Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014_07_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 23, 2014 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, Evans Simpson Also Present: Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus,Jeffery King, Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:00 Mr. Wexler, Chairman explained that at this time 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. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2964 Anthony Lobel Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mrs. Lobel,the applicant addressed the Board and presented 4 photos marked exhibit 1. Mr. Wexler stated he wanted to see the 1993 and 2000 survey, as the original survey presented does not show the driveway. Ms. Lobel stated they bought the house in 1993 and the area in question was grass,they used the area for parking and received a violation, she further stated she paved the part in 2000 because it was just a muddy area. Mr. Simpson asked how much shorter the driveway should be to be conforming. The Board discussed the application, stating they shouldn't have parked on the grass. Mr. Wexler stated the surveys and photos do not seem to match. The Board discussed Public questions or comments 1 Jean Young, of 32 Harrison Drive the neighbor on the left side of the Lobel's house, stated she lived there 23 years. Ms. Young further stated that the applicants are encroaching on her property as well as another neighbors. The paved drive is only 39 inches from fence which is on the Young's property. Mr. Marcus stated that the Zoning Board is not authorized to order them to remove any encroachments. Mr. Wexler suggested the Young's contact a lawyer to protect their property. Ms. Young further stated she is against the paved area. Mr. Wexler stated that there was no erosion permit issued, no dry wells installed the applicant would be better off removing the driveway. Ms. Lobel stated she never had a drainage issue. Mrs. Lobel requested an adjournment. Mr. Wexler expressed that he needs older surveys and an up to date survey showing the driveway. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2966 WENDY THIELE Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Wendy Thiele the applicant addressed the Board requesting a variance for an AC unit on the side of the house, 5.4 inches from the property line. Mr.Thiele stated the Dba level is low. Unit on other side did not require a variance. The Board discussed the application. The position of the air handler was discussed as well as the distance to the outside edge of the unit being questionable. Mr. Simpson stated he needs to understand the placement of the unit and asked the Thieles to demonstrate the placement is the only place possible. Mr. Ryan suggested the installers come to the next meeting as the Board needs more technical information. Mr.Thiele argued. 2 Mr. Marcus tried to explain the Board requirements, stating if the applicant gets the Board the information that is needed they will probably get the variance. Mr. Wexler explained what the Board needs, as it appears that the Ac unit will be closer to the property line then 5 feet, and an explanation why it can't be put someplace else. Mr. Ryan suggested an architect draw a site plan showing the exact planned placement of the unit. The Thiele's asked for an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2967 ADAM AND ANDREA STOLTZ Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Sid Schlomann the applicant's architect addressed the Board. Mr. Schlomann explained this is an 1880's farm house with a one story addition in the rear where the second story addition is planned. They are asking for a 2.86 variance. He further stated they are improving the roof line, and not increasing the degree of nonconformity or impervious surface. The addition is not visible from the street. The Board discussed the plans. The eve detail will mimic the existing. Mr. Simpson stated the addition will continue the look of the original farmhouse. Motion:To close the Public Hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. IVu 3 After review, on motion of Seth Marcus, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. WHEREAS,Adam and Andrea Stoltz, requested a variance for a second floor addition atop existing first floor on the premises located at 1231 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 401, Lot 92. 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) 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 proposed has a side yard of 7.14 feet where 10 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming 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: 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 proposed addition will be esthetically similar to the existing two story house and the exterior windows and trim will also match. The addition makes an improvement on the structure that was there as it is now a flat roof structure that otherwise is less consistent with the rest of the house. 4 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 proposed addition is over an existing structure and consistent with the existing lines of the building. Any other proposed layout would require additional structure systems and cost which would not work well with the existing C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It 2.86 feet where 10 feet is required but there is already an encroaching structure and they are simply continuing upwards. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Boards there will not be an adverse impact as they structure is not visible from the street, and won't affect drainage,there will no impact on sunlight or esthetics of neighboring properties. The Board received no objections from the most effected neighbor. 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 5 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 Motion:To adjourn the meeting at 9:29P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. 6