Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_04_24 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 April 24, 2019 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison Absent: David Fishman, Alternate CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Yes: Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill Abstain: Arthur Wexler Noted that Robin Nichinsky arrived after the vote to approve the draft minutes. Application #1 —Case #3141 -William Gensburg - 74 Brookside Drive—Public Hearing continued Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, stated that they returned tonight to request variances to legalize an existing air conditioner condenser and an exercise patio within the front yard setbacks. In response to a prior request by the Board, the applicant has provided additional landscaping to screen the patio from view. The Board discussed the planting plan and the noise level of the air conditioner. 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 Motion: To approve the requested variances 1 Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Yes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 74 Brookside Drive East After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, William Gensburg (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an existing air conditioning unit and an existing exercise patio on the premises located at 74 Brookside Drive East, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 12, Lot 129; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The existing air conditioning condenser unit has a front yard setback of 24.6 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1). The exercise patio has a front yard setback of 3.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1) and patio increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 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 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. 2 2. 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. . 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 landscaping provides a visual buffer to screen the property. 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, despite economic hardship, the applicant has made several changes to the proposal to address concerns raised by Board members. It is also noted that this property owner received prior approval from the former Building Inspector. In addition, the property is burdened by two front yards, which limits options. Therefore, the Board concluded after extensive review that the final proposal was the most reasonable alternative. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the front yard setback variance is substantial but given the fact that the exercise patio is located in an area of the property that functions as a rear yard and that there will be adequate screening, this factor was not deemed to be determinative. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be no runoff, little increase in noise because the a/c unit is low dBa and the property is sufficiently screened to mitigate visual impacts. 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. 3 3. 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. 4. 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. 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 #3149 - Ofelia Sfetcu - 30 Elkan Road—Public Hearing Ms. Brill confirmed that the matter was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Mr. Sergio Marin, the applicant's architect, and the owner, Ms. Sfetcu, addressed the Board. Mr. Marin stated that the applicant plans to add a to the small, one-story porch which would require a side yard variance. He entered into the record a plan Marked Exhibit 1 4-24-19. The Board discussed the setbacks in light of zoning requirements. Mr. Polcari stated his interpretation that a variance is required. Mr. Sacks stated that almost all units have small additions. The Board discussed the plan and the use of the proposed room. 4 The Board discussed a letter in opposition to the project. The Board concluded that the letter fails to take into account that many of the attached houses have similar additions to that proposed by this application and, therefore, the requested variance is compatible with the existing neighborhood character. 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 Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Yes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 30 Elkan Road After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Ofelia Sfetcu (the "Applicant") requested a variance to enclose a porch on the premises located at 30 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 7, Lot 447; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The enclosed porch as proposed has a side yard setback of 0 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42(B)(2a), combined side yard is 30 feet 1 inch where 60 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42(2)(2b), (Q+29'l 1"), and further the porch increases the extent by which then building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a building in an R-A 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 5 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. 2. 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. 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 to construct a small, moderate one-story addition which is typical for the surrounding area and not visible from the street. 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 required setbacks are virtually impossible to achieve. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial but given the unique circumstances of the attached houses, this factor is not determinative — especially because the proposal is modest and similar to neighboring houses. 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 a one-story addition will not impact natural light, pollution, etc. 6 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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 #3150 - Mayuku Sukhatme - 8 Bruce Road—Public Hearing Ms. Brill confirmed that the matter was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Mayuku Sukhatme, the owner's son, addressed the Board stating they were unaware of the Code violation until an as built survey was done. He further stated that all that they did when they purchased the house was to rebuild damaged wood front steps and portico with stone. He gave the Board a packet marked Exhibit 1 4 24-19, including letters in support from neighbors. 7 The Board discussed the variance request. 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 Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O'Neill Yes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 8 Bruce Road After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Mayukh Sukhatme (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize front steps and portico on the premises located at 8 Bruce Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 46, Lot 31; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The steps as built in the front yard are 30.1 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1) and the portico is 37.1 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 35B(1) for a building in an R-20 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 8 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. 2. 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. . 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 similar in character, scale and design to nearby properties, as indicated in letters supporting the application. 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 steps were pre-existing and merely improves safety and access to the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is only a modest encroachment into the front yard. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds repairing the existing, unsafe steps will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions. 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. 9 3. 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. 4. 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. 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 #3151 -Levine & Sanction - 24 Plymouth Rd—Public Hearing Ms. Brill confirmed that the matter was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Jessica Levine, the owner, addressed the Board. Ms. Levine stated that they wish to replace their window units with a quiet Mitsubishi condenser on the side of the house between two window wells. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Wexler noted that the condenser is shielded by a fence and it is a quiet unit. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved 10 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 24 Plymouth Road After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None WHEREAS, Jessica Levine and Julian Sancton (the "Applicant") requested a variance to install an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 24 Plymouth Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 10, Lot 625; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning unit as proposed has a side yard setback of 4.6 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39(B)(2), and further the unit increases the extent by which then building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 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. 11 2. 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. . 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 it is a small and quiet unit and not visible to nearby properties or the street. 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 side yard is small, there is no other suitable location and the proposed unit is smaller and quieter than what currently exists. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will generate less noise than current conditions. 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 result in an improvement to the local physical or environmental conditions because the proposed unit is more energy efficient and quieter than what currently exists. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 12 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. 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 # 5 —Case #3118 - Harris and Dahna Fredius - 3 Ridgeway Road Ms. Brill confirmed that the matter was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Mr. Sacks stated that he has been represented by Keane & Beane previously but has no financial interest in this application nor any business relationship with the applicant. Richard O'Rourke, of Keane & Beane, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board. He stated that the applicant seeks variances for the pool, AC units and the six-foot fence, which was requested previously. The applicant learned that the pool requires a variance once they received the as built survey to close the pool permit. Mr. Polcari stated that when the house was built the AC was with the house permit and he advised the applicants get an additional variance to legalize them. The Board discussed the pool variance. Mr. Sacks questioned whether the existing condition matches the original plan. Mr. Wexler observed that the plot plan and the survey do no match. The fence variance was discussed. Mr. Sacks stated that the fence was extended and moved to the property line and the proposed fence is not a replacement in kind. Mr. Wexler stated that there could be a lower fence or a different material proposed. The location of the proposed fence 13 was discussed. Mr. O'Rourke stated the original fence was 6 feet and entered a photo into the record marked Exhibit 2 4-24-19. Mr. O'Rourke stated that a number or neighbors gave letters in support and the letters were entered into the record marked Exhibit 1-4-24-19. The landscaper stated that plantings in front of the fence in the Town right of way would not survive. The fence material was discussed and Mr. Sacks observed that it was originally a natural looking fence, Mr. Fredius stated he would change the fence to cedar or bamboo if the Board requires but would like to keep the 6 foot height.Mr. Wexler stated that the Board would need to see a plan and specs on the proposed fence. The AC units were discussed and pictures of the shielded condensers were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 3 4-24-2019. The matter was adjourned to May. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:57P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals 14