Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_10_23 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 October 23, 2019 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim (Alternate) 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. APPLICATION NO.1- CASE NO. 3156 - Peter Elipoulous and Maria Allen - 93 Echo Lane Public Hearing Continued Larry Gordon, The applicant's architect, stated that they are asking for a push out of the existing kitchen by 2 1/2 feet. Mr. Wexler asked for an explanation as to why the alternatives would not work. Mr. Gordon explained the sketches stating that in each case it would not improve the kitchen layout. He further stated that he feels the proposed plan is the minimum to achieve the applicant's goal. The Board discussed the plan. Mr. Sacks stated that he was inside the house and found that pushing towards the front of the house would not work and there is no other alternative. Ms. O'Neill agreed. 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 Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky 1 RESOLUTION 93 Echo Lane After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, 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,Peter Elipoulos and Maria Allen(the"Applicant") requested a variance for a kitchen extension on the premises located at 93 Echo Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Sectionl, Block 18, Lot 93; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The kitchen extension as proposed has a side yard setback of 7.5 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a), the rear yard setback is 15.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3), and lot coverage is 46% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 38F, and further the addition increases the extent by which then 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 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 addition is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood as well as style of the house and retains its unique architectural characteristics such as stained glass. 2 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 already nonconforming and is setback far on the lot and it is infeasible to push the kitchen forward. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition will extend only three feet into the back and will be inline with the existing breakfast nook. In addition,the Board found the expansion is the least amount to make the substandard kitchen usable. 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 addition will be on an area that is currently impervious, therefore, there will not generate additional runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3 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. 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. APPLICATION No. 2 - Case No. 3161 - Matthew and Rebecca Kirschner - 3 Adrian Circle - Public Hearing Continued Rebecca Kirschner stated that they are asking to extend the fence along the retaining wall and are willing to cut back the length of the fence to 22 feet as opposed 44 feet, as originally requested. She stated that the character will remain the same and the reason for the variance is a safety issue because there is no other way to make this safe for children playing in the driveway. She further explained that the driveway was leveled because there was a steep incline, and the shrubs have grown in to screen the wall. Photos were entered in to the record Marked Exhibit 1-2-3-4-5-6 The Board discussed the proposed fence. Public Comments Mr. Loft stated that it is not true that the driveway needed to be leveled because it was unusable. However, he further stated that they are willing to compromise and agree to the 22 feet if there are no more requests to lengthen the fence. 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 RESOLUTION 3 Adrian Circle 4 After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, 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, Matthew and Rebecca Kirschner (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 3 Adrian Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 7, Lot 97; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The 12 foot length of fence in the front yard as proposed will be 7 feet where 4 feet is permitted, the 30 foot length of fence in the side yard will be 7 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A for a property 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, in response to concerns expressed by neighbors and Board members, the Applicant modified its request so that the end of the new fence that is on top of the retaining wall would align with the right front corner of the garage; and WHEREAS, the neighbors expressed support for the Application with the modification stated herein, which shall be reflected on the plans; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the 5 additional fencing extension is minimal and set back against a large row of arborvitae, which screens and softens the impact. 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 additional fencing is needed to keep children safe and is designed to be consistent with the existing fence. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is well screened and consistent with the existing fence D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there is no added bulk and therefore no environmental impact. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 6 a. To the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector, the location of the fence shall be reflected on the plans. 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 NO. 3 - CASE NO. 3163 -Andrea and Tim O'Neill—261 Rockingstone Ave. —Public Hearing Continued James Fleming, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and showed new elevations at 10 feet, two feet more than last month's submittal. The Board discussed the new plan. 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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 261 Rockingstone Avenue 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, Andrea and Tim O'Neill (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front portico at entry and wood terrace on the premises located at 261 Rockingstone Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Sectionl, Block 15, Lot 104; and 7 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front porch and steps as proposed (Forest Avenue) is 10 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1) the front porch and steps as proposed (Rockingstone Avenue) is 16.5 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 to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. 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 porch is consistent with neighboring houses, dresses up and maintains the architectural style of the house and provides protection in inclement weather. 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 burdened by two front yards and the requested variance is the minimal necessary to allow functional usage of the porch and enhances the facade of the house. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is an open porch with a large front yard and the house fronts a large right of way. 8 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 the neighborhood with negligible 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 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 NO. 4 - CASE NO. 3159 - Deana Colon - 7 Blossom Terrace Avenue Public Hearing Continued Deana Colon, the homeowner, stated that the retaining wall is 10 feet high and the fence is set back 4 feet from edge. She further stated that16 years ago, for safety purposes, the fence was 9 turned to discourage children from climbing the fence. She further stated that plantings were placed behind the fence to prevent children from going behind it. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Sacks stated that the original fence was installed prior to the law requiring the finished side of fences to face neighbors and noted that this was the reason the fence regulation was enacted. He further stated that a replacement fence required a permit and if applied for it would not have been allowed to be facing the wrong way. Ms. Colon stated that she never thought she needed a permit. Ms. O'Neill stated that that an alternative would be to add another fence facing the correct way, or turn the fence around and noted that the fence impacts three properties on Palmer Avenue. Public Comments Bill Colella, of 1065 Palmer Avenue, stated that the original fence went up in 2004, and further stated that the replacement fence is backwards and not in compliance with the Town Code. A letter from another neighbor was read. Mr. Wexler stated that the fence installer should have known the law. The law clearly states that the finished side has to be facing the neighbors. Motion: to close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To deny the requested variance Action: Unanimously denied Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 7 Blossom Terrace After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, 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, Deana Colon (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence with the unfinished side facing the neighbor on the premises located at 7 Blossom Terrace, Town of Mamaroneck, 10 New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 2, Lot 112; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence as proposed with the unfinished side facing the neighboring property is not permitted pursuant to Section 240-52E for a property in an R-2-F 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 does not outweigh the detriment to the welfare of the neighborhood. 