Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_12_19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes (iv MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK DECEMBER 19, 2001, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Absent: Richard Coico Jillian A. Martin Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison Denise Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, LTD. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER tre The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther said informed those people present who have applications before the Board that we only have three Board members present tonight, where normally we would have five Board members present. As a result,we'll be happy to hear your application, if you would like us to proceed. We do,however, need to have three members vote in favor of your application for it to be approved. If you would like us, on the other hand, not to hear your application and hold off until our next meeting, we will be happy to do that without any prejudice as well. Just let us know how you would like to proceed. Mr. Gunther said as a note of information for Board members, one of our members, Mr. Coico, is resigning from the Board. He has written a letter to the supervisor saying that due to the pressures of his job and his new responsibilities, he can't fulfill his responsibility on the Zoning Board. He will be resigning, effective as soon as the Town Board accepts his letter. Mr. Gunther said there are two applications that are on the agenda that we will not hear. First case is: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2471 (adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01) 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 8.5 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. 41110 We have a letter from the applicant, Fred Friedman and Ann Woods, which is a part of the record, requesting an adjournment to the February, 2002 meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 2 RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of application#1, case #2471 which has been adjourned from the October 24, 2001 and November 28, 2001, be, and hereby is, adjourned to the February, 2002 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gunther said the second case is: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2482 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Randy L. Caruso requesting a variance to construct a proposed two-story addition on the premises located at 4 Robbins Nest Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501, Lot 271. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 25.4 ft.where 30 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr. Gunther said if anyone is here for this application,we received notice from the applicant that they will be removing this application and refiling a new application next month. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Carpaneto wants the matter to stay on the calendar. Mr. Carpaneto said it's going to be a new application. Ms. Gallent said it has to be renoticed. Mr. Gunther said let the record show that APPLICATION #4, CASE #2482, is withdrawn. Mr. Gunther said he would also like to set the January meeting date for January 23, 2002, the fourth Wednesday, which is the normal time. The Board members present agreed with that meeting date. Mr. Winick asked if would be at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Gunther said yes, in the court room. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2473 (adjourned 10/24/01; 11/28/01) Application of Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Standor requesting a variance to construct a rear wood deck on the premises located at 72 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109, Lot 216. The rear wood deck as proposed has a rear yard of 14 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr. Harrison said he represents the applicant. Mr. Gunther asked if he would like to proceed. Mr. Harrison said last time you said that if two say no and one says yes, it's lost. Mr. Winick said if it fails, it will have to be resubmitted. I Mr. Gunther said one suggestion would be to present your application, ask for a sense of the Board and either ask for a vote or don't ask for a vote. If there isn't a vote, hold it over until the next time. Ms. Gallent said if you get a sense that it's going to be O.K., then you can ask for a vote. Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 3 After some discussion, Mr. Harrison said it doesn't look so bad. I'll take your advice. Mr. Gunther said please give them the Board your name and address. Lester Harrison of 80 Old Colony Road, Hartsdale, New York 10530 addressed the Board. Mr. Harrison said the applicant is requesting approval to build this deck. It's not big enough to put up a Christmas tree. This Christmas I feel sorry for the people that can't have a tree. The maximum closeness to the property line is 14 ft. I think with a little indulgence and consideration given by the Board, you will approve this. It's a little deck. There's no structure behind it next door. Mr. Gunther asked if there are any pictures. Ms. Roma said the pictures have just been given to the Board to review. Mr. Harrison said it's been a residence for about 30 years. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carpaneto for the tax map, which the Board reviewed. Mr. Wexler said it's going out in the back, with which Mr. Gunther agreed. Mr. Wexler asked how high off the ground will the deck be. Mr. Harrison said about 3 ft. Mr. Gunther asked how high the current deck is. 1116, Mr. Harrison said the current deck is 3 ft. This is just an extension. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked if there was any comments from the public on this application. There were no comments. Mr. Wexler said it's not a very good showing this time. Mr. Wexler asked if he wants to get a consensus of the Board. Mr. Harrison said yes. Mr. Gunther said he doesn't have a problem with it. Mr. Wexler said he doesn't have a problem with it. Neither did Mr. Winick have a problem with it. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. 4100 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. Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 4 On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs. Stephen Standor have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear wood deck on the premises located at 72 Vine Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109, Lot 216. The rear wood deck as proposed has a rear yard of 14 ft. where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further, the deck incre'ces 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(3)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Standor 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 fmdings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board fmds 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. This deck replaces an existing deck of the same height. Based upon an inspection of the property, it's easily observable that the mass of this deck doesn't really intrude on the neighbors. The property is set so that the back property line is common to a property that is on Knollwood. Because of the placement of those two properties, there is quite a considerable distance between where the proposed deck is going to be and the back of the house on Knollwood that would be most affected. The encroachment, while it reduces the setback to 14 ft., does not have, as a practical matter, much of an affect on the neighbor to the rear. It appears that from the plans that were submitted, that the spacing of the vertical members on the end rail will be placed a little further apart than the existing handrail further reducing the visual impact of the proposed deck. B. There is not a reasonable alternative which doesn't involve the necessity of an area variance. To increase the deck to this size there's going to be an encroachment, because of the size and irregular shape of the lot. C. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It's a garden variety deck in a back yard and any property, other than the one directly behind it, wouldn't be affected at all. D. This not a self-created difficulty. The lot shape is really what determined the need for an encroachment. 41IP E. 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. Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 5 F. 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. G. 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. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. After further discussion regarding spacing between the spindles, Mr. Wexler said to Mr. Carpaneto there 1110, is no dimension regarding this in our present Town Building Code for a deck handrail. Mr. Carpaneto said I believe the spindle dimension can't be any more than 6 inches on center. Mr. Wexler said existing code doesn't state or address that. The new code even adopts it. Mr. Carpaneto said usually that's a standard. Mr. Wexler said it's a standard, but what's actually there is much closer together. It looks more like a wall just to make it look a little more transparent. Mr. Gunther called application number 3, Carol Smith, as noted below. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2481 Application of Carol Smith requesting a variance to legalize an existing fence in the side and rear yards on the premises located at 36 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Lot 555. The fence as erected has a total height of 9 ft.+- where 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr. Gunther asked if there were pictures. Mr. Carpaneto said he doesn't see the applicant present. 41, Mr. Gunther asked if anyone was present representing the applicant, Carol Smith. There was no answer. A gentleman in the audience said he is here in opposition. Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Gunther said we'll hold it, do the next application and then come back to this application. There was an individual in the audience that was present to observe the workings of the Board. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2483 Application of Mr. &Mrs.John Ortiz requesting a variance to construct a one-story rear addition,a second floor addition and to extend a front porch on the premises located at 7 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 228, Lot 1. The front porch to be extended has a front yard of 38 ft. 7 in. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1) for a residence in an R-20 Zone District. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant is present. No one was present. After some discussion among Board members, Mr. Gunther said why don't we go on to our Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said he made some alterations on the Minutes of November 28, 2001. After some discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other corrections. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the Minutes of November 28, 2000, were unanimously approved, 3-0. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Wexler about the October Minutes. Mr. Wexler said he has a question on page 21, it says pages 19, 20, 21, 22. He asked what happened to the first 18 pages. Ms. Roma said the Board members had received all the other pages of the Minutes. These were just corrections to those specific pages. After some discussion, Ms. Gallent said to delete the matter in question. We have a transcript if needed. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the Minutes of the October 24,2001 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved, 3-0. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the Minutes of the September 19, 2001 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved, 3-0. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Roma if the matter was already read, to which she replied yes. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2483 (previously read) Mike Csenge apologized for being late regarding the above-referenced case, because it was my daughter's holiday concert and I had to see my daughter. Mike Csenge said he's the architect for the owner of 7 York Road. The proposed addition is multiple pieces. We're doing a one-story in the rear, we're doing a second floor in the rear and we're doing a new front porch. Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 7 Cow Mr. Csenge said that the part in front of the Board tonight is the front porch. We're in violation of the front yard setback by a minor amount. When we put this together, the original house did not have a porch that went across the full width of the front of the house. It went across half of it. We were looking to expand that. We're actually cutting back the depth of the existing front porch and then cutting it to the side. I believe we submitted photos. We do have some that might be easier to read. Ms. Roma asked if the pictures should be marked exhibit#1 for our records. Mr. Csenge said I believe we submitted photos. These are just additional for clarification. Mr. Csenge said we are cutting back, the existing porch is the dotted line, we are pulling it back to get a little better fascia. We turning back fascias along the entire house and taking off a fair amount of roof because of that. Mr. Wexler asked what color the house is going to be when it's finished. Mr. Csenge said I'm not sure. I don't know whether it will be yellow. We are planning a resurface(?). He said the rear additions, both the one-story and the second floor addition, meet the present regulations. It is only the small corner of the front porch that doesn't. Mr. Gunther asked what is the square inches or square feet. Mr. Csenge said he did not even calculate it. I believe it's about the size of one column, maybe 8 inches in diameter that would hang over underneath the triangle. Mr. Winick asked if everything else is in the zoning envelope? Mr. Csenge said everything else is in the zoning envelope. I couldn't pull it back any further. I can play some gymnastics and cut the corner. I think architecturally it would not be in keeping. Mr. Wexler said you can do that creatively. Mr. Gunther asked if it's a fiberglass column. Mr. Csenge said yes it is. I use fiberglass for maintenance purposes. They don't rot. Mr. Wexler said they also paint better. Mr. Csenge said they paint better. They're economical. Mr. Wexler said they're also structural. Mr. Csenge said they're very structural. