Loading...
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 Polcari stated that the Notice of Disapproval would be withdrawn.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