HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_04_25 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
APRIL 25, 2018
ROLL CALL
Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky and David
Fishman, Alternate
Absent: Irene O'Neill
Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board, Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Jaine
Elkind-Eney, Town Board Liaison
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:47 P.M.
MINUTES
The review of the minutes was postponed to the end of the meeting.
Application #8 —Case # 3116 - Safeguard Storage Properties LLC —615 Fifth Avenue
Kristen Motel addressed the Board, stating that the Planning Board granted site plan approval on
November 2, 2018 with the condition that a building permit was to be obtained within six months of
the filing of the resolution. The building plans have not yet been approved and she requested two
six-month extensions of the approved variances. Stan Bonilla, the property manager, stated that the
plans have been filed with ICC and they are in the process of reviewing. Mr. Polcari stated that ICC
has completed its 2nd review.
The Board discussed the request for two six month extension and concluded that only one extension
should be allowed to November 2, 2018
Motion: To extend the expiration date to November 2, 2018.
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
1
AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION
615 Fifth Avenue
After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following amended and
restated resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2017 the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck
approved an application submitted on behalf of Safeguard Storage Properties LLP (the "Applicant")
to construct a self-storage facility on the premises located at 615 Fifth Avenue and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 131, Lot 344 ("Premises");
and
WHEREAS, this resolution has been amended restated to reflect a new expiration and all
else remains the same as that which was originally approved on May 24, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Premises are in the SB-R Zoning District and currently developed with a
single story commercial building with various tenancies and uses along with a subgrade storm-water
culvert owned by the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Town"); and
WHEREAS, the current development of the Premises contains permitted uses and certain
legally nonconforming conditions with respect to the floor area ratio, off street parking and off
street loading requirements contained in the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning
Code); and
WHEREAS, the current owner of the Premises is a party to a bankruptcy proceeding and
the bankruptcy court has approved a sale of the Premises to the Applicant and approved a contract
of sale with various contingencies, including a contingency to closing that involves issuance by
Town agencies of zoning approvals for a self-storage facility on the Premises; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application to the Town of Mamaroneck Building
Director("Building Director") who confirmed the self-storage facility is a principally permitted use
of the Premises as set forth in the Zoning Code and determined that the Applicant's initial plans for
the self-storage facility failed to comply with Sections 240-46(D)(1)(a); 240-46C(1)(B); 240-46E;
240-46F; 240-46(8)(a)(1); and 240-46(8)(a)(3) of the Zoning Code as stated in a Notice of
Disapproval dated December 7, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the height,
floor area ratio, off-street parking and off-street loading requirements set forth in the Zoning Code
(the "Application"), specifically:
1. A variance from Section 240-46(C)(1), Maximum floor area, to allow a "floor area ratio"
of 2.06 where 0.50 is allowed;
2. A variance from Section 240-24(D)(1), Maximum permitted "height", to allow for a
building height of 4 stories and 43 feet where 2 stories and 30 feet is allowed;
3. A variance from Section 240-46(E), Minimum number of off-street parking spaces, to
allow for 10 off-street parking spaces where 30 would be required;
4. A variance from Section 240-46(F), Minimum number of off-street loading spaces, to
allow for 2 loading spaces where 6 would be required; and
2
WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans and various revisions as submitted by the
Applicant as part of the application process, including among others:
• 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan and Architectural Drawings, SGW Architects, dated
November 28, 2016 and last revised April 10, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
"615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan & Architectural Drawings"); and
• Short Environmental Assessment Form, prepared by Stanley Bonilla, dated
November 14, 2016; and
• Shadow Study, Sheet A0-4 of 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plans and Architectural
Drawings, prepared by SGW Architects, dated March 7, 2017; and
• Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Tectonic Engineering &
Surveying Consultants P.C., dated December 6, 2016; and
• Safeguard Self Storage trip count, parking and loading demand from other facilities
in Westchester County
WHEREAS, Applicant submitted a study published by the Self Storage Association, Inc.
which asserts that self storage is one of the lowest vehicular traffic generating businesses and
creates no off-premise parking congestion;
WHEREAS, Board members discussed parking and traffic implications including their
observations of self-storage facilities in nearby municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the Board members inspected the site and area surrounding the Premises, and
reviewed and considered the documents and plans submitted in connection with this Application;
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was opened on February 15, 2017 and continued
on March 22, 2017, April 26, 2017 and May 24, 2017; and
WHEREAS, in response to comments and concerns expressed by members of the Board,
the Applicant reduced the height and floor area and stepped back the front facade of the building, as
reflected on the most revisions to the 615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan & Architectural Drawings; and
WHEREAS, the Board has heard all persons interested in this Application and considered
all oral and written testimony and notes that there have been no objections to the requested
variances from any persons; and
WHEREAS, at the April 26 public meeting of the Board, Board Member Jeffrey King
considered recusing himself based upon the fact that his residence is very close to the Premises, but
in an open discussion with the Board's counsel and other Board members, Mr. King determined,
and counsel to the Board agreed, that it was not necessary to recuse himself; and
WHEREAS, at the April 26 public meeting of the Board, Counsel to the Board asked Mr.
King, with respect to this Application, if he was able to perform his duties as a Board member
impartially and objectively and Mr. King answered affirmatively; and
WHEREAS, there was no objection expressed in connection with Mr. King's decision that
his recusal was unnecessary; and
3
WHEREAS, throughout the course of the public hearings, there has been no written or
spoken opposition to the Application expressed or submitted by or on behalf of members of the
public; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 177 of the Town Code, the Town Planning Board has
jurisdiction to approve the site plan in connection with this Application; and
WHEREAS, this Application involves an unlisted action undergoing uncoordinated review
pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Town of Mamaroneck
Environmental Quality Review Act; and
WHEREAS, the Board, having reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form submitted by
the Applicant in support of this Application and having taken a hard look at the impacts of the project
and variances sought by the Applicant finds no significant adverse impact on the environment and
that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et, seq.; 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 variances
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
variances.
The Board finds that the variances will not produce an undesirable change in the
character or the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties for the following
reasons:
• The use is permitted in the SB-R District
• The neighborhood is adjacent to 1-95 and the City of New Rochelle and
includes several intensive and/or tall land uses such as the NYSTA facility
and salt barn, auto body shops and commercial uses on the same side of Fifth
Avenue
• Commercial and residential uses are across Fifth Avenue from the Premises
• Self-storage facilities are unique in that they have very low traffic/trip count
profiles related to their floor area (as compared to other commercial or
multifamily land uses with similar floor area)
• Self-storage facilities generate a much lower demand for on-site parking and
loading than residential or other commercial land uses like office buildings,
retail, etc.
• The Applicant has submitted multiple revisions to respond to concerns
expressed by the Board including reductions in building height and
improvements to the building mass at the front and side elevations visible
along Fifth Avenue
4
• The height of the building, while exceeding the nonresidential height limits,
is less than the mixed use height limit allowable in the SB-R district
• The proposed building is designed to be consistent with the neighborhood,
where land uses are predominately commercial and industrial in nature, will
be less intensive than many of the surrounding uses.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the Applicant can be achieved by some method
feasible to the Applicant other than area variances.
The benefit sought by the Applicant cannot be achieved by some other method
feasible for the Applicant to pursue, other than area variances. The lot dimensions,
depth to groundwater, location of the Town storm-water easement and Town Code
which generally treats a self-storage facility like all other commercial uses in the SB-
R zoning district for purposes offloor area,parking, loading and height, all combine
to make siting a viable self-storage facility on these Premises with the floor area
required to generate rentable square footage in a manner that complies with the
parking, loading and height limits in the Zoning Code infeasible for the Applicant to
pursue. The Board notes that the Applicant studied shorter buildings that might
span the Town's storm-water culvert and various alternatives, none of which were
deemed legally and practically able to be implemented by the Applicant.
C. Whether the area variances are substantial.
The Board finds that the variances are numerically substantial,particularly in terms of
height and FAR. However, a close analysis of the projected impacts were considered
insubstantial for the following reasons:
• The bulk of the proposed building is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, which includes the NYSTA facility, a salt barn, commercial, and
auto body shops and nearby tall apartment buildings in the Town and nearby in
the City of New Rochelle;
• The Applicant revised its plans to use different design elements, break up the
massing and step back the façade to soften the impact of the building;
• The low impact use associated with a self-storage facility offsets the bulk impact
other permissible uses such as office, retail and residential uses would likely
generate more traffic and demand for parking;
• The Board members noted that the Town Board contemplated similar bulk in
this area when it authorized residential development to encourage affordable
housing.
D. Whether the proposed variances will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The variances will not have an adverse aesthetic, environmental, or ecological
impact on the property or on the surrounding area based on the overall use, building
height as revised and quality of the architectural treatments proposed by the
Applicant. The Premises are fully impervious surfaces now and the new building is
5
principally in the same footprint on the site as the existing building. The Board
further determined that lighting and noise would be minimal.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not
determinative under the circumstances presented.
2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of these variances is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
3. For reasons stated above, the variances are the minimum necessary to alleviate the
difficulty detailed in the Application yet also preserve and protect the character of the
neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community.
4. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds the application to be so unique as related to
the use, variances sought, location of the Premises and other factors, that its approval of
the variances shall not be given any precedential value or weight in any unrelated
applications that may be filed with the Board in the future seeking variances of the
Zoning Code's parking, loading, height or floor area ratio requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby APPROVES the authorization
of a determination of non-significance (the "Negative Declaration") dated April 26, 2017 a copy of
which will be kept on file with the Building Department.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The variances are limited to the construction as shown on the hereinabove referenced
615 Fifth Avenue Site Plan & Architectural Drawings as conditioned and/or modified in
accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant.
2. The Town Planning Board shall approve the site plan.
3. In the event that the Planning Board requires modifications to the 615 Fifth Avenue Site
Plan & Architectural Drawings, a determination shall be made by Building Inspector as
to whether the modification is substantial and should be further considered by this
Board.
4. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications for the
review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of a building permit.
5. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit on or before November 2, 2018.
6. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months of its
issuance.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law.
6
Application #1 - Case # 3104 - Eliza D'Amore and Shiva Kumar— 17 Harmony Drive
Paige Lewis of Lewis and Lewis Architects addressed the Board and explained the changes made to
reflect comments made by Board members at the last meeting. Mr. Kumar stated that the neighbors
are fine with the proposed changes.
There were no public questions or comments
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
RESOLUTION
17 Harmony Drive
After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was
proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
WHEREAS, Eliza D'Amore and Shiva Kumar (the "Applicant") requested a variance for
second floor addition and interior renovations on the premises located at 17 Harmony Drive and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 9, Lot 595; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:
The second floor addition has one front yard of 29.8 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-39B.(1), one side yard of 2.7 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39(2)(a), the
second story addition has a front yard of 14.04 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section
240.39B.(1); the stairs have a front yard of 6.0 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section
240.39B.(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming
pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the
requirements from the Zoning Code; and
7
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 bulk
and design is compatible with surrounding properties.
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 owners desire a
second story and they are constrained on a substandard lot and the addition is mostly
within the existing footprint of the house and the applicant worked with neighbors to
identify the best alternative.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is substantial because significant bulk is added but
the shadow study indicated that it would not have a substantial impact on neighboring
properties. Therefore, this factor is not deemed to be determinative.
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 shadow study indicated that there are no
significant visual impacts and any erosion and stormwater impacts will be addressed
through the permitting process.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
8
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. 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 #3 - Case # 3104 - Mark Blumberg - 8 Locust Ridge Road
Mark Blumberg, the applicant, addressed the Board requesting legalization of his existing air
conditioning condensers that were in the same place when he purchased the home.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
9
The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
RESOLUTION
8 Locust Ridge Road
After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
WHEREAS, Marc Blumberg (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize one air
conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 8 Locust Ridge Road and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 19, Lot 317; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:
The air conditioning condenser unit has a front yard of 29.1 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to
Section 240-37B(1) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-20 Zone District (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 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
10
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
presently exists, is screened by bushes and far 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.
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 installed.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it encroaches less than one
foot and is well screened.
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 is screened and there have been no complaints
regarding 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 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:
11
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned
and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the
Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for
the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building
permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this
application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code.
Application #4 - Case #3112 - Chris and Lauren Riberio - 7 Bonnie Way
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
Chris Riberio, the owner, addressed the Board and requested a variance to legalize an air
conditioning unit that was installed to replace a failed unit. Mr. Sacks stated that the unit projects to
Weaver St. which is the least variance required.
There were no public questions or comments.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
12
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
RESOLUTION
7 Bonnie Way
After review, on motion of Steve Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was
proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
WHEREAS, Chris and Lauren Riberio (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a
replacement air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 7 Bonnie Way and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 6, Lot 490; 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 18.98 where 40 feet is required pursuant
to Section 240-36B(1); and further the unit increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-15 Zone District (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 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 unit
faces a busy street (Weaver), it is well screened and there is no neighbor in close
proximity and a unit of similar size has been in pace for as long as the Applicant has
resided at the premises.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
13
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 this is a reasonable
location to replace an existing unit and there is no other location that would not require
a variance.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because a unit of the same size has
been there for a long time without complaint and it is far from neighbors,well screened
and at least as quiet as the former unit.
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 is concealed behind bushes and will be at least as
quiet as the former unit.
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.
14
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 new air conditioning condenser unit shall be the same or lesser dB rating as the prior
unit.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code.
Application #5 —Case # 3113 - Susan Tecza - 1 Edgewater Place
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
Thomas Curro, the applicant's architect, stated that he is seeking a variance for a front and side yard
addition to the small deck to create a screened in porch. The applicant was previously before the
Board in 2001 for a small rear addition and the deck. Mr. Curro stated that the previously approved
wood deck had to come down for the approved addition. Mr. Sacks voiced concerns that the house
sits on a tiny lot and observed that a deck with railing is less obtrusive than what is being requested.
The protrusion into the rear yard was discussed. Mr. Fishman stated that the deck would be across
from the neighbor's patio. Ms. Tecza stated that the fence has been removed between the
properties. Elevations were discussed.
Photos were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1.
Public Comments
Andrew Spatz, attorney for the Tunkeys, neighbors residing at 3 Edgewater entered photos into the
record as Exhibit 2. He stated that the property is small and a covered deck in proximity to the
property line is tremendous as the applicants property is above the neighbors. If the applicant
reduced the width of the deck on Mr. Tunkey's side it would have less impact. He further voiced
concerns regarding erosion controls and asserted that the property is not maintained. He stated that
they are not here to oppose the request but to find an amicable solution.
Mr. Tunkey stated that the deck is very close to his property and if covered it will block sun light
from his garden and patio. He stated that maybe something further away may be a reasonable
solution.
Ms. Tecza stated that she is a teacher and off all summer and wants to be able to sit in a safe place
in the shade.
The Board suggested that the applicant work with the neighbor and look at alternatives.
Mr. Curro requested an adjournment.
15
Motion: To adjourn the matter to May 23, 2018
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
Application #6—Case # 3114 - Chris and Elizabeth Buck - 87 Echo Lane
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Paige Lewis of Lewis and Lewis Architects addressed the Board stating that they seek to construct
an addition in the rear and left side that requires a rear yard variance over a one-story addition. The
Board discussed the request, the floor plan, and elevations. Mr. Sacks asked if there is a solution to
lower lot coverage. Mr. Lewis explained that they are covering the patio, which is not included in
lot coverage and added that they are increasing lot coverage but not impervious surface. The owner
stated that the neighbors are in full support.
There are no public questions or comments.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by David Fishman, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
RESOLUTION
87 Echo Lane
After review, on motion of David Fishman seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was
proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
16
WHEREAS, Chris and Elizabeth Buck (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a rear
addition on the premises located at 87 Echo Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the
Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 18, Lot 85; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:
The second floor addition as proposed has a rear yard of 17.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant
to Section 240-38B(3), the first floor addition as proposed has a rear yard of 21.75 feet where 25 feet
is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3),the lot coverage is 39.7% where 35% is allowed pursuant
to Section 240-38F; and further the addition 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 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 design is consistent with other houses on the street.
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 substandard
lot and construction will be over an existing nonconforming footprint.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
17
The Board finds that the variance is substantial but the impact is not substantial
because it is not increasing the footprint and consistent with neighboring properties.
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 increase impervious surface and a hedge
separates the premises from the backyard neighbor.
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. 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.
18
Application #7—Case # 3115 - Matthew and Lani Steinberg - 209 Murray Ave.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
Diane Eaton, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board requesting a number of variances. This
is a nonconforming lot and the plan is to build over the existing garage. The current garage will
remain for storage. Mr. Wexler explained the step down to R-6. Ms. Eaton explained the interior
renovation and elevations as the ridge was brought down to reduce massing.
A letter of support was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1.
The driveway is narrow and the plan widens the driveway. The Board discussed the plan.
Mr. Sacks stated that the proposed 2nd story is close to the neighbor's house. The applicant stated
that they will plant more abor vites, if required. .
There were no public questions or comments
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Approved
Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
RESOLUTION
209 Murray Avenue
After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by David Fishman, the following resolution was
proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0.
19
WHEREAS, Matthew and Lani Steinberg(the"Applicant") requested a variance for a second
story addition over the existing garage, enclose existing covered porch on first floor, interior
alterations expanded driveway (curb cut to remain) on the premises located at 209 Murray Avenue
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 13, Lot 336;
and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:
The second floor addition has a side yard of 5.9 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-38B(2)(a), both sides combined equal 12 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-
38B(2)(b),the driveway as proposed has a side yard of 1.2 where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-79B(1)(b); 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 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
consistent with the surrounding properties and the design elements are similar to other
houses in the neighborhood.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because there is no other way
to add a bedroom without using the space over the garage and any other alternative
would require a variance.
20
C. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the increase to the building
footprint will be minimal for the mudroom and the 2nd floor will be over an existing
garage.
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 trigger an erosion permit and there will
be no impact to light or air and the windows of the new bedroom will be staggered to
preserve privacy of the nearest neighbor.
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.
21
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 March 28, 2018 with technical corrections
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by David Fishman
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, David
Fishman (Unanimous)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 P.M.
Minutes prepared by
Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
22