Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_08_02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, AUGUST 2, 2017 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:49P.M. Mr. Wexler stated that there are only 4 members present tonight and an applicant would need to have 3 positive votes for an action to occur. If any applicant wishes to adjourn they may so request. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE NO. 3047—29 Valley Road - Frank and Adriana Forney - Public Hearing Continued Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. He presented a drawing of the proposed elevation which was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. He stated that they are proposing to make the existing attic bedroom into two rooms and add a bathroom for the owner's two sons. They will be creating shed dormers. Mr. Forney entered a letter from a neighbor at 208 Rockinstone Ave., into the record marked Exhibit 2. The Board discussed whether the proposal was 1/2 story or a third floor. The Board discussed whether grant a variance or an interpretation. Public Comments 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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman , Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King J. Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jeffrey King and Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson and Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Frank and Adriana Forney, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for third floor renovations on the premises located at 29 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15, Lot 491; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed 3rd floor is requested where only 2 1/2 stories are permitted pursuant to Section 240-38.D(1), the one side yard is 7.3' where 10' is required pursuant to Section 240- 38.B(2)(a) and further the 3rd floor 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 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 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 2 ridgeline and massing of the house will not change. In addition, the existing topography minimizes any visual impacts to rear 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 other enlargement of living space would require extension into the backyard which is rocky and rises steeply. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will not change the bulk of the house. 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 does not add bulk to the property and will not generate 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 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. 3 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. 2 - CASE NO. 3075 James and Megan Chevalier— 194 Murray Avenue Kim Martelli, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating that the lot is nonconforming and the existing and proposed air conditioning units are 6 feet from the property line where 8 feet is required. She added that the Dba level for the old unit is 74 and the new unit is 71. The Board discussed the proximity to the neighbor, landscaping and fencing and Ms. Martelli stated that the units are to be located in the least invasive spot. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public questions or comments Motion: To Open the public hearing non pro tunc Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King 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 Jeffery King, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman , Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks 4 After review, on motion of Jeffrey King seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jeffrey King and Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson and Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, James and Megan Chevalier, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of an existing high velocity air conditioning condenser unit and a new air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 194 Murray Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 12, Lot 253; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The existing and new air conditioning condensing units have a side yard of 6 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39.B(2)(a) and further the condensing units increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in a n R-6 Zone District; and 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 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 5 house is well screened by an existing fence and mature plantings which buffers any visual impact as well as noise. 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 given the fence and plantings, the proposed location is less intrusive than other locations. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is screened and buffered by an existing fence and mature plantings. 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 noise and visual impacts were considered and determined to be negligible. 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. 6 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. 3 - CASE NO. 3076 - Damon Beyer - 27 Glenn Eagles Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill John Brice, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request a third floor dormer on a two story house. The proposed dormer is for usable space as a studio for art. He further stated that it would be 40 % of the roof line in the rear and facing the Leatherstocking Trail. The Board discussed the request. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jeffery King Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman , Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Jeffrey King, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. 7 Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jeffrey King and Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson and Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Damon Beyer, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a third floor dormer on the premises located at 27 Glen Eagles Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 8, Lot 375; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed 3rd floor dormer is requested where only 2 1/2 stories are permitted pursuant to Section 240-37.D(1), and further the 3rd floor increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District; and 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 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 dormer is consistent in appearance to neighboring houses. In addition, it will not be visible to the street and the house backs up onto the Leatherstocking Trail. Further the house is well screened by mature vegetation. 8 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 as artists the applicants require a large space for their work. In addition, any other interior space would require expansion of the building footprint, which would be more intrusive than the proposed project. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it doesn't change the existing footprint or massing of the house. 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 does not generate additional runoff, light, noise or bulk. 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. 9 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. 3077 -Anthony Salva -47 Fernwood Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill James Lotto, the applicant's landscape architect, addressed the Board and stated that the owners would like to remove a portion of the retaining wall to widen the driveway to allow for more space to open car doors and access the garage. He further stated that there will be no change to the curb cut. Mandy Salva read a letter into the record and it was submitted and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the widening of the driveway, as well as elevations. Mr. Lotto stated that they are using gravel because they do not want to install dry wells. PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe Curner stated he also has the same problem and is in favor of approval. 