Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012_01_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 25,2012 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AGENDA APPICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2888 Paul Feldman (adjourned 9/26/2011, 10/26/2011 and 12/5/2011) Application of Paul Feldman requesting a variance to construct a garage and master bedroom addition on the premises located at 6 East Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 107, Lot 422. APPLICATION NO.2 CASE NO.2891 Herbert Meyers(adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2011). Application of Herbert Meyers requesting a variance to install a 14 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.2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2011). 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.4 Case No.2893 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/2011). 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. 5 Case No.2894 Stefan Magel (Adjourned 10/26/2012, 12/05/2011) Application of Stefan Magel requesting a variance to legalize an and elevated deck and patio on the premises located at 10 Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 540. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE No.2897 Joshua Konvisser Application of Joshua Konvisser requesting a variance to construct a d=first floor kitchen addition and master suite at the second floor on the premises located at 75 West Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 59. APPLICATION NO. 7 Case No.2898 Gregg Goldsholl Application of Gregg Goldsholl requesting a variance to construct a rear yard addition on the premises located at 32 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 565. Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, Alternate, 1 Also Present: Ronald A. Carpaneto, Building Inspector, Kevin G. Ryan, Counsel, Ernest Odierna, Liaison CALL TO ORDER Vu The meeting was called to order at 7:53 PM Chairman Wexler stated that the sign for Application No. 2, 7 Meadow Place,was not posted therefore the application would not be heard tonight. Vu APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 2888 Paul Feldman 6 East Drive public hearing continued Mr. Zachery Schweter,the applicant's architect, gave a brief explanation of the application, stating they started in September;they were asked to return with other options and resubmitted in October. On drawings dated 10/12/11, he explained that he moved the garage back from street, shrank the master bedroom on all sides, lowered the roof and put in dormers to lessen scale and break up the mass of the house, and reduced the overall floor area of the addition. Mr. Schweter stated that he believes the proposed addition is not more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He further stated that he feels moving the addition further back from the street would obstruct the view of the yard and play area from the kitchen. According to Mr. Schweter, one of the benefits of this plan is that the driveway is less impervious surface. As to the possibility of turning the existing garage into a play room, Mr. Schweter opined that this would be infeasible because it would require extensive chipping inside the house. Mr. Schweter stated that he tried to be sensitive to the 6 East Drive street view and the Murray Avenue area in designing the addition. Mr. Schweter entered photos into record which were marked Exhibit 2. Mr. Wexler stated the applicant is requesting a massive front yard variance and that few homes in the neighborhood are so close to the street. As to Mr. Schweter's claim that an alternative design would be infeasible due to the presence of rock, Mr. Wexler stated that he had experience with projects in the immediate area and found that rock removal was feasible. He noted that in October the board asked the applicant to show the board an alternative that would be further from the street and that the plan under discussion is not changed. Mr. Schweter explained the Photos marked Exhibit 2. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Schweter if there was a picture showing the view from the house to the play area. Mr. Schweter handed in another photo sheet marking the upper middle picture which show's requested view. Mr. Wexler stated that the view is narrow. SIDE BAR between counsel and chairman. Mr. Wexler stated it was suggested that the Board should meet at the site to see the view of the yard from the house as described by Mr. Schweter. 2 Mr. Schweter entered a diagram marked page 4 of 10 into the record.This was marked as Exhibit 3. Mr. Feldman,the applicant, explained that the diagram marked Exhibit 3 shows that 50%of the view is obstructed now, and each inch that the garage is pushed back from the street obstructs more and more of the view of the children's play area from the inside of the house. The relevant view from the kitchen is to the northwest corner of the property and the concern is pushing the garage back from the west. Mr. Wexler stated that the Board is required to weigh the benefit of the applicant against the detriment to the neighborhood. The dimensions of site were discussed. Ms. O'Neill asked the Board what they would view as acceptable. Mr. Wexler responded that to be acceptable more front setback for the proposed structure would be necessary to be in character with the community. Mr. Wexler discussed drawing A-1. Mr. Baron noted that the big two-story home is already well into the front setback. Mr. Wexler suggested putting the playroom somewhere else in the home,which would then allow a smaller garage bump out. Mr. Schweter argued that the architectural program calls for a new kitchen as well and that this needs a clear view of the children's play area in the yard. Mr. Wexler asked about the patio doors facing the yard. Mr. Schweter advised they door is currently 4.5'wide and that the new doors will be 12' wide. Mr. Wexler suggested moving the doors and/or windows to get a better angled view of the yard. Mr. Schweter advised that this is not in the budget. Mr. Wexler stated that with a renovation of this magnitude,the cost for moving the patio doors and/or windows is not a compelling issue. Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Meister, stated his view of the project is different from Mr. Wexler and Mr. Baron. Chairman Wexler asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Mr. Odierna asked about the setback requirements. Mr. Feldman stated that letters from all but one neighbor in the cul-de-sac are in favor of the application;the one neighbor who did not sign a letter reportedly stated she is in favor but doesn't wish to put it in writing. Mr. Feldman, offered to show his property to Board stating he thinks the Board would see why pushing the garage back further would be detrimental. He further stated that about 30%of the property is unusable. The Board discussed the possibility of a site visit. Ms. Brill was asked to coordinate same and post any required notices. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. O'Neill the meeting was adjourned. Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Meister, Baron, Marcus 3 Nays: None °VIE APPLICATION NO.3 Case No. 2892 Saul Rueda (adjourned 10/26/2011,12/05/11) continuation 38 Lester Place Mr. Engle the applicant's attorney for both Application 3 and 4 stated that it was brought to his attention that the sign posted on 30 Lester Place was incorrect and therefore could not be heard. Mr. Engle the applicant's attorney stated he is working on getting documentation re: 38 Lester Place working with an accountant assembling financial hardship paperwork to present to Board. Mr. Engle requested an adjournment for both Application 3 and Application 4. Mr. Baron asked about the specific criteria required,to which Mr. Ryan responded that proof has to be specific"dollars and cents" proof regarding financial hardship, almost on the order of a taking. On motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Marcus that applicant requested an adjournment of both Application No. 4 Case No. 2893 30 Lester Place and Application No. 3 Case No. 2892 38 Lester Place. Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Meister, Baron, Marcus Nays: None Vu APPLICATION NO. 5 Case No. 2894 Stefan Magel (adjourned 10/26/2011, 12/05/11)continuation 10 Dimitri Place Mike Csenge,the applicant's architect, and Mr. Magel,the applicant addressed the Board. Mr. Csenge entered letters from neighbors in favor of the application marked Exhibit 1, and a Google Earth Photo marked Exhibit 2 into the record. Mr. Csenge stated that it was built this way to try to create green space on the property that is why they took out some driveway. Mr. Baron stated that he is concerned about the stairs not necessarily the deck. Mr. Magel the owner stated that it was designed that way for safety of children existing house. Mr. Meister stated that the applicant is before the Board for two variances one for the deck and one for the patio. Mr. Meister asked how the deck came to be there in the first place. Mr. Magel stated that there was an existing deck that he expanded,taking away the gravel driveway, the garage is now used for storage not for vehicles, and their two cars are parked on the side of the house. 4 Mr. Csenge stated the driveway came all the way around to the rear as shown on the original survey. Mr. Magel bought the house in 2008.There was no patio he put it in. Mr. Wexler asked how often is the patio used, Mr. Magel stated his children use is for skate boards, ride on toys. The large size of the deck was discussed (11.7 by 25.10). Mr. Wexler asked if the stairs can be relocated either off to the side or on to the patio. The Board understands the hardship of taking the deck down, and they are trying to come up with a solution. Mr. Carpaneto explained that about 6 feet would have to be removed from the depth of the deck to make it conforming, resulting in a very skinny deck. Mr. Magel explained that he listened to a contractor who said permits were not needed when the work was done, he is selling now and understands that it must be legalized. Mr. Baron stated because of the angle and where it is situated the stairs extend way into the back yard and it is much closer than it has to be. Mr. Wexler stated that bulk of the application is the deck that has a setback of 19.3 inches, while only the stair protrudes into the rear yard with a setback of just 16.9 inches. Mr. Magel stated the neighbor diagonally to the rear received a variance for a deck at 7 Byron Lane as shown on Exhibit 2. Mr. Meister stated that both he and Mr. Baron are struggling with an anomaly, if this application had come before them as it should have they probably wouldn't have granted it at least where the stair is. Legally the Board is not supposed to give an applicant extra credit because they went ahead and broke the law, but equitably he understands if not passed a good portion of the deck would have to be removed. Mr. Meister asked Mr. Baron if he had any suggestions for the applicant to mitigate the adverse impact on the applicant who admittedly put himself in this position. Mr. Baron responded that the applicant should return with a plan to modify the stairs. The applicant requested an adjournment. Motion: To adjourn the matter Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by. IIVa 5 Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Vu APPLICATION NO.6 CASE NO 2897 Joshua Konvisser 75 West Garden Road Mr. Wexler stated that he was approached by the applicant for architectural plans and backed away when it became apparent that the solution would require a variance. He stated he has no vested interested and was not compensated. Ms. O'Neill recused herself because she is a contiguous neighbor. Mr. Wexler explained that the applicant would need a positive vote of three to one in order to be approved. Mr. Konvisser stated he has no objection to Mr. Wexler hearing the application. Mr. Schweter,the applicant's architect addressed the Board. He entered letters from the neighbors in support of the plan Marked exhibit 1. The site is situated on West Garden Road but the bulk of the property is along Clover Street; all of the properties on Clover are corner properties and all of the houses sit very close to the Street, he further explained the elevation of the property and the plan for the house addition. The house is sitting over the setback the north east side on Clover Street. Mr. Meister asked for clarification of the zoning analysis. Mr. Schweter stated what set the location of the addition was the gabled roof and that he wanted to center the ridge lines, also the side yard setback is 8 feet. The facade of the addition was discussed. The first floor is a kitchen addition, the second floor above the kitchen is the master bed and bath. The west elevation faces the alley and the grade is severe. Mr. Schweter noted that the 4 foot