Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_05_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, MAY 24, 2017 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMRONECK, NEW YORK ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Also Present: John Landi, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board Absent: Jeffery King, Evans Simpson CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:55 p.m. MINUTES The minutes of April 26, 2017 were discussed. Motion: To approve the minutes of April 26, 2017 with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Abstain: Irene O'Neill Absent: Jeffrey King, Evans Simpson APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE NO. 3056—615 Fifth Avenue - Safe Guard Storage Properties —Public hearing continued Tony Gioffre, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board stating that the Board has been reviewing this application over the last several months and noted that a straw poll was done at the April meeting to determine whether to prepare a draft approval resolution. He requested that the Board vote on this tonight. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh The Board discussed the draft resolution. Motion: To accept the determination of non-significance 1 Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Abstain: Jeffrey King, Evans Simpson Ms. Hochman stated that there has been no written or spoken opposition and added it to the resolution, and the last bullet point of finding A should state that the building is consistent with the neighborhood. The resolution was read into the record with previously mentioned changes. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Jeffrey King, Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. WHEREAS, Safeguard Storage Properties LLP (the "Applicant") has proposed to construct a self-storage facility on the premises located at 615 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 131, Lot 344 ("Premises"); and WHEREAS, the Premises are in the SB-R Zoning District and currently developed with a single story commercial building with various tenancies and uses along with a subgrade storm- water culvert owned by the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Town"); and WHEREAS, the current development of the Premises contains permitted uses and certain legally nonconforming conditions with respect to the floor area ratio, off street parking and off street loading requirements contained in the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code); and WHEREAS, the current owner of the Premises is a party to a bankruptcy proceeding and the bankruptcy court has approved a sale of the Premises to the Applicant and approved a contract of sale with various contingencies, including a contingency to closing that involves issuance by Town agencies of zoning approvals for a self-storage facility on the Premises; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application to the Town of Mamaroneck Building Director("Building Director") who confirmed the self-storage facility is a principally permitted use of the Premises as set forth in the Zoning Code and determined that the Applicant's initial plans for the self-storage facility failed to comply with Sections 240-46(D)(1)(a); 240-46C(1)(B); 240-46E; 240-46F; 240-46(8)(a)(1); and 240-46(8)(a)(3) of the Zoning Code as stated in a Notice of Disapproval dated December 7, 2016; and 2 WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the height, floor area ratio, off-street parking and off-street loading requirements set forth in the Zoning Code (the "Application"), specifically: 1. A variance from Section 240-46(C)(1), Maximum floor area, to allow a "floor area ratio" of 2.06 where 0.50 is allowed; 2. A variance from Section 240-24(D)(1), Maximum permitted "height", to allow for a building height of 4 stories and 43 feet where 2 stories and 30 feet is allowed; 3. A variance from Section 240-46(E), Minimum number of off-street parking spaces, to allow for 10 off-street parking spaces where 30 would be required; 4. A variance from Section 240-46(F), Minimum number of off-street loading spaces, to allow for 2 loading spaces where 6 would be required; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans and various revisions as submitted by the Applicant as part of the application process, including among others: • 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan and Architectural Drawings, SGW Architects, dated November 28, 2016 and last revised April 10, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan & Architectural Drawings"); and • Short Environmental Assessment Form, prepared by Stanley Bonilla, dated November 14, 2016; and • Shadow Study, Sheet A0-4 of 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plans and Architectural Drawings, prepared by SGW Architects, dated March 7, 2017; and • Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Consultants P.C., dated December 6, 2016; and • Safeguard Self Storage trip count, parking and loading demand from other facilities in Westchester County WHEREAS, Applicant submitted a study published by the Self Storage Association, Inc. which asserts that self storage is one of the lowest vehicular traffic generating businesses and creates no off-premise parking congestion; WHEREAS, Board members discussed parking and traffic implications including their observations of self-storage facilities in nearby municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Board members inspected the site and area surrounding the Premises, and reviewed and considered the documents and plans submitted in connection with this Application; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was opened on February 15, 2017 and continued on March 22, 2017, April 26, 2017 and May 24, 2017; and WHEREAS, in response to comments and concerns expressed by members of the Board, the Applicant reduced the height and floor area and stepped back the front facade of the building, as reflected on the most revisions to the 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan & Architectural Drawings; and WHEREAS, the Board has heard all persons interested in this Application and considered all oral and written testimony and notes that there have been no objections to the requested variances from any persons; and 3 WHEREAS, at the April 26 public meeting of the Board, Board Member Jeffrey King considered recusing himself based upon the fact that his residence is very close to the Premises, but in an open discussion with the Board's counsel and other Board members, Mr. King determined, and counsel to the Board agreed, that it was not necessary to recuse himself; and WHEREAS, at the April 26 public meeting of the Board, Counsel to the Board asked Mr. King, with respect to this Application, if he was able to perform his duties as a Board member impartially and objectively and Mr. King answered affirmatively; and WHEREAS, there was no objection expressed in connection with Mr. King's decision that his recusal was unnecessary; and WHEREAS, throughout the course of the public hearings, there has been no written or spoken opposition to the Application expressed or submitted by or on behalf of members of the public; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 177 of the Town Code, the Town Planning Board has jurisdiction to approve the site plan in connection with this Application; and WHEREAS, this Application involves an unlisted action undergoing uncoordinated review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Town of Mamaroneck Environmental Quality Review Act; and WHEREAS,the Board, having reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the Applicant in support of this Application and having taken a hard look at the impacts