Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_06_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 23, 2010 IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA: APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2860 Jeff Rosenzweig (adjourned 3/24/2010, 4/28/2010, 5/26/2010) Public Hearing Continued Application of Jeff Rosenzweig requesting a variance to legalize an existing gravel parking space on the premises located at 150 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 130. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 2862 Scott Spielberger adjourned 4/28/2010, 5/26/2010) Public Hearing Continued Application of Scott Speilberger requesting a variance to legalize an existing central air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 42 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck 216, Lot 130. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2863 John Fallon and Rebecca Mott (adjourned 5/26/2010) Application of John Fallon and Rebecca Mon requesting a variance to install a fence atop an existing wall on the premises located at 45 Harmon Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 205, Lot 59. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO. 2868 Jacobe DeNaurois (adjourned 5/23/10) Application of Jacobe DeNaurois requesting a variance to install a 6 foot high fence in the front yard on the premises located at 57 Mohegan Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 205, Lot 59. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2869 Brooke and Jason O'Connor Application of Brooke and Jason O'Connor requesting a variance to construct a first and second floor addition 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. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO. 2870 Marla Frankel Application of Marla Frankel requesting a variance to legalize an existing enclosed covered porch on the premises located at 5 Sackett Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 312. 1 APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 2871 Toshio and Teresa Kiso Application of Toshio and Teresa Kiso requesting a variance to legalize an existing an existing rear wood deck on the premises located at 16 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 228, Lot 360. The meeting called to order at 7:50 P.M. Roll Call. Present: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Robert Viner, Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector(Not voting), Kevin Ryan, Counsel (Not voting). Absent/Excused: David Fishman, Liaison. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2860 JEFF ROSENZWEIG, 150 East Garden Road (Hearing Continued—Previously Heard/Adjourned 3/24/10, 4/28/10, 5/26/10) Jeff Rosenzweig addressed the Board. The Board discussed the parking space and Town code. Mr. Rosenzweig asked the Board to vote on the matter. IVa Motion: To approve the existing gravel parking space Action: Approved Moved by Robert Viner, Seconded by Arthur Wexler. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 2, Abstain= 0). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner. No: Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Mr. Viner, seconded by Mr. Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED 3-2 Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Viner Nays: Baron, Meister WHEREAS, Jeff Rosenzweig requested a variance to legalize an existing gravel parking space on the premises located at 150 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 130; 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 240-79B; WHEREAS, Jeff Rosenzweig submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application,; 2 WHEREAS, the premises with the existing gravel parking space has a front yard of 11.3 feet where 25 feet is required; 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. an, 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. 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 neighborhood as it will eliminate jockeying of cars and provide for safer egress onto the street. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the benefit sought cannot be achieved by any other method as any other method would require the applicant to jockey cars and would not remedy the risk associated with backing out from the driveway into street with limited sight distance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that because there is no structure to be erected and the parking space is pervious, the requested variance is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: 3 The Board finds that the variance would have no adverse impacts to neighbors because the applicant will, as a condition to this variance, place plantings around the space to screen it from the street, and and because the use of gravel, a pervious surface, will not generate water runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds the hardship is self-created; however this factor is not determinative. 2. For the 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 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 Board and as agreed to by the applicant. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above, including plantings to screen the space from the street, 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 six (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 two (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. 6. The parking area will be screened with shrubbery of 3 1/2 feet in height. 4 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Application No. 2 Case No. 2862 Scott Spielberger, 42 Hillside Road (Continued Hearing—Previously Heard/Adjourned 4/28/10, 5/26/10) Scott Spielberger, the applicant, addressed the Board. Photos of the neighbor's air conditioner were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the decibel level of the neighbor's unit. IVa Motion: To approve the variance request. Action: Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Ronald Meister. OvIN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Viner, Baron, Meister Nays: None WHEREAS, Scott Spielberger requested a variance to legalize an existing air conditioning unit on the premises located at 42 Hillside Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128, Lot 130. 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 240-38B(2)(a) and 240-69; and WHEREAS, Scott Spielberger submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application, and WHEREAS, the air conditioning condenser unit as installed has a side yard of 5 feet where 10 feet is required; and WHEREAS, the air conditioning condenser unit increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; and 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; and 5 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. 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 the granting of the variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because the unit will not be visible from the street and because the noise level from the unit will be mitigated by a "noise blanket" which will ensure that its noise level will be no greater than that of previously approved units in the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the benefit cannot be achieved by a feasible alternative that would have less neighborhood impacts because the proposed location minimizes both the noise from the unit as well as its visibility. