Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_06_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 25, 2014 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present: Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. Absent/Excused:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8: 05P.M. Ms. O'Neill explained that there are only three members present and stated that the applicant would need three votes in favor to be approved. If any applicant would like to adjourn the matter he or she may request to do so. MINUTES The minutes of May were tabled. Mr. Carpaneto stated that Application No. 2 requested an adjournment. The application were taken out of order. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2965 Cameron and Amalie Howard Mr. King stated that he is a neighbor of the applicant. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seconded by Jeffery King. Mr. Howard,the applicant, addressed the Board, stating they are requesting a 3 and 1/2 foot-variance to legalize the air conditioning unit that was installed in 2003 without a permit. The unit as installed is approximately 28 feet from the neighbor's house. The unit is screened on 3 sides. Mrs. Howard stated the neighbor was invited but he is not well. She further stated that he stated he has no problem with the unit. Mr. Sacks stated the survey does not seem accurate and Mr. Howard responded that a new survey was done today. 1 There were no public comments or questions. Mr. Howard asked for a decision tonight as the house is for sale. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seconded by Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Irene 0' Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes: Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(3-0). Ayes: Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson,Arthur Wexler WHEREAS,Cameron and Amalie Howard, requested a variance to legalize a central air conditioning unit located at 3 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133, Lot 116; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-38B(2)(B); and WHEREAS,the central air conditioning condenser unit has a side yard of 6.5 feet where 10 feet is required for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District; and WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon. 2 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 the audible sound will not be and intrusion to the neighbor at 1 Lafayette Road and further finds that there is no undesirable change in the neighborhood as other homes in the immediate area have condensing units. 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 proposed location of the unit is preferable to other locations because there is more buffer area and vegetation to mitigate any potential disruption to neighbors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is visually screened and the audible sound is consistent with the existing noise level in the neighborhood. 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 not adversely impact the neighborhood because it is shielded on three sides with fencing and shrubbery and therefore not visible from the street or neighboring houses. 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 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2959 Damian and Cherie Schaible Mr. Schaible,the owner, addressed the Board and gave a brief summary of the proposal. He further stated that to address prior expressed concerns he had a water study done and the height of the walls have been reduced. He stated that all but one neighbor signed a letter in favor of the application and that the neighbor that did not sign did not come to the meeting. Also, he noted that the pool has been moved further into the rear yard. As a result of design changes,the number of variances has been reduced to the top wall with the railing around the pool. The Board discussed the plan,the grill,the distance of the pool from the house, placement of the pool equipment and the vegetation on the wall terraces. Erosion control measures were discussed, as well as the material for the retaining wall. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved 4 Moved by Jonathan Sacks,Alternate, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes: Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus, Evans Simpson, Arthur Wexler WHEREAS, Damian Schaible, owner, requested a variance to construct an in-ground swimming pool, retaining walls, patios and fences on the premises located at 18 Wagon Wheel and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 334, Lot 2; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 192-5A(1)(a) and 240-52A; and WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,the in-ground swimming pool as proposed is 12 feet from the principle dwelling where 15 feet is required; and WHEREAS,the proposed retaining wall is 5 feet with a 3 foot rail atop having a total height of 8 feet which exceeds the maximum permissible height in an R-20 Zone District; and WHEREAS,the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 5 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 the plantings and retaining wall enhance the appearance and mitigate stormwater runoff and further finds that the pool will not be visible to neighbors and the guardrail above the wall will be only minimally visible. 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 due to the topography of the property, retaining walls are necessary and the guardrail atop the retaining wall is a necessary safety feature and further finds that the location of the pool on the property is the best placement to allow sufficient backyard area for the infiltration system. Finally,the Board finds that the location of the pool from the point of egress from the house is the safest location. c. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the 3-foot guardrail will have very little visual mass and will be concealed by planting. 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 because the project will result in improvements to both the appearance and drainage of the property. e. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above,the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. 6 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. MINUTES The minutes were tabled to next month. ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 9:08P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 7