Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_02_15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM A OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Roll Call. Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel,John H. Landi, Building Inspector. Absent/Excused:Jeffery King,Tom Murphy,Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 PM MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of January 25, 2017 with technical corrections Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. The Board took the applications out of order. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO.3055 Michael Fairweather 16 York Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks. Michael Fairweather,the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that two years ago he built an addition and he now proposes to add a 6-foot wide deck and connect to the current deck from the second floor. Ms. Hochman questioned if any part of the property is in the wetland buffer and Mr. Landi responded that he will check as a portion of the property is in the 100 year flood plain, but if it is under 10%they will not need to go to the Planning Board for a wetlands and watercourses permit. Mr. Wexler stated that the piers must be dug by hand. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Evans Simpson. 1 Motion: To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene 0' Neill Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,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, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King WHEREAS, Michael Fairweather, (the "Applicant")requested a variance to construct a six foot deck at the rear of the dwelling on the premises located at 16 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208, Lot 360 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 240-35B(3) 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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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. 2 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 rear neighbors are at a significant distance and would not be visible from surrounding houses and maintains an equal height to the existing deck. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 deck needs to be enlarged to allow for egress from the first floor. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because it is consistent with the scale of the house. 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 be a permeable surface, supported by piers and, as such,will not generate any additional 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 this 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. 3 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building 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.4 CASE NO.3057 Justine and Riley Knight 5 Woody Lane Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Justine Minieri and Mr. Knight,the applicant's architect and the owner, respectively appeared to address the Board. Mr. Minieri stated that the property is an undersized lot in a R-10 zone and they are asking for 5 small variances. He further stated that the house is nonconforming and anything they propose would require a variance. Mr. Minieri further explained the requested variances and their desire to preserve the existing rooflines while achieving the goal of expanding the living room and adding a bedroom. He stated that the proposed addition maintains the cottage feel of the house. Mr. Sacks stated that the side elevation creates mass. Mr. Wexler asked if the addition could be pulled back. Mr. Minieri responded that they would have to remove the low roof that they are trying to preserve. Mr. Minieri further stated that the ceiling height is only 8 feet to keep the roof height low. Mr. Knight handed four letters from neighbors in support of the application and they were marked Exhibit 1 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 Irene O'Neill. Motion:To approve the requested variance 4 Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary:Yes=5). Yes:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks. After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks. Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King WHEREAS,Justine and Riley Knight, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a 2-story addition to the front of the house on the premises located 5 Woody Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 224, Lot 185; 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(1), 240-37B(2)(a), 240-37C, 240-37F, 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the bulk and dimensional 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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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 proposed 5 addition is consistent with other nearby houses,fits in with the streetscape and maintains its cottage-like appearance. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 house is preexisting nonconforming and any change would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial the portions that exceed the bulk and setback requirements are minimal. 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 well placed on the constraining lot and it will not block neighbors' sunlight. 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 this 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 Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 6 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 left side yard adjacent to 10 Woody Lane shall be no less than 8.5 feet. This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.3056 Safe Guard Storage Properties 615 Fifth Avenue Chris Fisher,from Cuddy& Feder,the applicant's attorney, and Stanley Bonilla from Safe Guard Storage Properties appeared to address the Board. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Seconded by Irene O'Neill. Mr. Bonilla presented a brief description of the neighborhood, stating that it is an industrial area and they are in the process of purchasing the property through the bankruptcy court. He added that all existing tenants will be out 12/2017. He further stated that the company is confident that the area is a prime location and there is demand for storage in the area. The proposed plan was shown and the requested variances explained. Mr. Bonilla explained that it is a small property and they need the building to be this size in order to make the numbers work. The height variance was discussed and Mr. Wexler pointed out that the parapet is 51 feet and the plans do no correctly show that. Mr. Fisher stated that the allowable height of 44 feet height is allowable for mixed use buildings in this zoning district. Ms. Hochman responded that a commercial building can only be 2 stories and 30 feet in height and she further stated that the additional height allowed for mixed use buildings was intended to promote development of affordable housing. The heights of the floors were discussed and Mr. Wexler questioned whether the 16 foot first floor height could be lowered. Mr. Bonilla responded that there are 5-foot sky boxes above the lower boxes for extra storage. The largest units are 200 square feet, as 85%of the units are for residential use and the remaining are designated for businesses. Mr. Fisher stated that the frontage and windows no longer require a variance as they corrected the plan, but they do need variances for height, FAR and parking& loading spaces. He further stated that the 51 foot building will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood as there is a salt shed directly behind the building as well as a bus yard, landscaping business and auto body shop surrounding the building. He further stated that the entire property is already completely impervious. 