retaining wall is on the neighbor's property as shown on plan CS1. Mr. Schweter stated he did a light study to see where massing and shading would be when the neighbor's at 61 West Garden (Snyder's ) came before the Board for a variance. If the addition was put on West Garden it would have been a massive three story addition because of the elevation of the property and would also have been in the setback, requiring much greater variances. Mr. Wexler discussed the brick facade, as shown on drawing A5. Mr. Schweter stated that he wanted the addition to be sub-ordinate.The house is a Georgian revival,with steel case windows. Mr. Meister asked if Mr. Wexler's concerns related to the intrusion into the setback, Mr. Wexler stated he had no concerns as to the bulk of the house or where it sits on the property, he wants the addition to look like it 6 was always there and blend with the neighborhood.The owner Mr. Konvisser stated that as long as it does not require a larger variance he would not be opposed to adding brick like Mr. Wexler suggested. Mr. Wexler stated the front yard setback is to the brick, on the back it is to the wood. The ridge line is off center 1 % inch. Mr. Meister asked if the notice was proper, Mr. Wexler is saying you don't need to worry about protruding further into the setback if you bring the brick up to the first level,which was the architect's concern. Mr. Ryan stated that if the brick to the rear is the relevant point for measuring the setback then that raises Mr. Meister's question as to whether the application was noticed properly. Mr. Schweter stated that there is no variance requested for the rear. Mr. Ryan stated if we are clear that the measurement of the variance is from the brick on the front, then the chairman's point is that it would not require any additional variance or notice to vertically extend the brick at the rear of the structure. Public questions or comments There were none Mr. Wexler asked the applicant to come back with a new plan showing the discussed changes to the brick facade. Mr. Ryan stated the Board could approve the variance with specific conditions, in this case it seems like a fairly clear condition to articulate and the Building Inspector could be charged with making sure the building plans conform to said conditions. Mr. Schweter stated he proposes to take the coping line of the parapet wall to the south side of the house and to take it all the way across to the north side of the house. He will be add brick up to the coping line with a concrete cap,wrapping around with some a detail that will create an overhang. Vu Motion: To close the Public Hearing Action: Approved : On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron the public hearing was closed. Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Vi Motion:To approve the variance request as amended Action:Approved Moved by Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr. Baron. 7 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=4, Abstain 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus,Alternate. Nays: Abstain: Irene O'Neill After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED (yes 4-abstain 1). Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Meister, Marcus Nays: None Absent/Excused: O'Neill WHEREAS,Joshua Konvisser, requested a variance to construct a first floor kitchen addition and master suite at the second floor on the premises located at 75 West Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218, Lot 59. 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 240-39(1) 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 18.27 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39(1) 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 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. 8 The Board finds that there will be no change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties because the proposed addition, as modified pursuant to direction of the Board,will be well-integrated into the fabric of the house. Specifically,the location of the addition, with the ridge line of the addition lining up with the existing house,the slightly greater setback of the addition relative to the exiting house, and the agreed- upon facade changes (i.e., extension of coping line,vertical extension of brick, concrete cap comparable to exiting)will keep it in character with the both the existing house and neighboring homes in the R-10 zone. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a feasible method without an area variance because given the configuration of the house on the property. The property is 50 feet in depth, the house presently sits 17.3 feet from the front property line and 6.05 feet from the side property line. To achieve an addition within the setbacks of 30 feet and 8 feet would yield a buildable area that would not meet the applicant's requirements and would not be practicable to build. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that,while the request is substantial given the required setback of 30 feet from the front property line,the front setback of the proposed addition is greater from the existing setback by about a foot. Also, as noted above, other homes in the neighborhood have similar setbacks so that this setback would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Taken together,these factors mitigate the substantiality of the requested setback and make this factor non-determinative. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the addition 290 square feet plus or minus would not add significant sound or light or have any other adverse environmental effect on the community at large. The applicant will have to retain any runoff in a suitable containment. Lot coverage is still under 35% maximum lot coverage E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds the difficulty is self-created but 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 internet 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 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. 6. The architect shall submit drawings to the Building Inspector that indicate the revisions to the elevations of the building as agreed with the Board this date, including, an increase the brick areas on at least three sides of the addition up to the sill line of the windows on the second floor or in line with the parapet over the garage (i.e.,the coping line). 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. 