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. Eva Caruso asked if the question from Mr. Wexler was a joke. Mr. Wexler said yes. Mr. Csenge said that the owners have talked to the adjacent neighbors. They have no objections to what is being proposed. Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 8 On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 3-0. 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. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. John Ortiz have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story rear addition, a second floor addition and to extend a front porch on the premises located at 7 York Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 228, Lot 1. The front porch to be extended has a front yard of 38 ft. 7 in. where 40 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1) for a residence in an R-20 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 240-35B(1); and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. John Ortiz 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 variance seeks to legalize a very small corner of the proposed front porch. The area that is the intrusion has been described as being basically the area of about one supporting column. The intrusion on the zoning envelope is quite minimal. B. The difference between this and an enclosed compliant deck would be so small, it probably would be unnoticeable from anywhere else in the neighborhood or on the adjoining property. As such, there would be no change at all in the character of the neighborhood as the result of this proposed variance. C. The deck and roof as proposed goes the width of the house, is entirely appropriate for the design and is quite attractive. It would not be possible to achieve the visual affect that is desired without intruding outside the zoning envelope. D. The variance is deminimis. E. The variance will have no impact at all on the conditions of the neighborhood or district. Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 9 New 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. 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. 410, This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. After some discussion among Board members, Mr. Wexler asked, can I, as a resident of the Town, become an applicant in front of this Board for a clarification of a code. Ms. Gallent asked, on your own behalf, for your house? Definitely, if it affects your property, yes. Ms. Gallent said you're saying it's a generic sort of thing,but then there's no real case. You have to have a case in which the question arises. The jurisdiction of this Board only is Appellate, so it has to start with Mr. Carpaneto. You have to appeal from Mr. Carpaneto to you. You can't get a denial from Mr. Carpaneto unless you have an application. Mr. Carpaneto said every interpretation needs to have a denial, also. Mr. Winick said they usually come up when there's a dispute, where an applicant says no I don't think you're interpreting the code correctly. Mr. Carpaneto said you can ask for an interpretation at your hearing. Ms. Gallent said or you can even not apply for a variance. Mr. Winick said but the predicate to being in front of this Board is the denial of an application. Ms. Gallent said Board's jurisdiction is appellate. I believe that's even by state law, actually. I'll double check the State Law, which I don't have with me. 4111, After some discussion regarding meeting starting time, Mr. Gunther said since there is no applicant present to present their application,we called the application and we will just adjourn the application until our next meeting, Zoning Board December 19, 2001 Page 10 Cp, Mr. Gunther said the next meeting of this Board will be held on January 23, 2002, which is the fourth Wednesday in January, 2002. We normally meet on the fourth Wednesday of each month. We will just adjourn this application just like the others to our next meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of application number 3, case #2481, of Carol Smith, be, and hereby is, adjourned to the January 23, 2002 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Winick said we'll be up in the court room on the second floor. Someone said what happens if the applicant doesn't show up at the next meeting? After some discussion, Mr. Carpaneto said she is here as a result of a court hearing. She went to court and was told to come to this meeting. Ms. Gallent said she could have consequences in court for not showing up,if she was directed by the judge to show up here. Mr. Carpaneto said I believe she was directed to get an answer by this month. I don't know why she's here now, unless she has an emergency that I'm not aware of. Mr. Gunther said then the matter goes back to the enforcement officer to do whatever. Richard Payne said are you saying she went to court before coming here? Mr. Carpaneto said yes, she was directed by the courts to come here. Mr. Winick said a summons issued for the violation and typically when you have that kind of violation one of the options you have is to go and get a variance to get it legalized. Typically they'll adjourn those to let you come in front of the Board for a variance. How long you can go depends on the judge. Richard Payne said he is an attorney and he represents Brian and Susan Payne who are abutting property owners, of 8 Perch, which intersects with Valley Road. Number 36 Valley Road abuts my son and my daughter-in-law's property for about 42 ft. There's my son's property on his side and the Smith property in their rear. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on January 23, 2002. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Even though the meeting was officially adjourned, a woman had a question regarding interpretation and spoke to the Board members. I lir )7)1 661 Ail-t Marguent oma, Recording Secretary