Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_06_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD REMOTELY Via ZOOM ON JUNE 24, 2020 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky Seth Bronheim (Alternate), Carol Miller (Alternate) Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals Absent: Stephen Marsh CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M. Ms. Hochman stated that tonight’s meeting has been convened in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1, as extended, which suspends certain provisions of the Open Meetings Law to allow municipal boards to convene meetings via videoconferencing. She asked the Zoning Board Secretary to confirm that tonight’s meeting had been duly noticed. Ms. Brill so confirmed. Ms. Hochman further stated that members of the public received notice on how to view and participate in tonight’s public hearings in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 202.15, as extended, She stated that this meeting is being broadcast live on LMC-TV (channel 35 on FIOS; channel 76 on Optimum) and online at LMCTV.org., and that a transcript will be provided at a later date. Ms. Brill called the roll and the Chair announced that there was a quorum present (via ZOOM). Application #1 – Case #3173 – 2155 Palmer Avenue – Westchester Automobile Co. (ACURA) – Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Jonathan Villani, the applicant’s representative, addressed the Board to request legalization of the stand-alone ACURA sign the “Enter” and “Exit” signs and the “Parts and Service” sign. He stated that the Board of Architectural Review Board commented on the hours of illumination and sent them here for a variance. The signs have been in place for 30 plus years. The ACURA sign does not need a variance for height, only illumination. 1 The Board discussed the material of the signs, the placement of the street lights and whether landscape lighting would be a better option for the ACURA sign. They expressed that the sign although dated is not obtrusive. Illumination of the signs was discussed and Mr. Villani stated that the signs are lit only during winter hours until 9 P.M. The Board requested a letter from the Board of Architectural Review as to their findings. Despite the notice of disapproval, the only variance being sought is for signage. PUBLIC COMMENTS Brian Blafe, a neighbor, stated that he doesn’t have an issue with the signage, only parking and unloading. Josh Schrenker, also a neighbor, stated that he has an issue with Acura’s credibility but has no problem with signage. The Board took a nonbinding straw poll and Ms. Hochman was asked to prepare and circulate a draft resolution to facilitate discussion. The Board advised the applicant that the plan must be accurately drawn and that a letter from the BAR is required. Mr. Wexler adjourned the matter to July 22, 2020. The public hearing remains open. Application #2 – Case #3175 - 66 Edgewood Avenue – Michael and Stephanie Hollander – Public Hearing This application was postponed as the applicant was having technical difficulties. Application #3 – Case #3176 – 5 Vine Road - Craig and Amy Rosuck - Public Hearing 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 Ms. Nichinsky stated that although she personally knows the applicants, she is able to be objective with respect to the application. The owner Craig Rosuck was present with his counsel, Martha Sokol McCarty. Ms. McCarty stated that the Rosucks purchased the house 17 years ago with the units already there. They are now selling the house and the units need to be legalized. Any other location on the property would require a variance. The applicant earlier submitted three letters from neighbors in support of the variance. 2 Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment but no one responded. There were no emails from members of the public concerning this application. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim RESOLUTION 5 Vine Road After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim Nays: None WHEREAS, Craig Rosuck (the “Applicant”) requested a variance to legalize central air conditioning on the premises located at 5 Vine Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 111, Lot 213; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning unit as installed in the front yard will be 18.5 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and further the air conditioner increases the extent by which the property 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 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and 3 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 it has existed without complaint for many years, the units are quiet and well-screened and adjacent to the right-of-way so considerably distanced from closest neighbor. 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 they are unobjectionable in existing location and any other location would also require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they are quiet, well- screened and add no bulk to the property. 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 they are quiet, well-screened and add no bulk or impervious surface to the property. 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. 4 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 #4 – Case # 3178 - 124 East Garden Road - Todd and Laura Hofffman – Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Paige Lewis, the applicant’s architect, addressed the Board. Ms. Lewis stated that this is a corner lot and the applicants would like a deck. She explained the plans and the elevations. She further stated that a surveyor will stake out the line before construction. The AC units received a variance on May 22, 2019. The area is well screened and not visible from the street. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comments but no one responded. There were no emails from members of the public concerning this application. 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: 4-0 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky 5 RESOLUTION 124 Garden Road East After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Nays: None WHEREAS, Todd and Laura Hoffman (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a deck on the premises located at 124 Garden Road East, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 14, Lot 280; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck in the front yard as proposed will be 16.9 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-37B(1), the deck steps as proposed will be 12.9 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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 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 it is consistent with character of nearby properties, well screened and considerably distanced from nearest house. 