7 Mr. Sacks asked for a shadow study as there are residential properties across the street that may be impacted. Mr. Wexler stated that the solid wall creates massing and asked if windows on the side were possible. Mr. Fisher explained the parking and loading requirements and stated that the Board has the ability to set a reasonable and appropriate number of parking spaces. Trip data was presented showing an average of 2 cars per hour. Mr. Fisher stated that 6 spaces are operational and 10 would be optimal, and 2 loading spaces are reasonable. The applicant will have to appear before the Planning Board and the Board of Architectural Review. Mr. Wexler and Mr. Sacks commented on the proposed mass of the building. Mr. Fisher stated that the zoning has not addressed self-storage and this is a prime location. He further stated that the massing and scale can be worked out. He further stated that outstanding taxes will be paid,tax revenue will increase, and Town residents will benefit. Mr. Sacks requested the applicant show alternatives. Mr. Wexler asked if the elevator could be more centered. The Architect suggested faux windows to give the building the appearance of an office building. The Board requested a shadow study, alternatives, a scale outline and street studies to illustrate the scale of what is proposed. Mr. Simpson stated that he is concerned about precedence. Mr. Fisher stated that affordable housing was not presented to the bankruptcy court. Motion: To adjourn the matter to March 22, 2017 Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, Chairman, seconded by Irene O'Neill. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.3051 55 Harrison Drive Corp The Board moved the meeting to conference room C to better accommodate the members of the neighbors and members of the public with an interest in this application. Board member O'Neill left. Ms. Kierszenbaum,the applicants attorney, addressed the Board stating that the previous requests by the Board were addressed:the proper corporate entity was identified, pictures of the sign publicizing the public hearing were taken every day, an improved set of plans was submitted to show the sizes of the houses within 150 feet of the subject property,the amount of slope to be removed was calculated and both the engineer and landscape architect are present to answer the any questions. 8 Fred Grippi the applicant's architect, stated that the house meets all zoning requirements except the width of the property in the R.7.5 zone. He showed a plan which identified undersized neighboring properties all shown in red. Mr. Wexler asked how many are substandard in frontage that are not corner lots. Mr. Grippi responded every adjacent lot Mr. Grippi stated that the proposed house meets zoning requirements for all set-backs and height and the street view height is similar to adjacent houses.The low roof line is in character with the surrounding houses. The distance from the side of the proposed house to Ms. Carozza's deck is 23 feet and 34 feet from her house. The deck is even with the roof of the house. Mr. Grippi further stated that the proposed house fits in with the street scape of the neighborhood. He added that Ms. Carozza's property had received a variance for her deck 11%feet from the rear property line. Jonathan Avellino,the applicant's engineer, addressed the Board to discuss drainage issues. He stated that the erosion plan for this project was approved already.The entire roof area is collected into a storage system for the 25 year storm.The drain directs the water into a catch basin and the proposed plan improves upon the existing condition and will result in a decrease in the run-off. The driveway has a trench drain. The Town engineer and consulting engineer approved the erosion plan. The Board discussed the erosion plan. Mr. Wexler explained that the system is designed to retain water during a storm and release it slowly after. Carol Carozza of 3 Robins Nest Lane questioned how the system determines when to release the water. Mr. Avellino responded with a brief description of the system. Mr. Landi stated that everything Mr. Avellino presented tonight has been review and approved. Tony Accella,the applicant's landscaping architect, addressed the Board, and explained the planting plan (i.e.,what is being planted on the property for screening and shade.) Drew George asked what will happen to certain oak trees and Mr. Accella responded that they are on the neighbor's property. Mr.Tomcyzk stated trees within the building area will be removed. Ms. Carozza voiced concern regarding an oak tree on the slope. Ms. Carozza handed a document from Grigg and Davis Engineers dated February 15, 2017 into the record marked Exhibit 1-2/17 Mr. Wexler stated that the height of the building meets the code,taking the median grade elevation into account. 9 Louise Grigg PE, consulting engineer for Ms. Carozza, stated that she is a civil structural engineer and has worked for the Town for a number of years. She further stated that she first visited the property yesterday. Ms. Grigg stated that the front yard depth was wrong and Mr. Wexler responded that the applicant was correct. She further stated that the elevations were incorrect and again Mr. Wexler disagreed and explained how the Town measures medium grade. Ms. Grigg further stated that the grade has been raised and Mr. Wexler stated that is an argument to take to the Building Inspector not the Zoning Board. Ms. Grigg stated that the proposed house will be higher than the mature oaks and they will be in shade and the roots will be cut during construction causing then to die. Ms. Grigg also discussed rock removal. The applicant is limited to 15 days and has to follow Town Code rock removal requirements. Drew George stated that he took a look a 42 neighboring houses and average square footage is 1820 square feet. He further stated that the neighboring houses are considerably smaller than that of the proposed. Mr. Wexler responded that every one of those houses has the ability to enlarge. Mr. George stated that the house will be built into the side of a cliff and there are no other houses like that. Ms. Carozza submitted a comparison from the stg website entered into the record Exhibit 2-2/17 and Exhibit 3-2/17. She further stated that the character of the neighborhood is small houses and the applicant wants to build a huge house that will change the character. Ms. Carozza further stated that she hired an arborist so that if roots are cut and the tree dies she can hold the applicant responsible. The arborist letter was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 4- 2/17. David Bruce gave a brief summary of his objections and he also stated that a petition opposing the application was given to the Board at the January 4th meeting. Mr. Wexler asked for a non-binding straw poll. After each board member stated his or her opinions about the application, Mr. Wexler asked Ms. Hochman to prepare a draft approval resolution for the March 22, 2017 meeting. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Marsh the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 10