Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_04_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 29, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin Arthur Wexler Absent: J. Rene Simon Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Kevin T. Moore, Assistant Building Inspector Katie Cullen, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther said regular business, review of Minutes,will be carried over to the end of the meeting. Mr. Gunther advised the applicants that one of the Board members, Mr. Simon, has been hospitalized, is out ill and will be not in attendance. He explained that the Board will be happy to hear the case and proceed with it. If the applicant decides not to proceed, the matter will be postponed to the next meeting. In order for a variance to be granted, three members must be in favor. Ms. Gallent said you need three members to vote in favor for a variance to be granted. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2304 Application of Victor Sosa requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for an existing rear deck. The deck as erected has a side yard of 5.5 ft. and a rear yard of 13.5 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required for the side yard and 25.0 ft. is required for the rear yard pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a) and Section 240-39B(3), respectively, for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Further, the increased size would increase the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69. A variance had been previously granted on July 27, 1994 to allow a 6.0 ft. side yard and a 17.0 ft. rear yard on the premises located at 126 Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124 Lot 278. Victor Sosa of 126 Laurel Avenue, Larchmont, appeared. Mr. Sosa said he was previously before the Board in 1994 and was granted a variance according to a Notice of Disapproval which was received at that time. A permit was received, the deck was built and Mr. Sosa applied for a Certificate of Occupancy. He submitted an updated survey and received a second Notice of Disapproval. Mr. Sosa wants to clarify that he built the exact same deck, 16 ft. by 16 ft, as was approved in the earlier variance application. The Notice states the side yard to be 5.5 ft. and the rear yard to be 13.5 ft. Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Sosa built the deck himself. Mr. Sosa reported that he did not, a firm did. Mr. Kelleher stated the firm noted on the application was A-B Painting Co., General Contractor,and stated that the deck was built incorrectly. Mr. Sosa said the deck is 16 ft. by 16 ft. Mr. Wexler asked if the deck lines up with the side of the house, which Mr. Sosa verified. Ms. Gallent questioned if there was a survey accompanying the first variance. Mr. Wexler said the calculations on the drawing might have been done on angles, the calculations might have been off. A discussion ensued. Mr. Kelleher stated the variance in 1994 was for 6 ft. not 5.5 ft. The individual Mr. Sosa hired, either the surveyor, architect or builder, made a mistake and it was not built right. Mr. Gunther asked if the plan submitted was the original plan that was submitted in 1994,which Mr. Sosa verified. After some further discussion,a momentary adjournment was taken for the secretary to retrieve the original zoning file on this matter. Mr. Gunther reviewed the previous file, stating the site plan shows 17 ft. and 6 ft. setbacks, for the rear and side yard. That was the basis on which the Zoning Board granted a variance. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Sosa knew who prepared the plans, as there is no seal on the plan. Mr. Sosa indicated that is was Anthony Smith. Mr. Wexler stated that what was built was not what was presented in the original site plan, which has the deck closer to the property line than planned than the side of the house. What was actually built has the stairs projecting out from the deck. Mr. Gunther said what was built was less than what was proposed. Mr. Wexler said the survey presented in 1994 is not the same as the drawing presented in 1994. Mr. Kelleher was questioning the date on the survey in the back of the application that has been denied. Mr. Wexler said the date on the updated survey for the deck is October 25, 1994. Mr. Sosa said he wants the deck to be legal. Mr. Gunther said the notations made on the blueprint plan submitted in 1994 show a 17 ft. rear setback and a 6 ft. side setback. The deck would protrude beyond the side of the house toward the side lot line as opposed to what was actually built, which was built following the side line of the house to the rear. A discussion ensued regarding the survey submitted and the scale used, with the Board reviewing documents from the 1994 Zoning Board file. Mr. Kelleher recommended that the applicant straighten the matter our with the surveyor. Mr. Sosa said the deck was on the side of the house in a different location. Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Wexler read the reasons supporting the grant of the variance in the 1994 resolution, which is a part of the record. Given where the rear of the property exists on this house, the Board probably would have granted the deck as currently presented. There is something wrong with the scale on the drawings. An error was made along the way. Mr. Gunther asked for and referred to the tax map regarding the location of this property. Mr. Wexler said the applicant did not change what was built. Mr. Spinelli is certifying on the updated survey that the deck has 13.5 ft. in the rear yard, a 5.5 ft. to the side yard, and 8.3 ft. from the projection of the stairs on the side yard. The scale is the same scale as the other survey. Something was done wrong in the preparation of the site plan that was presented to the Board in 1994. After further discussion, Mr. Sosa said when he applied for the Certificate of Occupancy, the Building Department asked for a new survey which was supplied. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Victor Sosa has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for an existing rear deck. The deck as erected has a side yard of 5.5 ft. and a rear yard of 13.5 ft. where 8.0 ft. is required for the side yard and 25.0 ft. is required for the rear yard pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a) and Section 240-39B(3), respectively, for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Further, the increased size would increase the extent by which the structure is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69. A variance had been previously granted on July 27, 1994 to allow a 6.0 ft. side yard and a 17.0 ft. rear yard on the premises located at 126 Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124 Lot 278; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-39B(2)(a), Section 240-39B(3), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Victor Sosa submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 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. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. This application will not effect an undesirable change to the neighborhood or be a detriment to any nearby properties; Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 4 B. In this specific instance, the applicant cannot achieve his goals by any reasonable alternative given the shape and location of his property; C. Given the type of property and the proximity to a concrete barrier on the rear property line, the variance is not substantial; D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. The need for the variance is not self-created; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. 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; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Wexler said in the future when cases such as this one comes before the Board that the scale used on the site plan be checked to avoid future problems. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2305 Application of Carmen Braiotta requesting a variance to construct a covered deck and enclosed storage area over an existing two-car garage. The deck and storage area to be built over the existing two car garage has a side yard setback of 2.8 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(c);proposes a rear yard of 3.3 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)(b);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for an accessory structure in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 205. Mike Csenge of 26 Devonshire Road, New Rochelle, the architect for the applicant appeared. Mr. Csenge said the owner only has access to the garage from the back side of the property. The garage is in good shape, but the roof is falling down. There is currently attic storage under the pitched roof, but the owner thought about taking one bay out to create more yard. Along the back side of the garage the grade is already up past the roof level, fascia height. The construction would be split using half the space for storage and the other half as an open deck above the garage to increase outside yard area. There is no way to plant grass and demonstrated on the pictures before the Board. The work is on top of the existing garage walls, the footprint will not change nor will the impervious surface change and no roof area will be added. The roof is being reduced from a slightly steeper pitch to a flatter pitch, raising the ridge approximately 18 in. Half the storage space will be used for outside patio furniture currently stored in the garage, the other half will be outdoor living space. Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 5 A discussion ensued regarding how the above stated facts would be determined from the drawing before the Board. Mr. Csenge said as stated, the existing garage will be split in half, the half to the house will become the open covered deck, the half behind will become a storage area accessed from that. Inexpensive roof windows will be used to generate light into those spaces. The deck will not have walls around it but an open railing with a roof and a storage area. Mr. Csenge is before the Board, because it is an accessory building which does not accommodate this kind of use. It is still within the footprint of an accessory building and within the guidelines of height. A discussion followed regarding the reasons why the applicant is before the Board on this matter and the setbacks required, with Ms. Gallent stating the applicant is building more bulk. Mr. Gunther asked how much higher Mr. Csenge is going with the building than the present roof. Mr. Csenge said the roof is being flattened out, and that the overall height in the change in ridge is approximately 2 ft., the vertical wall about 71/2 ft. Mr. Csenge said it can be considered almost two stories. Mr. Wexler asked what is on the other side. Mr. Csenge said the Premium River. Mr. Gunther stated for the record that the applicant is making reference to the tax map showing the relationship of the proposed addition and property to other properties surrounding it. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Csenge what services will be put in the building. Mr. Csenge said there is currently electric in the building and no other services will be added,just light in the storage and deck area. Mr. Kelleher stated the applicant will gain some additional storage area and an outdoor veranda. Mr. Csenge said it is more the outdoor veranda, as the applicant already has some storage underneath the roof. The roof and the ceiling structure of the garage is so deteriorated they are ready to fall down. Ms. Martin asked where the access to the roof is currently. Mr. Csenge said the access to the roof is from inside the garage. Mr. Wexler stated Mr. Csenge is seeking a variance to utilize the footprint of the garage making it taller. Mr. Csenge agreed, stating it is to create a deck on the roof of the garage. A discussion ensued regarding the placement of the deck, removing the structure, building a new structure within the 5 ft. setback and whether a variance is needed. Mr. Wexler asked why there is a chimney on the building. Mr. Csenge said he did not know, but understood at one point that the actual garage had previously been owned by a utility company. There is no mechanical equipment inside the facility,there is nothing in there that justifies the chimney and the applicant is taking it down. Mr. Gunther said a referral was made to the Westchester County Department of Planning. Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 6 Ms. Gallent said Westchester County responded that it views the matter as nonjurisdictional. She also noted that it is a Type II action under SEQRA. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public or the Board. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Carmen Braiotta has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a covered deck and enclosed storage area over an existing two-car garage. The deck and storage area to be built over the existing two car garage has a side yard setback of 2.8 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(c);proposes a rear yard of 3.3 ft. where 5 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)(b); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for an accessory structure in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 21 Dillon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Lot 205; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(2)(c), Section 240-37B(3)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Carmen Braiotta submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 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. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The location of the property and the grade behind the property prevents a great detriment to the neighborhood in terms of visibility of height; B. Given the unusual configuration of the property, there is no reasonable alternative for the applicant to obtain open space and storage space in his yard; C. The variance is not substantial as the area to be constructed is over an existing structure and there will be no increase in the footprint; D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; E. The difficulty has not been self-created; Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 7 F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. 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; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The space is for storage space only and is not approved for occupiable space. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2306 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Kohlberg requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for an addition previously erected. The addition erected under Building Permit#12473 has a side yard of 13.6 ft. where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the premises is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 1009 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 325 Lot 289. Carolyn Kohlberg of 1009 Old White Plains Road, Mamaroneck appeared. Ms. Kohlberg said she is before the Board for a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). When the measurements were taken to obtain a CO the measurements were wrong. Either the builder or architect went 1'h ft. too far over. It faces Saxon Woods and there is no house there. Mr. Wexler said the plans that relate to the permit show a 12.2 ft. measurement that creates the problem in the corner and asked if that is where the problem is along the side property line, which Ms. Kohlberg verified. Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 8 Ms. Kohlberg said when Mr. Carpaneto, the Director of Building, reviewed same, he also thought it was correct. Ms. Kohlberg said everybody thought it was right. When the surveyor measured, it showed the 1'h ft. Mr. Wexler asked if what was built was what was on the plan. Mr. Moore said yes. At this point in time, Mr. Gunther noted that the Board of Appeals application was never signed. Ms. Kohlberg signed the application the secretary had in the file. Mr. Wexler reviewed the plans in the Building Department "street file" with Mr. Moore and stated the plans in the file indicate 12.2 ft. from the side of the new garage to the end of the new kitchen. The addition was built right. Possibly an error occurred in the architect's calculations for the setback. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public or the Board. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Kohlberg have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for an addition previously erected. The addition erected under Building Permit #12473 has a side yard of 13.6 ft. where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the premises is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 1009 Old White Plains Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 325 Lot 289; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-35B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Thomas Kohlberg submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has 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 hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 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. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties; Zoning Board April 29, 1998 Page 9 B. Because the location of the addition adjoins Saxon Woods, there are no neighbors at all. Therefore, the addition has a deminimis impact on the neighborhood; C. It is not a substantial variance; D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; E. Although a mistake was made, it is not a self-created difficulty; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. 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; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for the Certificate of Occupancy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the Minutes of March 25, 1998 were unanimously approved, 4-0. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the Minutes of April 6, 1998 were unanimously approved, 4-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 27, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Marg to Roma, Recording Secretary