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the equipment is the quietest available, compact and will be located so as to minimize visibility. 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 unit will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood because the unit's already low noise level will be minimized by a sound blanket, and its visual impact will be minimized both by its 6 location as well as by screening that will be required as a condition of this variance. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the hardship is self-created, this factor is not determinative. 2. For the 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 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 Board 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 six (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 two (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. IVE Application No. 3. Case No.2863 John Fallon and Rebecca Mott, 45 Harmon Drive (Continued Hearing—Previously Heard/Adjourned 5/26/10) 7 John Fallon, the applicant, addressed the Board, requesting a three-foot picket fence atop a retaining wall. The Board discussed the fence material and color as well as the placement of the fence with regard to the hedges presently on the site. The Board and Mr. Fallon discussed the placement of the hedges and the specifications of the fence. It was suggested that Mr. Fallon call the fence contractor to confirm the size of the spacing between the slats in the fence. The hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to call the contractor. IVm Application No.4 Case No. 2868 Jacobe DeNaurois, 57 Mohegan Road (Previously Heard/Adjourned 5/26/10) There was no sign posted and no one appeared. The matter was adjourned. IVm Application No. 5 Case No. 2869 Brooke and Jason O'Connor 89 West Brookside Trevor Spearman of Spearman Architectural Design addressed the Board to request a variance for a second floor addition to a nonconforming house. IVa Motion: To open the Public Hearing Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. The Board discussed the requested variances. There were no questions or comments from the public. ovm Motion: To close the Public Hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Ronald Meister Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. ovm Motion: To approve the variance request. Action: Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron. ovm Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. 8 After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Viner, Baron, Meister Nays: None WHEREAS, Brooke and Jason O'Connor requested a variance to a second floor addition on the premises located at 89 West Brookside and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 423; 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 240-37B.(2)(a), 240-37B(2)(b), 240-37F and 240-69; WHEREAS, Brooke and Jason O'Connor submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the addition as proposed has a side yard of 9.31 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B.(2)(a); WHEREAS, the addition has a second side yard of 8.56 feet (where 15 feet is required) which causes the total side yard to be 17.87 feet where 25 feet is required; WHEREAS, the additions increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming; 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. an, 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. 9 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 the granting of the variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood because the existing front footprint will only be minimally changed and the addition in rear of the house is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that because the property is a long and narrow lot, options to expand are limited and any other alternative would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the street view of the house will remain the same and there is only a small intrusion into the side and rear yards. In addition, the removal of the existing rear yard shed will minimize lot coverage and impervious surfaces. 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 there will be no adverse impact to surrounding properties because there will be no tree removal, additional noise or light, and the applicant will provide an appropriate storm water management plan. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds the difficulty is self created but this factor is not determinative. 2. For the 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 10 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 Board 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 six (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 two (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. Application No. 4 Case No. 2863 John Fallon and Rebecca Mott, 45 Harmon Drive (Hearing Reconvened) John Fallon contacted the fence installer regarding the spacing between the pickets. He stated that the three-inch picket has three inches of space in between each slat of the picket fence. The Board discussed the fencing with the applicant and the contractor, who was on speaker phone. ovm Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. ovm Motion: To approve the variance Action: Approve, Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. 11 OvIN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Viner, Meister Nays: None WHEREAS, John Fallon and Rebecca Mott requested a variance to install a fence on the retaining wall on the premises located at 45 Harmon Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 216, Lot 317; 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 240-52A; WHEREAS, John Fallon and Rebecca Mott submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the fence as proposed atop the existing wall has a total height of 6 feet where 4 feet is permitted; 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. an, 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. 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 the granting of the variance will not create an 12 undesirable change or detriment because there are other nearby properties with fences and the applicant's proposed fence will allow the plantings behind the fence to grow thru and soften the effect of the fence on the neighborhood. Further the Board finds that, due to the topography of the applicant's property and the proximity of the yard to the street, the fence will have a positive effect on the neighborhood by improving safety. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the retaining wall on the property line makes it difficult to erect a fence and, as such, any fence that would perform the required safety function would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: In light of the pre-existing 3-foot retaining wall, a 3-foot fence at the property line should not be considered substantial. 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 there will be no adverse impact on the environment because (1) applicant will, as condition to this variance, install plantings inside the fence in such a manner that the plantings will grow through the three-inch spaces between the the fence slats, and (2) the fence will not generate any light, noise or stormwater runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the difficulty is self-created, it is not determinative. 