Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016_10_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK,OCTOBER 26,2016 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Jeffery King, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Alternate Also present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board,John H. Landi, Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. APPLICATION NO. 1-CASE NO.3036- 42 Villa Road-Josh Freidfertig Because there was no sign posted, the matter was adjourned to Nov. 30tn APPLICATION NO. 2-CASE NO. 3010—176 Myrtle Blvd- Gjoko Shkreli Adjourned at the applicant's request APPLICATION NO. 3 -CASE NO.3042- 162 West Brookside-Chris Gianutsos Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Gregory Lewis,the applicant's architect, explained that because of the addition the contractor placed a new air conditioning unit next to the existing unit without getting a permit. Mr. Landi stated that the old unit was there before 2001 and was therefore grandfathered. Mr. Wexler asked about the shed on the property and Mr. Gianutsos stated that it is portable and Mr. Landi confirmed it is a garbage bin. Mr. Gianutsos stated that the affected neighbor cannot see the units. The Dba level was discussed. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. 1 Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS,Chris Gianutsos, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for the installation of a new air conditioning condenser unit next to an existing unit on the premises located at 162 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 199; 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 240-37B(2)(a), 240-37B(2)(b), and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback 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 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 granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because there is substantial mature vegetation to soften the noise and shield the view. 2 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 is to be located next to the existing,grandfathered condenser and is well shielded by mature vegetation.. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial in nature because the condenser is no more than 3 feet high and is substantially further than the property line as compared to the grandfathered condenser. 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 both of the condensers are not visible from the street or the neighbor to the immediate right. 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. 3 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 Law. APPLICATION NO. 4-CASE NO.3008—4 Robins Nest-Mr. and Mrs.Jonah Weintraub Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Jonah Weintraub,the owner, stated that he bought the house and inherited the illegal deck. He was before the Board months earlier and was asked to return with an updated survey showing the distance of the deck from the property line. The new survey shows the deck is 15.6 feet from the street. 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 Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, Seconded by Jeffery King. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None 4 WHEREAS,Jonah Weintraub, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an existing deck on the premises located at 4 Robins Nest Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501, Lot 271; 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 240-38B(1), 240-37F, and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback 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 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 have an undesirable change in the character if the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the deck is barely visible from the street and there has been no documented impact to any adjacent properties. 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 wants to legalize an existing deck. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial in nature but this is not determinative due to the minimal impact to surrounding properties. 5 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 have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the deck does not exacerbate stormwater runoff and does not create any visual or audible impacts to adjacent properties. 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 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: 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 shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 5-CASE NO. 3023-142 North Chatsworth Avenue-Mr. Ira Michael Harfenist 6 The Secretary stated that the public hearing had been opened. Mr. Harfenist,the owner, addressed the Board stating he was asked by the board to get a new survey showing the exact placement of the shed. Mr. Sacks stated that in this case the shed existed for 15 years without complaint. The Board discussed the placement of the shed. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jeffery King. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Mr. Harfenist(the "Applicant") requested a variance for the legalization of a 8 X 10 foot shed on the premises located at 142 North Chatsworth and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Lot 12; 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 240-38B(3), 240-38B(c), and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback 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 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 7 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 although the shed is two feet from the rear and side property lines, it has been there for more tha 15 years without any complaint and it is partially shielded by vegetation and the most affected neighboring property is three feet lower than the subject property. 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 other locations would require removal of mature trees. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the shed is only eight feet high which was considered to be small in nature, especially given the space of the rear yard. 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 shed generates no light, heat or noise and is small in nature. 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. 8 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 shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 6-22 Dante Street-CASE NO. 3043-Mr. Burton Corwin Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Mr. Corwin,the owner, addressed the Board, explaining the issues of the placement of the unit Mr. Landi, explained that is where the electric and gas comes in to the house. Mr. Sacks stated he was worried about the clearance for fire fighters in case of an emergency. Mr. Corwin stated he will cut back some of the shrubs if required. Mr. Sacks stated he wants a condition to remove the hedges. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. 9 Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, (5-0). Ayes Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS Burton Corwin,(the "Applicant") requested a variance to install a 11KW standby generator on the premises located at 22 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 52; 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 240-39B(2)(a) and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback 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 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 granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because although the generator will be close to the side lot line, it is a relatively small unit and not obtrusive and it will only exercise once a week for a few minutes. 10 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 is the most logical space as it is close to the electric and gas panels and no alternate location would result in any benefits to the neighbors or the homeowner. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a small unit and, unless there is a power outage, it will only exercise once a week for a few minutes. 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 small unit and, except when there is a power outage, it will run briefly once a week. In addition,the Board noted that the generator will not contribute any 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: 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. 11 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 shrubs on the side of the unit will be cut back in perpetuity to maximize accessibility in case of an emergency. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 7-CASE NO.3044—16 Maplewood -Stephen Taubenfeld Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that this is a pre-existing non- conformance. The variance request is to extend the nonconforming wall in alignment. The odd shaped lot is under sized. Mr. Yestadt stated that under the deck will be excavated 18 inches to make a walkout basement and the garage is to be demolished. Mr.Taubenfeld stated that the deck over the garage was hard to use and it has been a safety hazard with small children,. Mr. Yestadt stated that an engineer has been contracted to do erosion controls. It was stated that the proposed lot coverage is 36% but this was not mentioned in the notice of disapproval. The applicant explained that the amount of lot coverage is actually being reduced so there will be no increase in the nonconforming lot coverage. In fact, the nonconformity will be reduced by the proposal. The Chair explained that the Board cannot approve an application which does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 240 and may only grant those variances requested in the application. The applicant was advised to either reduce lot coverage by 1%, or have the application re-noticed. The matter was adjourned to November 30, 2016. APPLICATIO NO.8-CASE NO. 3045-22 Winged Foot-Pam and Jonathan Weinberg Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman,Seconded by Jeffery King. 12 Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, requesting a side yard variance for 3 air conditioning condenser units. Mr. Sacks asked if this is a legalization or installation. Mr. Yestadt responded that they were preexisting nonconforming units that were replaced and the date cannot be verified. Mr. Yestadt further stated: the renovation and addition has just been completed; the compressors are next to the original pre- existing nonconforming garage;the units have a low Dba level and there is an existing 5 foot stockade fence on the property line. The distance to the nearest neighbor's house is 60 feet and it is elevated 6 feet. The applicant received a variance in 2010 for the A/C unit on the right side of the house. The Board discussed the placement of the units and possible alternatives that would not require a variance or would require less of a variance. Mr. Landi stated that the property is in litigation for filling in the back yard in a wetland. A stop work order is in effect. There was confusion about which windows near the a/c units were bedrooms. Mr. Simpson suggested an adjournment for the applicant to return and prove whether or not the room is not a bedroom. The Board asked whether a wetland permit is required. Mr. Yestadt stated that they have not yet submitted an application for a wetland permit. Mr. Yestadt requested an adjournment. MINUTES Motion:the minutes of September 28, 2016 were discussed and approved with technical corrections Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Jeffery King. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 13