Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_01_16 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 JANUARY 16, 2019 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Zoning Board Counsel Absent: David Fishman, Alternate, Jaine Elkind-Eney, Town Board Liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. Application # 1 - Case #3139 -Brian and Tami Chez - 8 Bonnie Way - Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Shahin Heshmat, the project manager, stated that they propose to add a portico to the nonconforming house. He further stated that there will be no soil disturbance and pointed out that many neighbors have porticos. The Board discussed the proposal. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky 1 RESOLUTION 8 Bonnie Way As Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certf that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board at the meeting held January 16, 2019 After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Brian and Tami Chez (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front portico on the premises located at 8 Bonnie Way, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 4, Lot 92; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The portico as proposed in the front yard is 26.13 feet where 40 is required pursuant to Section 240- 36B(1), and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-15 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, 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; and 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the portico is consistent with the design of the house as well as other nearby houses. 2 B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the front entrance already extends into the required front yard setback and the portico is intended to protect visitors entering through the front door. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the portico will be constructed over an existing platform and therefore does not increase the footprint of the house. 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 portico will be constructed over an already existing impervious surface and therefore will not generate additional runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 3 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 Code. Application #2 —Case #3140 - Tara McCarthy - 3 Winged Foot - Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Tara McCarthy, the homeowner, submitted a photo showing the placement of the units and it was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1 1-16-19. Ms. McCarthy stated that she bought the house 40 years ago and one of the units was in place. After receiving variances for renovations, they added the other two units in proximity to the original unit, without permits. Mr. Policari stated that although the original unit was probably in place prior to the any zoning code requirements, there is no proof. Therefore all three units require a variance. The Board discussed the placement of the units. Mr. Wexler questioned the Dba rating. There were no public questions or comments Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene 0' Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 3 Winged Foot Drive 4 As Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certf that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board at the meeting held January 16, 2019 After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Tara McCarthy (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize 3 air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 3 Winged Foot Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 9, Lot 168; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: the AC units in the front yard are 30.3 feet where 40 is required pursuant to Section 240-36 B(1), 34 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1), 37.5 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); for a building in an R-15 Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, 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; and 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the units are well screened and have existed for many years without complaint from neighbors. 5 B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the units are pre- existing and are placed in the most reasonable location with respect to their impact to neighboring properties. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they are well screened and do not negatively impact neighbors. 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 units are pre-existing and neighbors have not objected to the noise. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 3 - Case #3141-William Gensburg - 74 W. Brookside Dr. - Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by , seconded by Steve Wrabel, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board and gave a short history of the property and why they are before the Board. He stated that in 2017 the homeowners applied for a permit for a patio and hot tub and were given a permit by the prior Building Inspector and the homeowners proceeded with construction. In 2018 when the homeowners applied for a permit for their roof, the building department found open permits and the Building Inspector found the 2017 construction to be noncompliant with zoning requirements. This application is to legalize the 2017 construction, which had been done in good faith upon permission from the prior Building Inspector. The current Building Inspector informed the Board that the 2017 building permit was issued in error and should have required zoning variances. The Board discussed the history and the request. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant would adjourn the matter so the Board could review the last application on the agenda and the applicant agreed. RECONVENED Mr. Wrabel stated that the homeowners spent a lot of money on this project and the cost of moving the hot tub is expensive. Mr. Polcari stated, in defense of the homeowners, that the prior Building Inspector accepted a poorly drawn plan. The Board discussed a letter from a neighboring homeowner stating that he believes the subject property should abide by the local zoning law and required setbacks. The Board and the applicants discussed the cost to install the hot tub and exercise equipment. The Board and the applicant discussed the location of the hot tub and exercise equipment as well as other viable locations. The Board and the applicant discussed costs related to relocation. Mr. Sacks suggested the applicant request an adjournment and encouraged the applicants to reach out to the objecting neighbor to get clarity on the neighbor's objections. Mr. Wrabel and the applicants discussed the Boards concerns and asked for a straw poll. Mr. Wrabel asked that the matter be adjourned. 7 Application # 4—Case # 3142 - Madalina & Ricardo Iavarone - 9 Edgewood Ave. Ms. Brill stated that the matter was adjourned because the applicants failed to comply with the Town's notification requirements. Application #5 —Case # 3143 - Noriyuki and Shoko Iwata - 52 Villa Road -Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Dr. C. A. Mason, Esq. addressed the Board representing the applicants to legalize a rear deck on the subject property. Dr. Mason stated that 7 years ago the homeowners received a permit for their bathroom at which time they also remodeled their kitchen and built a deck and stairs off the kitchen. The homeowners did not seek or obtain a permit for the deck, which requires a small variance. The Board discussed the request and zoning chart and the location of the deck. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To Approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky No: Jonathan Sacks RESOLUTION 52 Villa Road As Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, I hereby certf that the following is the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board at the meeting held January 16, 2019 After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. 8 Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Nays: Jonathan Sacks WHEREAS, Noriyuki and Shoko Iwata (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a deck on the premises located at 52 Villa Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 11, Lot 147; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as built deck in the side yard is 7 feet where 10 is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2), the rear yard is 12.9 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3), and rear yard setbacks of 8.6 feet for the as built stairs where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38(3) for a building in an R-7.5 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§ 617 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the deck, which replaced a prior existing wood deck and stairs, is a small deviation from what had previously been installed and further is unobjectionable to neighbors. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the lot is small and any egress from the kitchen would require a variance because the house is pre-existing nonconforming. 9 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the house is on a corner lot and the yard which is accessed by the deck and stairs appears from the street as a side yard. 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 deck is not visually imposing and will generate no additional runoff because it adds no impervious surface. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. MINUTES 10 Motion: To approve the Minutes of November 28, 2018 Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11