Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_09_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C, OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPLICATION NO. 1 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 Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block as Block 333, Lot 1546. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO.2943 Herbert Meyers Application of Herbert Meyers requesting a variance to install a 20 KW standby generator on the premises located at 7 Meadow Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 405, Lot 231. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.2944 John Donovan Application of John Donovan requesting a variance to replace a detached one car garage on the premises located at 81 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 284. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.2945 Adam and Diane Safer Application of Adam and Diane Safer requesting variance to construct a two story addition at the side and rear on the premises located at 99 Madison Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot 209. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.2946 BLD Diner Application of BLD Diner requesting variance to build a new diner on the premises located at 2399 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 433. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2947 Nancy Keelan Application of Nancy Keelan requesting variance to legalize the conversion of the existing open terrace to the rear of the existing dwelling into finished living space on the premises located at 100 East Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 689. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO.2948 Willoughby Dobson Application of Willoughby Dobson requesting variance to renovate the kitchen and add a one story addition on the premises located at 73 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124, Lot 388. APPLICATION NO. 8 CASE NO.2949 Kristen Lathrop Application of Kristen Lathrop requesting variance to construct a front porch on the premises located at 4 Durham Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 227, Lot 197. 1 ROLL CALL Roll Call: Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Seth Marcus,Jeffery King, Evan Simpson. Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: 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. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.2942 Scott Gafner 6 Prince Willows Lane (adjourned 7/24/2013) Joseph Crocco, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Crocco stated that the applicant wishes to extend an existing 2 car garage 6 feet, the required rear yard setback is 40 feet and the proposed construction will be short 2 feet. The plan duplicates the side elevation construction over the existing driveway. The applicant wishes to create a mud room, but this would make the garage too short to park a car unless the garage were extended. The area of the incursion into the rear yard setback would be approximately 12 square feet. Mr. Ryan stated that the mud room is not shown on plan but is the purpose of the variance request. The Board discussed landscaping and the existing stone wall. There were no public comments or questions. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Absent: Seth Marcus. Mr. Crocco requested a poll Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved 2 Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King. Absent: Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. King, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Simpson, King Nays: None Absent/Excused: Marcus WHEREAS,Scott Gafner, requested a variance to extend an existing attached garage on the premises located at 6 Prince Willows Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 1546. 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 240-35B(3),and 240-69. WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the garage extension as proposed has a rear yard of 38.15 where 40 feet is required and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-10 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. 3 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. Other properties in the neighborhood have similar additions. The proposed construction will be in keeping with the neighborhood, provided that it incorporates (a)the stone veneer shown on the existing structure and (b) plantings similar to the existing plantings in front of the existing structure. 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. In order to provide the mudroom described in the application the garage must be extended to make room . C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial. It represents a 5% incursion into the rear yard setback,with a net area of approximately 12 square feet. Relative to the size of the lot, the nonconformity is miniscule. 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 involve no increase in impervious surfaces and thus that there will be no adverse physical effect on the community. In addition, as noted above,the extension will be designed to match the existing structure and landscaping. 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. 4 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. 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 front elevation extension of the garage is to remain in character with the front elevation of the existing house. Specifically,the stone veneer and plantings will be extended in line with the existing elevation. 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.3 CASE NO.2944 JOHN DONOVAN Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. 5 Larry Gordon, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating the applicant wishes to replace the existing detached one car garage at the premises because it is in poor condition. The replacement would be in the same location. Mr. Gordon entered 3 letters from neighbors in favor of the plan into the record marked Exhibit 1, 2, 3. 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 Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill,seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary:Yes=4). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Absent: Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. King the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, King, Evans Nays: None Absent: Marcus WHEREAS,John Donovan, requested a variance to replace a detached one car garage on the premises located at located at 81 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 284. 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)(c) and 240-69, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the detached garage replacement as proposed would have a rear yard of 2.3 6 feet(with an overhang of 6 inches)where 5 feet is required, a side yard of 2.7 feet (with an overhang of 6 inches)where 5 feet is required and would further increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a detached garage 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: 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 actually be an improvement in the character of the neighborhood as this project is proposed. The garage is a metal structure that is deteriorated, unattractive and beyond its useful life. The proposed garage will match the architecture of the existing house in design and material and will be an improvement. 