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