Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_10_24 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 OCTOBER 24, 2018 ROLL CALL Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Zoning Board Counsel, Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Absent: David Fishman CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. MINUTES The minutes were postponed to the end of the meeting. Mr. Wexler stated that Application# 4 (3 Ridgeway) has been adjourned to next month at the applicant's request. Application # 1 - Case #3134 -Andrea and Michael Keating - 19 W Brookside Drive Public Hearing Continued Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that have revised plans to address comments made by Board members last month. Ms. Keating entered into the record photos and letter and they were marked Exhibit 1, 10/24/18. Ms. Lewis explained the challenges with the site and placement of the house and presented the Board with an alternative resulting in a reduced encroachment -- 2 feet less. This plan was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 2, 10/24/18. Mrs. Keating explained that the basement is not habitable, which is why they wish to enlarge their sunroom. The Board discussed the proposal. Public Comments: There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 1 Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 19 W Brookside Drive After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Andrea and Michael Keating (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition, front porch and steps on the premises located at 19 West Brookside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 810; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front porch as proposed is 18.5' feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), the front steps have a setback of 16.5" where 30 is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(1) and further the porch 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 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was opened on September 26 and continued on October 24, 2018; 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 2 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 impacted yard is a front yard on a corner lot but it actually functions as a side yard and the house already protrudes into such yard and the proposal to soften the edges makes it more aesthetically pleasing. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the applicant is burdened by two front yards, wants another family room and the house has no finished basement and the option approved by the Board is determined to be the least variance necessary to meet the applicant's needs. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the impacted yard functions as a side yard and the visual impact of the protrusion is mitigated by design features. 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 lot coverage remains under 35% and the proposal will not generate any other environmental impacts. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 3 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 #2 - Case #3137 - Safe Guard Storage - 615 Fifth Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Ms. Brill confirmed that the application has been duly noticed. Stan Bonilla, Senior VP of Development, stated that the demolition is underway and the building applications have been submitted for review. Mr. Polcari stated that most of his concerns have been answered. Mr. 4 Bonilla stated that he is in the process of setting a cash bond or escrow account. Mr. Wexler asked how long of an extension is required. Mr. Bonilla asked for 3 months. Public Comments: There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve an extension of 3 months to February 2, 2019. Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 615 Fifth Avenue After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following amended and restated resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None 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, on April 25, 2018 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted an extension of the time to obtain a building permit to November 2, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 3-month extension; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on October 24, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Resolution for 615 Fifth Avenue granted on May 24, 2017 and amended on April 25, 2018 remains in full force and effect except that the time period to obtain a building permit shall be extended to February 2, 2019. APPLICATION #3 - CASE #3138 - Russell and Rachel Farscht - 4 Hidden Green Lane Diane Eaton, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, proposing a 2-story addition on the left side of the house and a front entry porch addition. The Board discussed the both requests, 5 finding the porch softens the facade, but questioning the large side addition. Ms. Eaton explained that the side variance is for the corner of the addition and adds only 12 square feet on a 20,702 square foot lot. Public Comments: There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Motion: To approve the requested variance. Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 4 Hidden Green Lane After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Russel & Rachel Farscht (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front entry, porch and side yard addition on the premises located at 4 Hidden Green Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 9, Lot 474; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front entry as proposed has a front yard of 36.3 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1), the front porch has a front yard of 32.8 feet where 40 is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1) and the proposed addition has a side yard setback of 12.5 feet where 15 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(2)(a), 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 6 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on October 24, 2018; 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 small amount of additional square footage on a large lot and the architectural design softens the impact of the one-story, open-sided front entrance. 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 house is pre- existing, non-conforming on an irregularly shaped lot and the family wants to make the front entrance accessible to wheelchairs. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment into the front yard is less than 12 square feet into a lot that is greater than 20,000 square feet. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because all rain water will have to be captured and the 7 development will likely result in improved drainage as compared to present conditions. In addition, the property is well screened so there are no visual impacts. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 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. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of September 26, 2018 Action: Unanimously Approved 8 Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the length of time an application can be dormant before the Board can remove it from the agenda or vote. Mr. Sacks stated there should be difference between a request to build versus a request to legalize what already exists. Board members also questioned whether action could be taken on an application if the applicant is not present. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 8:40 P.M. Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board Secretary 9