Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_07_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 25, 2012 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 Case No. 2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2012, 1/25/12,2/29/12, 3/28/2012,4/25/2012, 6/6/2012). ADJOURNED APPLICATION NO. 2 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2012, 1/25/12,2/29/12, 3/28/2012,4/25/2012, 6/6 2012). ADJOURNED APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 2914 Spencer Smith (adjourned 6/6/2012) Application of Spencer Smith requesting a variance to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 93 Hickory Grove Drive West and known on the Tax Assessment Map as Block 217, Lot 764. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO. 2915 Broadway National Application of Broadway National requesting a variance to install internally illuminated wall sign on the premises located at 1262 Boston Post Road (Trader Joe's) and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407, Lot 192. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:52 p.m. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King Also present: Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Seth Marcus, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. 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. Application No. 1 Case No. 2892 Saul Rueda(adjourned 10/26/11,12/05/11,1/25/12,2/29/12,3/28/12,4/25/12, 6/6/12,6/27/12) The matter was adjourned at the applicant's request. Application No.2 Case No. 2893 Saul Rueda(adjourned 10/26/11,12/05/11,1/25/12,2/29/12,3/28/12,4/25/12, 6/6/12,and 6/27/12) 1 The matter was adjourned at the applicant's request. Application No.3 Case No. 2914 Spencer Smith (adjourned 6/6/12) Continuation Application of Spencer Smith requesting a variance to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 93 Hickory Grove Drive West and known on Tax Assessment Map as Block 217, Lot 764. The family room addition as proposed has a side yard of 6.65 feet with a 9 inch overhang where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B.(2)(a) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Eric Jacobsen the applicant's architect addressed the Board stating they would like to extend to the rear 20 feet. The only change to the original plan is the addition of lattice panels under the one story addition to add a level of privacy for the basement entrance and substantiality. The neighbors abutting the property have supplied letters in support of the addition. The reason for the need for a variance is the deck is currently stepped back from the right side of the house and the owner would like to maintain that. The current deck is 28 feet long and 12 feet 11/2 inch at the widest and 8 foot narrowest. The new plan page 1 of 7 shows the deck at 13.10. Mr. Smith,the owner stated he felt the value of the house would be increased with the straight wall, and explained that he felt the interior layout would also be improved. Mr. Smith gave a photo of the house across the street which was entered into the record and marked as Exhibit 1 The Board discussed the plan. There were no questions or comments from the Board. 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,Jeffery King. Absent: Seth Marcus Mr.Jacobsen asked for a non binding opinion. 2 Vi Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Mr. King, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS,Spencer Smith, requested a variance to construct a family room addition on the premises located at 93 Hickory Grove Drive West and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Lot 764. 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 240-39B (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 family room as proposed has a side yard of 6.65 feet with a 9 inch overhang where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 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 3 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 there will not be a detriment to nearby properties.There have been other additions in the neighborhood and there are building lines similar to the one proposed in terms of elevation and site lines. 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 continuing the 6.65 foot setback of the existing side wall is the only reasonable and feasible method by which the applicant can achieve his goal of increasing the square footage of the home. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that under the circumstances the requested variance is not substantial, given that the proposed addition projects behind the back of the main house and the sum of the two sides even with the variance is greater than the minimum required by code. 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 have been similar additions to properties in the neighborhood. The addition on this property will thus be in conformance with the neighborhood. The variance will involve only a minimal increase in light and sound perceptible to neighbors and the rate of stormwater runoff from the property associated with the structure will not be increased. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty was self-created, but that this consideration 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. 4 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 December 5, 2011. 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.2915 Broadway National Mike Regina from Broadway National on behalf of Trader Joe's addressed the Board requesting a variance for an internally illuminated channel letter sign with LED low voltage illumination. The colors are the same as their national brand colors as presently existing. The sign is no bigger than the present sign. Mr. Ryan requested a letter of authorization from Trader Joe's authorizing the applicant on their behalf be put in the file. 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 5 Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Irene O'Neill . After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS, Broadway National, requested a variance to install an internally illuminated wall sign on the premises located at 1262 Boston Post Road (Trader Joe's) and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407, Lot 192. 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 240-45H.(8)-(c),[4] WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application, the wall sign as proposed is internally illuminated where pursuant to Section 240-45H.(8)-(c),[4] internally illuminated signs are not permitted within the B Business 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 not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as signs of this sort are not unusual along this strip,whether in the Unincorporated Town of Mamaroneck or just down the street in the Village of Mamaroneck. This type of internal illumination is now fairly standard technique as opposed to an externally lit signage. 6 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 its goal with a reasonable alternative. The proposed sign conforms with the applicant's current national trademark. Because the form of the signage is consistent with the Trader Joe's signage in its many other locations,there is no other feasible method for the applicant to achieve its goal other than through the requested area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the letters are not particulary large or intrusive and the lighting is not glaring or intrusive, as the lighting is only restricted to the shape of the letter as opposed to a bright band of light. The board therefore finds that the requested variance is not substantial under the circumstances. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that this type of sign is more energy efficient than other forms of illumination that might be used As far as light impact to the neighborhood, it is no more obtrusive and impactful than the existing sign. In particular,the acrylic covering of the letters will mute the bright red which is proposed. The Board of Architectural Review("BAR") has approved this particular form of lighting as consistent with its goals for the lighting of commercial properties along this strip. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created but that this factor is not determinative in his 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: 7 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 July 25, 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. 6. The letters shall be no greater than the size as show on the plan revised 3/28/12 page 4. 7. A letter of authorization allowing Broadway National as the agent of Trader Joes' and the owner of the Property be placed in the file before the issuance of a building permit. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Ryan suggested that the applicant's Board be kept as an Exhibit. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting will be scheduled. MINUTES The Minutes were tabled. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals, Secretary 8