HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_05_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN CENTER
740 WESR BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
May 23, 2018
ROLL CALL
Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David
Fishman, Alternate
Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board, Richard Polcari, Building Inspector,
Jaine Elkind-Eney, Town Board Liaison
Absent: Robin Nichinsky
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:48 P.M.
MINUTES
The review of the minutes was postponed to the end of the meeting.
Application # 1 —Case # 3113 —Susan Tecza —1 Edgewater Place
At the applicant's request, the matter was adjourned to June 27'2018.
Application # 2 —Case # 3117- Clarissa O'Conner—207 Weaver Street
Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the proposal for steps and
a new deck on a corner property. The front yard will be 26.2 feet where 30 feet is required. The
Board discussed the request and the Building inspector and Board determined that a variance was
not required because the total projection into the front yard is five feet, nine inches and Section
240-51 of the Town Zoning Code allows a front yard projection of up to eight feet.
Mr. Polcari stated that the Notice of Disapproval would be withdrawn.
Application # 3 —Case # 3118—Harris and Dahna Freidus —3 Ridgeway Road
Dahna Freidus addressed the Board stating that there was previously a 6-foot cedar fence on the
hilltop side of the property. Recently they did a landscaping project and were approved a 4 foot
pool fence. The cedar fence came down and they wish to replace it. There was no permit on file
for the cedar fence. The color and material of the proposed fence was discussed. The Board
reviewed the survey to determine the exact location of the proposed fence but found that the
survey was not recent and not accurate. Mr. Wexler suggested that the applicant come back
with a new survey showing the exact placement of the new fence. In addition, Mr. Wexler stated
that since they are requesting to legalize what is already there, he wants an as built survey. Mr.
Polcari suggested that the applicant contact the building department to discuss the required
1
documents. The applicants were informed about the notice requirements. The application was
adjourned.
Application # 4—Case # 3119 - Estate of KB Keefe—79 Harmon Drive
James Fleming, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. He stated that in the 1950's the
NYS Thruway Authority took a part of the property, making the property nonconforming. At
that time, the porch was there with a roof and full foundation. Now it is completely enclosed.
The Keefe family bought the house in the 1960's and enclosed the porch. There is electricity but
no heat in the enclosed porch.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David
Fishman, Alternate
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sandi Park asked about the variance process and the Chair explained the procedures.
Motion: to close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David
Fishman, Alternate
Motion: to approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David
Fishman, Alternate
RESOLUTION
After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
WHEREAS, Estate of KB Keefe, CO Maura Keefe executor (the "Applicant") requested a
variance to legalize an existing build out for a den on the existing roofed porch structure (three
walls added under roof) on the premises located at 79 Harmon Drive and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 16, Lot 460; and
2
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following
grounds: The as-built den has a front yard of 17 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-39B(1), and further the build out increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming
pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District.
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 it is
not visible to neighbors or anyone passing by as the property boarders the NYS
Thruway and is considerably set back from neighbors.
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 it was built about
50 years ago and made non-conforming when the NYS Thruway was built.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it has existed for about
50 years and is not visible.
3
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 has existed for 50 years and therefore will
generate no additional runoff, light, noise, etc. as compared to current conditions.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because the property became,
through no fault of the prior property owner, it became non-conforming when the
NYS Thruway was built.
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code.
Application # 5—Case # 3120 - Shaun Wong—201 Murray Avenue
Joe Greco, the applicant's represenative addressed the Board.
Motion: To open the public hearing
4
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David
Fishman, Alternate
Mr. Greco stated that the deck was erected last year by Mr. Wong without a permit. In addition
the AC unit was on the original plan when the house was built but accidently left off the permit.
Mr. Wexler questioned the Dba level, which Mr. Greco stated is 48. Ms. O'Neill questioned lot
coverage. Mr. Polcari provided a history of the project and stated that the storm water plan was
reviewed by the Town Engineer who determined that the system has adequate capacity.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David
Fishman, Alternate
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David
Fishman, Alternate
RESOLUTION
After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, David Fishman
Alternate
Nays: None
WHEREAS, Shaun Wong (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize the
installation of a TREX deck at the rear of the home, A/C unit on right side
on the premises located at 201 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 13, Lot 323; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following
grounds: The deck as-built has lot coverage of 47% where 35% is allowed pursuant to Section
240-38F, a side yard setback of 8 feet where 10 feet is permitted for existing air condition
condenser pursuant to Section 240-38B(2), and further the deck and A/C unit increases the extent
5
by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 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 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
air conditioning unit is small and quiet and the wood deck in the rear yard is low to
the ground, uncovered and not visible to neighbors or from the street.
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 there are no other
suitable locations given the existing structure and the configuration of the property.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance for the air conditioner is not substantial given its
small size and low Dba levels and while the increase in lot coverage for the deck is
substantial, the impact is mitigated due to the fact that it is unenclosed, low to the
ground and pervious underneath to allow drainage.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
6
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or
environmental conditions because the air conditioner will not be noisy and the deck
will not impact stormwater runoff or drainage because there is grass and gravel
underneath.
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.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code.
NEW BUSINESS
The Board discussed the status of the application for 94 Carleon.
The Board discussed a land use training program to be offered by the Town.
Summer meeting schedule date changes were discussed and Board members agreed to meet on
August 1 instead of July 25th and to cancel the August 29th meeting.
7
The Board discussed changing the start time of meetings and Ms. Brill was asked to send an
email to the Board members to see whether an earlier meeting time could work.
MINUTES
Motion: To approve the Minutes of April 25, 2018
Action: Approved
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh
Vote:
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks and David Fishman, Alternate
Abstain: Irene O'Neill
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
Minutes prepared by
Francine M. Brill
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
8