HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_06_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, JUNE 28, 2017
HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN OF MAMAMRONECK
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
ROLL CALL
Present: Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks
Also present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board
Absent: John Landi, Building Inspector, Jeffery King, Thomas Murphy, Town Board liaison
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M.
MINUTES
The minutes of May 24, 2017 were postponed.
APPLICATION # 1 - Case #3070 - Chris and Kristen Lonegro - 68 Vine Road
Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Mr. Lewis stated that the applicants recently purchased the house and the proposal is to expand
the family room. The driveway is under an existing sunroom to a rear garage under the house.
Public Comments
John and Audrey Lyons, the next-door neighbors, stated that they lived at 66 Vine Road for 28
years. They submitted and read into the record a letter explaining their objections to the variance.
The Board discussed the impact of the proposed development on the owners of 66 Vine Road.
Mr. Wexler asked about alternatives, Mr. Lewis stated that building behind the house would be
more massive and would cause interior reconfiguration making it a larger and more costly
project.
Mr. Sacks stated that the FAR is less than 1% and is minimal, as the second floor would be
conforming and not require a variance.
J.
The former owner, Elizabeth Garin, stated she moved in 1982 and the sunroom was her haven
and she never felt it encroached.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene 0' Neill
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene 0' Neill
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh
After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution
was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson and Stephen
Marsh
Nays: None
Absent: Jeffrey King
WHEREAS, Chris and Kristen Lonegro, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to
legalize a rear wood deck on the premises located at 68 Vine Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 9, Lot 225; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following
grounds: The proposed 2-story addition has a side yard of 5.8 feet where 10 feet is required
pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) a combined side yard of 14.4 feet where 20 feet is required
pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b) and further the addition increases the extent by which the
building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zone 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
2
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
fits in well with nearby houses and softens the current massing of the portion of
the structure facing 66 Vine Road.
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 building
out into the backyard would disturb more property and considerably increase
expense without any discernable benefit to the most affected neighbor. The
Board concluded that the proposed location of the expansion would have less
impact to the affected neighbor as compared to extending further into the back of
the house.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the amount of
increased square footage is minimal.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or
environmental conditions because the downspouts will capture any runoff and the
existing natural elevations will mitigate any visual impacts.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
3
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:
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 Applicant shall submit new plans showing that the proposed 2nd floor
conforms to required setback regulations.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town.
APPLICATION # 2 —Case #3071 - 83 Edgewood Avenue -Michael and Melanie Kraut
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
4
Anthony Carafo, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, requesting a variance for a
covered entrance and patio reconfiguration. The landscaping and railing on the patio was
discussed. Nothing is over 18 inches; the patio is on grade. The width of the entry door was
discussed. Mrs. Kraut explained that the property line is in the middle of the front yard. The
applicants accepted shrinking the request by 9 inches, and requested a straw poll.
Motion: To close a public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by: Evans Simpson, seconded by Stephen Marsh
After review, on motion of Evans Simpson seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution
was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson and Stephen
Marsh
Nays: None
Absent: Jeffrey King
WHEREAS, Michael and Melanie Kraut, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to
legalize a rear wood deck on the premises located at 83 Edgewood Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 27, Lot 305; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following
grounds: The proposed front entrance and patio reconfiguration has a front yard of 23.6 feet
where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) and further the addition increases the
extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-
7.5 Zone 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
5
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
there are many similar examples in the surrounding area.
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 wants a covered walkway and the house is already nonconforming.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the scope and size of
the additional structure is small in comparison to the size of the property.
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 not generate appreciable runoff, nor will
it give rise to any adverse visual 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.
6
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. The Applicant shall submit new plans reflecting a front yard of 24.35 feet instead
of 23.6 feet, an encroachment reduction of 9 inches.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town.
APPLICATION # 3 - CASE # 3029/3072 - Igbal Yusaf and Ana Sachedeva
Mr. Wexler explained the project needs a variance extension because the applicants were unable
to open a permit before the 6-month requirement ran out. They are now in a position to proceed
with the project.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
7
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
The Board discussed the variance extension
Motion: to close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson
Motion: To extend the previously approved variance with the condition that the applicant get a
building permit by December 31, 2017.
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Evans Simpson
Abstain: Jonathan Sacks
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.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson and Stephen Marsh
Nays: None
Absent: Jeffrey King
Abstain: Jonathan Sacks
WHEREAS, Iqbal Yusaf and Anu Sachdeva, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to
legalize a rear wood deck on the premises located at 22 Glenn Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15, Lot 550; and
WHEREAS, such variance was approved at the April 27, 2016 meeting of the Zoning
Board of Appeals (the "Prior Approval"); and
WHEREAS, a condition of the Prior Approval required that the Applicant obtain a
building permit within (6) months of the filing of such resolution; and
WHEREAS, due to financial constraints, the Applicant failed to secure a building permit
within such time and therefore, the Building Inspector required the Applicant to return to the
Board for a new approval; and
8
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, the Board determined that there have been no changes to the requested
variance, the submitted plans or to the surrounding neighborhood since the prior approval was
granted on April 27, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, and the Prior
Approval attached hereto and made a part hereof shall be amended only to extend the period of
time to obtain a building permit to December 31, 2017.
