Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_01_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK,JANUARY 25,2017 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Jeffrey King, Stephen Marsh (alternate) Also Present:John Landi, Building Inspector, Francine Brill, Secretary, Lisa Hochman, Counsel Absent/Excused:Tom Murphy,Town Board Liaison. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO. 1 615 Fifth Avenue Public Hearing continued David Cooper of Zarin &Stenimetz,the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler asked for an explanation why 10 parking spaces are required when the original notice requested 5 spaces. Mr. Cooper explained that the original calculation for the building had 5 spaces preexisting nonconforming, but with the change of use those spaces have been removed from the calculation and,therefore, 10 spaces are required. Evans Simpson asked if the parking requirement changed because of change of use and Mr. Cooper responded yes and added that the zoning classification requires more parking spaces than the parking demands generated by the gym. Mr. Sacks asked if the rest of the building will remain as is and Mr. Cooper responded yes the same tenants are to remain. The Board discussed the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the Public Hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King Nays: None 1 WHEREAS, Lumiram Development Corp. (the "Applicant") requested a variance to extend the existing driveway at the right side of the property on the premises located at 615 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 31, Lot 344; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-46.E, 240-76 and 240-78; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements of 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 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; 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 the granting of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties the location is a commercial area and the actual demand generated by the use is less than 10 parking spaces. 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 tenants in the building dictate the number of parking spaces required and there is no additional space to provide more parking on the site. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is required by the Zoning Code but not dictated by the actual demand for parking. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 2 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the physical or environmental conditions because there will be no increase in bulk, noise, runoff or light. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-crested, 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 purpose 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: GENERAL 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 was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2-CASE NO.3051-57 Harrison Drive Corp. Public Hearing continued Mr. Wexler stated that the sign was not visible when he inspected the site. He advised the applicant that those in attendance who wish to speak will be heard and the public hearing will remain open and continue at the next meeting, scheduled for February 15t". Mr. Wexler instructed the applicant to submit photos showing that the notification sign is posted for each of the required 14 days to comply with the notice requirements. Mr. Landi suggested that the applicant place a van on the property with the correctly dated sign so there would be less risk that the sign would be removed. David Becker, a neighbor, stated that the neighbors are aware of this application. Mr. Wexler stated that there is no relief from the notice law. 3 Adriana Kierszenbaum the applicant's lawyer, stated that she noticed some members were not present last month and asked if she should give a brief synopsis of the application. Mr. Sacks stated he was at the first presentation and is up to speed. Ms. Kierszenbaum stated that the Board had asked how much of the slope is to be removed. Mr. Landi stated for the record that there was a stamped approved set of plans but a permit was never issued and further stated that the Building Department does not retain plans not permitted over one year and an approved set of plans is only good for 6 months. Although it was stamped approved by the prior building inspector, Mr. Landi stated that he reviewed the approved plans and determined that they did not comply with zoning and required a variance. The Board requested a copy of the approved storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and Mr. Landi stated that it is on file in the Building Department. He added that getting an approved SWPPP doesn't mean you automatically get a building permit. He further stated that it is his job to review the erosion and building plans for consistency and said that the applicant would be required to post a bond. Mr. Wexler stated that the applicant is seeking a variance from 75 foot lot width to allow 55 foot width. Mr. Sacks stated his concern about the topography of the property.The Board asked for a cut and fill plan. Ms. Kierszenbaum stated that some other lots in the neighborhood have rock out cropping. Mr. Wexler asked that the applicant identify lots with less than a 75 foot width to show whether the proposal is in or out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Simpson