of the project and variances sought by the Applicant finds no significant adverse impact on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et, seq.; 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 variances 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 variances. The Board finds that the variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character or the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties for the following reasons: • The use is permitted in the SB-R District • The neighborhood is adjacent to 1-95 and the City ofNew Rochelle and includes several intensive and/or tall land uses such as the NYSTA facility and salt barn, auto body shops and commercial uses on the same side of Fifth Avenue • Commercial and residential uses are across Fifth Avenue from the Premises 4 • Self-storage facilities are unique in that they have very low traffic/trip count profiles related to their floor area (as compared to other commercial or multifamily land uses with similar floor area) • Self-storage facilities generate a much lower demand for on-site parking and loading than residential or other commercial land uses like office buildings, retail, etc. • The Applicant has submitted multiple revisions to respond to concerns expressed by the Board including reductions in building height and improvements to the building mass at the front and side elevations visible along Fifth Avenue • The height of the building, while exceeding the nonresidential height limits, is less than the mixed use height limit allowable in the SB-R district • The proposed building is designed to be consistent with the neighborhood, where land uses are predominately commercial and industrial in nature, will be less intensive than many of the surrounding uses. B. Whether the benefit sought by the Applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the Applicant other than area variances. The benefit sought by the Applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the Applicant to pursue, other than area variances. The lot dimensions, depth to groundwater, location of the Town storm-water easement and Town Code which generally treats a self-storage facility like all other commercial uses in the SB-R zoning district for purposes offloor area,parking, loading and height, all combine to make siting a viable self-storage facility on these Premises with the floor area required to generate rentable square footage in a manner that complies with the parking, loading and height limits in the Zoning Code infeasible for the Applicant to pursue. The Board notes that the Applicant studied shorter buildings that might span the Town's storm-water culvert and various alternatives, none of which were deemed legally and practically able to be implemented by the Applicant. C. Whether the area variances are substantial. The Board finds that the variances are numerically substantial,particularly in terms of height and FAR. However, a close analysis of the projected impacts were considered insubstantial for the following reasons: • The bulk of the proposed building is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which includes the NYSTA facility, a salt barn, commercial, and auto body shops and nearby tall apartment buildings in the Town and nearby in the City of New Rochelle; • The Applicant revised its plans to use different design elements, break up the massing and step back the façade to soften the impact of the building; 5 • The low impact use associated with a self-storage facility offsets the bulk impact other permissible uses such as office, retail and residential uses would likely generate more traffic and demand for parking, • The Board members noted that the Town Board contemplated similar bulk in this area when it authorized residential development to encourage affordable housing. D. Whether the proposed variances will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The variances will not have an adverse aesthetic, environmental, or ecological impact on the property or on the surrounding area based on the overall use, building height as revised and quality of the architectural treatments proposed by the Applicant. The Premises are fully impervious surfaces now and the new building is principally in the same footprint on the site as the existing building. The Board further determined that lighting and noise would be minimal. 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 these variances is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variances are the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the Application yet also preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. 4. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds the application to be so unique as related to the use, variances sought, location of the Premises and other factors, that its approval of the variances shall not be given any precedential value or weight in any unrelated applications that may be filed with the Board in the future seeking variances of the Zoning Code's parking, loading, height or floor area ratio requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby APPROVES the authorization of a determination of non-significance (the "Negative Declaration") dated April 26, 2017 a copy of which will be kept on file with the Building Department. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances are limited to the construction as shown on the hereinabove referenced 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan & Architectural Drawings as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 6 2. The Town Planning Board shall approve the site plan. 3. In the event that the Planning Board requires modifications to the 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan & Architectural Drawings, a determination shall be made by Building Inspector as to whether the modification is substantial and should be further considered by this Board. 4. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of a building permit. 5. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of obtaining site plan approval. 6. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months of its issuance. This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE NO. 3066- 14 Rockland Avenue - Robert and Jayne Sternbach Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Nick Faustini, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain that the applicant wishes to replace an existing nonconforming wood deck in the rear of the property. The new deck is proposed to be slightly bigger and the rectangular existing patio is to be replaced with an oval patio. The deck will be approximately 3 feet closer to the rear property line. Public Comments Dr. Charles Mason, a neighbor, stated that the current deck is useless and the proposal is perfectly appropriate. 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 Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Jeffrey King, Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. 7 WHEREAS, Robert and Jayne Sternbach, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to construct a new single family dwelling on the premises located at 14 Rockland Avenue, and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 22, Lot 349; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The rear yard has 18.3 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to section 240-37.B(3) and further the proposed development increases the extent by which it is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in the R-10 zoning district; 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 the extension of the existing deck is small resulting in a small encroachment into the rear yard and the property is well screened from neighbors. 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 back of the house is already built to the rear yard setback line. 8 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the impact to neighbors will be insubstantial because the property is well screened. 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 amount of impervious surface will actually decrease and the extension of the deck will create no other physical or environmental 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: 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. 9 This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE NO. 3067 - 5 Edgewater Place - Michele Campbell Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Matthew Kurner, the applicant' attorney, stated that they are requesting the legalization of an existing rear deck. This deck has existed since the 1960's and they purchased the house in the 1970's and repaired the deck in the 1980's. The side yard and combination of both side yards are nonconforming. The deck is required for egress from the back of the house. Mr. Wexler stated that this is a very unique part of the Town. The most affected neighbor signed a letter in favor of the application and it is part of the packet. 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 Stephen Marsh Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Jeffrey King, Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. WHEREAS, Michelle Campbell, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a rear wood deck on the premises located at 5 Edgewater Place, and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 5, Lot 184; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: the existing rear deck has a side yard of 1.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39.B(2)(a), both side yards together equal 9 + or—feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38.B(2)(b) and further the proposed development increases the extent by which it is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and 10 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 the deck has existed for more than 30 years and there is no discernable negative impact to neighbors. 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 any rear deck would require a variance due to the placement of the house on the lot and further the deck provides necessary egress from the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the impact to neighbors is not substantial given that the modest-sized deck has been there for several decades and it adds no bulk or massing to the building and the ground beneath remains pervious and it provides necessary egress from the house. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. n. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it generates no additional runoff, light, noise, odor, etc. 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. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE NO. 3068 - 1195 Old White Plains Road -Michael Rahami Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill 12 Michael Rahami, the owner, addressed the Board, stating that the house has been on market for a number of years with no results, as no one wants the quaint old house. He has an offer from a developer to demolish and rebuild but it requires a variance because the lot is undersized. The proposed house will not require any variances. The property is about 600 square feet short of a conforming lot. The Board discussed the request. Public comments: Bruce Fader, a neighbor, asked if the new house will have to conform to the zoning code requirements and Mr. Wexler responded yes. 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Jeffrey King, Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. WHEREAS, Michael Rahami, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to construct a new single family dwelling on the premises located at 1195 Old White Plains Road, and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3 Block 33, Lot 581; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The parcel does not conform with the lot area requirements pursuant to Section 240- 35A(1) for a building lot in an R-20 zoning district; 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 13 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 lot is only about 500 square feet shy of the required 20,000 square feet of required lot area and the proposed house will comply with all other dimensional requirements and will appear consistent with other houses in the 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 it is an undersized lot. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is only 500 square feet less than the required 20,000 square feet of required lot area. 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 house itself will comply with all applicable zoning requirements. 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. 14 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 Town Planning Board shall approve the site plan. 4. In the event that the Planning Board requires modifications to the, a determination shall be made by Building Inspector as to whether the modification is substantial and should be further considered by this Board. 5. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of obtaining site plan approval. 6. 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. APPLICATION NO. 5- CASE NO. 3069 - 129 Carleon Avenue - Eileen O'Neill Eileen O'Neill the owner addressed the Board requesting a variance to legalize a 6 foot fence on the street frontage of Weaver Street which has been there since she purchased in 1989. Part of the fence has previously received a variance in 1963 and 1981, and she stated that she just continued the rest unknowingly when the lots were merged. Although part of the fence has previously received a variance she stated that she was advised to request a variance for the frontage. The fence functions as a noise barrier and recently the county have removed trees and bushes on Weaver Street making the traffic noise worse. Mr. Sacks stated that a section of the fence is in disrepair; Ms. O'Neill stated that she has contracted to have it replaced. 15 The Board discussed the request. 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 Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Jeffrey King, Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. WHEREAS, Eileen O'Neill, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an existing 6 foot high fence along Weaver Street on the premises located at 129 Carleon Avenue, and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 5, Lot 372; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: the existing fence is 6 feet high on the front property line where 4 feet is permissible pursuant to Section 240-52A and further the fence increases the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to 240-69 for a building in an R-20 zoning district; 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. 16 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 fence has been existing for many years and is next to a busy street. 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 fence provides screening from a busy thoroughfare as well as privacy and security to home owners. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the additional 2 feet of requested fence height does not impact the visual appearance to those passing by. 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 contributes no additional runoff, light, noise or odor. 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: 17 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. 6. The generator should be exercised during weekdays during daylight hours. This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill 18