Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_02_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK FEBRUARY 28, 2018 ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board, Ralph Tarchine, Building Inspector Absent: Irene 0' Neill Mr. Wexler stated that there are only three (3) members present and, although it is a quorum, the applications would need a unanimous vote to be approved; therefore, any applicant may request a straw poll and/or an adjournment. Mr. Wexler further explained that one Board member, Jeffrey King, has been appointed to the Town Board and sadly one member passed away unexpectedly. A moment of silence was observed in memory of Evans Simpson. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:53 P.M. The applications were taken out of order. Application # 9—Case # 3080/3107 -Laura and Yuval Grill— 10 York Avenue Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, asked for an extension of a variance that was granted August 2, 2017 and recorded with the Town Clerk August 14, 2017. The Board discussed the request and noted that the request to extend was submitted prior to the expiration of the earlier approved variance. Motion: To approve the extension of the previously approved varaince Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded Stephen Marsh Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION 10 York Road After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks 1 Nays: None WHEREAS, Yuval and Laura Grill, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front yard addition on the premises located at 10 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 28, Lot 395 (the 2017 Variance Application"); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed front yard addition will have a front yard of 36.6 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35.B(1), the proposed patio is at the property line where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-50 and further the proposal increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the 2017 Variance Application was approved by the Board on August 2, 2017 (the "2017 Variance"); and WHEREAS, this application to extend was filed prior to the expiration of the 2017 Variance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 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 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 because it is a minor addition and is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 2 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the property is pre-existing nonconforming and the proposal is considered to be minor. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment into the rear yard setback is minor with no added bulk and the front yard encroachment is less than 4 feet and does not alter the footprint of the house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the patio slopes away from the neighbor and will, therefore, not contribute to any runoff to his neighbor and the front yard variance does not change the footprint of the house. 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 the 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: 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 3 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. Extension of the patio shall be four (4) feet shy of the side property line. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. Application # 1 —CASE #3094 - LRC Investment Holdings - 1 Kenmare Road Public Hearing Continued Liam Winters, the applicant's architect, explained the request. The wording of the Notice of Disapproval was discussed, particularly with respect to the overhang. Mr. Winters requested and was granted an adjournment. Application # 2 —Case # 3099 - Timothy McCarthy - 8 Nancy Lane Mr. Wexler stated that there was no sign posted and, therefore, the matter was adjourned. Application # 3 —Case # 3101 -Ben and Nancy Cutler - 20 Edgewood Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the request. The Board discussed the request with particular attention to the proposed overhang. Mr. Lewis stated the overhang would be removed from the plans. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION 20 Edgewood Avenue After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks 4 Nays: None WHEREAS, Ben and Nancy Cutler (the "Applicant") requested a variance to replace and existing garage on the premises located at 20 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23, Lot 309; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The garage as proposed has a side yard of 2 feet 4 inches feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39(3)(b), and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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; and 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 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 because the garage currently exists and the improvements will be an enhancement. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means 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 because the property owner wants to keep the existing garage in the same location. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 5 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a replacement of an existing structure. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is a replacement of an existing structure. 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 the 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: 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. 7. The filed plans shall be revised to eliminate the overhang. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. 6 Application # 4 - Case # 3102 - Chrystal and Robert Chambers - 17 Overlook Terrace Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request a variance for the rear deck because the as built survey shows it is closer to the rear property line than the original variance approved. Mr. Chambers, the owner, stated that this was an unintentional error. It was accidentally built with the wrong set of plans. Mr. Sacks asked if the additional square footage impacts lot coverage. The Board discussed the request, calculations, coverage and plantings. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant wants to request an adjournment. The owner requested a straw poll. Mr. Tarchine stated that a landscape plan for screening should be submitted. The matter was adjourned to March 28, 2018. Application # 5 - Case #3103 -Zachary and Laura Page - 98 E Brookside Drive Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the proposal. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Ms. Lewis stated that the current request is to convert living space into a covered front porch. They are altering a portion of the house that is non-conforming. Ms. Lewis explained that the only changes to the second floor are to the windows and trim for egress.The variance request was discussed. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks RESOLUTION 98 East Brookside Drive After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Zachary and Laura Page the "Applicant") requested a variance to renovate and convert portion of existing living room to covered front porch on the premises located at 98 East 7 Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 10, Lot 694; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed covered front porch has a front yard of 22.9 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1) and further the mud room increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone Districtthe "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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; and 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 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 because the structure will not increase the pre-existing encroachment into the required front yard setback. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means 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 because the pre- existing structure to be converted into a portico already encroaches into the required front yard setback. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 8 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because only the height of the gable will be increased and there will be no additional front yard encroachment beyond current conditions. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be only architectural changes to the facade. 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 the 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: 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. 9 Application # 6—Case # 3104 - Eliza D'Amore and Shiva Kumar - 17 Harmony Drive Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, explained the second floor and interior renovation. The Board discussed the proposed plans and the Notice of Disapproval. Mr. Wexler asked for the side elevations existing and proposed as the house is increasing in both mass and volume. Mr. Sacks pointed out that this is a substandard lot. Mr. Tarchine suggested that the application be renoticed. Ms. Lewis stated that she will renotice at 14 feet to the second floor with the setback to the soffits and look at the bulk calculations as related to the adjacent house on Kenmare. There were no public questions or comments. The matter was adjourned to March 28, 2018. Application # 7—Case # 3105 - Nadine Greco -39 Myrtle Blvd. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Nadine Greco, the owner, stated that she would like a portico for protection from water and ice. The Board discussed the plan. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION 39 Myrtle Blvd. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Nadine Greco the "Applicant") requested a variance to build a new portico over front door on the premises located at 39 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 24, Lot 528; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The portico as proposed has a front yard of 26.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and 10 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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; and 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 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 because the portico would be a visual enhancement to the character of the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means 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 because the property owner seeks to protect the front entrance from inclement weather. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because brackets as opposed to columns will hold it up, it blends well with the house and the neighborhood and the overhang is only 1.5 feet beyond the allowable projection of architectural features. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 11 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 the 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: 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. Application # 9 - Case #3106 - 94 CARLEON LLC - 94 Carleon Avenue The applicant proposes to develop an undersized lot. Ms. Edleson, the applicant's architect, stated that Howell Park was subdivided in 1923. Ms. Hochman stated that the applicant is required to demonstrate that the lot can be developed pursuant to the provisions of Section 240- 70 of the Zoning Code or shall request a variance. Public Comments. Diane Blum of 75 Carleon Avenue stated that she believes the FAR is not correct on the zoning chart. 12 Matt Phillip of 100 Carleon Avenue, which is down grade from house, stated that water drains to his yard and he voiced his concerns regarding proposed grade changes. He further stated that he felt the planned house is larger than necessary and he feels it will be out of character with the neighborhood and lower his property value. Mr. Wexler stated that the only matter before the Board is the nonconforming lot size. Bud Motzkin of 75 Carleon Avenue stated that there are a large number of substandard lots in Howell park. Mr. Sacks stated that the neighbors should demonstrate whether there is any the detriment to the community. Ms. Blum stated that the numbers on plan A-001.00 do not match and that the applicant would either need a variance or amend plan to not cover the porch The owner of 23 Kenmare Road stated that his back yard faces the proposed development and he is concerned with loss of value as the proposal will affect his light. He further stated that he believes the property will be a rental and is concerned for noise as well as drainage problems. Mr. Wexler stated that the Board takes into account light and noise concerns and stated that a shadow study may be required. Jean Taylor of 21 Kenmare Road stated that she is new to the area and that she moved here for space and is concerned with the height of the proposed house as it will block her first floor view of the sky. Pierce Crosby of 110 Carleon Avenue voiced his confusion regarding the project. Mr. Sacks explained that the applicant is here because the lot is not the required size for the zone. Mr. Wexler stated that the driveway is too close to the property line. The Applicant was asked to demonstrate that the lot is buildable pursuant to 240-70 or request a variance. The Hoffman's, the property owners who live at 69 Carleon Avenue, stated that the right thing to do for the neighbors is to work with the community. Mr. Tarchine stated that he will review the submissions and make a determination as to whether the proposal requires a variance. MINUTES Motion: To approved the minutes of January 17, 2018 with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler. Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks 13 ADJOURNED at 10:40 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary 14