Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_09_15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals September 15, 2010 Application No. 1 Case No. 2874 David and Karen Strauss Application of David and Karen Strauss requesting a variance to construct an addition to the dining room and a platform to the existing patio on the premises located at 22 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204, Lot 300. Application No. 2 Case No. 2875 Stephen and Susan Lipton Application of Stephen and Susan Lipton requesting a variance to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 225 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 45. Va Roll Call. Present: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Robert Viner, Also present; Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel CALL TO ORDER A motion was made to open the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Application No. 1 Case No. 2874 David and Karen Strauss 22 Winged Foot Drive lotm Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Robert Viner. lotm Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. John Scarlato, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that part of the existing nonconformity (i.e., steps from the house into the side yard) is being removed; therefore, the result will be less of an intrusion into the side yard. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. lotm Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. lotm Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). 1 Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. OvIN Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, None seconded. Fred Baron OvIN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Viner, Meister, O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS, David and Karen Strauss requested a variance to construct an addition to the dining room and a platform to the existing patio on the premises located at 22 Winged Foot Drive and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204, Lot 300. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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 Section 240-35B.(2)(a) and 240-69; WHEREAS, David and Karen Strauss submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the addition as proposed has a side yard of 13 feet where 15 feet is required; WHEREAS, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; WHEREAS, the Board has 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 hearing thereon; WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 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: 2 1. The Board finds that 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 a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that the proposed minor intrusion into the side yard set back is only a small triangle that has no appreciable impact to neighbors. The Board also notes that the nearest neighbor wrote a letter in support of the application. 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 dining room cannot be expanding without other more costly additions, which may have a greater visual impact. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because at most it extends no more than 2 foot into the required side yard, totaling a 10 square foot intrusion and, with the removal of the existing stairs, the result is less aggregate intrusion into the side yard. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no additional noise, light, or runoff as a result of the variance and it is a very small increase in impermeable surface. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the difficulty self-created as the condition existed when the property was purchased this factor is not determinative. 3 2. For reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighbor 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: 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 and as agreed to by the applicant. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for 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 six (6) months and completed within (2) years of the date of said permit. 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. 2 Case No. 2875 Stephen and Susan Lipton 225 Rockingstone Ave. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Robert Viner. OvIN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. John Edgner, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that the proposal is to build a 1,200 square foot addition to the second story with no change to the existing footprint of the house. 4 The Board discussed the application with the architect and the homeowners. There were no questions or comments from the public. IVa Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded.by Ms. O'Neill OvIN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. OvIN Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Robert Viner, seconded.by Arthur Wexler. IViN Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. After review, on motion of Mr. Viner, seconded by Mr. Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Viner, Meister, O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS, Stephen and Susan Lipton requested a variance to construct a second story addition on the premises located at 225 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 45. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector 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 Section 240-35B(1) and 240-69; WHEREAS, Stephen and Susan Lipton submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; WHEREAS, the addition as proposed has a front yard on Poplar Road of 18.5 feet where 30 feet is required and has a front yard on Rockingstone Avenue of 28 feet where 30 feet is required. WHEREAS, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; WHEREAS, the Board has 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 hearing thereon; 5 WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617 et seq. an, 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 that 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 a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that the proposed addition will not result in an expanded footprint and will be consistent with the character and scale of 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 that locating the addition elsewhere on the property would require more extensive and costly alterations to the existing structure and would result in an increase in impervious surface. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the requested variance is not substantial because the footprint of the house will not expand and the proposed addition is located at a considerable distance from its nearest neighbors. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that the proposed addition will not require excavation or create any new impervious surfaces and, therefore, it will not have a negative effect on the physical environment of the surrounding area. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the difficulty self—created, this factor is not determinative. 6 2. For reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighbor 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: 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 and as agreed to by the applicant. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for 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 six (6) months and completed within (2) years of the date of said permit. 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. MINUTES IVE Motion: To approve the minutes of July of 28, 2010, subject to technical corrections by counsel Ov ` Action: Approved IVE Moved by Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron. IVE Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. ADJOURNED IVE Motion: To adjourn the meeting Ov ` Action: Approved IVE Moved by Robert Viner, Seconded by Frederick Baron. lotm Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). 7 Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 8