2. For the 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 RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 13 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 and as agreed to by the applicant. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above, including plantings of a type that will grow through the fence and soften its appearance, 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 six (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 two (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. IVm Application No. 6 Case No. 2870 Marla Frankel ovm Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Robert Viner. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Ms. Frankel, the applicant, addressed the Board requesting a variance to legalize an existing enclosed porch. In 1982 the porch was changed from screened to glass enclosed. There were no questions or comments from the public. ovm Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Mr. Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. 14 OvIN Motion: To approve the existing glass enclosed covered porch. Action: Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Frederick Baron. OvIN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Viner, Baron, Meister Nays: None WHEREAS, Marla Frankel requested a variance legalize an existing enclosed covered porch on the premises located at 5 Sackett Circle and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 312; 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 240-36B(3) and 240-69; WHEREAS, Brooke and Jason O'Connor submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the enclosed covered porch as built has a rear yard of 11.9 feet where 25 feet is required; WHEREAS, the enclosed covered porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; 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. an, 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 15 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 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 neighborhood because (1) the porch has been in place for decades, including the time before it was enclosed as part of the original structure; (2) the enclosure did not increase the footprint of the structure; (3) as the enclosed porch faces a wooded area it is not visible to nearby houses. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goal by any other feasible method because the footprint of the porch is original to the house and the irregular shape of the property makes it infeasible to place the enclosed porch anywhere else that would not also require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not increase the footprint of the original structure. 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 there will be no adverse impact to the neighborhood because the porch has been in place more than eighty years, including the 28 years since it has been enclosed, and because the requested variance will not generate any significant additional light, noise or stormwater runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the difficulty is self-created, it is not determinative. 2. For the 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. 16 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: 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 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 six (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 two (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. Application No. 7 Case No. 2871 Toshio and Teresa Kiso Larry Gordon addressed the Board. OvE Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Larry Gordon, of Gordon and Yesdadt Architects, addressed the Board to legalize an existing deck that was built 35 year's ago. Mr. Gordon entered two photos into the record marked exhibit 1 and 2 showing the old and new deck. The Board discussed the 17 deck, the nonconforming lot and the applicant's ability to gain access to the rear yard from the main level. There were no questions or comments from the public. IVa Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved, Moved by Robert Viner, Seconded by Ronald Meister. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Mr. Viner, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Viner, Meister Nays: None WHEREAS, Toshio and Teresa Kiso requested a variance to legalize an existing rear wood deck on the premises located at 16 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 228, Lot 360; 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 240-35B(3); WHEREAS, Toshio and Teresa Kiso submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the rear deck as built has a rear yard of 21.8 feet where 40 feet is required; WHEREAS, the enclosed covered porch increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; 18 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. an, 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. 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 the granting of the variance will not create an adverse impact on the neighborhood because the present deck was constructed ten years ago to replace in-kind an existing deck that was in place at the time the applicants purchased the property. In addition, the Board notes that the applicants' neighbors have expressed support of the variance. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the benefit cannot be fully achieved by another alternative because the living area of the home is on the second floor and the deck is intended to be accessed directly from the living area. In addition, the deck provides a means of egress from the living area, in which case, the only alternative would be a stairway from the second floor which would have visual and impervious surface effects similar to, albeit less than, the existing deck. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because, as a non-solid structure the massing is minimal and it is placed at a considerable distance from the neighbors' homes. 19 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 there is no adverse impact to the neighborhood as there will be no significant visual impact and there will be no increase in noise, light or runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the difficulty is self-created, this factor is not determinative. 2. For the 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 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 Board 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 six (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 two (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. 20 MINUTES OvE OvE Motion: To approve the March & April minutes Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. OvE Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Nays: None OvE Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 10:30P.M. Action: Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Frederick Baron. OvE Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Nays: None Minute prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary 21