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 the applicant cannot achieve his goals by a reasonable alternative not requiring a variance as there is no other feasible location on the property to place the garage. Specifically, because of the location of the retaining wall and the differential in grades on the lot, an alternative location to conform with the required setbacks would be unduly burdensome and costly. The proposed construction will be basically with of the same dimensions as the current garage. Any structure replacing the existing garage will need a variance because of where it was originally placed and the nature of the lot on which it is located. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 7 The Board finds based on current conditions that the requested variance is not substantial in that the proposed construction will be in the same location as the existing garage and there is no other location on the lot where a garage can be placed. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As previously stated,the Board finds that this will have a positive impact on the physical appearance of the structure. Also,given that there is an existing garage in the same location the proposed construction will not result in any increased runoff or other environmental impacts. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that this is a self-created difficulty, 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. 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. 8 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. Mr. Marcus arrived at 8:26 PM. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO.2945 Diane and Adam Safer 99 Madison Avenue Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mr. King stated he is a neighbor of the Safer's but stated that he believed he could be impartial in reviewing the application. The applicant did not object to Mr. King hearing the application. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Adam Safer the applicant addressed the Board stating their house is small and they want the addition to allow for a larger kitchen and dining area as well as an additional bedroom for their daughter. The addition would follow the original line of the nonconforming side of the house. The Board discussed the plan. Mr. Wexler stated the plans provided to the Board do not match the current proposal. Mr. Wexler stated that the plans are not adequate and the Board is not in a position to make a decision. Mr. Wexler asked the applicant to adjourn and possibly reduce the room sizes. He further stated that the Board would require landscaping between the lots. The applicant asked for an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.2947 Nancy Keelan 100 East Brookside Drive Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved, 9 Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Amy Csenge addressed the board, stating the applicant wishes to legalize an enclosed porch that has been in place since the 1960's or 1970's. The porch had previously been open. The applicant is the widowed daughter-in law of the former owners who are both deceased. The applicant's intent, as Executrix of the estate of the deceased, is to sell the property. The enclosed porch must either be legalized or returned to its original condition prior to putting the property on the market. The Board discussed the application, the plans in the Building department show that the foundation of the porch was built at the same time the house was built,which preceded zoning. Mr. Michael Csenge arrived to answer any Board concerns. Mr. Marcus asked what it would cost to tear down the nonconformity and return the property to conforming. Mr. Csenge stated that it could cost$15,000 to demolish the structure and as much as $60,000 to demolish and replace it with a conforming structure. Elimination of the nonconforming structure would also reduce the square footage of the dwelling approximately 10%. 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 Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Marcus, King, Simpson Nays: None WHEREAS, Nancy Keelan, requested a variance to legalize the conversion of the formerly open terrace to the rear of the existing dwelling into finished living space on the premises located at 100 East Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 210, Lot 689. 10 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 240-37B.(2)(a), WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the converted open terrace as built has aside yard of 6.18 feet where 10 feet is required and further the converted terrace increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming for a residence in an R-10 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 the requested variance will not result in an undesirable change to the neighborhood for the following reasons. First,the enclosed porch has been in place for approximately 40 years. As such, its continued existence would not change the character of the neighborhood. Second, the surrounding area the size of the addition and the fact that projects to the rear of the house is in character with the types of small additions that are found in the surrounding community. The addition that is being legalized faces a house that has a very large side yard compared to the surrounding community. Retaining the small structure at issue will have minimal effect on that neighboring property. Further, the addition, as built, will have no effect on the property on the right hand side, and minimal effect, if any, on the properties in the rear. As such, legalizing the enclosed porch will not cause any detriment to 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. 11 The Board finds that there is no feasible method of achieving the goals of the applicant without a variance. The only other method of achieving compliance with the Code would be to demolish the nonconforming structure and replace it with a conforming structure. According to the applicant's architect, this could cost as much as $60,000. Elimination of the nonconforming structure without replacement would reduce the square footage of the house by 10% making it much less marketable given the type of the homes being marketed in the surrounding community. The property value would be reduced accordingly. Making the house smaller relative to its neighbors would be undesirable. It is already a small house compared to its neighbors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the requested variance from 10 feet to 6.8 feet could be considered substantial, however,given the fact that the structure (original open and later enclosed) has been there 60-70 years in that location the surrounding visual environment has adjusted to it. In these unique circumstances,the Board feels that the substantiality of the request is not controlling. Further,the nonconforming structure is not tall and is small in footprint compared to the site. 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 for the reasons stated above and because the structure will not cause increased stormwater runoff since it was built over an original foundation constructed in the 1930's. Further, as the enclosed porch is only one story and has been in place for many years,the neighboring properties will not experience an adverse light impact. 