Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_09_16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson, Also present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus, Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison,Jonathan Sacks,Alternate. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 7:45P.M. Mr. Wexler, Chairman explained that at this 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.3000 Zachary and Erica Sigel Sid Schloman the applicant's architect addressed the Board and entered a letter from a neighbor in support of the project into the record marked Exhibit 1. He further stated that this is a small one story addition and that the addition is proposed to make the existing small 7 foot wide room more functional and that the addition will be aligned with the existing house. The Board discussed the variance request and the extension of the roof line. Mr. Wexler stated the plans being presented tonight do not match the submitted plans. Mr. Simpson stated that he is concerned about the impact the addition would have on the neighborhood. Public Comments Gail Hiler, representing Shawn Dolan, a neighbor, asked if the AC units are to be relocated and that the roof line be flat. Mr. Schloman requested an adjournment to October 28tn Motion: To adjourn to October Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Jeffery King. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.3001 88 Carleon Avenue Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. 1 Liam Winters,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board requesting a variance to enclose an existing porch.The Board discussed the requested variance Public Comments Gail Hiler, stated that everything she stated for the previous application is actually for this property and apologized for the mistake. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Arthur Wexler. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes= 3). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Michael and Debra Contopolous, requested a variance to legalize an existing one story porch located at 88 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 152. 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(10), WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the enclosed porch as proposed has a front yard of 35 feet 6 inches where 40 feet is required 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 2 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 because the foot print of the existing residence will not be altered. 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 because enlarging the house within the existing footprint will always require a variance due to the fact that the existing condition is nonconforming. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the existing front yard of 35 feet 6 inches will not be impacted by this petition. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the proposed changes and alterations to the front of the house will be an aesthetic enhancement having no adverse physical or environmental impact to the neighborhood.. 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. 3 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval by 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, as reflected herein. 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.3002 Marina Milonova and David Weinstein 9 Bonnie Briar Lane Motion: To open the public Hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Justin Minieri,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board requesting a 4X4 square foot addition, explaining it is an expansion of the space between the two rear dormers. The plan is to replace the two small gable dormers with one shed dormer over the front yard setback, to enlarge the bathroom and allow for a bathtub. Mr. Minieri further stated that the shed dormer will have the exact pitch of the existing house roof, and will be within the plane of the roof therefore not increasing roof height. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson. 4 After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(3-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson Nays: None Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Marina Milonova and David Weinstein, requested a variance expand second floor dormers located at 9 Bonnie Briar Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222, Lot 585. 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(1) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the dormer extension has a front yard of 36.3 feet where 40 feet is required, and further the dormer increases the extant by which the building is nonconforming 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. 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 because it is consistent with nearby houses 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. 5 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance due to the the relationship of the bathrooms within the house to the existing plumbing. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it results in an increase of only 9 square feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the proposed addition will be to the rear of the house which is well screened by mature plantings and therefore will not be visible from the street. 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 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 for the review and approval by 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. 6 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.3003 Seth and Michele Metsch 40 Byron Lane Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Lucinda Stoll,the applicant's architect addressed the Board, requesting a variance for a swimming pool. The Board, together with counsel and the Building Inspector determined that that no variance is required because the proposed pool will not be located in the required front yard setback. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.3004 Howard and Pam Mizrachi 15 Kenmare Road Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Jeffery King Howard Mizrachi addressed the Board. He explained that the proposed AC location is closer to the front of the house and further from the back yard neighbors. He further stated that it is shaded by a spruce tree and can't be seen from the front of the house. He added that his neighbors gave a letter in support of the placement of the unit. The decibel level of the unit was discussed and Mr. Wexler suggested that the applicant look into a quieter unit. The applicant requested an adjournment to look into different units. Motion: To adjourn the matter to October 28, 2015 Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, Seconded by Evans Simpson. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.3005 RUSSELL HODGE Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson. Mr. Bennet,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that the front stoop is deteriorating and collapsing and needs to be rebuilt. Mr. Bennet showed photos of the surrounding neighborhood. The Board discussed the front steps and roof. 7 Mr. Bennet stated that the Hodges are also requesting to demolish the existing deck and replace it with a 4.6 foot landing which is smaller than the existing deck. The Board discussed the landing request. There were no public questions or comments. Mr. Simpson stated that he knows Mr. Hodge socially but this will not affect his vote. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Jeffery King. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(3-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson Nays: None Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus WHEREAS, Russel Hodge, requested a variance to construct a rear deck and a front enclosed porch and steps on the premises located at 100 N. Chatsworth and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118, Lot 287. 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(1), 240-38.(3), and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the front steps as proposed have a front yard of 22.1 feet where 30 feet is required, has a rear yard of 17 feet where 25 feet is required and further the front enclosed porch and front steps 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 8 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 because it is consistent with other nearby houses on the street. 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 because the location of the front porch and rear landing must be located in the front and rear yards, respectively. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the enclosed portion of the covered platform and rear yard deck do not project substantially into the front and rear yards and given the size, square footage and shape of the projections, they are not substantial in relation to the property and the house itself. In addition,the proposed rear yard landing will be smaller than the existing rear yard deck. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the proposed variance will not have an adverse impact because it will not result in any increase to light, sound or runoff. 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. 9 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval by 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 roof structure over the enclosed platform will be no closer to the front yard than 24.5 feet where 30 feet is required for a principle building. 7. The platform will be no closer than 26.1 feet and the front riser no less than 21.1 feet This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. New Business Ms. Hochman stated next month the owner of 176 Myrtle Avenue will appear before the Zoning Board to request variances to facilitate the development of 9 residential units with 1 affordable housing unit. The applicant first appeared before the Planning Board for site plan review.The Planning Board referred the application to the Zoning Board as multiple variances are required.The Planning Board can only waive 15% parking requirements. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of July 22, 2015 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King. 10 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals 11