Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016_09_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes HE MINUTESNOF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK,SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM C,OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Jeffery King, Irene O'Neill, Elizabeth Cooney,Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to Zoning Board,John H. Landi, Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:49P.M. The applications were taken out of order. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.3026 Josh Freidfertig 42 Villa Road Public Hearing No one appeared to address the Board, the matter was adjourned. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO.3038 -Duane and Mary Kate Pfenningwerth 47 Ellsworth Road Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson John Scarlota, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Wexler stated that this is a nonconforming lot and the side yards can be reduced to the R-6 zone requirements in accordance with Section 240-70.B of the Zoning Code. Mr. Scarlota stated that they are proposing an addition to the rear for a bigger kitchen,family room, a deck aligning with the edge of the house, and a front porch. The a/c units will be in the rear behind the deck. Mr. Sacks questioned the environmental impact to the side yard neighbors, Mr. Scarlota entered into the record Exhibit 1 three letters from the impacted neighbors. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved 1 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Jeffery King, Irene O'Neill, Nays: None WHEREAS, Duane and Mary Kate Pfennigwerth, (the "Applicant")requested a variance for a rear one and two story addition and wood deck, covered front first floor porch, and second story addition on the premises located at 47 Ellsworth Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 212, Lot 78; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-37B(2)(a), 240-37B(2)(b), 240-37B(2)(a) and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback 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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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 in this neighborhood 2 because the proposal is consistent in size, lot coverage and setbacks with neighboring houses. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 the applicant requires additional living space to accommodate the needs of the family and the proposed expansion aligns with the existing structure to the greatest extent possible. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is substantial relative to the size of the lot, but insubstantial with respect to the impact to neighboring properties and the environment. 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 there will be no increases water runoff and construction is expected to comply with the Code requirements for erosion and sediment control. 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 this 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: GENERAL 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. 3 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building 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 Law. APPLICATION NO.4 CASE NO.3039 16 Dante LLC. - 16 Dante Street Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney Mark Mostacato, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating the existing house had fire damage and they wish to retain the nonconforming foundation for the first floor and the second floor will be set back the 6 inches to be conforming. He further stated that to remove the foundation would create more environmental impact and would be costly. In addition, effected area would be less than 3 1/2 square feet. The applicant is burdened by two street frontages. The Board discussed the request, Mr. Wexler stated that the proposed addition occupies the same space as the original building Mr. Landi stated that there are current violations related to erosion and tree removal and no further action should be taken. The owner responded that he remediated the yard today, as they had set up in house to do the perk test which disrupted the yard, he put up a construction fence, and silt fence, tree removal did not require a permit and applied for erosion control permit. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jeffery King Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson 4 After review, on motion of Jeffery King, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Jeffery King, Irene O'Neill, Nays: None WHEREAS,Sixteen Dante LLC, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to rebuild the existing house,from the first floor up and add a full second floor on the premises located at 16 Dante Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Lot 31; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-39B(2)(a), 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback 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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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 request and the nature of the construction is small in scale and consistent with existing conditions. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 the services come in to that corner of the building it would be cost prohibitive to re-pipe elsewhere. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because a 6 inch encroachment into the side yard yielding 3square feet of living space is minor. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the construction associated with this variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because existing Town Code requirements will govern erosion &sediment control as well as tree removal. 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 this 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: GENERAL 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 Director of Building 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. 6 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. The approval shall be conditioned upon determination by the Department of Building that there are no open violations on the Property. 7. This approval shall be further conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with Chapter 178 of the Town Code with respect to residential site plans. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO. 3040 Giovanni Zapata -21 Harrison Drive - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney Giovanni Zapata,the owner architect, addressed the Board and apologized for the mistake in not requesting the driveway expansion when he was before the Board for the house expansion. He showed the existing driveway and the paved area as well as the proposal to pave grass area and increase driveway.The area is 4X16 against the retaining wall. The Board discussed the driveway expansion and possible alternatives,the driveway cannot be expanded to the center of the property because the entrance to the house would be impacted. Mr. Zapata stated he will use grass pavers. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill After review, on motion of Evans Simpson, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Jeffery King, Irene O'Neill 7 Nays: None WHEREAS, Giovanni Zapata, (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a 6 foot fence around the perimeter of the front yard on the premises located at 21 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 666; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-79B(1)(b), 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback 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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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 largest visual impact will be to an as of right retaining wall. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 existing driveway is minimally functional and needs to be widened and there are impediments to widening in the other direction. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because it adds no additional blacktop. 8 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 proposed material is permeable and will not increase the impervious area and also because the driveway pitches towards the house. 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 this 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: GENERAL 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 Director of Building 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. This approval is conditioned upon the use of permeable paving system to remain in perpetuity, allowing grass to grow. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 6 case no.3041 Sam and Erica Groban 18 Carleon Avenue- Public Hearing 9 Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney Anthony lonlascon,the architect's representative, addressed the Board stating that this is a nonconforming lot, only 50 feet wide in an R-15 zone. Both side yards are nonconforming and the one story push out is to increase the family room, kitchen, dining room. 2 pages entered into the record as Exhibit 1 the addition is staying within the footprint of the nonconformity. The Board discussed the requested variance and noted that Section 240-70.B of the Zoning Code allows for stepped down setbacks. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Evans Simpson the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Evans Simpson,Jonathan Sacks,Jeffery King, Irene O'Neill Nays: None WHEREAS, Sam and Erica Groban, (the "Applicant")requested a variance of a new front foyer and covered entry 4'—10" rear yard push out, new rear wood deck at 18 Carleon Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 404, Lot 21; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 2420-36B(2)(a), 240-36B(2)(b)240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and. 10 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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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 character of the expansion of the house is consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 this is an undersized lot in a neighborhood of larger lots, the house is already nonconforming and any expansion within the footprint of the existing house would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because the extension will be consistent with the current side yards of the house and the additional requested area square footage is small. 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 slight additional runoff will be mitigated through water control as required by Chapter 95 of the Town Code. 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. 11 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this 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: GENERAL 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 Director of Building 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 Law. APPLICATION No. 2 - CASE NO. 3010 - Gjoko Shkreli - 176Myrtle Blvd. - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Evans Simpson Donald S. Mazin,the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board stating that the architect and owner's son was also present. Mr. Mazin read his application submittal into the record. Mr. Sacks stated the one affordable unit is not very much of a benefit, and asked if there is a precedence for zero on-site parking. The existing and proposed parking was discussed. Ms. Cooney stated that an earlier zoning variance granted in 1998 required the applicant to purchase 3 parking permits from the Town. 12 Mr. King asked if the parking spot for the affordable apartment would also be affordable and Mr. Mazin responded that the building owner would purchase the parking spaces. Mr. Landi stated that the applicant cannot purchase parking spots from the Coughlin building as they may need it in the future. Ms. Cooney stated that purchased parking spots are at a first come first served and cannot be guaranteed and are not sold in perpetuity. Mr. Sacks asked why not roof top parking with an elevator. The Architect, Mr. Gemola addressed the Board showing street photos and renderings of the proposal. Mr. Wexler stated that the Coughlin building got a height variance 20+years ago. The renderings were not correct and must be corrected before the next meeting, showing the correct height of the Coughlin building. Mr. Sacks asked if the basement could be converted for parking. Mr. King asked for the site line from the third floor apartments in the rear to be shown on the renderings. Public Comments Jessica Bacal,the attorney representing 2 Washington Sq., stated the Board recognized some of the problems that modifications from the earlier proposal reflect no meaningful reduction in the request for variances (lot size,two side yards, open space, parking). She further commented on neighborhood parking,the height restriction of the 1998 variance and the impact of the current proposal to nearby residents. John Hollwitz of 2 Washington Sq. asked to see a 3rd floor view of the new building and stated that the current proposal infringe his light, air and privacy. He also submitted photos marked Exhibit 1&2. Brian Murphy stated he was here representing his father, a resident of 2 Washington Sq. first floor apartment He stated that his view would be only the public space in the rear of the building.There would be a significant detrimental effect, lack of air flow and light would be severally limited. His view would be totally blocked by the addition, the value of his property would be reduced and his privacy would be impacted. Cathy Brennan, a real estate agent, stated that impacted views would lessen the value of the neighboring apartments. James Lundon stated he is on the Board of 2 Washington Sq., and identified several parking concerns in the neighborhood; permits in lot#4 are only for overnight and cars must be out during the day;the area is congested,the driveway on the side of 176 provides additional parking for 2 Washington Sq. and is used routinely by commuters. He showed a photo showing a car blocking such driveway. 13 The Applicant was requested to prepare a shadow study. Mr. Mazin requested an adjournment to October 26, 2016. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Elizabeth Cooney ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:39P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals 14