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. In addition,the applicant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased owners acting in a fiduciary capacity, and had no role in creating the nonconformity. 12 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. 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. 7 CASE NO.2948 Willoughby Dobson 73 Myrtle Blvd. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. 13 Jim Fleming,the applicant's architect, explained the existing cottage is small and the applicant wishes to enlarge the kitchen and eating area. The present kitchen is quaint and they wish to preserve its charm as well as the existing stone patio. The applicant wishes to line up the addition with side of building, and stated there is a letter from the effected neighbor in favor of the plan. The Board discussed the placement of the proposed addition and neighboring homes. The increased impervious square footage is 22-24 square feet as the rest is over impervious material. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. 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=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Marcus, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Wexler, 0' Neill, Marcus, King, Simpson Nays: None WHEREAS,Willoughby Dobson, requested a variance to renovate the kitchen and add a one story addition on the premises located at 73 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124, Lot 388. 14 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 addition as proposed has a side yard of 5 feet 8 inches where 8 feet is required, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming 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 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 produce no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties, but rather that the requested variance will produce a desirable change by improving the appearance of the home,which in turn will increase the value of the home and potentially of surrounding homes. Further we note the owners of the property most affected by the variance have stated their approval. 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 the applicant has represented that she and her architect have looked at several ways of possibly achieving her goals, and that the one selected and which is before the Board for approval is both the most efficient means of improving the property and the least possible variance she could request. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 15 The Board finds under the circumstances it is not substantial. The proposed nonconforming structure will be approximately 22 square feet,which is not a large area relative to the overall lot size. 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 on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The addition is being built over an existing impervious surface so there shouldn't be any addition to runoff, it is a one story addition that shouldn't affect the existing site lines on the house, and once again the neighbor most effected by the possible addition has indicated their approval of the plans further indicating there should not be any adverse condition created. 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. 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. 16 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.8 CASE NO. 2949 Kristen Lathrop 4 Durham Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Jaclyn Tyler,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating this is an existing brick home 41.7 feet from the property line. The front windows are not energy efficient and need replacement,while checking out options, it was decided to add a covered front porch. Ms.Tyler stated that a porch will be in keeping with the neighborhood as many of the neighboring homes have porches. The Board discussed the request, Mr. King asked if all the first floor windows are to be replaced, Ms. Tyler answered yes they will be replaced to match. It was noted that the requested addition will trigger erosion control review through the building department permit process. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Arthur Wexler. 17 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Marcus, King, Simpson Nays: None WHEREAS, Kristen Lathrop, requested a variance to construct a front porch on the premises located at 4 Durham Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 227,Lot 197. 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 240-35B(1), WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the front porch as proposed has a front yard of 32 feet 2 inches where 40 feet is required for a residence in an R-20 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 a detriment to nearby properties. This variance is in keeping with the neighborhood as the footprint of a number of homes in the immediate area have been increased with front porches, including ones with variances granted by this Board. 18 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 without a variance because the porch must be located with the front door and there is only one front door to the home. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds the requested variance is not substantial. The required front setback is 40 feet. With the addition of the front porch the front setback will be 35 feet. The proposed construction will be in just one story and will be in keeping with the homes in the immediate neighborhood. 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 on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The increase of the impervious footage will be 225 square feet and therefore will be subject to drainage and erosion controls as per the Code. These controls will require that the applicant take measures, such as the installation of dry wells,to ensure that there will be no net increase in the rate of stormwater discharge. 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 19 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. MINUTES The minutes of July 24, 2013 were discussed and technical corrections made. Motion:To approve the minutes with technical corrections Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=3, No= 0,Abstain = 2). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Abstain: Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Wexler discussed the BLD Diner variance request. , Mr. Carpaneto stated that it has been past practice to require a variance for parking in the front plane of the building. Plans are to demolish the original building after the new structure is built. A question was raised regarding the hours of operation. The diner now operates 24 hours. If the original building is demolished and moved to a new location 20 would that privilege continue? It was noted that a site plan application will be heard by the Planning Board. The hours of operation issue will need to be resolved as a predicate to that review. ADJOURNMENT Motion:To close the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evan Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Seth Marcus. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 21