Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_09_18 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 September 18, 2019 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky (arrived 7:23) Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M. The Chair stated that the applications would be taken out of order. Application #6—Case #3164 -Jonathan Skinner - 4 Glen Eagles Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Mr. Skinner, the owner, addressed the Board. He stated that he wasn't aware at the time the air conditioners were installed that a permit was needed. In the process of selling the house he was informed that the units required a permit and a variance. The house has been sold and he is attempting to straighten this out. 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 Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky 1 RESOLUTION 4 Glen Eagles Drive After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, 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, Jonathan Skinner (the "Applicant") requested a variance for two air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 4 Glen Eagles Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 9, Lot 256; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The A/C units as installed are 15.8 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) and further the units increase 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and I. 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. II. 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. 2 The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the units are well screened and have been in place for eleven years with no complaints. 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 well screened and located in the most logical place, any other location would require a variance because the property is a corner lot with two front yards and the units are placed in what functions as a side yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the setback variance is not substantial because the units are low dBA and barely audible to neighbors. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because they do not generate any impact to runoff, bulk, coverage or light. 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. III. 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. IV. 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. 3 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 #1- Case #3156 - Peter Elipoulous & Maria Allen - 93 Echo Lane Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Larry Gordon, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board for a small rear addition. He stated that they looked at other options and this is the only viable one. He further stated that this is in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Polcari questioned the rear portico, as it is only a 2-foot projection it is considered an architectural feature. The Board discussed the requested variance. Mr. Sacks asked why the bump out is necessary and if there is a specific hardship and Mr. Gordon responded that it is a small tight kitchen. Ms. Allen stated that there is no workable way to increase the kitchen inside the house and they would like to bring it up to modern standards. Public Comments: Elizabeth Buck, 87 Echo, the next door neighbor, stated that they received a variance but are concerned with the side line proximity as the addition seems to be pushing the side line. Ms. Allen stated that the neighbor's house on a higher plane. Mr. Buck stated that they are torn because on the one hand they understand their neighbors need but they are concerned with the impact on their view. Mr. Gordon stated that this is the least they can do to get an addition and they will be only 2.7 feet further than the existing house, which he said is a minimal intrusion. 4 Mr. Marsh asked what other options were considered. Mr. Sacks stated his concern is the 46% lot coverage. It was suggested the rear portico could be removed to lessen the impact. Mr. Wexler suggested an adjournment and return to demonstrate why this is the only solution. Mr. Sacks stated he would like to make another site visit to the subject property and the neighbor's property and the Bucks invited him to do so. The matter was adjourned and the public hearing remains open. Application #2 - Case #3160 - Igbal Yusaf and Anu Sachdeva—22 Glen Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, second by Jonathan Sacks Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating they received a previous variance and the installer placed the units in the wrong place. They now are before the Board for a 3.6 foot variance just a foot different from the last approval. The units are well screened. 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 The variance from 2017 was read into the record with the new dimensions. Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 22 Glenn Road After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh, 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, Iqbal Yusaf and Anu Sachdeva, (the"Applicant") requested a variance for relocation of air conditioning compressors to the front yard on the premises located at 22 Glenn Road and 5 known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15, Lot 550; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The relocation of two air conditioning compressors have a front yard setback of 26.4 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) and further the units increase 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and I. 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. II. 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 given the designated placement, terrain of the property and proposed plantings, the units will be obscured. 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 given the 6 complexity of the existing development and difficulty of placing coolant lines underground, the proposed location is the best place for the units. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment is only 3.6 feet and the units are well screened. 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 will not contribute to any increase in runoff or light and increase in noise from the units will be minimal. 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. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. III. 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. IV. 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. 7 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. Dense evergreens shall be planted and maintained. