Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_03_28 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 MARCH 28,2018 ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler,Chairman,Irene O'Neill,Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky,David Fishman,Alternate Commented[LH1]:Please double check the votes to see which applications Robin abstained. Also Present: Lisa Hochman,Counsel to Zoning Board,Ralph Tarchine,Interim Building Inspector,Richard Polcari,Building Inspector,Jaine Elkind-Eney,Town Board Liaison Mr.Wexler introduced and welcomed the new board members,the new Building Inspector,and the Town Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:45 PM MINUTES The review of the minutes was postponed to the end of the meeting. Application#1-Case#3094-LCR Investment Holding—1 Kenmare Road Liam Winters,the applicant's architect,addressed the Board and gave a short review of the proposal.The existing house is one story and the proposal is for a two-story addition that requires a number of variances.Mr.Sacks asked if the parking could be moved to the rear and Mr.Winters responded that they would need to get approval from Larchmont. The Board discussed the placement and size of the proposed parking area.The owner of the property stated that they would prefer parking in the rear and are planning to go to Larchmont. The Board discussed the proposed second floor addition. Two letters objecting to the bulk were received and entered into the record. Plantings were discussed. Motion:To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by,Arthur Wexler,seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion:To approve the requested variances Action:Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks,seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes:Arthur Wexler,Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky Nays:None. Abstained: Robin Nichinsky 1 RESOLUTION 1 Kenmare Road After review,on motion of Jonathan Sacks,seconded by Stephen Marsh,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0,with 1 abstention. WHEREAS, LRC Investment Holdings (the "Applicant") requested a variance to construct a second floor addition for new bedrooms and renovate the first floor on the premises located at 1 Kenmare Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4,Block 09,Lot 1;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:The second floor addition for new bedrooms on a 4,792 sq. ft. lot where 6,000 sq. ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39A(1),has a front yard on Devon Road of 18 feet 6 inches where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1),has a side yard of 6 feet 8 inches feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a), has a rear yard of 20 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3),FAR is 40%where 35%is required pursuant to section 240-39A(1)the parking requires a 25 foot setback in the front yard where 0' is provided pursuant to Section 240-79B(1)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zone District. (the"Notice of Disapproval");and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval;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 et. seq.and accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Applicant has undertaken to seek an approval from the Village of Larchmont to permit parking in the rear yard;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. 2 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 development will be architecturally similar to and consistent with nearby houses. 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 it is a small lot and the existing house is in disrepair and the expansion is necessary to make the house viable. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because in terms of the deviation from bulk requirements but the impact is not substantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be no additional impacts related to runoff,light or air. 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: 3 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. 7. Parking shall be in the rear yard. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Code. APPLICATION#3-CASE#3102—17 Overlook Terrace-Chrystal and Robert Chambers Paige Lewis,the applicant's Architect,and Chrystal Chambers,the owner,addressed the Board. Ms.Lewis stated that they were previously granted a variance and by mistake the deck was built larger than permitted. They are proposing to plant evergreens along the property line to screen and soften the edge. The height of the proposed arbor-vites was discussed and the Board stated that they should be a minimum of 6 feet.The Board discussed the requested variance. 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 Jonathan Sacks Vote: Ayes:Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky Nays:None. Abstained: Robin Nichinsky 4 RESOLUTION 17 Overlook Terrace After review,on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0,with 1 abstention. WHEREAS, Chrystal and Robert Chambers (the "Applicant") requested a variance to build To legalize a rear wood deck on the premises located at 17 Overlook Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1,Block 27, Lot 363;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:The rear deck has a rear yard of 6.1 feet where 25 is required pursuant to Section 240- 38(3), lot coverage is 36.6.%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-38F and further the building increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval");and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval;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 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;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 deck is sufficiently screened from neighboring properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 5 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because it is already built and the evergreen screening would mitigate any visual impact. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial with respect to previously granted variance. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will not generate any runoff and will have little to no visual impact to neighbors. 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. 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 6. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. 7. Applicant shall install and maintain six (6) foot arbor vitae to provide adequate screening. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Code. APPLICATION#4—CASE#3104 -Eliza S'more and Shiva Kumar—17 Harmony Drive The public hearing continued. Paige Lewis,the applicant's architect,stated that the drawings were revised as the Board requested.The Board discussed the proposal.Mr.Wexler asked if the addition could be pushed back for relief as the space between the houses is only 12 feet.The eave line and massing were discussed. Mr.Wexler stated that the neighbor asked for a shadow study.Ms.Lewis responded that they have done one and it was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the shadow study. Mr.Wexler asked for relief on the second floor and requested the bathroom be pushed back two feet to break up the scale. Public Comments Mr.Bradley and Mary Lee Bradley,the most impacted neighbors,stated that they need time to understand the shadow study. Mr.Bradley further stated that a number of neighbors have written letters voicing concerns regarding bulk. Mr.Wexler responded that the plans have softened the impact but the Board has requested additional softening. The matter was temporarily adjourned for the applicant and neighbor to discuss the proposal. APPLICATION #7—CASE#3109-Anastasia Trainor—700 Forest Avenue Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,seconded by Jonathan Sacks Ms.Trainor stated that after being flooded the unit was installed last year and there is no other reasonable place it could be located. The Board discussed the request. Public Comments Gregory Lewis of 753 Forest Avenue asked that the unit be screened. Motion:To close the public hearing Action: Approved 7 Moved by Arthur Wexler,seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Ayes:Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky Nay:None RESOLUTION 700 Forest Avenue After review,on motion of Robin Nichinsky,seconded by Jonathan Sacks,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Anastasia Trainor (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize installation of one two zone Fujitsu ductless air conditioning system on the premises located at 700 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1,Block 7,Lot 697;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:The air conditioning condenser has a front yard on Weaver Street of 15.3 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1),has a front on Forest Avenue of 15.6 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further the unit increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District.(the"Notice of Disapproval");and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval;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 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;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. 8 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 has existed for several years with no complaints, it is a quiet unit on a busy street and will be screened by plantings. 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 practical location. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is quiet and small. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is quiet, small and will be screened with plantings. 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. 6. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. 7. Plantings shall be installed and maintain to provide screening. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Code. APPLICATION#2—CASE#3099 -Timothy McCarthy—8 Nancy Lane The public hearing continued. The architect addressed the Board stating that they shortened the porch and cut it back,but it is the shape of the lot that is causing the problems. The Board discussed lot coverage,setbacks,the height of the deck above grade,the railing and the privacy fence. Ms.McCarthy stated that there were privacy trees between the properties that have been removed and stated that they will lower the height of the fence and plant more screening. There were no public questions or comments Motion:to close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion:To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes:Arthur Wexler,Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky Nays:None RESOLUTION 8 Nancy Lane After review,on motion of Arthur Wexler seconded by Steve Marsh,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to O. WHEREAS, Timothy McCarthy (the"Applicant")requested a variance for a proposed 10 addition of front covered porch and rear deck to existing single-family residence on the premises located at 8 Nancy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4,Block 2,Lot 312;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:The front addition will have a front yard of 26.84 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(1), a rear yard of 18.44 feet for a deck where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-40(3),a setback of 15.13 for a deck steps where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-51,maximum lot coverage is 39.5%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-40F and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-2F.Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval");and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval;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 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;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 front porch is small and violates the front yard setback by less than 10 square feet and the rear yard stairs encroach less of the required setback as they descend to grade. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 11 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because it is an irregularly shaped lot. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because in the rear yard, the deck is 45 inches above grade and the wall projects only 18 inches into the required rear yard setback and the front porch is small. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will not generate any additional impacts related to light,noise,pollution or 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. 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. 