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 Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman , Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks 10 After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jeffrey King and Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson and Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Anthony Salva, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to enlarge the driveway with pervious gravel and relocate the stone retaining wall on the premises located at 47 Fernwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 18, Lot 508; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed pervious grave driveway expansion and retaining wall will have a 6 inch side yard where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-79.B(1)(b), the lot coverage is 43.81% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-38.F and further this increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District; and 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 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 n. appearance of the property is consistent with nearby properties and the view from the street will not materially change. 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 home owners desire to have more space and maneuverability on either side of a car in the driveway. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there will be no massing, and no increase in impervious 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 curb cut will remain the same and the additional driveway surface will be permeable gravel. 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. 12 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. 5 - CASE NO. 3078 - Scott and Atina Gordon - 16 Maple Hill Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request two variances. He showed the plan and explained the additions to make the interior more usable. The Board discussed the requested variances. Mr. Lewis asked the Board to extend the date to pull a permit. A condition will be added unless prohibited by law to extend the date to 1 year. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 variances Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman , Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks 13 After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jeffrey King and Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson and Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Scitt and Atina Gordon, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a new entry portico on the premises located at 10 Maple Hill Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 22, Lot 462; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed front entry has a front yard of 23.2 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39.B(1), both side yards total 14.02 feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to Section 240.39.B(2)(b) and further the 3rd floor increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District; and 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 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 portico is stepped back and only one story and the two-story portion is only 4 feet off the house so there is a break in massing to transition from 1 to 2 stories which 14 lessens any impact of the massing. Further, the rear expansion is only 1 story and follows the existing line of the garage. 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 covered portico has to be in the front yard and could not be built without a front yard encroachment. Similarly, any addition to the house would cause encroachment into the side yard setback. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a gentle transition from 1 to 2 stories at the front and in the rear it follows the existing building line. 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 sum is less than 100 additional square feet with no increase in impervious surface and the massing will be well below the existing ridge line of the house. 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: 15 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 twelve (12) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (12) 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. 6 CASE NO. 3079 Susan Distasio 3 Wildwood Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, explained the requested variances and showed the plan. The Board discussed the requested variance. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman , Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks 16 After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jeffrey King and Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson and Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Susan Distasio, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a rear story pushout on the premises located at 3 Wildwood Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 16, Lot 378; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed rear story pushout has a rear yard of 20 feet 5 �'A inches where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38.B(3), 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 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 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 17 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 has an unusual configuration and is already nonconforming so any change would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds only 34 square feet, which is small in comparison to the size of both the house and 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 the proposal will add only minimal bulk and negligible increase in runoff, massing, 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: 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. 18 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. 7 - CASE NO. 3080 - Yuval and Laura Grill - 10 York Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, showed the existing survey and pointed out the preexisting nonconformance. He explained that the plan is to make the existing house first floor one level and raise the patio grade approximately 14 inches to match. Most of the proposed work is in the footprint of the house. The Board discussed the requested variances. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 Jeffery King, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman , Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jeffery King Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson, Jonathan Sacks After review, on motion of Jeffrey King seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jeffrey King and Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent: Evans Simpson and Jonathan Sacks 19 WHEREAS, Yuval and Laura Grill, (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front yard addition on the premises located at 10 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 28, Lot 395; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed front yard addition will have a front yard of 36.6 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35.B(1), the proposed patio is at the property line where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-50 and further the 3rd floor increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District; and 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 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 a minor addition and is visually compatible 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 property is pre-existing nonconforming and the proposal is considered to be minor. 20 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment into the rear yard setback is minor with no added bulk and the front yard encroachment is less than 4 feet and does not alter the footprint of the house. 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 patio slopes away from the neighbor and will, therefore, not contribute to any runoff to his neighbor and the front yard variance does not change the footprint of the house. 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 the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 21 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. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of May 24, 2017 Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill VOTE: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent/Abstain: Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Evans Simpson Motion: To approve the minutes of June 28, 2017 with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh VOTE: Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent/Abstain: Jeffery King, Jonathan Sacks, Evans Simpson ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 9:48P.M. Prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 22