AMENDED & RESTATED RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Iqbal Yusaf and Anu Sachdeva, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for
an addition and kitchen renovation on the premises located at 22 Glenn Road and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 550; 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 240-38B(2)(a) and 240-69; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback
requirements from the Zoning Code; and.
WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application
and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a
public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following
findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b; and
1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors.
A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the
variance.
9
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
one-story addition projects 9 feet into the side yard and the design and material is
in character with the existing house. The fenestration on the house minimizes the
windows to the side yard and will be minimal as compared to the other two sides
of the addition.
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
applicants want to maintain the flow and scale of their existing dining room and
retain the location of the existing kitchen.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because given the size of the
property and the length of the side property line, the 14 foot incursion into the
side property line is minimal given the length of the side property line of 125 feet.
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 additional runoff will be negligible and there
will be an erosion control review pursuant to Chapter 95 of the Town Code prior
to issuance of any permit. Further, there will be no increase in light or 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
10
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 on or prior to December 31, 2017.
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.
APPLICATION # 4 —Case # 3073 -Roaring Brook Partners LLC - 32 Doris Road
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson
Jeff Meighan, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board, stating that he doesn't believe they
are required to get a variance as it is a building lot on an approved subdivision map.
The applicant, Mr. Silverstein, purchased the property in April. The existing house is in a terrible
state of disrepair and he wants to demolish it and build a new house. The property is undersized
for the current zone, as are many of the surrounding parcels.
Mr. Wexler stated they should have requested an interpretation of the Building Inspector's
decision to deny the building permit.
The Board discussed the request.
Ms. Hochman referred to Chapter 240-70C.
Mr. Grippi, the applicant's architect, showed the proposed placement of the new house and
demonstrated that all bulk and dimensional requirements are satisfied.
11
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 Evans Simpson
After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Evans Simpson, the following resolution
was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Evans Simpson and Stephen
Marsh
Nays: None
Absent: Jeffrey King
WHEREAS, Roaring Brook Partners LLC, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to
legalize a rear wood deck on the premises located at 32 Doris Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 2115./2; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following
grounds: "The parcel does not conform with lot requirements pursuant to Section 240-35A(1) for
a building lot in an R-20 Zone 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 Board noted that Section 240-70(c) provides as follows:
A permit may be issued for the erection of a building incorporating a permitted
use on any lot shown as a separate parcel upon a subdivision map or plat duly
approved by the Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck and recorded in the
office of the County Clerk, Division of Land Records, prior to the effective date of
this chapter;provided, however, that the owner or subdivider has filed with the
12
Planning Board a bond for the completion of the street improvements and utilities
as required by the Planning Board under the provisions of sCsC 277 and 278 of the
Town Law or, in the alternative, that such street improvements and utilities have
been completed as required by the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted evidence that the subject parcel is shown on an
approved subdivision plat; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action requires site plan approval by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, because the building inspector was not present and the Applicant had not
requested an interpretation by the Board, the Board proceeded to make the Following findings:
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
although the lot is undersized, it is the same size and even larger than many other
lots in the neighborhood and, further, the proposed development meets all of the
other bulk and dimensional requirements.
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 lot is
undersized.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the lot is part of an
approved subdivision and similar in size to other nearby lots.
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 result in removal and replacement of an
13
existing blighted house and the proposed development will not exacerbate any
drainage problems.
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:
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 obtaining site plan
approval by the Planning Board.
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. Notwithstanding this Resolution, developments conforming to the requirements
of Section 240-70(c) of the Town Code shall not require a variance.
This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town.
14
APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE NO. 3074 - Frank and Adriana Forney - 29 Valley Road
Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Mr. Forney, the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr.
Forney stated that his large family requires more space.
The Board discussed the definition of the 3rd floor. Mr. Lewis stated that New York State code
requires a sprinkler system for entire house and that there will be a tank installed in the garage to
service the system.
The Board discussed the variance request and possible alternatives such as extending into the
rear yard.
Mr. Forney noted that the rear yard is pure rock and small and the attic already exists and seems
the most logical place to expand.
Mr. Wexler suggested that the applicant ask for an interpretation of the Building Inspectors
ruling.
The matter was adjourned to August 2, 1017.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM.
15