12 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#6-CASE#3108-Peter Fellows—979 Palmer Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,seconded by Irene O'Neill Peter Fellows,the applicant,stated that he would like a small rear addition below ground and first floor. He stated he has a letter of support from the neighbors to the left of his property. Part of the property is in the Village of Mamaroneck.Wexler stated that lot coverage is not shown in the zoning chart and it may also require a variance. Mr.Sacks suggested that the applicant go back to architect for a corrected zoning chart. The applicant was informed that anything over a 100 sq.ft.of disturbance would require an erosion permit. Mr.Wexler stated that the applicant has two options:(1)to get the required lot coverage calculations and return next month or (2)request a vote on what was requested and come back for lot coverage if required. The application was temporarily set aside so the applicant could confer with his representatives. Application #4-Case#2104-17 Harmony Drive(reconvened) Ms.Lewis stated that both parties spoke regarding the proposed change to the rear elevation and the Bradleys seem to be comfortable with what is being proposed.Mr.Wexler stated that the shadow study indicates that the additional massing would not be a problem. Mrs.Bradly stated that the neighbors are not happy that the proposed addition is so large and expressed concern about the disappearance of the small 1920's houses. Mr.Bradley stated that there was a house gutted on Copley and a new beautiful house was built raising the value of the neighboring houses rather than lowering. Mr.Wexler stated that the applicant needs to come back with corrected drawings. The matter was adjourned. APPLICATION #8-Case#3111-Rezi and Dastid Hoti—5 Winthrop Avenue Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,seconded by Stephen Marsh Mike McCann,the applicant's architect,addressed the Board to request variances to increase habitable space and replace of a small unusable garage on an undersized lot.He further stated that the rear addition does not require a variance.He explained that impervious surface will be decreased because they will eliminate the driveway. The garage exceeds lot coverage by 26 square feet.The Board discussed the requested variances. 13 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 Jonathan Sacks Vote: Ayes:Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky Nays:None RESOLUTION 5 Winthrop Avenue After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Rrez and Dasted Hoti(the"Applicant")requested a variance to expand 2nd floor bedroom and bath areas over existing 1s'floor areas at front of house and remove, replace and enlarge existing(1)car garage on the premises located at 5 Winthrop Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4,Block 10,Lot 247;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:The expansion of the 2'ld floor in the front of the house has a front yard of 15.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1),the garage expansion will have a rear yard of 2.2 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(c),a side yard of 1.3 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39(2)(c);the lot coverage will be 35.5%where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F, The FAR is 4859 square feet where 6000 square feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39A(1),the width is 50 feet where 60 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39A(2), the depth is 97.17 feet where 100 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39A(3);and further the unit increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval");and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval;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 14 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;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 will aesthetically improve the appearance of the house and it will be architecturally consistent with nearby houses. 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 garage will be in the optimal location given the narrow driveway and the addition will be built atop an existing structure. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the expansion of the garage is minimal and, since the property behind the house is commercial, it will not affect residential properties. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there are no adverse impacts and lot coverage will be reduced. 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. 15 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#6-CASE#3108-Peter Fellows -Reconvened Mr.Fellows stated that he would like the Board to vote tonight and will have the architect contact the Building Inspector with lot coverage calculations. 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 Jonathan Sacks,seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes: Arthur Wexler,Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky 16 Nays: None RESOLUTION 979 Palmer Avenue After review,on motion of Jonathan Sacks,seconded by Stephen Marsh,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS,Peter Fellows(the"Applicant")requested a variance for a small addition on the premises located at 979 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4,Block 3, Lot 126;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:The proposed addition has a rear yard of 17.4 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-40B(3), the parcel does not conform with lot requirements pursuant Section 240- 40(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-2-F Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector stated at the public hearing that the requested variance is actually two feet less than that stated in the Notice of Disapproval;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 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;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 17 addition will be in the rear yard and not noticeable from the street,the rear property line is well screened and the adjacent property is a commercial use. 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 it is partially within the existing footprint of the house and the deck squares out the rear of the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because of the limited impact on neighboring properties,this factor is not determinative. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will not generate any negative impacts with respect to noise,light or air. 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. 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. MINUTES Motion: To approve the Minutes of February 28,2018 with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler,seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Ayes:Arthur Wexler,Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,Jonathan Sacks,Robin Nichinsky Nays:None. Abstained: Robin Nichinsky ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 10:38P.M. Minutes Prepared by Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 19