 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. Application No. 1 (continued) Motion:To approve the following variance for the fence included in the above application: the proposed fence has a height of 8 feet where 4 feet is required pursuant to section 240-52A; Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Meister,Viner WHEREAS, Mr. David Reid Munroe, requested a variance to construct a new one story addition with roof deck, and a new front porch on the premises located at 767 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map as the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 50. 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 Section 240-39B(2). WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for the following variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application: the proposed fence has a height of 8 feet where 4 feet is required pursuant to section 240-52A; . 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 5 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 the granting of the variance. The Board finds with regard to the proposed fence with a height of eight feet where four is required that unlike most of the fences considered by the Board,this fence is not on the property line. It is essentially a structural element of the house and deck more than a fence. There will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood the fence replaces a structure of similar height that currently extends from the roof line of the house. As such, it will present no substantial change in the aspect of the house from the street. 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 applicant cannot achieve his goal by any other means. The fence needs to be in that location to achieve privacy for the deck which is attached to the house, and which is already close to the front property line and thus nonconforming. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that while the variance could be considered substantial,the fence needs to be that high to be in keeping of the house as noted above. Further, it is only considered a fence because it is not technically attached to the house, but the line of the fence is in line with the front of the house and it will appear to be a part of the main structure. 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 neighborhood no additional; light, noise or runoff. As noted, the fence will not have an adverse visual impact. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 6 The Board finds that while this difficulty is self-created,this consideration is not dispositive under the circumstances presented. 1. 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 neighbor or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 2. 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 this date. 2. As part of any application for a building permit in connection with this approval,the Applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval of the Director of Building reflecting any conditions or modifications required by the Board as a condition of this approval. 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. 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. All lighting placed on the deck should be faced down and not toward the neighbors. Application No.2 Case No.2887 Lara Gordon and Robert Freeman—4 Kenmare Rd. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 24.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), has rear yard of 20.3 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. 7 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Liam Winters,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that all perimeter walls are nonconforming and would like to square off the house. The house has 3 front yards. The house presently is 2 stories plus an attic. He explained the plans stating that they are only adding on the first floor. Mr. Winters further state that the construction will not be visible from Harmony Drive. Mr. Baron raised the possibility that that the maintenance of the dense screening on Forest Park could be a condition of the resolution. 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=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Ms. O'Neill, Seconded by Mr. Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Alternate. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: Meister,Viner WHEREAS, Ms. Lara Gordon and Mr. Robert Freeman, requested a variance to construct a new kitchen addition on the premises located at 4 Kenmare Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map as the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 391. 8 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 Section 240-39B(1, 240-39B(3). WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application, the addition as proposed has a front yard of 24.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), has a rear yard of 20.3 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 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 the granting of the variance. The Board finds that the construction of this addition will not cause an undesirable change.This a very modest addition to house that will merely square off a rear corner where there is currently a family room. The current structure is awkward and not functional. The alteration will render the interior space more useable. The proposed design is consistent with the character of the rest of the building. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. Given the nature of the property which has 3 front yards,the applicant has limited options to expand, even in a minimal way. Therefore the Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goals without requiring a variance and that the requested variance is the nimimum that will achieve the Applicant's objectives. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 9 The Board finds the variance is not substantial. Given the high screening on that side of the house, the alteration will not be visible from the street. There are no houses next to this residence. The small square footage that would encroach into in the required yard amounts to about%% of the lot area. 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 fact that this is a very modest addition and has existing landscaping elements that will effectively hide it from the street, it will have minimal impact visually. In addition,the proposed design will be situated over an existing impermeable surface and therefore will create only minimal runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds the difficult is a self-created, but 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 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 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 June 22, 2011. 2. As part of any application for a building permit in connection with this approval,the Applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval of the Director of Building reflecting any conditions or modifications required by the Board as a condition of this approval. 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. 10 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. The applicant must maintain the screening along Devon Road as discussed and agreed with the Board, with such screening to be shown in plans to be submitted as part of a building permit application. MINUTES Motion: Minutes of May 25, 2011 were approved with technical corrections Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Alternate. The next meeting is scheduled for 7/27/11 Adjourned on motion duly made. Minutes Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11