Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_09_05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 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. 2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2011, 1/25/12,2/29/12, 3/28/2012,4/25/2012, 6/6/2012, 7/11/2012). Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fourth and fifth apartment in a legal three family residence on the premises located at 38 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot118. APPLICATION NO. 2 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2011, 1/25/12,2/29/12, 3/28/2012,4/25/2012, 6/6 2012,7/11/2012). Application of Saul Rueda requesting a variance to legalize an existing fifth apartment in a legal four family residence on the premises located at 30 Lester Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Lot128. APPLICATION NO. 3 Case No.2917 Michael J.Tolle Application of Michael J.Tolle requesting a variance to construct a bed room and bath room over the existing garage on the premises located at 17 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 516. APPLICATION NO.4 Case No.2918 Steven Moses Application of Steven Moses requesting a variance to install a 20KW Generac Generator on the premises located at 41 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111, Lot 119. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus, Ronald A, Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel. Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Ernest Odierna,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:56P.M. 1 The Chairman stated that there are only 3 members present tonight and applicants would need a unanimous vote to be approved, anyone who would like to adjourn the matter may request to do so. APPLICATION NO. 1 Case No. Lester Place Saul Rueda The application has been withdraw at the applicant's request. APPLICATION NO. 2 Case No. Lester Place Saul Rueda The application has been withdraw at the applicant's request. Vu APPLICATION NO. 3 Case No. Tolle 17 Bonnie Way Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Larry Gordon, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that they wish to add above the existing garage on a nonconforming house. The addition will line up with existing garage. Mr. Gordon showed photos of adjacent houses in neighborhood he further stated the applicant spoke to all the neighbors and no concerns were stated. The house is one of the three original houses on the block built in the 1920's. Mr. Baron asked if the applicant requires a side yard variance. Mr. Carpaneto responded that if the addition does not go across the entire building the total side yards do not come into play. Mr. Wexler stated therefore no side yard variance is needed. There is no increase in foot print. The Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, seconded by Seth Marcus. 2 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Marcus the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(3-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill, King WHEREAS, Michael J.Tolle, requested a variance to construct a bedroom and bath room over the existing garage on the premises located at 17 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Lot 516. 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 240-26 B (2) 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 front yard of 34.27 feet where 40 feet is required 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 there will be no change in the footprint of the house the building is being made over the existing footprint and is consistent with many other properties and houses in this area and particularly on this street. 3 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 situation of the house on the property and the desire of the homeowners to have a back yard which is usable and the ability of the home owner to simply build up over the existing garage makes this by far the most reasonable and attractive alternative for the homeowner. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds the variance is not substantial as there is no change to the footprint it is simply a change in the height.The left side the house is ? from the street and does not infringe at all on the neighbor or the street set back. The only other change is on the back where no variance is required. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that there will be no impact on the physical or environmental conditions there will be no change in runoff or sound or light or other considerations that would impact the neighborhood or the immediate neighbors. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds while the difficulty is self-created it is not determinative in this case. Mr. Wexler added The addition being built the floor area ratio is approximately 70%of the potential of the lot so it is not a big addition to the house. Mr. Ryan stated an alternative construction to the back which would not require a variance would increase impermeable surfaces. Mr. Baron It would involve a change in foot print, increase impermeable surfaces and be out of character with the house. 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 4 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 September 5, 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Vu APPLICATION NO.4 Case No. 2918 Steven Moses Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Seth Marcus. Steven Moses the applicant addressed the Board, stating the generator will be screened by landscaping. He further stated that in his opinion the location is the least intrusive and will have the least impact to the neighbors. The requested location is the furthest away from the neighbors. Mr. Wexler questioned the exact location of unit as well as the decibel rating which is 60 at 23 feet test speed, 66 at full power. Mr. Moses gave a spec sheet showing the decibel level marked as Exhibit 1 and entered into the record. Mr. Wexler stated that there is no option without a variance on property. 5 The Board discussed the application. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Seth Marcus, seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus. After review, on motion of Mr. Marcus, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(3-0). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill, King WHEREAS,Steven Moses, requested a variance install a 20 KW Generac Generator on the premises located at 41 Villa Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 111, Lot 119. 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), WHEREAS,the applicant submitted an application for a variance to this Board for reasons set forth in such application,the generator as proposed has a front yard of 26.8 feet where 30 feet is required for generator 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 6 WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§Z67'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 no such undesirable change to the neighborhood will be produced. The generator is a relatively small unit which will be masked by vegetation. There should bcno noticeable change to the appearance 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 a variance would be required anywhere on the property the applicant would propose to place the generator,therefore the applicant could not achieve their goals without avariance. C. Whether the area variance issubstantial. The Board finds the variance is not substantial,once again it is a relatively small unit approximately the size of an air conditioner compressor,and it would not be a substantial structure or change to the neighborhood. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighbor. The Board finds that there will be no such adverse impact there should be no change to the lighting conditions and relatively small additional impervious surface. Where there may be some change with regard to the noise levels the change would be insubstantial, because the generator would only be running in times of emergency and power shut down and the test periods that run approximately once aweek. The noise ratings as supplied by the applicant are consistent with that of an air conditioning compressor, further any noise will be masked by vegetation surrounding the generator. E. Whether the difficulty isse|f-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created do to the extent that the applicant wishes to install a generator however we find in this case it is not determinative. Mr. Ryan it would be worth mentioning that the unit is going next to the AC units. 7 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: 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 September 5, 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. If the vegetation must be removed because of the generator specs it must be replaced between the unit and the curb so the unit will be shielded from the public view. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Vu MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of June 6, 2012 and June 27, 2012 with technical corrections by counsel. Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Seth Marcus. 8 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=3). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Seth Marcus. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 9