Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_06_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 24, 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,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Also Present: Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus, Ronald A. Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. MINUTES The minutes were not discussed. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2989 Michael Mendelsohn continuation Michael Mendelsohn, of 40 West Garden Road the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that they put the deck in over 10 years earlier without a permit, and recently found out that it not only needed a permit but a variance also. The rear property is small and sloped with at least a six foot grade difference making the back yard unusable without the deck. Mr. King stated that the deck is very private with a great deal of vegetative plantings of fairly mature evergreens. The Board discussed the deck. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King,Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. 1 After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Michael Mendelsohn, requested a variance to legalize an existing deck on the premises located at 40 West Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 99. 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(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 deck as built has a rear yard of 10.4 feet where 25 feet is required, has a side yard of 8.7 feet where 8 feet is required and further the deck 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. The deck is in keeping with homes in the immediate neighborhood and nearby properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 2 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance. The deck is existing there is no other means,vegetation has been planted, the plants are mature and decrease the visibility on three sides of the house the two side elevations and rear. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. In that the deck is small in nature the lot is a rather small lot,the house is roughly 1400 square feet+or-. So it is keeping with the character of the neighbor and the square footage of the deck is roughly 376 square feet. The present house is about 26 feet from the rear property line and anything in the rear of the house would require a variance and this is a gracious way of getting down to grade in the rear yard. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the deck will not have an adverse impact, as the owner has taken measures to minimize the impact in the immediate neighborhood with mature plantings. And by lowering the elevation of the deck closer to grade the site line from nearby properties has been decreased. 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. 3 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. 2 CASE NO.2994 Kurt and Sarah Lippincott Continuation Kurt Lippincott the owner addressed the Board stating they revised the plan as per the Boards suggestion, making the parking area smaller and lowering the height of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is 7 feet at the highest point. Six(6) letters from neighbors in favor of the new plan were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the new plan,the width of the parking spaces and the height of the wall. Steve Secon, the applicant's architect, stated this seems to be a much better solution. The average wall height is 6.7 feet. The top of the wall will require either a fence or plantings to prevent falls. Mr. Secon stated the wall will addressed with vegetation. The Board discussed the application. Public Comments Michael Manos, of 60 Myrtle Blvd., 2 houses down stated he agrees with the spirit of the plan, but voiced concern regarding the fence. He further stated that there are large trees on the property and is worried that there removal will change the topography of the area and cause flooding. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance 4 Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Kurt and Sarah Lippincott, requested a variance to construct a second story addition and create parking spaces on the premises located at 54 Myrtle Blvd., and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123, Lot 54. 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(2)(a), 240-39(2)(b), 240-79B(i), 240-52A, 240-39F and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the addition as proposed has a side yard of 15.8 feet where 18 feet is required, has a side yard of 15.8 feet where 18 feet is required. The parking spaces as proposed has a front set back of 0 feet where 25 feet is required, has a retaining wall with an average height of 6.7 feet where 5 feet is required, has a lot coverage of 35.5%where 35% 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. 5 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. Given the unusable situation in this particular application, the current situation is untenable and the applicant has sought the least impactful solution to alleviate that condition. Currently there is no legal parking for the property and the applicant has endeavored to create legal parking with the proviso that the Board passes the setback requirement. A change would be undesirable in the sense that the retaining wall would be modestly higher than the existing one however the benefits to the neighborhood far outweigh that. The addition is in keeping with the character and current scale of residence. The addition substantially follows the existing roof line it does not raise the existing roof line, it increases the bulk but not the footprint of the second floor in order to make the second floor habitable. The addition of the second floor is approximately 4 sq. feet. The area of the addition which intrudes into the set back is not substantial relative to the rest of the property. 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. No there is no reasonable alternative to this application given the nature of the property. The property and buildable area is circumscribed by the condition of the house that there is no alternative to increasing the livable area of the house without an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial in the sense that the property is so circumscribed that any variance would tend to be substantial given the size of the lot. The variance is not substantial in that the footprint of the house is not being increased by granting this variance. The addition substantially follows the existing roof line it does not raise the existing roof line, it increases the bulk but not the footprint of the second floor in order to make the second floor habitable. The addition of the second floor is approximately 4 sq. feet. The area of the addition which intrudes into the set back is not substantial relative to the rest of the property. 6 D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will have a positive impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood but due to the fact that the applicant will no longer be forced to park his car in the Town right-a way which is a safety and visual factor which will be alleviated by the granting of this variance. The Board finds no the addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is possibly self-created but the property when purchased by this applicant had this endemic problem which could not be solved by any means other than a variance so it is unusually this is not a self-created difficulty. Yes this is a self-created difficulty in the sense that the applicant desires more space in a fairly small residence but not determinative. The addition will not increase the impervious surface of the existing house. 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. 