6 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 any other location would be impractical. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because of the large size of the deck but the impact is not substantial because it is well-screened and the use will not be intensified because there is currently a patio in the same location. 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 it adds no bulk or impervious surface so will not impact light, air or stormwater runoff. 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. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 7 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #5 – Case # 3179 – 52 Valley Road - Michael Duffy – Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Niall Duggan, the applicant’s representative, addressed the Board and requested to legalize the second floor dormer bathroom addition that was there over 40 years ago prior to the Duffys purchasing the home. Mr. Sacks asked if that could be substantiated and Mr. Polcari responded that the assistant building inspector inspected and agreed as to the age of the addition. Mr. Polcari further stated that no complaints have been received. Mr. Sacks observed that the addition fits with the house. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comments but no one responded. There were no emails from members of the public concerning this application. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Robin Nichinsky Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: 4-0 Moved by Irene O’Neill, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin N1chinsky, Seth Bronheim RESOLUTION 52 Valley Road After review, on motion of Irene O’Neill, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim Nays: None 8 WHEREAS, Michael T. Duffy (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for as built second floor addition on the premises located at 52 Valley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 14, Lot 436; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition in the front yard is 26.83 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); 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 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 nd 2 story has existed for many years, sets back from the house, appears consistent with the rest of the house and compatible with surrounding properties. 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 it has existed in its present location for many years and sets back from first floor setback encroachment. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it steps back from first floor encroachment. 9 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 it is pre-existing without any objection. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because the owner had no idea that it was nonconforming and appears as though it was part of the original house. 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. Application # 6 – Case #3180 – 100 Brookside Drive East - Evan and Meredith Bender – Public Hearing 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 10 Paige Lewis, the applicant’s architect, addressed the Board. The owners are expecting their third child and are creating a bedroom over the existing garage. A side yard variance is required as the lot is nonconforming at only 40 feet wide. Ms. Lewis showed the elevations and plans. The Board discussed the proposal. Mr. Sacks stated that it makes the house more consistent with the neighboring houses and doesn’t substantially increase massing. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comments but no one responded. There were no emails from members of the public concerning this application. 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: 5-0 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim RESOLUTION 100 Brookside Drive East After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim Nays: None WHEREAS, Evan and Meredith Binder (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a second floor addition above the garage on the premises located at 100 Brookside Drive East, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 10, Lot 689; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The 172 square foot second floor addition above the garage in the side yard as proposed will be 6.1 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); the combined yard setback as proposed will be 12.26 feet where 25 is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b) 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 11 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 it appears consistent with nearby properties. 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 the house is pre- existing nonconforming so any addition would require a variance and the proposed addition is within the existing footprint of the house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial due to its size, but since it’s the minimum size to meet the need, this is not determinative. 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 it is within the existing footprint and does not negatively impact light, air or stormwater runoff. 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. 12 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 #2 – Case #3175 - 66 Edgewood Avenue – Michael and Stephanie Hollander – Public Hearing - Reconvened 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 Fred Grippi, the applicant’s architect, addressed the Board requesting a variance to fill in the rear corner of the house over an existing patio under an existing roof. The Board discussed the request of adding 33 square feet. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comments but no one responded. There were no emails from members of the public concerning this application. 13 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: 5-0 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim RESOLUTION 66 Edgewood Avenue After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim Nays: None WHEREAS, Michael and Stephanie Hollander (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for an enclosed porch on the premises located at 66 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 19, Lot 255; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The enclosed porch as proposed has a side yard of 4.5 feet where 10 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further the porch 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 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. 14 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 framing for the porch already exists and the new windows will face a large backyard and there will be no impact to the side yard. 