Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016_05_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, MAY 23,2016 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD Roll Call. Present: Irene O'Neill,Acting Chair,Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney, Alternate Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board, Elizabeth Cooney,Alternate,John H. Landi, Building Inspector,Tom Murphy,Town Board Liaison. Absent:Arthur Wexler, Chairman. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:52P.M. MINUTES The minutes of April 27, 2016 were postponed to the end of the meeting. APPLICATION NO. 1-CASE NO. 3024-Meir Bensius(Tom Webler)-13 McKenna Place- Public hearing Continued Gail Hiler,the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board stating they have supplied a corrected survey. The Board discussed the new information. There were no questions or comments from the public. The Dba level is the same as the original. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney,Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No=0,Abstain =0). Yes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney Absent:Arthur Wexler, Chairman. After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney Nays: None 1 Absent/Excused: Arthur Wexler WHEREAS, Meir Bendis (Tom Webler), (the "Applicant")requested a variance to legalize a 6 foot fence around the perimeter of the front yard on the premises located at 13 McKenna Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 207, Lot 505; 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 240-59A-D, 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. 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 this is a corner lot and it the air conditioning unit will face the street,thereby minimizing impact to neighboring properties. 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 proposed location is the only feasible location on the site and it faces the street,thereby minimizing the impact to nearby properties. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 2 The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because it reflects typical neighborhood 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 the unit will only negligibly increase noise. 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. 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. 3 APPLICATION NO. 2 -CASE NO.3030-Jodi and Jordan Barrow -3 Bobby Close - Public Hearing Motion:To open the public Hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Ms. Choura,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating they are doing interior renovations and want to repair a deck which is in disrepair and make it more usable to the interior of the house. The house presently exceeds lot coverage by 1.33%. The deck is not visible from the front and is within the setbacks and the condensers need to be relocated but will be placed within the setbacks. The sole variance requested is for lot coverage. The Board discussed lot coverage calculations, and the deck placement. There were no questions or comments from the public. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Evans Simpson. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved, Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=5, No=0,Abstain =0). Yes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney Absent:Arthur Wexler, Chairman. After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Jonathan Sacks the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney Nays: None Absent/Excused: Arthur Wexler WHEREAS, Jodi and Jordan Barrow, (the "Applicant")requested a variance to legalize a 6 foot fence around the perimeter of the front yard on the premises located at 3 Bobby Close and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 2200; 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 240-35-F, and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and. 4 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 development is well within the required yard setbacks and there is already a smaller deck in the same location. 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 existing house is non-conforming on the lot and any increase in the size of the deck would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because it increases lot coverage by only 1.33% 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 located at a considerable distance from nearest neighboring properties and will be within existing required setbacks.. 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. 5 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. 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. 3-CASE NO. 3031-Nicholas L. Pantaleo and Diane Mateus-Pantaleo-54 Holly Place-Public Hearing Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Jeffery King. Rui Arraiano,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the proposed plan for this nonconforming lot. Mr. Simpson stated that the plan is to lengthen the house not widen it and increase the side yard setbacks. The property is substandard nonconforming. The Board discussed the proposed plan, the location and size of the proposed deck. 6 Mr. Simpson stated lot coverage on every contiguous property is greater than the applicants. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney,Alternate. Motion:To approve the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson. After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney Nays: None Absent/Excused: Arthur Wexler WHEREAS, Nicholas L. Pantaleo and Diane Mateus-Pantaleo, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed 12 foot X 25 foot 8 inch single story addition to include a new kitchen and full basement and a new 12X28 foot wood deck on the premises located at 54 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 156; 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 240-37, 240-37B(2)(a), 240-37B(2)(b), 240-37F, 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 sign was noticed to reflect a public hearing on May 25, 2015; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the posting of such sign,the public hearing was rescheduled to May 23, 2016; 7 WHEREAS,the Board determined that this approval would be conditioned upon the assurance by Secretary of the Zoning Board on May 26, 2016 that no member of the public has inquired about this application; 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 proposal is consistent with neighbors to the east and west of the subject property and nearby properties are similarly built out. 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 lot is extremely undersized and already nonconforming. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is substantial in terms of the percentage but determined that 172 square feet of additional habitable square footage is not 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 the increase in impermeable surface will be minor. 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. 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 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 shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of April 27, 2016. Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, Seconded by Elizabeth Cooney,Alternate. Vote: Motion passed (summary:Yes=4, No= 1,Abstain = 1). Yes: Evans Simpson,Jeffery King,Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney Abstain: Irene O'Neill. Absent:Arthur Wexler, Chairman. ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 9