Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016_08_01 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, AUGUST 1, 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, Elizabeth Cooney, Alternate ABSENT: Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King, ALSO PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board, John H. Landi, Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:47 P.M. Mr. Wexler, the Chairman, explained that there are only four members and stated that the applicant would need a vote of three members in favor to be approved. If any applicant would like to adjourn the matter he or she may request to do so. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE NO. 3036 - Josh Friedfertig - 42 Villa Road Adjourned. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE NO. 3053 - Alison and Timothy Hugelmeyer - 5 Lansdowne Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney Mr. Hugelmeyer, the applicant, addressed the Board stating that their contractor gave them the wrong information and as a result they received a Stop Work Order. They are before the Board to legalize their patio. He further stated that there most effected neighbor gave a letter in support of the patio. Mr. Hugelmeyer stated that the 10X12 patio on the side of the house is the only place possible for privacy and access from the dining room of the house. The rear patio is exposed to Weaver Street affording no privacy. Mr. Landi stated that there was a pervious patio in the proposed location. Mrs. Hugelmeyer stated that it was just mulch and was messy. The applicant is providing a dry well. Mr. Sacks stated his concern about a no setback. The irregular shaped lot was discussed. 1 Mr. Simpson stated he is hesitant when something is zero as it is a tough threshold, but understands the limitation of the irregular lot. Drainage was discussed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Gianutsos the applicants' neighbor stated that the patio would not be visible from his property because it is heavily screened with arborvitae. Mr. Hugelmeyer stated that most of his property is in the front of the house and unusable. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney Motion: To approved the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously (4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks, Elizabeth Cooney, Alternate Nays: None Absent/Excused: Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King WHEREAS Alison and Timothy Hugelmeyer (the "Applicant") requested a small patio on the side of the house on the premises located at 5 Lansdowne Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 219, Lot 183; 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 240-50 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 2 WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the small patio is proposed to be in the same area (although someway elevated) as compared to the previous patio; therefore the use will remain the same. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the lot has an irregular shape and the location of the existing house and driveway on the lot allow no alternatives to place the patio where it would be reasonably accessed from the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because, the patio is small, especially in relationship to the size of the property, and the house favors the right side 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 there is a sufficient buffer on the adjacent neighbor's property. 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. 3 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. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of May 23, 2016 Action: Approved Moved by Elizabeth Cooney, seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Motion passed (summary Yes = 3, No = 0, Abstain = 1) Yes: Elizabeth Cooney, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks Abstain: Arthur Wexler Absent : Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King 4 Motion: To approve the minutes of June 22, 2016 Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Evans Simpson Vote: Motion passed (summary Yes = 3, No = 0, Abstain = 1) Yes: Arthur Wexler, Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks Abstain: Elizabeth Cooney Absent: Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King NEW BUSINESS There will be no August meeting the next meeting is scheduled for September 28, 2016. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:16P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 5