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 the proposal is to enclose a pre-existing porch. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the house is pre-existing nonconforming and the additional square footage created by enclosing the porch is only about 35 square feet for a house is that more than 2500 square feet. 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 it will not increase the lot coverage or bulk of the pre-exisitng house. 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: 15 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 #7 Case #3181 – 10 Leafy Lane - Adrienne Skinner – Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Seth Bronheim Paige Lewis, the applicant’s architect, addressed the Board. She stated that the owner and her friend wish to create space for the both of them to live together and age in the home. They also are fixing a treacherous basement stair case. They are also requesting a variance for the rear yard generator. Elevation and floor plans were discussed. Mr. Sacks asked whether there is an alternative to increase height rather than out. Ms. O’Neill stated that the stairs to the second floor are treacherous. Mr. Wexler observed that there does not seem to be a way to shrink and reduce the request. th The Board discussed that there was a typo on the April 24 plan and the coverage is actually 39%. Board members discussed that the addition is not imposing and the generator is in the least obtrusive place. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comments but no one responded. There were no emails from members of the public concerning this application. 16 Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Seth Bronheim Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: 5-0 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim RESOLUTION 10 Leafy Lane After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim Nays: None WHEREAS, Adrienne Skinner (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a first floor addition and standby generator on the premises located at 10 Leafy Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 26, Lot 56; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition as proposed has a side yard of 7.7 feet where 10 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38B(2(a); the combined side yard setback are 17 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38(2)(b); the lot coverage is 40% where 35% is permitted pursuant to 240-38F; the rear yard setback for the standby generator is 21.8 feet where 25 feet is required Pursuant to Section240-38(3)(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 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 17 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 rear yard is well screened, will not impact neighbors to the rear and the side yard encroachment is the same as what currently exists, with the addition of a bay window. In addition, neighbors of the subject property submitted letters in support of the Application. 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 this is the only way to fix the steep steps for a first floor master bedroom. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because it increases lot coverage by 4% as well as the square footage of the house but, except for the generator and the bay window, the variances do not increase existing nonconformities and the generator would require a variance no matter where it were located. 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 there will be no negative impact to light and air and runoff will be addressed in required erosion and sediment control permit. 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. 18 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. 6. Applicant shall submit a foundation survey prior to framing. 7. Applicant shall maintain substantial rear yard screening. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #8 – Case #3182 – 23 Holly Place - Ana Ceballos – Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Seth Bronheim Ana Ceballos, the owner addressed the Board. She explained that she did a second floor addition and is adding a new AC unit as well as replacing an existing unit. She further explained there is no place on the property and she is proposing screening to hide the units from the street. The Board discussed the request and stated that an as built survey would be required, as well as a condition that significant screening would be required. Mr. Wexler stated that the original unit was closer to the neighbor than the proposed. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comments but no one responded. There were no emails from members of the public concerning this application. 19 Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Robin Nichinsky Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: 5-0 Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim RESOLUTION 23 Holly Place After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Arthur Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim Nays: None WHEREAS, Anna Ceballos (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for two air conditioning condenser units on the premises located at 23 Holly Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 21, Lot 328; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning condenser units as proposed will have a front yard setback of 27.4 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the side yard setback will be 8.2 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further the units increase 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 20 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 units are small, well-screened and not visible to neighbors or from street. 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 locating the units on the side of the house would require a variance and location in the rear would be infeasible due to flood risk. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units are small, well-screened and quiet. 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 units are small, well-screened and quiet. 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: 21 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. Applicant shall maintain substantial screening. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. MINUTES The Board discussed the minutes of February 26, 2020 and made technical corrections. Motion: To approve the draft minutes of February 26, 2020, with technical corrections. Action: 3-0 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks The next meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2020 as a ZOOM meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Minutes prepared by ______________________________________________ Francine M. Brill, Secretary of Zoning Board of Appeals 22