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 and a detriment to nearby properties because it is a replacement in kind and consistent what was already there. 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 can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because she can correct the condition or eliminate the fence. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the setback variance is substantial because the side of the fence facing the neighbor is 100% unfinished which is in direct violation of the zoning code requirement. 11 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 adversely impact the local physical or conditions because it creates a negative visual impact to neighbors. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created and was the impetus for a local ordinance to prevent this exact situation. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will be injurious to the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is DENIED. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE NO. 3165 - Paul Slesinger and Margaret Bradbury - 54 Maplewood St. Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Kim Martelli, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the application. She explained that when the original deck received a variance in 2003, it was built so low to the ground that there was no ventilation underneath. The current plan is to lift the deck up by six inches. Ms. Martelli clarified that the deck was 1.5 feet from the property line and as proposed would be 2.5 feet from the property line because the proposed deck will be smaller. The Board discussed the proposed deck. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To approve the deck as proposed Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh 12 Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 54 Maplewood Street After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, 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, Paul Slesinger and Margaret Bradbury (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a deck on the premises located at 54 Maplewood Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 18, Lot 318; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck in the side yard as proposed will be 2.5 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7-5 Zone District. (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. 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 footprint of the new deck will be small and further away from the side property line 13 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 unusual shape of the lot as well as the placement of the house on the lot makes any other option infeasible. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it reduces the current encroachment. 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 new deck will be small and will not generate additional runoff. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 14 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 NO. 6 - CASE No. -3166 Kerry Fineberg - 87 Rockland Avenue Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Mr. Fineberg, the homeowner, stated that he is here to legalize air conditioner units that were installed when they did a renovation in 2014. He furthered stated that they placed them to be as unobtrusive as possible and screening was placed around them. The Board discussed the placement and Dba levels of the units. 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 Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 87 Rockland Avenue After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, 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, Kerry Fineberg (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize existing air conditioning units on the premises located at 87 Rockland Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 10, Lot 328; and 15 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front yard A/C unit has a front yard of 29.3 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); the side yard A/C unit has a side yard of 6.9 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); and further this increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence 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. 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 have existed without objection since 2014 and they are well screened by shrubbery. 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 due to the configuration of the property, other potential locations would be more visible to neighbors and expensive. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it projects less than one foot into the front yard and only about three feet into the rear yard. 16 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 relatively quiet (low dBA ratings) and visually obstructed. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 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 NO. 7 - CASE XNO. 3167 - JEFF AND YVETTE HAMMEL - 17 Homer Avenue Mr. Marsh stated that the applicant is his neighbor but that he has no interest (financial or otherwise) in the outcome and can review the application impartially. 17 Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded Jonathan Sacks Greg Mecurio, the applicant's architect, stated that they are requesting a front patio open porch, which is common in the neighborhood. It would be less than 100 square feet and the arborvitaes will be removed to open up the front. They are planning a seating wall and the masonry will match the neighbor's wall. The Board discussed the proposal. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion: To Approve the requested variance. Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 17 Homer Avenue After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, 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, Jeff and Yvette. Hammel (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front patio on the premises located at17 Homer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 21, Lot 306; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front patio as proposed will have a side yard of 7.2 feet where 8 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a); the front yard will be 25.3 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section240-39B(1); and further the patio increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and 18 WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposal is consistent with the style of the house as well as surrounding houses. 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 applicants desire a functional patio which requires expansion into the front and side yard setbacks. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because its less than one foot into the front yard and less than five feet into the side yard and mostly at grade with an existing small retaining wall. 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 adds minimal bulk and visually improves the appearance of the house. 19 E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 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 NO. 8 - CASE NO. 3168 - JONAH AND LEXI PLATT - 118 North Chatsworth Avenue Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Robert Keller, the applicant's architect addressed the Board and explained the proposal for an an addition and extension of a dormer, to make the master suite useable. 20 The Board discussed the plan. 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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 118 North Chatsworth Avenue After review, on motion of Steve 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, Jonah and Lexi Plan(the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition and deck on the premises located atl l8 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Sectionl, Block 13, Lot 229; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition in the side yard as proposed will be 7.6 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); the deck as proposed will be 7.5 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further the addition and deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence 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 21 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 second floor addition projects into the rear yard and is consistent with the architectural details of the house and is set inside the furthest outside wall of the house and the visual impact of the deck will be reduced because it will be broken into an upper portion a few feet off the house then a half flight down to a larger deck. By breaking the larger deck into two smaller areas, it lessens the massing and visual impact. 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 pre- existing nonconforming and there is nowhere else to expand but into the side yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment on the proposed second floor is less than on the floor below. 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 added second floor and newly configured deck will not generate additional runoff. 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. 22 3. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of September 18, 2019 with technical corrections. Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Robin Nichinsky ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 23