Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_08_07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 1-71-41,fr TONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK UST 7, 2002, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Las E. Gunther, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Paul A. Winick Absent: Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Danielle Prisco, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, LTD. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 1611110 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:59 p.m. If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of August 7, 2002, it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion on previous open Zoning Board Minutes. The Secretary read the first application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2471 (adjourned 10/24/01; 11/28/01; 12/19/01;2/26/02; 4/4/02; 4/24/02; 5/22/02; 6/26/02;7/23/02) Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M. Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 13.5 ft. where a maximum of 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther,seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2471 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the September 2002 Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE [, ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AUGUST 7,2002,IN THE SENIOR CENTER,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Thomas E.Gunther,Chairman Linda S.Harrington Paul A.Winick Absent: Jillian A.Martin Arthur Wexler Also Present: Robert S.Davis,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building Nancy Seligson,Liaison Danielle Prisco,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD. 111 N.Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:59 p.m. If anyone wishes to review the contents of the meeting of August 7,2002,it will be available on cassette tape at the Building Department after the certification is signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion on previous open Zoning Board Minutes. The Secretary read the first application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1-CASE 2471(adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01;12/19/01;2/26/02;4/4/02;4/24/02;5/22/02; 6/26/02;7/23/02) Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M.Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213,Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 13.5 ft. where a maximum of 5 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was • unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2471 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the September 2002 Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 2 APPLICATION NO.2-CASE 2503 (adjourned 6/26/02;7/23/02) Application of Dr.&Mrs.Albert Kramer requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence in the front yard on the premises located at 267 Griffin Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 341,Lot 530. The fence as built has a height of 5 ft.where 4 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in a front yard in an R-20 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of case#2503 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the September 2002 Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2513(adjourned 7/23/02) Application of Richard and Robin Giacomo requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence on the premises located at 7 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106,Lot 490. The fence as it exists in the front yard has a total height of 6 ft.where a 4 ft.high fence is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-I5 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. Its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Board Member Voted Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Absent Paul A.Winick Yes A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Richard and Robin Giacomo have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing fence on the premises located at 7 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106,Lot 490. The fence as it exists in the front yard has a total height of 6 ft.where a 4 ft.high fence is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-15 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-52A;and WHEREAS,Richard and Robin Giacomo submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 3 WHEREAS,this Board has 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 hearing thereon;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 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. Based upon an observation of the property and the information heard in the hearing at the last session and this one,the applicant's existing fence is quite noticeable the way it is set on the property which is elevated above Weaver Street and then curves onto Bonnie Way. However,the applicant has presented the Board with a screening plan that provides very extensive planting in front of the fence and the site that will be observed by passersby and neighbors; B. With the amount of screening proposed by the applicant,whatever undesirable change or affect on the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties that might be caused by this fence will be mitigated; C. The applicant has expressed a number of reasons for the fence between safety and privacy and there is not, given the shape of the property, a reasonable alternative by which the applicant can achieve those goals without some form of variance; D. The variance is substantial. The impact of the addition might be considerable; E. The difficulty is not self-created but is instead the result of the property's slope. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. 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. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance be limited and incorporate the plantings that are on the planting plan given to the Board tonight,which should be made part of the file,and they be maintained. The C;;;) planting diagram that was provided includes a total of seventy-nine(79) plantings, including trees,hedges,large shrubs and small throbs together,which is a substantial parameter. Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 4 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. ' 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2515(corrected;adjourned 7/23/02) Letter of James G.Kennedy requesting,a variance for an in ground pool on the premises located at 840 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204,Lot 174. The in ground pool as constructed has a rear yard set back of 16.8 ft.where 20 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(b)and a distance separation of 13 ft.from the principal dwelling where 15 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(a)for an in ground swimming pool in an R-30 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. Its findings revealed that there were Olittle or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Board Member Voted Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Absent Paul A.Winick Yes A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,James G.Kennedy has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans for an in ground pool on the premises located at 840 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 204,Lot 174. The in ground pool as constructed has a rear yard set back of 16.8 ft.where 20 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(b)and a distance separation of 13 ft.from the principal dwelling where 15 ft.is permitted pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(a) for an in ground swimming pool in an R-30 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 192-5(1)(b),Section 192-5(I)(a);and WHEREAS,James G.Kennedy submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 5 WHEREAS,this Board has 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 hearing thereon;and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 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. There is no detriment to the community. The pool has been there for 30+ years. It's screened adequately. There have never been any complaints or problems to my knowledge. He certainly can't move the pool at this point. Upon examination of the front location of the pool and surrounding areas there was a significant large tree and shrub growth between the pool and all surrounding properties,making it basically invisible to others in that area; B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable altemative that would involve moving the pool; C. The variance is not substantial,based on the fact that the setback requested is minimal as compared to the as-built conditions and its relation to all other surrounding conditions of other properties; D. The variance has no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The pool is there and has been there for 30+/- years. There haven't been any reported problems. There hasn't been any issues with neighbors; E. It is a self-created difficulty,because they put the pool in a different location than what was on the plans,but for whatever the reason,we don't know what it is; The self-created difficulty is not determinative; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. 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; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: O1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 6 o 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. Routinely a building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completcd within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2516(adjourned 7/23/02)was moved to the end of the agenda. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2519(adjourned 7/23/02) Application of Charles and Valerie Green requesting a variance to construct a family room,breakfast nook, expanded kitchen and patio on the premises located at 30 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 1. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);a front yard of 20 ft.6 in.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Winick,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. Its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Board Member Voted Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Iillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Absent Paul A.Winick Yes A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On a motion made by Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Charles and Valerie Green have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a family room,breakfast nook,expanded kitchen and patio on the premises located at 30 Rockland Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 1. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 ft.where 10 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a);a front yard of 20 ft.6 in.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(1);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District;and Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 7 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(a),Section 240-37B(1),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Charles and Valerie Green submitted an application for'a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has 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 hearing thereon;and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 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. The applicant's property is a corner property with a two front yard problem. The design as modified on the July 10,2002 drawing,including the provisions of screening that were provided for on that drawing, reduces or virtually eliminates the impact of the proposed addition on the neighbor; B. The neighbor has a patio that is elevated above the grade of the house that is on © the property line and was,by the original design,fairly well impacted. That effect has been removed,by the changes that the applicant and his architect have come up with on the July 10,2002 drawing: Other than that,this is a property which is a double lot surrounded by open space and the street; C. Given the applicant's goals in expanding his house and the shape of the property,there is no reasonable alternative which could be used that would not involve the necessity of an area variance; D. There is no impact from the addition on the other adjoining properties or on the neighborhood as a whole; E. The difficulty here is not self-created. This is a function of the Zoning Laws which are structured in a rather odd way with respect to corner property; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. 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; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 8 RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented,including the screening provided on the July 10,2002 plan,and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and .completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: • APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2522 Application of Antonio and Marie Galvao requesting a variance to construct a deck and porch on the premises located at 286 Rockingstone Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110,Lot 95. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 23.25 ft.where 25 ft. Q is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3);a total side yard of 19.94 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. Its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Board Member Voted Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Absent Paul A.Winick Yes A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Antonio and Marie Galvao have submitted an applicatior to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a deck and porch on the premises located at 286 Rockingstone Avenue and - known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110,Lot 95. The addition as proposed has a rear yard of 23.25 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3);a total side yard of 19.94 ft.where 20 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(b);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 9 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(3),Section 240-38B(2)(b),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Antonio and Marie Galvao submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS,this Board has 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 hearing thereon;and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance exceeds the detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created,as a result of this application. There are similar structures in the surrounding houses on that street; B. It is impossible for the applicant to achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance,as the applicant added an addition to his property because of the setbacks without the variance; C. The variance is not substantial in this case; D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In the front line there's other existing conditions in other properties down the street that closely resemble the proposed; E. Whether it is a self-created difficulty is not determinative in this case; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. 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; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 10 O2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2523 Application of Mr.&Mrs.Francis Ballard,Jr.(Contract Vendee)requesting a variance to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 4 Acorn Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 414. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft.9 in.where 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. Its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Board Member Voted Thomas E.Gunther. Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Absent Paul A.Winick Yes A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. RESOLVED, that•this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms.Harrington,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Francis Ballard,Jr.(Contract Vendee)have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a rear addition on the premises located at 4 Acorn Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 129,Lot 414. The addition as proposed has a side yard of 6 ft. 9 in.where 10 ft. is required pursuant to(Section 240-3813(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(2)(a),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Francis Ballard,Jr.(Contract Vendee)submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 11 WHEREAS,this Board has 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 hearing thereon;and • WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: 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. Weighing the detriment to the community against the benefit of the applicant, there is no detriment to the community. It's an improvement in what's there and it's cleaning up the lines of the house. The house as it's placed on the property is rather close to the side lot line,and the addition as proposed will not increase the incursion into the side lot any further because of the Variance. The way the properties are situated on the lot,as they extend further into the back they actually separate from the neighbor to the north. That,plus the fact the neighbor to the north has this deck essentially facing the existing portion of the house. Much of the activity on that property already takes place in proximity of the house. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of a variance. In order to make needed improvements to the fiouse,a variance is needed. r. C. It is not substantial. It's 6.9 ft.where 10 ft.is required. There was already a variance on the property. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district in light of neighbors agreeing with the plans and thinking that it's a good plan. E. It was not a self-created difficulty in purchasing the house as it is. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. 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. • H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building,and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as indicated on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board • August 7,2002 Page 12 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. ' 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.9-CASE 2524 Application of Larchmont Acres East Associates requesting a variance to add six(6)additional parking spaces on the premises located at Richbell Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 408,Lot 86. The parking spaces as proposed are 0 feet from the property line where 25 ft.is required pursuant to section 240-79B for parking spaces in an R-TA Zone District. The Board discussed this application. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Harrington, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,3-0. Its findings revealed that there were little or no adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community and therefore voted as follows: Board Member Voted Thomas E.Gunther Yes Linda S.Harrington Yes Jillian A.Martin Absent Arthur Wexler Absent Paul A.Winick Yes A building permit is required before any work can begin on the aforesaid application. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required. • On motion of Mr.Winick,seconded by Ms.Harrington,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Larchmont Acres East Associates has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to add six(6)additional parking spaces on the premises located at Richbell Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 408,Lot 86. The parking spaces as proposed are 0 feet from the property line where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-79B for parking spaces in an R-TA Zone District;and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-79B;and WHEREAS,Larchmont Acres East Associates submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and OWHEREAS,this Board has 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 hearing • thereon;and • Zoning Board August 7,2002 Page 13 WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b: I. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance would be outweighed by the detriment to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. The subject property is located in a crowded part of town. The parking spots are proposed to be put on the perimeter of the applicant's property where they will impact a residential street which is a mapped dead-end street. In fact,it is a through street that provides access to the back entrance of a shopping center and there is community traffic on that street regularly. Burton Road is a street containing many single-family homes. Adding the proposed parking spaces at the property line would create a negative visual impact for the residential uses on Burton Road. Not only would these residents see the proposed parking spaces,but they would experience the loss of open space at this location and instead experience a more congested environment. In this way,the proposed parking would shift the associated burden to the property's neighbors. B. There are reasonable altematives which do not involve the necessity of an area variance. This is an applicant that charges money for these parking spots. There are no economic issues here that have been raised,but clearly there are other places within the property that would not require a variance at which these parking spaces could be located. For example,the spaces could be located on O the opposite side of the property where only the applicant's residents would be • impacted. • C. The variance is substantial. Getting down to a"0"clearance to the property line,is substantial by any measure. For that reason,it will have an impact on the neighborhood or on at least the adjoining residents on Burton Road. D. As described above,to the extent that neighborhood character is considered an environmental issue(as it is under SEQRA),the proposed variance would have a negative impact on existing environmental conditions. E. This is not self-created difficulty. Obviously expectations of parking are greater today than they were at the time this building was constructed. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is DENIED. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2516(adjourned 7/23/02) Application of Brian and Linda Harrington requesting a variance to construct a rear deck on the premises located at 742 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of.the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223,Lot 33.The deck as proposed has a rear yard of 8.9 ft.where 25 ft.is required pursuant to © Section 240-37B(3); a total side yard of 20.85 ft. where 25 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(b);lot coverage of 36%where 35%is required pursuant to Section 240-37F;and further,the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Zoning Board August 7, 2002 Page 14 tie The Board discussed this application. On a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2516 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the f, September, 2002 Zoning Board meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 11, 2002. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. r- Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary