Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016_06_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK,JUNE 22,2016 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONEC, NEW YORK PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King ABSENT: Elizabeth Cooney,Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board,Jaine Elkind Eney,Town Board Liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:49 P.M. APPLICATION NO. 1-CASE NO. 3032 Marc and Elizabeth Aylett-6 Leafy Lane Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Yestadt explained the plan showing what is existing and proposed. The house is nonconforming and the stairs are unsafe, curved with uneven treads. A photo of the existing stairs was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. Less of the existing platform is to remain, as the existing last riser is 14' 10" and proposed will be 19' 2"from the property line. The distance of steps into front is 11 feet. They are asking only for a 3 foot variance. Dry wells are not part of variance. The variance requested is for 240-51 A The Board discussed the variance request. Motion:to close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by:Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance. Action:Approved Moved by: Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King Nays: None 1 WHEREAS, Marc and Elizabeth Aylett, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for replacement of the outside front stairs,widen the driveway and install new French drain and drywells on the premises located at 6 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126, Lot 38; 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 240-51A, 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 quite a unique street, neighboring houses are close to the property line and the stairs are low impact. 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 it is the main entrance to the door of the house and the proposal is further away from the front property line then the existing. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is only 3 feet which is minimal given the depth and height of the structure. 2 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 small,there will be no more light,water, and there will be less 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. 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. Motion to open public hearing non pro tunc APPLICATION NO. 2-CASE NO. 3033 Robert Lynch-40 Lansdowne Drive 3 Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the proposal stating this is the only viable option. Letters from the abutting neighbors stating they have reviewed the proposal and have no objections were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the scope of the proposal,the alignment of the dormer over the garage, a possible solution to lessen the size of the second story addition 6 inches. Mr. Sacks stated his concerns regarding air and light on the neighbor as a result of the second floor addition. Mr. Simpson stated that the neighbor is nonconforming to the same extent, and the shadow cast will be mostly on the driveway. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson Motion:To approved the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Arthur Wexler After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King Nays: None Absent/Excused: None WHEREAS, Robert Lynch, (the "Applicant")requested a variance to expand the garage and construct a second story addition for a new master bedroom suite with master bath and laundry on the premises located at 40 Lansdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 103; 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 4 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 although the bulk will be added the existing encroachment will not be increased and several nearby houses are similar. 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 of the existing nonconformity any change would be before the Board and the Board finds this proposal reasonable. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will not increase the extent of the existing encroachment and the second story steps back. 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 no shadows will be cast and there will be no increase in impervious surface. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 5 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. 6. Move the second floor addition 6 inches to meet the south east corner. 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.-Alexandra Malkin-Glasberg and Jonathan Glasberg-329 Weaver St. Motion:To open the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King Jonathan Glasberg,the applicant, addressed the Board. 6 The Board discussed the distance of the unit from the property line. Mr. Wexler stated that the applicant must make sure that the unit is 6 feet from the property, or correct the matter if it is not. Motion: To close the public hearing Action:Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King Motion:To approved the requested variance Action:Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill,Jeffery King Nays: None Absent/Excused: None WHEREAS, Alexandra Malkin-Glasberg and Jonathan Glasberg, (the "Applicant")requested a variance to legalize 2 two zone central air conditioning condenser units in the side yard on the premises located at 329 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120, Lot 187; 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 240-36B(2)(a), 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 7 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 two units have been in place for 10 years and are abutting the neighbors' air conditioning unit and the effected neighbor gave a letter in support of the placement. 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 units have been in their current location and since they were not deemed to be objectionable to the neighbors,the Board determined they should remain in the same location for practical considerations. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the 2 units have a relatively small footprint. 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 they have been operating in place for 10 years and the neighbors' unit creates noise as well. 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. 8 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. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Ms. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Simpson the meeting was adjourned at 8:46P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 9