Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_05_22 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 MAY 22, 2019 Present: Arthur Wexler,Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh,Robin Nichinsky(arrived 7:23 P.M.) Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Zoning Board Counsel, Abby Katz Town, Board Liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M. MINUTES The draft minutes of the April 24, 2019 meeting were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Yes: Jonathan, Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Abstain: Arthur Wexler Absent: Robin Nichinsky Application # 1 - Case # 3118 - Harris and Dahna Freidus - 3 Ridgeway Road — Public Hearing Continued The public hearing opened last month remains open. Richard O'Rourke, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board, stating that they have a cut sheet regarding the replacement fence and it was entered into the record and Marked Exhibit 1 5 22 19. Mr. Freidus showed photos of the proposed fence and the Board discussed the material and color. Mr. Polcari stated that the Town code allows the fence end caps to be above the fence height. 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 Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Robin Nichinsky 1 Yes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan, Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 3 Ridgeway Road After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair,Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, and Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Harris and Dahna Freidus (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an existing swimming pool,4 air conditioning condenser units, and a six foot fence on the premises located at 3 Ridgeway Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 29, Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The swimming pool as built has a front yard setback of 35.8 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35(B)(1), the 4 air conditioning condenser units have a side yard of 12 feet where 15 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(2), the fence in the front yard is 6 feet where 4 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A and further they increase the extent by which then building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 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 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: 2 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 (i) the air conditioning units are small and well screened and have been in place without objection since 2005; (ii) the swimming pool only encroaches to the extent of the decorative coping and 1/2 foot of the pool into a front yard that functions as a side yard; and (iii) the fence will be composed of a natural or natural-looking material to better blend into the surrounding area. 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 (i) the air conditioning units are in a reasonable location and have pre-existed in that location for more than 10 years without objection; (ii) the pool cannot move and the coping is necessary; and(iii)the applicant demonstrated that the fence is needed to provide privacy and, due to topography, a 4-foot fence would be inadequate and, further, applicant hired a landscape professional who convincingly presented to the Board that any screening planted in the location of the fence would not survive due to shade and substantial rock outcropping. Further, applicant was responsive to the Board's comments regarding the fence to modify the proposed color/material to one that would be more harmonious. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the front yard setback variance is not substantial because (i) the air conditioning units are small, well screened and at a substantial distance from neighbors; (ii) the pool encroaches by only 1/2 foot into a front yard that functions as a side yard on a large lot; and (iii) the natural or natural-looking 5-foot fence with a 1-foot topper with spindles will blend into the surrounding area. 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 (i) the air conditioning units are well screened and considerably set back from property line; (ii) the pool encroaches minimally into an area of the property that functions as a side yard and (iii) the fence will be constructed of natural or natural looking material that will blend with trees and plantings. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 3 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. 6. In order to blend into foliage and appear more natural, the fence shall consist of either real wood or other material in a dark color with a matte finish. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 2 - Case #3152 -Dr. Peter Schlegal - 84 Valley Road—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously pproved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Ms. Brill confirmed the application was duly noticed. Mimi Magarelli, the applicant's representative, addressed the Board, stating that Dr. Schlegal was unable to attend. She further stated that the existing air conditioning units dated to 2006, the Dba level is 76 and the units are 4 well screened. The Board considered whether there would be better alternative locations and agreed that the existing location creates the least impact. 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, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 84 Valley Road After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair,Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, and Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Dr. Peter Schlegal (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize 2 air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 85 Valley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 14, Lot 207; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The 2 air conditioner condenser units in the front yard are 28.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 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 5 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 air conditioning units have pre-existed in the same location for 13 years without objection and is similar to other air conditioning units in the surrounding area. 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 they are already located in the best place on the property with the least impact to neighbors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the setback variance is not substantial because they add no bulk to the house, encroach a relatively small amount into the required setback and are not visible to neighbors or from the street. 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 quiet and well screened. 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. 6 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 # 3153 - Andrea and Adam Stoltz - 1231 Palmer Avenue — Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Ms. Brill confirmed that the application was duly noticed. Adam Stoltz,the property owner, stated that he is before the Board for the legalization of a storage shed along fence line of property. He further stated that he had been unaware that a permit was required when it was installed. The Board discussed the topography of the lot and alternate locations to place the shed. Mr. Sacks stated that he would like lattice around the bottom of the shed to conceal storage underneath and more plantings to soften visibility from Palmer Avenue. The Board discussed the measurements on the survey and requested a new survey depicting the exact distance from the side and front property lines. 7 The applicant requested an adjournment to clarify the survey. Ms. Hochman explained that the sign will need to be posted with the date changed to June 26. Application # 4 - Case # 3154 - Dianna and John Aprile -124 East Garden Road — Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Ms. Brill confirmed the application was duly noticed. Dianna and John Aprile addressed the Board to request legalization of existing air conditioning units that have been on the property since 2002, prior to their purchasing the house in 2007. Ms. Aprile further stated that the units are well screened and there is no other location on the property to place the units. The Board discussed the 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 124 East Garden Road After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair,Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, and Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Dianna and John Aprile (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize two existing air conditioning compressors on the premises located at 3 Ridgeway Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 14, Lot 280; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The two existing air conditioning compressors as placed have a front yard setback of 16.6 8 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), 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. 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 units are a great distance from the street and well screened. 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 property is a narrow, corner lot(50 feet),that is legally nonconforming and the placement of the units any where else on the lot would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 9 The Board finds that the setback variance is not substantial because the units are a great distance from the street and well screened and add no bulk to 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 units generate no light, traffic, runoff, etc. and the noise generated will be minimal. Further, they have existed for 17 years without complaint. 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 # 5 - Case #3155 -Jeremy Eichel - 5 Locust Ridge Road—Public Hearing 10 Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Ms. Brill confirmed that the application was duly noticed. Steve Dimovski, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, along with Mr. Eichel. Mr. Sacks stated that he has done prior work with Mr. Dimovski as an architect. Ms. Hochman asked Mr. Sacks if he has any financial interest in the outcome of this project and Mr. Sacks responded No and Ms. Hochman further asked whether he can be objective in the review of this application and Mr. Sacks responded Yes. Mr. Dimovski explained that the second floor addition and extension would go out 2 feet in the rear. The front lines up with the existing first floor but the side requires a variance as they are building up on the nonconforming first floor. Mr. Dimovski further stated that there will be an attic for mechanicals. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 5 Locust Ridge Road After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair,Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, and Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Jeremy Eichel (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 5 Locust Ridge Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 9, Lot 96; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following 11 grounds: The second floor addition as proposed has a side yard setback of 6.14 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), 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 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 proposed addition will be built over existing story so the footprint will remain the same and will be well screened and a considerable distance from most impacted neighbor. Further,Board members stated that the design is architectrually balanced and improved the appearance of the house. 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 design is architecturally balanced and visually unobjectionable. 12 C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the setback variance is not substantial because it will be well screened and will not increase the footprint of the house and the closest neighbor is at a considerable distance from the proposed addition. 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 enhances the appearance of the house and will not generate shadows or increase impermeable 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. 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. 13 6. Applicant shall submit to the Town Building Department a foundation survey prior to framing. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the start time of the meetings and agreed to change the time from 7:00 to 7:15 P.M. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals 14