7 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.2995 HOWARD AND ANDREA LEAF Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Howard Leaf,the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the house is below grade and has had flooding problem and is requesting a variance for a generator for his sump pumps. The Board discussed the request, the elevation of the generator,the possible noise generation, Mr. Sacks stated that the front yard would have the least impact, or the south east side would not require a variance. Mr. Leaf responded that the south east side has a patio and the only usable outside area on the property. He further stated that he will landscape around the generator to mitigate noise. The Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments from the public. 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 Evans Simpson. After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Nays: None 8 Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Howard and Andrea Leaf, requested a variance to install a standby generator on the premises located at 282 Murray and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 653. 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 240-37-B(3) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the generator as proposed has a rear yard of 15 feet where 25 feet is required and further the generator increase 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; 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. The unit will only exercise 10-15 minutes per week or during a power outage and run only during hours permitted by Town code or between the hours of 11-2 whichever is more restricted. 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. 9 The applicant's goal is to have power during a power outage when there is a major rain storm given that they have experienced serious flooding in their basement due to the low level of the house on the property. In order to alleviate the flooding situation they need to install a generator and given the placement of the house on an angle on the property there are no alternatives where the unit could be placed on the property. The unit will be in a rear corner not visible to neighbors or from the street. It will be in a lower area since the property slopes down. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. The physical size is not substantial at 25X47 inches. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that given the small size of the pad that the unit will create impervious area but it is deminimus, and the adverse noise effect will be minimal given that it will run during the day and only for a very brief time each week. 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. 10 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.4 CASE NO.2996 REGINA SUSAN NEEDLEMAN Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Mrs. Needleman the owner addressed the Board stating she purchased house in 1978 with the addition already in place. She further stated the aluminum siding very old and the addition may have been in place before the previous owners purchased. Mr. Wexler stated he knows the addition has been there. 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 Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, seconded by Arthur Wexler. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. 11 After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Regina Susan Needleman, requested a variance to legalize an existing second floor addition on the premises located 173 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 116, Lot 221. 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 240-39(B)(a), 240-39B(2)(b) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the second floor addition as built has a side yard of 6.2 feet where 10 feet is required, has a total side yard of 12.56 feet where 20 feet is required, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming 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; 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. The property has existed in this condition for at least 37 years and this Board is not aware of any complaints or problems. 12 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. The structure has existed for 37 years on the premises. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial,the existing structure existed without the second floor and the second floor does not increase the impervious surface. The same setbacks existed previously. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the addition has not had an adverse impact on the environment for 37 years. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created, as it was only determined at a later date by the current owner, 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. 13 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. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. APPLI CATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2997 Edward and Sarah Keating Motion:To open the public hearing, Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Arthur Wexler. Diane Neff,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating this R-15 zone requiring a 40 foot front yard setback. The owners would like to improve their entry with a covered porch with steps and are asking for a 31 foot front yard variance. Ms. Neff entered a document from 7 neighbors stating they have no objection to the application marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the application, construction and measurements. Mr. Wexler stated that the actual addition has a minimal impact as the stairs are low to the ground. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. 14 Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Edward and Sarah Keating, requested a variance to construct a front entryway and stairs located at 8 Hawthorne Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 19. 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 240-36B(1) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the front entry as proposed has a front yard of 31 feet where 40 feet is required,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-15 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: 15 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. The addition of the structure itself will violate the 40 foot setback by about 2 feet, and looking at the area map homes that are on Hawthorne are much closer to the front property line then this house. So the addition of the actual structure conforms with the neighborhood. The homes of the immediate neighbors appear to be similar plus or minus. The steps are low in nature with a 31 foot setback. 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. The addition of the house now with no covered protection entry coming into the house and the door which is approximately 3 foot 2 from the stairs going to the second floor entry makes it not a comfortable condition. Since this is the entry and the door is coming forward and more space is required can't put it any other place in the house. The door opens into the entry hall which is 3 foot 2 wide therefore to get more space need to build out. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial even though 31 feet seems to be substantial the actual structure is only about 2 feet into the required front yard setback the remainder of this is stairs which are low in nature and not substantial given the size of the property. Probably.00035%the increase square footage is minimal. Adding 20 Square feet on a 1500 square foot plot. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the condition of the enclosed new entry and the steps will have no environmental impact, due to the fact it will be 20 square feet of impervious surface which is minimal, light and sound will remain the same. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 16 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. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary. 17