Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_07_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes The Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda for July 28, 2010 1. Application No. 1 Case No. 2872 Cad Development Corp Application of Cad Development Corp. requesting a variance to build a rear deck and install two central air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 7 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 476. 2. Application No. 2 Case No. 2873 Mr. and Mrs. Gatenio Application of Mr. and Mrs. Gatenio requesting a variance to enclose an existing porch on the premises located at 4 Byron Lane and known on Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 380. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JULY 28, 2010 IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK IIVE Ov ` Roll Call Present: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister, Robert Viner, Ronald Carpaneto, Building Inspector(Not voting), Kevin Ryan, Counsel (Not voting). Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, David Fishman, Liaison. CALL TO ORDER Motion to open the public hearing 7:40 P.M. Mr. Wexler stated that the applications are being taken out of order because of a scheduling problem. APPLICATION NO. 2. CASE NO. 2873 MR.AND MRS. GATENIO 4 Byron Lane Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Absent= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Absent: Irene O'Neill. 1 Mr. Wexler stated that there are only four Board members present and a majority vote of 3 members is required to approve the application. A tie vote is a negative vote. The applicant can request an adjournment for a full Board to review the matter. The applicant chose to continue. John Cotugno the applicant's architect addressed the Board and explained the application. The Board discussed the existing porch and whether or not the application is to legalize the structure. There were no questions or comments from the public. IIVa ,IVa Motion: To close the public hearing, Action: Approved, Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. OvIN Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Absent= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Abstain: Irene O'Neill. OvIN IVa ` Motion: To approve the requested variance. Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Ronald Meister OvIN Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Absent= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Absent: Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Mr. Baron, seconded by Mr. Meister the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Viner, Meister Nays: None Absent: O'Neill WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Gatenio requested a variance to enclose an existing porch on the premises located at 4 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 380. 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; 2 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Gatenio submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application. WHEREAS, the enclosed porch has a side yard of 6.35 feet where 8 feet is required; WHEREAS, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; WHEREAS, the 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; WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617 et seq. an, 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 is no change in the footprint, height or depth of the existing structure, it is simply taking a screened porch and finishing the room. The finish will be consistent with the rest of the house and in no way a radical change. 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 this is an existing structure being changed from screened to finished. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the variance is not substantial there is no change in the square footage, height or any other characteristic. 3 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 additional noise, light, runoff as a result of the variance, if anything the neighborhood will be quieter. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that although the difficulty self created it is not determinative. 2. For 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 neighbor 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: 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 Boards and as agreed to by the applicant. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above 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 (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within (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. 1 CASE NO. 2872 Cad Development Corp. 7 Byron Lane 4 ovm Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. Dean Scampone of Cad Development Corp, the owner, addressed the Board. The Board discussed the deck and air conditioning condenser units. Mr. Scampone informed the Board that he was able to locate an air conditioning condenser unit with a decibel level of 66 and entered the spec sheet into the record marked Exhibit A. The Board discussed the location of the air conditioning units, the height of the deck and clearance under the deck and the distance from the property line. Mr. Scampone entered a photo of 10 Dimitri Street's back yard marked Exhibit B, and 8 Dimitri Street marked Exhibit C. The Board was polled. Mr. Scampone stated that he will lessen the size of the deck and requested that the Board vote on the matter. Robert Gatenio, 4 Byron Lane, stated he would prefer the unit in rear of the house. IVa ov ` Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Frederick Baron. IVm Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Absent= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Abstain: Irene O'Neill. Motion: To approve the variance as modified to 18 feet where 25 feet Action: Approved Moved by Ronald Meister, Seconded by Frederick Baron Iva ` Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Absent= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Abstain: Irene O'Neill. 5 After review, on motion of Mr. Meister, seconded by Mr. Baron the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED Ayes: Wexler, Baron, Viner, Meister Nays: None Absent: O'Neill WHEREAS, Cad Development Corp., requested a variance to enclose an existing porch on the premises located at 7 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 476. 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.(3) and 240-69; WHEREAS, Cad Development Corp. submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application. WHEREAS, the deck as proposed has a rear yard of 18 feet where 25 feet is required; WHEREAS, the air conditioning condenser units have a rear yard of 22 feet where 25 feet is required; WHEREAS, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; WHEREAS, the 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; WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617 et seq. an, 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: 6 The Board finds the deck as proposed will be an enhancement to the rear of the house. The placement of the air conditioning units under the deck will shield them from view. 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 only alternative that does not necessitate the need for a variance is to place the air conditioning condensers' in the front of the house causing an impact on the surrounding neighbors and the street. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: The Board finds that the impact is not substantial, the air conditioning units are relatively small in size and the modified proposal for the deck is not a substantial encroachment. The decks on neighboring properties encroach further or equally to their property line. There would be a requirement for some encroachment because of the grade level of the rear of the house. 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 is no adverse impact as to light, runoff or the sound level of the air conditioning units. E. Whether the difficulty is self created: The Board finds that by virtue of the placement of the house on the lot and the developers' full knowledge, it can be, considered self created but this factor it is not determinative. 2. For 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 neighbor 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 7 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 Boards and as agreed to by the applicant. 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above 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 (6) months of the filing of the Resolution. 4. The Building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within (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. 6. The applicant will install a solid 5 foot fence on rear property line. 7. The applicant will install lattice work under deck to lessen the impact of the sound of the air conditioning condenser units. 8. The air conditioning unit will be 66 decibels, as submitted. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. MINUTES ovm Motion: The minutes of May 26, 2010 and June 23, 2010. as corrected. Action: Approved Moved by Frederick Baron, Seconded by Arthur Wexler. ov ` May minutes were approved Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Absent= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Absent: Irene O'Neill. IVi' ` June minutes were approved Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 0, Abstain= 1,Absent = 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Ronald Meister. Abstain: Robert Viner. Absent: Irene O'Neill. NEXT MEETING 8 Ms. Brill will confirm the date and email the Board, possibly September 15, 2010. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Seconded by Ronald Meister. OvE Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 0, Absent= 1). Yes: Arthur Wexler, Frederick Baron, Robert Viner, Ronald Meister. Absent: Irene O'Neill. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 9