Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_06_26 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 June 26, 2019 Present: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Not Present: Arthur Wexler, Robin Nichinsky Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman Counsel to Zoning Board of Appeals, Abby Katz, Town Board liaison. Ms. O'Neill stated that the Zoning Board is a five member body and a majority (i.e., three members) are required to approve any application. Since only three members are present, an applicant would need a unanimous vote for approval. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:13 P.M. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of May 22, 2019 with a technical correction. Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Application # 1 —Case # 3153 -Andrea and Adam Stoltz - 1231 Palmer Avenue The public hearing was opened in May. Adam Stoltz addressed the Board stating he is back with clarification of the exact location of the shed on property and revised plans to mitigate the visual impact of shed. The Board discussed the proposed lattice and plantings to screen the shed from the street. The Board expressed concern about the zero lot line but agreed that placement further from the lot line be would be more intrusive There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved 1 Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks RESOLUTION 1231 Palmer Avenue After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Andrea and Adam Stoltz (the "Applicant") requested a variance for to legalize a shed on the premises located at 1231 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 1, Lot 92; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as-built shed in the side yard is 0 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a), and further the shed increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 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 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 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 neighbor most impacted stated that the shed is located in the best area of the property because it is tucked behind a hedge and further plantings will provide additional screening. 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 there is already a garage and vegetable garden in the rear yard and any other location on the property would be more visible. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because it has no setback but it has existed since 2014 without objection and its more than 60 feet from the street and in addition to the screening that currently exists, Applicant will plant more trees. Therefore, the Board determined that this factor is not 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 it is pre-existing and therefore will not generate any new 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. 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. 3 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. 6. In order to screen the view of the shed from the street, Applicant shall plant and maintain 1-2 6-foot evergreens in front of the southeast corner of the shed. 7. Applicant shall install and maintain lattice underneath the raised footing of the shed. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 2 —Case # 3157—RSCC -23 North Brook Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Ms. Brill stated that the application was noticed. Chaim Cohen, the property owner, addressed the Board to request relief of side yard setback requirements for 2 air conditioning units. The Board discussed the application. 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 4 Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks RESOLUTION 23 North Brook Road 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 with no abstentions. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, RSCC (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize existing air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 23 North Brook Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 14, Lot 545; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning condenser units as placed have a side yard of 5.4 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38(B)(a), for a property 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 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. 5 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 located between the house and I-95 and its sound barrier wall, far from any neighbor 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 house is built on hilly property and the units are suspended on platforms over the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they add no bulk to the house and they are located next to I-95. 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 located next to I-95. 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. 6 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. Application #3 —Case #3158 -David and Robin Sesay - 19 Dillon Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Mr. Sesay, the owner, addressed the Board stating that he previously received a variance for an addition and the as-built survey shows the need for a 6-inch variance into the required side yard setback due to an inadvertent mistake. Mr. Polcari explained that at the time the permit was issued a foundation survey was not required and the house is on a slight angel on the lot. Mr. Sacks asked what would take to correct the mistake, Mr. Sesay stated it would have to be removed and rebuilt which would be cost prohibitive. 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 Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks 7 RESOLUTION 19 Dillon Road After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, David and Robyn Sesay (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a new addition on the premises located at 19 Dillon Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 5, Lot 19; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: he rear addition has a side yard of 7.5 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a) and further the addition increases the extent by which the 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 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 6-inch encroachment is not perceptible to others. 8 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 it adds only approximately 7 square feet of living space to the house and is otherwise not perceptable C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it has already been built and would be cost prohibitive to reconstruct. 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 encroachment is diminimous. 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. 9 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 #3159 -Deana Colon - 7 Blossom Terrace Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Ms. Colon, the owner, stated that she had a fence that was in disrepair and had it replaced exactly how and where the previous fence was installed. She further explained that there is a ten foot drop from her property and the fence was installed to prevent children from climbing over the fence and falling off the wall. The Board discussed the fence and the fact that there was no permit issued. Ms. Colon stated that she planted evergreens, Rose of Shannon, and bamboo to soften the view of the fence to the neighbors, and the replacement fence is using the same posts as the original fence. One letter of support from 1055 Palmer Avenue was discussed as well as three letters entered into the record: (1) from the residents atl0 Garit Lane, marked Exhibit 1- 6/26/19, (2) from the residents at 6 Blossom Terrace, marked Exhibit 2 —6/26/19 and (3) from the residents at 8 Garit Lane marked Exhibit 3 —6/26/19. Four photos from the impacted neighbor showing the wall and exposed fence from their side were entered into the record and marked Exhibits 4 —6/26/19, 5 —6/26/19, 6—6/26/19 and 7 —6/26/19, 8 —6/26/19. Public Comments: Bill Colelay the owner of 1065 Palmer Avenue stated that 7 Blossom Terrace is unique because it adjoins seven other properties. He further stated that in 2004 the fence was erected without a permit and five of the adjoining neighbors were given the bad side of the fence. A requested variance was denied. He stated that both the supervisor and administrator couldn't believe what happened. Section 240-50E of the Town Code was enacted to make sure this could not happen again. He asked the Board why this is happening again. Mr. Colella further stated that the grade of the applicants property has been raised which can be seen clearly in his photos. He further stated that the elderly owner of 1073 Palmer is also not happy with the backward facing fence. Mr. Colella stated that 7 months of the year the fence is visible and would like a more attractive solution. 10 Mr. Sacks asked why the Applicant is opposed to turning the fence as the contractor clearly knew it was wrong and suggested an adjournment to give the applicant time to reach out to the contractor and discuss a possible compromise with the concerned neighbor. Ms. Colon stated she wants to keep the neighbors happy but is concerned with children climbing over the fence and falling off the wall. Ms. Colon requested an adjournment to work with the neighbors and her contractor. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Ms. Hochman explained that Mr. Polcari found errors in the October 2018 resolution for 19 West Brookside and she asked the Board to vote on the amended and restated resolution. Motion: To approve the corrected resolution Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION 19 West Brookside Drive After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 3 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Nays: None WHEREAS, Andrea and Michael Keating (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition, front porch and steps on the premises located at 19 West Brookside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 810; and WHEREAS, this AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION is intended to correct an inadvertent mistake in the language of the Notice of Disapproval reflected in the original resolution granted to the Applicant on October 24, 2018; and WHEREAS, this AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION hereby corrects such inadvertent mistake in the immediately following recital to accurately reflect the hereinafter defined Notice of Disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front porch as proposed has a setback of 20.0 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), the front steps as proposed has a setback of 18.0 feet where 30 11 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), the addition as proposed has a setback of 18.1 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1) and further the proposed work 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 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 impacted yard is a front yard on a corner lot but it actually functions as a side yard and the house already protrudes into such yard and the proposal to soften the edges makes it more aesthetically pleasing. 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 applicant is burdened by two front yards, wants another family room and the house has no finished basement and the option approved by the Board is determined to be the least variance necessary to meet the applicant's needs. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. 12 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the impacted yard functions as a side yard and the visual impact of the protrusion is mitigated by design features. 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 lot coverage remains under 35% and the proposal will not generate any other environmental 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. 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. 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. 2. Robert Abrams stated he has an issue with a neighbor storing 8-10 cars on his unkempt property. He was advised to contact the Building Department. Motion: To Adjourn the meeting at 8:40 P.M. Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 14