Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_06_06 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 6, 2012 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TWON CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011,12/05/2012,1/25/12,2/29/12, 3/28/12,and 4/25/12) ADJOURNED APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011,12/05/2012,1/25/12,2/29/12, 3/28/12,and 4/25/12) ADJOURNED APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2908 Stephan Laurans(adjourned 4/25/2012) Application of Stephan Laurans requesting a variance to construct a kitchen addition a deck expansion and porch with a roof and columns on the premises located at 2 Briar Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105, Lot 461. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2909 Daniel Cohen (adjourned 4/25/2012) Application of Daniel Cohen requesting a variance to construct a front portico on the premises located at 60 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 208. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 2910 Lee R.Zimmerman and Tara McCarthy Application of Lee R. Zimmerman and Tara McCarthy requesting a variance to install a 14 KW 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. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus, Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:45P.M. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2908 Stephan Laurans Continuation Donald Schweter, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating he added the overhang dimension to the plan as the Board requested. 1 25.92 feet to the overhang, 26.59 to the face of the column. Mr. Schweter explained that P1 shows the floor plan, P-7 the uphill side view, P8 downhill side view. The plan was discussed. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Absent: Irene O'Neill. Vi Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Seth Marcus Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Absent: Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS,Stephan Laurans, requested a variance to construct a kitchen addition a deck extension and porch with roof and columns on the premises located at 2 Briar Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 105, Lot 461. 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(3), 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the front yard of 26.59 feet with a 9 inch overhang where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3); and further the porch addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District. 2 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,there will be a front porch roof which is in keeping with many houses in the neighborhood and will enhance the general appearance of the house in comparison to the others in the neighborhood. 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 their goals with a reasonable alternative not requiring a variance because the requested non-conformity is intended to provide a covering for a front door which is already in place and for which there is no other reasonable location. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the requested variance is not substantial. There will be no change to the front door. The portico will only make a small incursion into the front setback. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood as there will be no significant noise, runoff or other environmental effects based on the construction. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 3 The Board finds that the applicant's difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative in this case. 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 6, 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. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2909 Daniel Cohen Continuationn Clark Neuringer,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Neuringer stated that the front yard setback is 40 feet and the house is presently at 40.6. The applicant wishes to change the front entry for safety and esthetic reasons, requiring a 4 foot extension into the front yard. 4 The Board discussed the proposed entry, and the platform, landscape feature leading to it. Mr. Ryan stated the notice of disapproval does not address the area in front of the steps and portico, therefore the applicant risks getting an incomplete approval if the consideration proceeds on this basis. Mr. Carpaneto stated he considers the paved area to be a landscaping feature not covered by the relevant Code provisions. The applicant elected to proceed. 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 Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. VI' Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, by seconded Frederick Baron. After review, on motion of Mr. Marcus, seconded Mr. Baron by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS, Daniel Cohen, requested a variance to construct a front portico located at 60 Howell Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 208. 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(3), 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 36 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(3)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. 5 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 such undesirable change will be produced by because the proposed construction will enhance the appearance and function of the existing structure and thereby produce a desirable change. 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 their goals by a reasonable alternative not requiring a variance. The front door as it currently exists is inconvenient and somewhat hazardous to use. To ameliorate this condition necessarily entails building into the set back. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It is a relatively small vestibule structure overall it is 45 square feet in an area that is about 4,000 square feet, which is approximately a 1%change and is in keeping with other structures in neighborhood. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that it will not have an adverse impact there will be no additional noise, light or runoff created as a result of the construction. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because there is an existing safety problem with respect to the front door entrance. The Board finds that, even if the difficulty were self-created,this factor would not be determinative in the circumstances presented. 6 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 6, 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. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. Lee R.Zimmerman and Tara McCarthy Tara McCarthy the applicant addressed the Board, requesting a stand by generator. Mr. Carpaneto stated he took a look at that placement of the generator and had the assistant building inspector research the code for its placement in the proposed location. Mr. Wexler stated that what is presented is not adequate as it does not show the exact measurements of the placement of the generator. The applicant must come back with a site plan. Mr. Wexler stated that putting the unit under the stairs has the potential to destroy the unit as there is not enough top clearance. 7 Ms. McCarthy stated that Generac stated she would have enough clearance but she will look into the matter as well as getting any information the Board requires. The matter was adjourned. MINUTES Motion:To approve the Minutes of January 25, 2012 Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus ADJOURNED Motion:To adjourned the meeting at 8:54P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, Seconded by Frederick Baron Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 8