2898 Gregg Goldsholl 32 Valley Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister Vote: ALL Mr. Zachary Schweter,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Schweter entered photos into the record,which were marked as Exhibit 1, and letters from the neighbors in favor of the application,which were marked as Exhibit 2 10 Mr. Schweter stated that this is an undersized lot, with rock in the rear yard, stating that the purpose of the proposed plan is to locate all bedrooms on the same floor of the house and to gain living space on the first floor. The two existing bedrooms on the first floor will be modified to become one family room and one guest room/office by expanding out the back 6.5 feet. A mud room will be added. These changes are shows as shaded areas on the proposed addition plan. The two variances requested are side yard variances. The applicant is seeking to extend 3 feet six inches into the side yard on the north side of the house and 1 foot 7 inches on the south side of the house. According to Mr. Schweter, houses in the neighborhood are close together. On the second floor, the master bedroom overhangs the first floor by one foot. The rear bedroom overhangs the first floor by one foot, and the bathroom overhangs by 2 feet. Mr. Schweter explained the rear of house faces east. Mr. Meister asked about the wing wall. Mr. Schweter responded that it is shown on drawing A-5. He explained that the purpose is to create greater privacy inside the house from the neighbor's house as the houses are very close together. Drawing A-6 shows the wing walls in the back. Mr. Schweter stated that the whole of the back yard is stone and he is tapping into the look of the stone. The house is shingled and only brick on the front. The extension on the north facade will have 3 dormers. Mr. Wexler asked about water retention since the property is mostly rock. Mr. Schweter stated that he will defer to the engineers. Mr. Baron asked about lot coverage. Mr. Schweter responded that the house foot print will be increased by 131 square feet, to 1198;yet the terrace will be reduced by 39 square feet and will be rebuilt in front of the dining room. Mr. Baron stated he would like to see lot coverage to come in at less than 35%. Mr. Schweter stated that the new terrace is being placed over rock, and therefore does not increase imperviousness. Mr. Meister asked what can be done about runoff when there is so much rock on a property. Mr. Carpaneto stated that the applicant has to prepare an erosion control plan and the Town's consulting engineer will review such plan. If the bedrock conditions as the site make dry wells infeasible,the Town engineering consultant will look at other mitigation methods, such as, draining water from the gutters and leaders to the street and the storm sewer system. 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. Vote: 11 Ayes: Wexler, Baron, O'Neill. Meister, Marcus, Alternate Nays: None Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, seconded by Arthur Wexler. After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED (5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Irene O'Neill, Ronald Meister, Seth Marcus, alternate Nays: None WHEREAS,Gregg Goldsholl, requested a variance to construct a rear yard addition on the premises located at 32 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 565. 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 Section 240-38B.(2)(a,), Section 240-38B.92)(b), Section 240-38F and Section 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 6.3 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B.(2)(a), has a total side yard of 12.7 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B.(2)(b), has a total lot coverage of 37.1%where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-38F, and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 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 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. 12 A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance. The Board finds that there is no such change or detriment. As this is a small lot,the existing improvements are already nonconforming. The change is to provide additional space for the family without substantially altering the appearance of the house,with most of the addition occurring to the rear of the house with dormers within the existing roof planes. Therefore, the addition will not constitute a change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a 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. The Board finds that the applicant has considered alternatives and agrees that there is no reasonable alternative that does not require an area variance. Because of the placement of the existing structure on the lot, alternatives that would not require an area variance would result in a more massive construction as seen from the street and would be completely out of character with the neighborhood. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variances are not substantial because they will add only minimally to the existing dimensional non-conformance of the home and because the bulk of the proposed addition will not be in the setbacks. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that there is a slight increase in lot coverage which is already slightly over the maximum allowable for prevention of erosion and stormwater runoff. However, based on the testimony and evidence submitted by the applicant, as well as on the Board's inspection of the property, the property is largely incapable of retaining water due to its rocky nature. As a result,the slight increase of impervious surface on the lot reflected in the proposed plans, will not cause a measurable increase in stormwater runoff from the site and therefore will not cause a significant additional adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that this difficulty can be considered self-created because the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of its conditions, but that factor alone is not determinative. 13 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 January 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. MINUTES The Minutes were tabled Mr. Baron asked that the address be added to the header of each application.. ADJOURNED Motion:To adjourn the public hearing Action:Adjourned Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister. 14 Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals, Secretary 15