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #3 —Case #3161 - Matthew & Rebecca Kirschner—3 Adrian Circle Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Jim Haralampoudis, the applicants architect, addressed the Board to request an additional 42 feet of fencing, 32 of which is in the side yard and 10 feet in front side yard on a 7 inch to 32 inches high retaining wall. Mr. Wexler stated that at the time the last variance was granted it was made clear that area was all that was needed. Mr. Kirschner stated she is afraid her children can fall off the wall when they are playing on the driveway and would like it for safety. A retractable fence was discussed, it would prevent balls from going over but is not considered safe for a retaining wall. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Sacks stated the first time he didn't have a problem but now the fence will be more obtrusive to neighbors, now what is seen is a hedge line. Ms. Kirschner stated the fence is consistent with their fence and neighbor's fence. Mr. Wexler stated the fence will be 50 feet back from the front property line. Public Comments: Mr. Loft, the neighbor at 5 Adrian Circle, stated that they objected to the last variance, and are opposed to the increase. They entered a number of photos into the record Marked Exhibit 1-12. They objected to the look of the fence as it has a prison appearance. He further asserted that the height of the wall and fence exceeds what the applicant states. He stated that the fence impacts the appearance of his home and encloses his property. He explained that the applicants erected the wall and crated the height difference, then came and asked for a section of fence, and now want to increase it. Mr. Wexler asked why 42 feet long and Ms. Kirschner stated that they would consider lessening the length. 8 Mrs. Loft stated a three-foot fence would be a compromise. Mr. Sacks stated that the Board wants to be fair to both sides and pointed out that the Kirschners built this and created a dangerous situation and observed that the fence will be obtrusive on the cul du sac. Mr. Marsh stated that driving in you will see the extended fence across the front. Mr. Wexler askes the Lofts if 20 feet of fencing would be acceptable, Mr. Loft stated he would consider it but needs time to visualize it. Mr. Wexler suggested that the fence be marked out and come to a compromise with the neighbor. Mr. Loft asked for permission to enter the Kirschner property, Mr. Kirschner gave permission. The matter was adjourned to October 23 and the public hearing remains open. Application #4 —Case #3162 -David and Erica Yount—27 West Brookside Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request a deck on the corner property. She explained that there is no rear yard or rear patio. They want a deck and steps into the front yard. Mr. Sacks asked why the steps are so wide and Ms. Lewis stated as an architectural feature because it balances the house. There will be an open lattice and trellis. Ms. Yount stated that the addition makes the entrance to the house easier. Mr. Sacks stated that if it stayed in the setback steps would be allowed. Ms. Lewis stated that they looked at that option but did it not give enough space on the smaller deck. A plan showing an option that would not require a variance was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1, letters from neighbors in support were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 2 Mr. Wexler stated it is about a 1% increase There were no public questions or comments 9 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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 27 West Brookside Drive After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by 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,David and Erica Yount(the"Applicant") requested a variance for a deck and stairs on the premises located at 27 West Brookside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 18, Lot 372; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck and stairs in the front yard as proposed will be 19.4 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the rear yard setback as proposed for the deck will be 22.6 feet where 25 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37(B)(3)and further the deck and stairs 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 I. 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. 10 II. 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 deck is aesthetically compatible with the existing house and the surrounding neighborhood, 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 without encroaching into the setback the deck would not be functional as it would not be big enough to accommodate a table and chairs. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the setback variance is not substantial because although it is a front yard because the property is a corner lot, it functions as a side yard and only the steps encroach and the encroachment decreases as the steps come forward. 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 will be an open rail deck and the land beneath the deck is pervious. 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. III. 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. 11 IV. 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 #3163 -Andrea and Tim O'Neill—261 Rockingstone Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill James Fleming, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board. He explained the house is on a corner and it was one of the early 1905 hunting cabins in the area. The entrance to the house is problematic because it is on a cliff. The use of the deck was discussed and Mr. Fleming stated that it will be used as an extension of their livable space for three seasons to enjoy the outdoors. Mr. Wexler stated that the enlarged deck enhances the look of the house. Mr. Sacks said that if someone is coming to the driveway they would not be able to walk to the front door. The Board discussed the plan and wondered if making the deck wider would make it more usable. 12 Mr. Polcari suggested a change to the drawing giving the applicant two extra feet. Mr. Sacks stated that he would like to see the drawing before voting. Mr. Wexler suggested an adjournment and the applicants agreed. The public hearing will remain open. MINUTES The draft minutes of the July 23, 2019 meeting were discussed. Motion: To approve the minutes with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan, Sacks, Stephen Marsh Abstain: Irene O'Neill Absent: Robin Nichinsky ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board Secretary 13