Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_03_27 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 MARCH 27, 2019 Present: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, David Fishman, Robin Nichinsky Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison Absent: Arthur Wexler, Chairman CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. Ms. O'Neill stated that there are only three (4) members present and although it is a quorum, the applications would need a unanimous vote to be approved; therefore, any applicant may request a straw poll and/or an adjournment. Application # 1 —Case # 3147 - Maurizo Bertini - 74 Sherwood Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks Mr. Bertini, the homeowner, addressed the Board to request legalization of an air conditioning condenser unit and to install a new unit next to original. In 2013 a permit was issued to replace a pre- 2001 unit. All interior mechanicals are on that side of the house. The Board discussed the measurements supplied by the homeowner and Mr. Polcari stated that the homeowner was informed that an as-built survey would be required to close the permit. 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 Motion: To approve the requested variance 1 Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, Seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, David Fishman, Robin Nichinsky RESOLUTION 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: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, David Fishman, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Maurizo Bertini (the "Applicant") requested a variance to to legalize an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 74 Sherwood Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 3, Lot 515; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning condenser unit as proposed in the side yard is 7 feet where 10 is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) 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. 2. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there is no impact to air, light or noise and runoff will be addressed in connection with issuance of the building permit. 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 new unit is well screened and close to the existing unit which has been in place for many years without objection. 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 unit needs to be close to the existing mechanicals and relocating to the other side of the house would be a practical hardship with no benefit to neighbors. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the existing unit is grandfathered and the second unit will be placed right next to it without materially increasing any impact. 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 a high efficiency and quiet unit (only 75 dBA) and it is well screened from neighboring properties and at a substantial distance from the neighbor's nearest window and well set back from the property line. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 3. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 4. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 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 #2 —Case # 3148 - Eliot and Leigh Marchant - 7 Seton Road Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, Seconded by Jonathan Sacks Antonio Maiuolo, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request a parking space on the side of the property. He explained that the garage in the rear of the house was converted to living space within the house and the Town Code requires two parking spaces on the property, which is why he seeks a variance. 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 Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, Seconded by Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, David Fishman, Robin Nichinsky 4 Nays: None WHEREAS, Eliot and Leigh Marchant (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize parking within the side yard on the premises located at 7 Seton Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 16, Lot 247; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The parking space in the side yard is 2 feet 10 inches where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 79(b) 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. 2. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there is no impact to air, light or noise and runoff will be addressed in connection with issuance of the building permit. 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 homeowners have always parked their car in this area of the property, with no objection from neighbors. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 5 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 existing driveway does not have space to allow a second parked car. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not add any bulk or impervious surface to the property. 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 no additional impervious surface will be added so there will be no increase in 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. 3. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 4. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 3 —Case # 3141 -William Gensburg - 74 Brookside Dr. East The Public Hearing remains open. Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board stating that they are returning with a different request than last month. The hot tub is being moved to a conforming spot on the property but they would still like to get a variance for the exercise patio and to legalize existing air conditioning units. Mr. Polcari stated that the AC units were not permitted when the most recent addition was done in 2007. The Board discussed the location of the exercise patio. Mr. Gensburg stated that he relied on information given to him by the prior building inspector which turned out to be incorrect. He believed everything was properly permitted. Ms. Hochman stated that the Board can take this hardship into account when considering the five factors. The Board discussed screening of the exercise patio. The applicant expressed that he is willing to provide more planting. The application was adjourned so that the applicant can return next month with a planting plan to better screen the exercise equipment on the patio. There were no public questions or comments. The matter was adjourned to April. The public hearing will remain open. MINUTES Motion: To approve the Minutes of February 27, 2019 Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, Seconded by Stephen Marsh ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 7