Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_06_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK JUNE 27, 2018 ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board, Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Jaine Elkind-Eney, Town Board Liaison Absent: David Fishman, Alternate CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:48 P.M. MINUTES The review of the minutes was postponed to the end of the meeting. Application # 1 —Case # 3113 —1 Edgewater Place - Susan Tecza —Public Hearing Continued Mr. Curro, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and entered into the record Exhibit 1-6- 27-18. Ms. Tecza read a letter to the Board as to why she needs the enclosed deck. Public Comments: Andrew Spatz, the neighbors' attorney, stated that the enclosed deck would be a detriment to nearby properties because it would create an eyesore and a towering effect. He added that his clients supported the applicant's prior request for the bump out but the current request is substantial as it is 3 feet 6 inches from the property line. He further stated that the Board had asked the applicant at the prior meeting to stake the site and this has not been done. His clients have tried to reach a compromise with the applicant but all suggested options have been rejected. He entered into the record 2 proposed deck plans marked Exhibit 2-6-27-18 and provided 2 letters from neighbors marked Exhibit 3-6-17-18 lnd 4-6-27-18. Mr. Sacks stated that according to the record the Board legalized an existing unenclosed deck in 2015 and in 2016 the Board approved a bump out where the deck was located. The 2016 plan showed a deck addition. Mr. Wexler stated that the deck as shown is 6 feet off the ground with open railings and the applicant is now asking to put a roof over it and screen it, which would be a greater impact. It was suggested that the applicant request an adjournment. The matter was adjourned. 1 Application # 2 - Case #3118 —3 Ridgeway Road - Harris and Dahna Freidus —Public Hearing Continued The applicant did not appear. Application # 3- Case # 3121- 3 Adrian Circle- Matthew and Rebecca Kirschner Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Douglas Vaggio, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the proposal for an aluminum fence on a retaining wall to prevent the applicant's children from falling off the retaining wall. There are plantings on the neighbor's property. Mr. Polcari stated that the retaining wall permit was before his time and there should have been a guide rail on the wall for safety. Public Comments: Dr. Loft and Diane Loft, the adjacent neighbors, showed photos and entered into the record a letter dated 6/27/18, marked Exhibit 1 6-26-18. They stated that a fence on top of the wall would impact them and make it feel like a prison. They suggested a nylon retractable fence. Mr. Polcari stated that a 30-inch guard rail would be required. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill The Board discussed the request and suggested a compromise. The Applicant asked for an adjournment Application #4 - Case# 3122 - 39 Ellsworth Road - Eric Sherman Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Ms. Nichinsky stated that she knows the applicant but can be impartial. 2 Mario Canteros, the applicant's architect, explained the proposal to repair an existing open deck and add a minor extension. He stated that the neighbors have a similar deck. The zoning calculations were discussed. Mr. Canteros stated that the deck material will be Trex. Public Comments: There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill RESOLUTION After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Eric Sherman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a deck on the premises located at 39 Ellsworth Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 12, Lot 68; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: the deck as proposed has a combination side yard set back 23 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37.B(2)(b), lot coverage is 52% where 35% is allowed pursuant to Section 240-37.F and further the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the 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 3 WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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 it is similar to existing conditions and in character with the surrounding 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 the applicant seeks to increase the square footage of the deck. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the increase in square footage is small, the deck is permeable and the area beneath the deck will be permeable. 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 deck is permeable and the area beneath the deck will be permeable. 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. 4 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: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 5 - Case #3123 — 144 Weaver Street-Anthony and Jessica Zavaglia The applicant requested an adjournment. Application #6 - Case #3124 - 11 Mardon Road - James and Megan Aquilina Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Diane Neff, the applicant's architect and the owners were present to answer the Board questions. The Board discussed the requested variance, floor plans and elevations were also discussed. Mr. Wexler stated that the applicants are burdened by two front yards. 5 Ms. Neff submitted a form signed by 3 neighbors in favor of the proposal, which was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1 6-27-18. Mr. Wexler asked if a break in the rear elevation could be done. It was suggested that the first floor remain as shown and the second floor be brought in 12 inches. The Applicant agreed. Public Comments: There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, James and Megan Aquilina(the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second-floor addition over existing one story garage/kitchen renovation , second floor bathroom renovations and front roof overhang on the premises located at 11 Mardon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 715; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: the addition over the one story garage has a rear yard setback of 17.8 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39.B(3), and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the 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 6 WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. 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 proposed addition will improve the appearance of the house and make it more similar to the existing character of 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 there is no other way to expand the second floor and the house is burdened by two front yards and already encroaches into the rear yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the existing house already encroaches and the proposed addition will square off the house without adding significant bulk. 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 change in the footprint of the house will 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. 7 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: 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 7- Case # 3125—21 Maple Hill Drive -Amber Asher Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. He showed a photo of the existing home and gave a new survey, which was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1 6-27, and 8 also submitted four letters from neighbors marked Exhibit 2-6-27. He further stated that this is a large lot in an R-6 zone. The Board discussed the requested variance. Public Comments: There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill RESOLUTION After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Amber Asher (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a two story addition on the premises located at 21 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 22, Lot 241; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: the rear yard setback is 22.6' feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39.B(3) and further the build out increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District. WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the 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 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and 9 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 backyard is well screened, there is a large side yard and the proposed addition breaks up the roof line and the massing of the house. 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 house already extends into the required rear yard setback and the proposed addition does not extend as far as the existing house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a large oversized lot with a large side yard and the house is well screened from rear neighbors. 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 water will be captured in rechargers and the new system is likely to be better than existing system, capturing a greater amount of rainwater. 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. 10 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: 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. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #8 - Case #3126—1152 Old White Plains Road -Bernard and S. Dean Levy Inc. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, stated that he represents the prospective buyer for a use variance and area variances. The house was built in the 1700's and is considered historical although it is not on any lists. Ms. Hochman explained the standards for granting a use variance which are significantly more difficult as compared to an area variance. 11 The Board discussed the possible uses of the accessory structure barn. The applicant asserted that the proposed use could be characterized as a professional office and Mr. Polcari asserted that it is more consistent with retail use since sales are contemplated. The Board discussed the definition of professional office and the applicable code provisions. Mr. Schebwer explained that the barn would be used for storage of high end antiques and only one or two people are expected to visit the site per week and most of the sales would be through the computer and shipped from the site. He stated there will be minimal traffic. The Board and the applicant discussed the difference of a use variance versus an interpretation that the contemplated use is a permissible accessory use. Mr. Wexler stated that a use variance goes with the particular property whereas an interpretation applies to the entire town. Edward Riley, the present owner, stated that the house has been on the market for over 3 years and has had only had 3 views. He added that because the property is large enough to be subdivided, he predicted that the old house would be demolished. He stated that the house is historic and Mr. Levy, the applicant, would be a steward of the house Public Comments: Peter Nisselson of 1160 Old White Plains Road stated that the potential buyer is an international business and has many facilities. This is a residential property in a residential area and he doesn't want a business opening next door. He voiced concern regarding trucks and traffic. Ben Brofman of 1158 Old White Plains Road stated that he lived next door for 36 years. He realizes the Rileys care about the preservation of the house, but is concerned with traffic and does not believe that the contemplated use is consistent with the definition of professional office. The Board suggested the applicant ask for an adjournment and return with more information. The matter was adjourned. MINUTES The minutes of May 23, 2018 were discussed. Motion: To approve the minutes of May 23, 2018 with technical corrections Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Steven Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky 12 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:08P.M. The next meeting will be on August 1, 2018 at 7:00 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 13