HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_11_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
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, David
Fishman, Alternate and Robin Nichinsky arrived at 7:52
Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Zoning Board Counsel, Jaine
Elkind-Eney Town Board Liaison
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M.
MINUTES
Motion: To approve the minutes of October 24th
Action: Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky
Application # 1 - Case #3118 - Harris and Dahna Freidus —3 Ridgeway—Public Hearing
Mr. Freidus addressed the Board requesting a variance to legalize a 6-foot fence and he supplied
an updated survey as the Board had previously requested.
The Board discussed the landscaping in front of the fence, noting that the proposed plantings are
on property owned by the Town. The applicant acknowledged that it has not yet received
approval to plant on Town property.
The Board discussed the fence and Mr. Wexler stated he would deny a 6-foot fence with no
screening. Mr. Sacks stated that he would prefer if the fence were pushed back from the property
line with plantings on the applicant's property.
Mr. Marsh stated the survey from 2008 shows an old wood fence well inside the property line.
Ms. O'Neill asked why the applicant proposes a shiny white fence and Mr. Sacks stated that the
color is out of character with the neighborhood.
Mr. Freidus stated that his yard has no privacy without the fence and Mr. Wexler responded that
the privacy issue is a matter of opinion and he wants input from the Town whether they will
agree to plantings on Town property.
Tracy Salifo, landscape architect, explained the proposed plantings. Mr. Sacks asked how far
back from the property line would the fence have to be for solid evergreens to be planted, Ms.
J.
Salifo responded 6 feet back. Mr. Sacks suggested the use of trees and a 4-foot fence which
would be more in character with the surrounding area.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, David Fishman, Alternate
There were no comments or questions from members of the public.
The applicant requested an adjournment to January or February to respond to issues raised by the
Board.
Application # 2 - Case #3138 -Joshua Lawler— 1 Briarcliff—Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky
Michael Piccirillo, the applicant's architect, presented the plans and the requested variance.
Board members expressed a concern that the variances requested are not the minimum necessary
to meet the applicant's needs.
Mr. Wexler expressed concern about the excessive massing of the structure and that it is very
close to the property line.
The Board members discussed the proposal and requested variances.
Mr. Wexler requested that the plans show the flood plain, the 100-foot wetland buffer and the
stream. The Board discussed water issues and concerns about stormwater.
Mr. Wexler suggested the applicant return with alternatives and/or a more compelling
explanation about why the variances are the necessary in order to evaluate the hardship of the
applicant.
Public Comments:
Pam Washington, a neighbor on Briarcliff Road, stated that the Board should compare the
proposal with other nearby properties and said that the subject property is large enough and
should not require a variance. She further stated that the proposal would result in a house out of
character with the neighborhood.
Ron TumSudan , another neighbor on Briarcliff Road, stated that he is concerned about flooding
and stormwater.
2
The applicant requested an adjournment to January 16 in order to explore the concerns expressed
by neighbors and Board members.
Letters from 3 neighbors in support of the proposal were entered into the record and marked
Exhibit 11/ 28/18 — 1.
Other Business
The Board discussed adding language to the application form to advise applicants that failure to
appear before the Board for a certain number of months may result in the application being
stricken from the agenda and requiring the submission of a new application including all related
documents and a new application fee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 P.M.
3