Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_10_25 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 OCTOBER 25, 2017 ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Alternate Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board, Francine M. Brill, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Ralph Tarchine, Acting Building Inspector, Tom Murphy, Town Board liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:58 PM APPLICATION 1 —CASE # 3081 -David and Robyn Sesay -19 Dillon Road The Public Hearing was opened at the prior Zoning Board meeting and remains open. Mr. Cole, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the request. Mr. Sacks stated that the Board is charged with giving the minimum variance. The Board discussed the requested variances. Public Comments There were no public questions or comments, Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks 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. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, J. Nays: None WHEREAS, David and Robyn Sesay, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a new addition on the premises located at 19 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 5, Lot 19; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed step and platform addition has a front yard of 14 feet where 22 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-51 and the basement access door has a front yard of 12 feet 6 inches where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39.B(1), the house has a front yard of 18 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39.B(1) and lot coverage is 42% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39.F and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 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 relatively large lot area and permeable surface offsets the impact of the proposed addition. Also, the house is burdened with two front yards and the yard facing Edgewater would be conforming if it were a side yard. 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 Applicant wishes to expand the house and any additional square footage would require a variance. 2 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial in terms of added square footage but the overall impact of the proposed addition is not considered substantial. 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 will not generate any additional runoff nor will it create any negative visual impacts. 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. The distance of the structure from the Edgewater front property line shall not exceed 18 feet. 7. There shall be at least 14 feet of distance from the front steps to the Edgewater front property line. 3 8. There shall be no less than 12.6 feet of distance from the Bilco door to the Edgewater front property line. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. APPLICATION 2 - CASE #3087 - Craig Mills - 680 Forest Avenue The matter was adjourned at the applicant's request. APPLICATION 3 —CASE # 3089 -Joshua Klaczek and Range Ross 1 Briar Del Circle. The public hearing was not opened because the sign was not posted. Robert Keller, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the proposed development. The Board discussed the requested variance and Mr. Sacks requested that the distance to the rear neighbor's house be shown on the plan next month. The matter was adjourned to November 29, 2017. APPLICATION 4 - CASE #3090 -Alex and Inna Dobkin -29 Blossom Terrace Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Sal Alini, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and entered into the record four letters from neighbors in support of the application as well as a photo, marked Exhibit 1-10-2017 and Exhibit 2-10-2017, respectively. He further stated that the existing deck is in poor condition and presents a safety issues. The Board discussed the requested variance. Public Comments There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Jeffrey King the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. 4 Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Alex and Inna Dobkin, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to replace existing deteriorated rear yard deck with a new deck on the premises located at 29 Blossom Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 3, Lot 365; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed deck has a rear yard of 20.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-40.B(3); proposed lot coverage is 45% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-40.F and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-2F 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 size of the new deck is similar to the size of the existing deck and it is the same location and only slightly larger than the existing deck. 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 due to the angle of the rear property line, the only option is to encroach into the rear yard setback and the current deck is impractical and unusable. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 5 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because despite the increased square footage of the new deck, there will be less than 2% increase in lot coverage. 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 replacement deck will be only slightly larger resulting in a small increase in lot coverage but no increase in impervious surface. 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. APPLICATION 5 - CASE #3091 - Thea and Nilsson Kocher - 44 Vine Road Motion: To open the public hearing 6 Action: Approved Moved by Jeffery King seconded by Evans Simpson Sal Alini, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating that the property is a flag lot and they are requesting a variance for a rear deck that is currently very narrow (5 feet wide). The proposed deck will be over an existing gravel driveway. Nothing else will change. They want to extend the width of the deck to make it usable. Mr. Alini entered into the record letters from three neighbors, marked Exhibit 1-10-2017. The Board discussed the requested variance. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance. Action: Approved Moved by Jeffery King seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Jeffrey King 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, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Thea and Nilsson Kocher, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to enlarge existing rear yard deck over existing gravel driveway on the premises located at 44 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 8, Lot 33; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The enlarged rear deck has a rear yard of 18.93 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38.B(3) F and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to 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 7 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 larger deck is consistent and 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. 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 existing deck is unusable and cannot be expanding without encroaching into the rear yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will not add significant bulk to the property. 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 replacement deck will not add any bulk or impervious surface. 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: 8 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. APPLICATION 6 - CASE #3092 - Nancy and Steve Francescone - 484 Weaver Street Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill The owner Mr. Francescone stated that there were two signs posted, as required, and showed a photo showing both signs. Steve Secon, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that they are proposing to rebuild the porch in the same footprint and add a minimal addition to the second floor. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Simpson stated that the second story does not require a variance and is not impinging on the setback. Mr. Wexler stated that the first floor requires a variance as you cannot rebuild a non-conformity without a variance. It was determined that the applicant needs less of a variance then what was requested. Public Comments Dr. Charles Mason of 482 Weaver Street stated that he is supportive of the proposed development. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Jeffery King 9 Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Evans Simpson seconded by Jeffrey King the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Nance and Steve Francescoe, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor rear addition and to rebuild the first floor porch below the new addition on the premises located at 484 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 22, Lot 79; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition has a rear yard of 24.2 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37.B(3); total side yards are 23.2 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to 240- 37.B(2)(b) and further the addition 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 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 appearance is in character and consistent with nearby houses. 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 due to 10 constraints of the lot, any change would require a variance and it is necessary to upgrade the existing structure. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the rear yard encroachment is minimal (4 square feet) and the side yard encroachment is similar to existing 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 for the reasons stated, there will be similar to existing conditions and will not generate increased stormwater runoff. 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. APPLICATION 7—CASE # 3093 -David and Eden Gingold - 3 Briar Del Circle 11 Larry Gordon the applicant's architect addressed the Board to request a front portico, platform and steps for protection in bad weather. He further stated that many houses in the area have similar porticos. Mr. Wexler stated that the existing walkway off the sidewalk towards the house widens and is on grade. The Board discussed the lower platform and questioned the language in the Notice of Disapproval. Mr. Wexler stated that the encroachment should be measured to the end of the steps at 33.81 not the lower area at 30.34. Mr. Simpson stated that if the walkway were wider it would not be considered a platform. It was suggested that the applicant request an adjournment to challenge the Notice of Disapproval, requesting first an interpretation by the Zoning Board, and reinstating the requested variance only if the desired interpretation is not granted. Mr. Gordon requested an adjournment. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of September 27, 2017 Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 12