Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_06_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 27, 2012 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50P.M. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King Also Present: Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. Absent: Seth Marcus Vu CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50P.M. Chairman Wexler explained that there are only four members present and an applicant would need three votes in favor to pass, if any applicant wishes to adjourn for a full Board to hear the application they may do so. No one spoke. OM IN APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2892 Saul Rueda The matter was adjourned at the applicant's request. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2893 Saul Rueda The matter was adjourned at the applicant's request. Vu APPLICATION NO. 3 -CASE NO. 2910-Zimmerman and McCarthy—3 Winged Foot Drive (adjourned 6/6/2012) Continued 1 Tara McCarthy addressed the Board, stating that at the Boards request the applicants had a site map draw by an architect. Ms. McCarthy further stated that the only zoning compliant placement is in the middle of the front lawn. The Board discussed the application. Ms. McCarthy entered an alternate location Site plan 1R dated 6/13/2012 into the record marked Exhibit 1. The orientation of the generator was questioned, and found that there are no alternatives without a variance. There were no Public comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus, Alternate. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No= 0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Frederick Baron Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No= 0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, King, Marcus, O'Neill Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS, Lee R. Zimmerman and Tara McCarthy, requested a variance to install a 14KW stand by generator on the premises located at 3 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 209, Lot 168. 2 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(2)(a), 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 side yard of 3 feet 11 inches where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a)for a stand by generator 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 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 proposed location of the generator will produce no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as attested by the neighbor at 5 Winged Foot Drive has written a letter in favor of the placement of the generator. 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 there is no other location for the placement of the generator on the property that would not require a variance as previously discussed by the Board. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that in this particular case the variance requested is not substantial. The unit is small in size the impact is minimal as it is only used during a power outage and will not be visible from the street. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 3 The Board finds that the proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because it will generate noise only during power outages and brief scheduled maintenance runs and will not be visible from the street. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the applicants' difficulty is self-created but is not determinative in the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet 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 June 27, 2012. 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. 4 Vu APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2911-William Rosenstadt-16 Doris Road Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, None seconded. Mrs. Rosenstadt, the applicant, addressed the Board, stating that the house is nonconforming, so almost anything they do would require a variance. Ms. Rosenstadt stated the request is minimal 107 sq. feet in front and 79 sq. feet in the back. The proposed additions would be no closer to the yard setbacks than the existing structure, although the structure facing Doris Road would extend the 12 foot, six inch yard rear hard encroachment laterally by 4 feet. Mr. Wexler also noted that the second floor structure facing Prince Willow as shown on the submitted plans is not closer to the property line than presently exists. The board discussed the proposed plan, and stated that any approval include a condition that the existing screening be maintained. Mrs. Rosenstadt stated that they previously received a variance for the fence and a condition of that approval was maintaining the screening. Public comments Meir Salama, 8 Fairway Drive, stated they share a common fence at the very back of the property and he is concerned that the fence is not in the correct spot. Mr. Ryan stated that the location of that fence is not something the Board can comment on, and suggested he call the Building Department. Vi Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No= 0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Vi Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, None seconded. Frederick Baron Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No= 0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. 5 After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Baron, Meister, Marcus Nays: None WHEREAS,William Rosenstadt, requested a variance construct a one story front addition and a two story rear addition located at 16 Doris Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 1187. 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 240-35B.(2)(a), 240-35B(1) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the one story addition has a side yard of 12 feet 6 inches with a 2 foot overhang where 15 feet is required,the rear addition as proposed has a front yard of 25 feet with a two foot overhang where 40 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-20 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 no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood as the proposed additions on the house would be relatively small and will be consistent with the existing non-conforming positioning of the house on the property. The brick, stone and wood which are existing finishes will be incorporated into the additions as designed. The proposed additions will conform with the existing 6 12 foot 6 inch side yard and 25 foot front yard. In addition home owners will maintain the existing evergreen bushes and trees which will screen the new areas of construction. 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 their goals due to the placement of the residence on the existing lot it is already non-conforming and in order to achieve the goal of raising the roof and expanding the master bedroom and expanding the dining room there is no alternative that would not require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial in terms of the size and scope of the work in order to achieve the home owner's goals, because it would not increase the set back intrusions (although the extent of the side yard intrusion would be increased laterally by 4 feet) and because the proposed construction would be a minimal increase in square footage to the structure. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the additions will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.The drainage system will be upgraded in conjunction with construction. The increase in impervious surface will be minimal. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that this is a self-created difficulty as the applicants are choosing to make these changes, but this factor is not determinative in the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet 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 7 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 27, 2012. In particular, all screening along the fence is to be maintained by the owner of the subject premises. 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. Vu APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2912 Meg Desphande 14 Myrtle Blvd. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Mr. Marcus stated that he is an adjacent property owner but he can be impartial if the applicant has no objection. The applicant declined Mr. Marcus' offer of recusal. Ms. Desphande stated the house is currently nonconforming with a side yard of 7.7 feet where 8 feet is required and they are requesting a 5 inch variance to add a second floor over the existing footprint. Mr. Wexler stated that if the drawings are approved there can be no change. The Board discussed the application. Public Comments 8 Mrs. Steers, of 12 Myrtle Blvd., stated she was concerned with drainage, and entered pictures of flooding into the record marked Exhibit 1 &2. Mr. Wexler stated that the plan is lessening impervious surface. Mrs. Steers stated the applicant installed a new dry well which was unable to handle the overflow. She further stated that she is concerned with cars in the shared driveway during construction, as well as where construction material will be stored. She also asked if a condition could be imposed that there be no construction on Sundays. Carl Berg, of 16 Myrtle Blvd., stated that he is in support of the application but feels the plans are lacking with regard to landscaping and the removal of trees. Erica Ducas, of 16 Myrtle Blvd, stated there are 2 trees between the properties one on each side of line, she doesn't want the tree on her property damaged.Alvaro Brito, of Oasis Builders, stated the applicant has hired an arborist hired to evaluate the trees. One of the trees in question is rotted. He also stated that they are trying to resolve the issue of the installation of the placement of a French drain. The concern is not to place it near the other tree, but the problem is not resolved as of yet. Counsel noted that the removal of trees not directly related to the proposed construction is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board. It was also noted that existing drainage issues are not a matter of Board jurisdiction unless same will be exacerbated by the proposed construction. As the proposed construction will reduce impermeable surfaces and the volume of runoff at the premises,this is not a matter that can be addressed by the Board. Motion: To close public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No= 0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No= 0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. 9 After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus, O'Neill, King Nays: None WHEREAS, Meg Desphande, requested a variance to add a second floor over the existing first floor of the house and to re-pitch roof of the sun porch at the home located at 14 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 337. 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.(2)(a) [minimum side yard of 8 feet], 240-39B(1) [minimum front yard of 30 feet] and 240-69 [no increase in extent of nonconformity]. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the second floor addition has a side yard of 7 feet 7 inches with a 1 foot 3 inch overhang where 8 feet is required, has a front yard of 21.8 feet with a 1 foot 3 inch overhang where 30 feet is required and further the addition increases 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 there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties for the following reasons. First,the variance requested does not involve an increase to the foot print of the house. Second, there will be a positive impact on drainage because a portion of the rear of the house is 10 being removed and replaced with semi permeable pavers. The proposed addition will conform to the visual character of homes in the surrounding neighborhood, most of which are two-story structures like the proposed construction. 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 without a variance because the applicant is proposing merely to add a second floor onto a reduced first floor of the house and because the construction of the second story within the set back. i.e.,without a variance,would interfere with the architectural plan, make the construction more expensive and result in the continuance of a substandard roof pitch.. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance with regard to the setbacks is not substantial as there will be no increase in foot print. The construction will merely add a story to the existing foundation. The application notes that, even with the addition of the second floor the FAR for the structure will be .39,whereas .55 is permitted. 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 physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as there will be no additional runoff, noise, light or other impacts. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this is not determinative under the circumstances 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet 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 11 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 27, 2012. 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. Further Conditions 1. In order to further minimize visual impacts of the construction, the applicant should submit plans to the Director of Building showing more details consistent with the current character of the house . In particular, the second floor construction should keep the details of the first floor(e.g., eaves, brackets)to break up the massing of the addition. 2. The applicant should work with neighbors to try to resolve the existing water problem. 3. Staging of construction materials should not be put on the common driveway. 4. There must be no exterior construction involving power tools on Sundays. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Vu APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2913 Scott Reimer 42 Eton Road Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5, No=0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. 12 Eric Jacobsen, the applicant's architect addressed,the Board, stating the house was built in 2000 conforming to all setbacks, coverage and FAR. The owners have found that having a garage entering directly into the breakfast, kitchen area is undesirable. The proposed addition would add a passage including a powder room and mudroom before entry into the kitchen. Mr.Jacobsen stated that there will be room on the driveway for two cars even with the proposed addition. Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. Vi' Motion: To Close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5, No=0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Vi' Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Frederick Baron. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Marcus, King Nays: None WHEREAS,Scott Reimer,the applicant, requested a variance to extend a garage 5 feet closer to the street, add a mud room, powder room and a screened porch located at 42 Eton Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211, Lot 280. 