Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_02_27 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 FEBRUARY 27, 2019 Present: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison Absent: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Robin Nichinsky, David Fishman, Alternate CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. Ms. O'Neill stated that there are only three (3) members present and although it is a quorum, the applications would need a unanimous vote to be approved; therefore, any applicant may request a straw poll and/or an adjournment. APPLICATION #1 - CASE #3142 - Madalina and Ricardo Iavarone—9 Edgewood Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Steven Marsh Ms. Brill confirmed that the applicant complied with notification requirements. Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the requested variances and entered into the record a rendering marked Exhibit 2/27/19 -1. The owners entered into the record six letters of support from neighbors marked Exhibit 2/27/19 —2. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh 1 RESOLUTION 9 Edgewood Avenue After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Madalina and Riccardo Iavarone (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a 2- story addition at the front of the house and interior renovations on the premises located at 9 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23, Lot 166; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The 2 story addition as proposed will have a front yard of 24 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), the lot coverage will be 41.1% 2058 sq. ft. where 35% 1750 sq. ft. for a building in an R-6 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 6 NYCRR§ 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 proposed addition is consistent with nearby homes. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 2 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 configuration of the house requires the addition to be constructed in the front of the house and it is a small lot with a long driveway, which contributes significantly to lot coverage percentage. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds only approximately 100 square feet. 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 is no impact to air, light or noise and runoff will be addressed in connection with issuance of the building permit. 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 by 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. 3 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 #3144 - The GAP - 1340 Boston Post Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Ms. Brill confirmed that the applicant complied with notification requirements. Mr. Polcari provided background information about changes to Town regulations regarding internally illuminated signs. The illumination of the sign now requires a variance. The General Manager of the store explained why illumination is necessary and Leeann Szufleda of National Signs displayed a sample, illuminated sign. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION The GAP - 1340 Boston Post Road After review, on motion Stephen Marsh of seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS,Ten Grand Inc. GAP(the"Applicant")requested a variance to change 7 exterior illuminated signs on the premises located at 1340 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 10, Lot 268; and 4 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The interior source illuminated signs as proposed are not permitted pursuant to Section 175-12(B)(c) (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 6 NYCRR§ 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 proposal is consistent with the signage that has been in place for twenty years with a new sign box of similar size and design and new LED lights with similar levels of illumination. 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 illuminated signs are needed to indicate that the store is open after sundown and in winter it gets dark outside long before closing time. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the new signs are the same size and style as existing signs with similar illumination. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the proposal is substantially the same as what has been there for 20 years, without objection. 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 signs 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 by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the permit. 3. This variance, including any required renewals, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of Chapter 175 of the Town Code (Signs). This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. APPLICATION #3 - CASE #3145 - Ovidio Bacallao - 110 North Chatsworth Ave. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Ms. Brill confirmed that the applicant complied with notification requirements. Mr. and Mrs. Bacallao addressed the Board to legalize a replacement fence that was damaged when a tree fell on it. The fence is finished on both sides. Photos of the fence were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 2/27/2019-1 The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing 6 Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, RESOLUTION 110 North Chatsworth Avenue After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Ovidio Bacallao (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of a 6 foot fence on the premises located at 110 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 13, Lot 254; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence as built in the side yard is 6 feet where 5 is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52(A), 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 6 NYCRR§ 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. 7 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 fence has existed without any objection for many years and the portion of the fence damaged by the storm is to be replaced in the same style, material and height as existing. 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 replacement fence needs to match the height of the existing fence. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there is no change in appearance from the prior fence. 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 it is replacing exactly what was there before. 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. 8 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by 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. APPLICATION #4 —CASE# 3146 - Ian MacGregor - 79 Cooper Lane Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Ms. Brill confirmed that the applicant complied with notification requirements. Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the requested variances. The existing coverage is 46% and Mr. Polcari stated that the patio should not be included in the coverage calculations. Mr. Jacobson corrected the calculation reducing proposed coverage from 49% to 47%. Ms. Hochman stated that the stepped down requirements of Section 240-70 do not apply to this application. Mr. Marsh stated that the proposed addition is well screened and would not impact the neighbor. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: to close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION 79 Cooper Lane 9 After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Ian MacGregor (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a rear yard 2-story addition on the premises located at 79 Cooper Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 606; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition as proposed in the side yard is 3.8 feet where 8 feet is required (per Section 240-70) pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a),total side yards setbacks are 7.9 feet where 18 feet is required (per Section 240-70) pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(B) and lot coverage is 49% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37F for a building in an R-10 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 record was corrected to note that the provisions of Section 240-70 are not applicable in this case and, therefore, the required side yard is a minimum of 10 feet for a total of 25 feet for lots in the R-10 Zone District; and WHEREAS, the lot coverage was recalculated to exclude the patio, resulting in a lesser calculation of 47%; 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 6 NYCRR§ 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 10 proposed addition will not be visible from the street and the subject property is well screened from adjacent lots. 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 addition will square out the house and create more appropriate room sizes on first and second floors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed addition is 8 X 21 feet, adding about 170 square feet of additional coverage and increases existing lot coverage by only 2 percent. 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 is no impact to noise, light or air and any runoff issues will be addressed in connection with issuance of the building permit. 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 by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 11 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 Motion: To approve the minutes of January 16, 2019 with corrections Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the status of the applications for 74 Brookside Drive and 3 Ridgeway. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 12