Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_07_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 24, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2939 Anilesh and Maria Ahuja Application of Anilesh and Maria Ahuja requesting a variance to legalize as built conditions regarding swimming pool setbacks to the principle structure on the premises located at 106 Premium Point and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 509 Lot 86. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.2940 SEASONS TOO Application of Seasons Too requesting a variance to install 1 internally illuminated sign on the premises located at 1333 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411, Lot 119. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2941 John O'Connell Application of John O'Connell requesting a variance to move a wall 6 inches to align with existing construction on the premises located at 4 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117, Lot 159. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2942 Scott Gafner Application of Scott Gafner requesting a variance to extend an existing attached garage on the premises located at 6 Prince Willows and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 1546. ROLL CALL Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel (Not voting). Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Ernest Odernia,Town Board Liaison. The Chairman stated there are only four(4) members present at this time and that any applicant would need at least three votes in favor to be approved. Mr. Wexler stated that if any applicant would like to adjourn the matter he or she may request to do so. 1 Mr. Wexler thanked Mr. Baron for his years of service, Mr. Ryan also thank him. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:46 P.M. MINUTES Motion:The Minutes of May 22, 2013 and June 26, 2013 were approved with technical corrections by counsel. Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2939 Anilesh and Maria Ahuja 106 Premium Point Application of Anilesh and Maria Ahuja requesting a variance to legalize as built conditions regarding swimming pool setbacks to the principle structure on the premises located at 106 Premium Point and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 509 Lot 86. Public Hearing continued. Seth Mandelbaum,the applicant's attorney addressed the Board the applicant's architect, Scott Raisis also was available. Mr. Mandelbaum stated the pool was built larger and closer than the previous variance allowed. As requested Mr. Mandelbaum stated he did a FOIL request regarding the pool set back code. In 1985 the Town adopted NYS building code and in 1996 code re-codified. He stated that he could not find any legislative history to indicate the intent of the pool setback provisions. He noted that to mitigate the nonconformity of the proposed variances, three additional safety features would be installed: surface alarm, self-closing doors and removal of shrubs. The Board discussed the request, and what would have to be done to make the pool conform to the original variance, as well as possible alternatives. There were no public questions or comments. Mr. Mandelbaum requested a brief adjournment to discuss the matter with his client. The hearing was continued. Mr. Mandelbaum asked for a vote. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Frederick Baron. 2 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion:To deny the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Arthur Wexler. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Seth Marcus, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and DENIED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue Building Permit for certain construction at the subject premises located at 106 Premium Point and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck at Block 509, Lot 86 on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance")with particular reference to Sections 192-59A(1)(a) and that a Certificate of Occupancy had not been obtained for previous construction, including the construction of an in-ground swimming pool at the Premises; WHEREAS,on September 26, 2000 the Board previously granted a variance for the construction of the swimming pool on the premises allowing a setback from the wall of the principal structure of 6 feet where a setback of 15 feet would have been required under Section 192-5A91)(a)of the Zoning Ordinance; WHEREAS,a survey by Richard Spinelli, Licensed Surveyor, dated April 24, 2013, shows the swimming pool as having as-built setbacks from the principle structure of 4.7 feet from the westerly wall,4.1 feet from the northerly wall and 4.7 feet from the easterly wall where 15 feet is required (from each wall)for a swimming pool an R-50 Zone District; WHEREAS,Anilesh and Maria Ajuja, requested a variance to legalize such as-built setbacks of the swimming pool from the principle structure on the subject premises; 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; 3 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 is outweighed by the detriment such variance would present 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, insofar as this swimming pool is not visible to the rest of the neighborhood or to surrounding homes there is no obvious change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. However, in reviewing this factor the Board is mindful that it has a commitment to the future owners and visitors to the property to ensure that safety conditions are met. The applicants have indicated that they are willing to meet heightened safety measures, but upon reviewing and looking at possible safety concerns it is the Board's determination that the proposed additional safety measures are insufficient and do not outweigh the detriment to the community, including possible visitors to the premises and future owners thereof. In addition, the Board notes that a prior variance had been granted with regard to the location of this pool and that the construction did not comply with such variance. It is the Board's view that the community also has an interest in this Board upholding its prior determinations and in maintaining consistency with those determinations. 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, i.e.,the maintenance of a swimming pool at the premises, can be achieved by a reasonable and feasible alternative,which is to correct the nonconformance relative to the original variance by rebuilding the pool in conformance with the variance already granted. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the requested variances would be substantial and should be considered cumulative with the original variance.The original variance was itself substantial, and the requested variances would increase the nonconformity of the pool by almost 30 percent. 4 D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds there would be no obvious adverse conditions in terms of light, noise, runoff or other physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, except that the safety concerns previously noted are a relevant concern and may be considered an adverse impact on the physical condition of the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that is entirely self-created. The applicant failed to assure that the pool was built in compliance with the original variance granted to the applicant by this Board. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED. 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.2940 SEASONS TOO 1333 Boston Post Road Application of Seasons Too requesting a variance to install 1 internally illuminated sign on the premises located at 1333 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411, Lot 119. Motion: To open 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,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Frank Alfarone,the owner, appeared and addressed the Board,for 1 internally illuminated sign. Mr. Alfarone stated that he appeared before the Board of Architectural Review("BAR")for the sign and the BAR stated the sign should be internally illuminated during their March 25, 2013 meeting. The Board discussed the request. Sign would be centered over awning. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. 5 Motion:To approve the requested variance Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Frederick Baron, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS,Seasons Too, requested a variance to install 1 internally illuminated sign on the premises located at 1333 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411, Lot 119. WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted fail to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Sections 240-45H(8)(c)[4], which prohibits internally illuminated signs in the "B" Business Zone District; WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS,the Board has examined the Plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and 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. 6 The Board finds there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby property by granting the variance. There are other internally illuminated signs directly adjacent to, and across the street from,the subject premises. In the Board's view,the purpose of the code provision in question is to protect against overly large and unwieldy internally illuminated signs,whereas the proposed sign is relatively small. The Board concurs with the BAR that erection of an externally illuminated sign would be less attractive and would be inconsistent with the signage on 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 benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by the installation of an externally lighted sign, but the Board concurs with the BAR that this alternative would be not be preferred C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the criterion of substantiality is not relevant in this case because the variance is a yes or no question, not one of measurement. 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 conditions in the neighborhood by increasing visual clutter because the amount of light generated by this sign would be no greater than an as-of-right externally illuminated sign. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds 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: 7 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. 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. 6. The sign will be centered above the awning. 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.2941 John O'Connell 4 Echo Lane Application of John O'Connell requesting a variance to move a wall 6 inches to align with existing construction on the premises located at 4 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117, Lot 159. Mr. Marcus and Mr. King stated that they both know the applicant but feel they could be impartial, no one objected. Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, and explained the request stating that the house is already nonconforming and they are intending to keep the same non-conforming line on the addition for aesthetic reasons. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing 8 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,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approve Moved by Jeffery King, Seconded by Arthur Wexler, Chairman. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Frederick Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS,John O'Connell, requested a variance to move a wall 6 inches to align with existing construction on the premises located at 4 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117, Lot 159. 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)(a) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the (aligned wall) addition as proposed has a side yard of 9.51 feet where 10 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: 9 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 an undesirable change will not be produced in that the proposed construction is In keeping with the architecture of the existing home and of the neighborhood and surrounding homes. 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 there is no feasible alternative that would not require a variance because the architectural improvement sought by the applicant can only be achieved by bumping out the wall 6 inches to keep the elevation in line and flush with the existing elevation. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds no it is not substantial in size,the variance would permit a 6 inch encroachment into the required set back along a 4 foot, 2 inch length. The total area involved is approximately 2 square feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. As noted above,the Board finds that the proposed construction would be in keeping with the surrounding dwellings. For this reason and those discussed the variance will not have an adverse impact on conditions in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the applicant's difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 1. 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. 10 2. 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. 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.2942 Scott Gafner 6 Prince Willows Application of Scott Gafner requesting a variance to extend an existing attached garage on the premises located at 6 Prince Willows and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 1546. Motion:To open 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,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Joe Crocco, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler stated that the plan is not detailed enough to understand what is being requested and how it will affect the neighborhood. The Board will require an areas map, elevations and photos. 11 Mr. Crocco stated he understands the Board's concerns. He then requested an adjournment. Adjourned to Sept 25, 2013. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Action:Adjourn Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, None seconded. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals 12