Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_02_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 February 26, 2020 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Irene O’Neill, Seth Bronheim (Alternate), Carol Miller, (Alternate) Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison Absent: Robin Nochinsky CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:20 P.M. Application 1 - CASE # 3171 – Andree Bogaeerts and George Stone – 80 Howell Avenue - Public Hearing In response to a question from Ms. Hochman, Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill George Stone, the applicant’s architect, addressed the Board to request the replacement of a single-side fence with a double-sided fence along Weaver Street, similar to the fence next store. The applicant wants the 6-foot fence to help prevent lights from cars and trucks shining into their home. He added that in 2017 a neighbor received a variance to replace her fence. The Board discussed the placement of the fence and the corner parcel of land which is not part of the applicant’s property and stated that the Board cannot grant a variance on an area the applicant does not own.Mr. Polcari stated that permission could not be given to place the fence on Town- owned Property. The portion of the fence along Weaver Street must be restricted to the property line. The Board suggested that the applicant get a survey showing the property line. Mr. Wexler asked if there would be a difference if the fence was 5 feet high rather than 6 feet. Mr. Sacks stated that the fence would be installed on a manmade wall and a natural rock outcropping resulting in a 12 foot wall. He further stated that he understands the request for 1 privacy and the argument with consistency, but the effect on the neighbors across the street must be taken into account. Mr. Wexler asked that the photos taken from across the street be numbered as to where they are taken from shown on the survey. After a brief adjournment, the applicant returned before the Board and showed the survey and corresponding photos. The Board continued discussion. Mr. Sacks suggested an adjournment to clarify the correct variance request. He stated that although the neighbor received a variance it is a different situation because that neighbor’s fence was placed on grade, not a wall. The matter was adjourned to the next meeting. Application# 2 - Case # 3072 - Fabrizia Realty Management LLC – 51 North Chatsworth - Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated the matter was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill Ed Jacobson, the applicant’s architect, and Frank Nesci, the owner, addressed the Board and explained the request to remove the roof and create a second floor over the existing first floor. A photo of the large intersection in front of the property, as well as other photos of the neighborhood were entered into the record. Mr. Wexler stated that the house is dramatically set back and a two-story center colonial would be appropriate on the site. Mr. Sacks stated that there is a lot of square footage and asked if there is another solution. Mr. Jacobson responded that they felt it would be less intrusive to build on the existing house. Mr. Nesci responded that no alternatives were pleasing and they do not want to demolish the house. Mr. Jacobson stated that he couldn’t create a reasonable house without a variance. Public comment: Stuart Alt of 20 Lafayette stated that he is pleased something is being done with the house. He also expressed his concerns about traffic and construction vehicles. Mr. Wexler stated that the long wide driveway can be used for construction vehicles. 2 Cyril Dursey, a neighbor, stated that this site has been a blight on the neighborhood and he welcomes this project. He added that the plan matches the second floor to the first and would be welcomed, anything else would be awkward. Mr. Sacks stated that the concerns expressed in the letter from 46 North Chatsworth regarding the effect of light on their home does not seem likely. 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 RESOLUTION 51 North Chatsworth Avenue After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, and Seth Bronheim Nays: None WHEREAS, Fabrizia Realty Management LLC (the “Applicant”) requested a variance to construct a second floor on the premises located at 51 North Chatsworth, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 33, Lot 95; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front yard second floor addition and first floor renovation as proposed will be 20.6 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); the front yard setback for the front steps will be 21.0 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 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and 3 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. 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. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposed addition will improve a structure that is in disrepair and it is consistent with the appearance of nearby houses and the front yard encroachment will be visually mimimized because it is a large property and there is a large right of way. In addition, the removal of the rear access to a doctor’s office will increase the propery’s compatibility with the residential character of the neighborhood. ii. 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 narrowing the house to fit within the required setback would result in a more expensive, less attractive and less functional house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial but mitigated by the position of the house on the property and the large side yard and the substantial amount of open space. iv. 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 existing footprint will not change, the amount of impervious surface will be reduced with elimination of the existing walkway and the addition will be a substantial distance from other structures. v. 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. 4 B. 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. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 3 – Case # 3073 - Westchester Automobile Co. (ACURA) Public Hearing The Matter was adjourned. Application #4 - Case # 3074 – 755 Forestr Avenue - Terry Grimes- Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the matter was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill Sid Sloman, the applicant’s architect, addressed the Board to request a second floor addition. The Board discussed the proposal and noted that the footprint is not changing, just rooflines and window placement. 5 Mr. Sloman stated that alternatives were looked at but they did not want site disturbances and the extra cost would be substantial and he added that many houses in the neighborhood are similar to what is proposed. Mr. Wexler asked if the rear addition could be smaller and Mr. Sloman explained why that would not work. Mr. Sacks stated that if the house was shifted it would be conforming. He further stated that the as-of-right alternative would not change the shadow cast and the cost would be large. Public Comments: Greg Lewis of 753 Forest Avenue stated that he is in favor of the plan but would like to request a few trees on the side to block the view from his bedroom and he also requested some street trees. Rob Ryan of 759 Forest Avenue requested a shadow study because he is concerned with his natural light being disrupted. Mr. Wexler asked the applicant if the gable on that end could be eliminated to soften the impact.Mr. Sacks explained that the applicant has the right build up to the as-of-right height and any impact to shadows on the neighbor’s property would only be changed by a degree at most. He also requested a tree between their properties. Michael Murphy of 79 Briarcliff stated that he looks down on the proposed house and asked for more trees in the rear. Andrea Cohen of 752 Forest Avenue stated her concern for the safety of children walking to school. 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 Arthur Wexler RESOLUTION 755 Forest Avenue After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, and Seth Bronheim Nays: None WHEREAS, Terry Grimes (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 755 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 20, Lot 341; and 6 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition as proposed will have a side yard setback of 6.2 feet where 10 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); the rear yard setback will be 22.70 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37(3) and further the addition 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 et. 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 A. 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. i. 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 nearby houses and the second floor addition is on top of the existing first floor foundation to minimize site disturbance. ii. 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 a second floor addition confined to the setback would result in substandard room and the first floor encroachment would remain. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 7 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the rear yard encroachment is only 2.5 feet and the side yard is encroachment is within the footprint of the first floor encroachment. iv. 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 applicant proposes to screen the patio around the outdoor seating area and the project will not generate runoff because it will not increase lot coverage and the roofline will be as low as possible so any additional shadow to the neighboring property will be negligibable compared to would would be permitted as-of-right. v. 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. B. 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. C. 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. (a) To the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, the Applicant shall modify the plans to eliminate the left side gable. 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. 8 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 January 22, 2020 Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Steve Marsh Vote: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Steven Marsh, Seth Bronheim (Alternate) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 P.M. Minutes prepared by Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 9