asked the applicant to identify lots that have houses with similar topographic conditions and to show a pattern of development of the neighborhood. Mr.Tomcyzk stated he will supply a copy of the SWPPP. Ms. Kierszenbaum stated that they will supply all the other requested information. Mr. Wexler asked that the stakes showing the property line and house be painted different colors so they can be easily distinguished. PUBLIC COMMENTS David Becker entered into the record as Exhibit 1-17 a copy of the case of Evans v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Buchannan, 836 NY 498 (Westchester County New York Supreme 2007). Carol Carozza stated that hers is the most impacted house because as she looks out of her kitchen or sits on the deck she will be looking into a master bedroom in the proposed second floor. Mr. Wexler asked that the aerial map be displayed and asked to Ms. Carozza to show where her house is in relationship to the proposed house. Ms. Carozza indicated where her house is. Mr. Wexler asked how far the proposed house is from the rear property line and Mr. Grippi responded it is 45 feet. Mr. Wexler asked how far Ms. Carozza's deck is from the property line. 4 Dr. Heinegg submitted a document that shows the direction Ms. Carozza's house faces and it was entered into the record as Exhibit 2-17. Ms. Carozza asked the square footage of the proposed house and footprint and was told it would be 3799 square feet with the garage, 3270 without the garage with lot coverage of 34Y2%. Carol Carozza stated that most properties in the neighborhood are about 1500 square feet and therefore the new house would change the character of the neighborhood. She also emphasized that the problem was self-created because the applicant knew it was not a buildable lot under the zoning code. Carol Carozza stated her objections about the trees that were removed. Mr. Landi stated that the prior building Inspector gave the applicant permission to remove trees. Ms. Carozza showed a photo of what the property looked like before and presently. Ms. Carozza stated that her quality of life and property values will change once there is a house built, and showed a photo of what it previously looked like. She further stated that this situation is unique because her rear yard abuts what would be the side yard of the proposed house. She emphasized that It will impact her way of life. She further stated that she has COPD and will suffer during the construction. Ms. Kierszenbaum responded that Ms. Carozza's arguments are speculative because she did not present any support for her claims. In terms of what the property looked like before the application, one could say all other properties looked that way before the houses were built. Mr. Wexler asked the applicant to show on the tax map to plot out the structure in relationship to the neighbors and proposed spot elevations. Mr. Grippi stated that the streetscape shows it is not different from the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Wexler asked how high to the ridge and Mr. Grippi stated 27 feet to midgrade. Mr. Wexler asked that the plan show the impact to Ms. Carozza's property. Mr. Grippi stated she will be looking over the top of the house. Philip Heinegg stated that his house has a 57 foot lot width and it was built before the zoning law. Mr. Wexler stated that one of points the Board is required to consider is whether it is out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Heinegg stated that his primary concern is drainage and stated that 57 Harrison Drive and was always dry prior to the addition. He showed photos showing standing water running toward his property, 59 Harrison Drive. Mr.Tomcyzk stated he had installed dry wells and put sod on the property at 57 Harrison Drive. 5 Mr. Heinegg stated that the sod died and the current owners had top soil placed and seeded. He added that he expects the drainage will get worse because the trees were removed. Mr. Sacks stated that there will be dry wells installed to prevent anything from getting worse. Mt. Landi stated that drainage controls and landscaping will improve drainage matters. Presently it is a stripped lot. Mr. Heinegg expressed concern that sediment could fill the drywells. Mr. Landi stated that drywells are designed to prevent accumulation of sediment. Mr. Wexler stated that the Board is empowered to impose conditions. Mr. Chang of 2 Robins Nest Lane stated that when you build a new house the character of the neighborhood changes and he wants to preserve the character. Adriana Kierszenbaum stated that Mr. Chang in 4/30/2014 received a zoning variance in 2014 and added that his house sits higher than most of the surrounding area. Mr. Wexler asked the size of the house at 57 Harrison Drive and Mr.Tomcyzk responded 2700 square feet. Mr. Wexler asked for the plans to show grades and heights. He also asked for drawings of Ms. Carozza's deck on the plan. Mr. Wexler adjourned the matter to February 15. MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of January 4, 2017 Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No=0,Abstain = 1) Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson,Jeffery King, Stephen Marsh Abstain:Jonathan Sacks ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 PM Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Secretary,Zoning Board of Appeals 6