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-B(1) [minimum front yard setback of 30 feet] and 240-69 [no increase in extent of nonconformity]. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the garage as proposed has a front yard of 25.2 feet with a 6 inch overhang 13 where 30 feet is required and further the addition increases 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 the change is in fact desirable. The property will be improved and that the proposed addition will be in character with the existing house and the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. As such,there will be no detriment to 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. The Board has determined that the applicant cannot achieve his goals without a variance because the purpose of the proposed addition is the creation of a mud room and powder room and to alleviate the existing undesirable condition where entry into the kitchen is directly from the garage. There is no way to fix the present condition without a variance. Because additional passage way must be in the back of the existing garage,which means that the garage must be moved forward,the requested relief cannot be achieved without encroaching into the required set back, thus requiring a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not insubstantial at 115 square feet of floor area, however the Board notes that this is the least that can be requested that will meet the applicant's goal of interposing a passageway between the garage and the kitchen. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 14 The Board finds that it will not have any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as there will be no additional noise issue, the plans ensure that existing site lines will be preserved and no other properties are compromised. It is also noted that the construction will be located over an existing impervious surface so that no additional runoff will be created. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The difficulty is self-created, however the Board does not feel that this factor is determinative under the circumstances. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet 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 June 27, 2012 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. 15 Vu APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 2914 Spenser Smith 93 Hickory Grove Drive West Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5, No=0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Eric Jacobsen, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and presented a plan which was duly marked as Exhibit 1. With regard to the wood deck that is shown on the submitted plans, Mr.Jacobsen stated that if the wood deck were pushed to the side, as suggested by the Board, it would be visible from the front of the property and would compromise the existing stairs and walkway. The extension and deck is elevated to maintain the walkway to the basement door. The Board discussed the application and possible alternatives. A photo was entered into the record and marked as Exhibit 2. Spenser Smith addressed the Board, stating he thinks a straight line of the addition would better visually, and the neighbors have no objection, Mr. Wexler responded that if the addition is set back it would not require a variance. Mr. Ryan stated the Board must decide if the applicant's aesthetic objective outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood, and also suggested that the applicant submit a letter from the adjoining neighbor to be considered by the Board. Mr.Jacobsen requested an adjournment to answer the Board comments. The applicant was requested to bring an elevation showing the addition to the next Board meeting. Motion:To adjourn the matter to the next meeting date. Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5, No=0). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. 16 Vu APPLICATION NO.8 BROADWAY NATIONAL (Trader Joe's) Adjourned at the applicant's request. Vu APPLICATION NO. 9 CASE NO. 2916 John Smith 1 Homer Avenue Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by. Frank Marsella,the applicant's architect addressed the Board, stating it is impossible to do make any changes to the structure without a variance because of the irregular shape of the property and the three front yard setback requirements. The plan is to construct a small front portico over an existing platform, and install a standby generator on the side of the house in what is technically considered a front yard, but functions as a side yard. The Board discussed the application. There were no public comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, King, Marcus, O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS,John Smith, requested a variance to construct a front portico and install a stand by generator located at 1 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 119, Lot 1. 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 17 Sections 240-39B(1) [requiring a front yard of 30 feet] and 240-39B(1) [no increase in extent of nonconformity]. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application, The portico as proposed has a front yard of 27.33 feet with an overhang of 4 inches;with existing steps having a distance of 25.1 feet from the front property line where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1). The generator as proposed has a front yard of 22.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1)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 the portico placement is in keeping with many other houses in the neighborhood it does not increase the footprint or lot coverage of the property and enhances the appearance of the home. With regard to the generator the front yard on Murray Avenue acts like a side yard to the house is well screened from Murray Avenue and will not be seen from the street. As proposed there will be additional arborvitae screening around the generator. 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 the applicant cannot achieve his goals by a reasonable alternative with regard to the front portico. With regard to the generator there is no other place on the property to place the generator without a variance, as the property has three front yards. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds with respect to the portico there is no change in foot print,just an addition to an existing front steps. With regard to the generator,the variance is as small 18 as possible and once again there is no alternate location that would not require a variance. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds the portico will have no impact on the neighborhood,there will be no increase in light or sound or other considerations, the generator will only have an impact when in use during a power outage or an occasional very short period testing, which will be minimal. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created but in this case not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and internet 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 June 27, 2012. 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. 19 MINUTES The minutes were tabled. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 10:17P.M. Action:Adjourn Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Minutes prepared Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals 20