Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_03_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 24,2010,IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Robert Viner Also Present: Lisa Hochman,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building Absent: David Fishman,Liaison Nina Crescenzi,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. Mr. Wexler welcomed Mr.Viner as a new member of the Board. APPLICATION NO.1—CASE NO. 2858 Zeev and Barbara Schori (adjourned 3/24/10) Continuation of public hearing. Mr. Robert Lifland,president of Fountain Plumbing,appeared and addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lifland stated that he researched and found a smaller unit to install and he marked the location of installation on his plans,as the Board had requested. The Board discussed the units and their placement. There were no questions or comments from the public. On motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr.Baron the Public Hearing was closed. After review,on motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr. Baron,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0 Ayes: Baron,Wexler,O'Neill,Meister,Viner Nays: WHEREAS,Zeev and Barbara Schori requested a variance to install air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 740 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 233,Lot 28: and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a) and 240-69; and WHEREAS,Zeev and Barbara Schori submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,the proposed air conditioning condenser units as proposed have a side yard of 4 feet where 10 feet is required; and WHEREAS,the proposed units increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617 et seq.and,accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law § 267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood because, at the Board's request,the applicant will be using a quieter unit and the applicant will provide adequate screening. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goal by any other method as the structure is already nonconforming and the applicant has chosen the least intrusive location for placement. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed unit is very quiet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district as there will be no increase in runoff and light with only a minimal increase in noise from the units. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because of the placement of the nonconforming house on the lot. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For the reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting modifications for review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application,as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE NO.2859 Eric Graber Eric Graber,the applicant,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Graber gave the Board photos of his home to explain why the air conditioning unit is in the best location on the property. They were marked Exhibit A. The Board discussed the location,and dimension of the unit as well as its proximity to the neighbors house and any alternative locations. There were no questions or comments from the public. On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron the Public Hearing was closed. After review,on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0 Ayes: Baron,Wexler,O'Neill,Meister,Viner Nays: WHEREAS,Eric Graber, requested a variance to legalize an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 34 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120,Lot 260:and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(a) and 240-69; and WHEREAS,Eric Graber submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS,the air conditioning condenser units have a side yard of 4 feet 4 inches where 8 feet is required; and WHEREAS,the unit increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617 et seq.and,accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law § 267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board finds that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood because the nearest neighbor submitted a letter stating that he has no objection to the location of the unit. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that the applicant cannot achieve their goal by any other method because the only other conforming alternate location is more visible and would require more piping. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is very quiet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district as there will be no increase in runoff and light with only a minimal increase in noise from the units and the most impacted neighbor has written a letter in support. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The board finds that the difficulty although self created is not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For the reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as modified in accordance with the direction of the Board. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any 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 six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application,as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. MINUTES On Motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron the minutes of January 27,2010 were approved, subject to technical corrections. Ayes: Wexler,Baron,O"Neill,Viner Nays: Abstain: Meister On Motion of Mr.Wexler, seconded by Mr.Baron the minutes of February 24,2010 were approved, subject to technical corrections. Ayes: Wexler,Baron,O"Neill,Viner,Meister Nays: APPLICATION NO.3—CASE NO. Jeff Rosenzweig Mr. Rosenzweig appeared and addressed the Board On motion of Mr. Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron,the public hearing was opened. Mr. Rosenzweig stated that he would like to keep the gravel parking space as it currently exists. The Board discussed the space and its impact on the community. The applicant requested an adjournment to look into alternatives. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Mr. Wexler the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary