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