Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_08_19 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 AUGUST 19, 2020 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller (Alternate) Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals Absent: Seth Bronheim (Alternate) CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:21 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). Applications 1 and 2 were adjourned as they were not noticed correctly. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of July 22, 2020, with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill Vote: Yes: Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Stephen Sacks Abstain: Arthur Wexler, Carol Miller Application #3 – Case #3186 - Branko and Lakicevic - 4 Blossom Terrace - Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Ben Branko and Jenny Lakicevic addressed the Board stating that they replaced an existing shed in the corner of their property on the existing platform. 1 The Board discussed the placement of the shed in the front yard and stated a survey would be required. Ms. Lakicevic stated that the fence is set in from the property line and they intend to plant outside the fence for screening. The size and height of the shed was discussed. Ms. Nichinsky asked for photos of the new shed to show comparison to the old shed. Ms. O’Neill asked for a screening plan as the shed is visible from the neighbors’ property. 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 The matter was adjourned to September 23, 2020. The public hearing will remain open. Application #4 - Case #3187 – Guillermo & Jennifer Geer Bilbao - 871 Fenimore Road - Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Ms. Nichinsky stated for the record that she knows the applicants but it will not influence her review of the application. The applicants stated that they are trying to keep the deer out of a portion on their yard. They explained the location of the fence, showing the area left open for the deer to travel through. The Board questioned the environmental impact on animal migration and Ms. Geer stated that the purpose of the fence is to redirect the deer to a certain path away from the rear yard plants. Ms. O’Neill stated that the fence is far away from Fenimore Road, which will protect deer from automobile traffic. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. Public Comments Brian Margolis of 4 Fenbrook Drive stated he has no objection to the fence as they are leaving space for the deer to cross. Motion: To close the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved 2 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill Motion: To approve the seven-foot deer fence with the post cut to 7 feet Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O’Neill RESOLUTION 871 Fenimore Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O’Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky, Nays: None WHEREAS, Guillermo & Jennifer Geer Bilbao (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for installation of a deer fence along side and rear of the property on the premises located at 871 Fenimore Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 12, Lot 45; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deer fence as proposed will be 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-52A for a fence in a side and rear yard; in an R-30 Zone District. (the “Notice of Disapproval”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant clarified that the fence is 7 feet and the posts are 8.5 feet but will be capped off at 7 feet; 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. 3 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 fence is visually unobtrusive, does not encircle entire property, will only cover about 40% of property and is set back from the property line to minimize view from neighboring 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 fence height must be at least 6-7 feet to prevent deer from jumping over it and the applicant stated that they tried a natural barrier and native species unattractive to deer but it didn’t work. Further, at request of neighbors, the applicant set back fence further from property line which gives deer more space and visually better for neighbor. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is set back on a large parcel and it is made of wire mesh, which is less visually intrusive than a 5-foot solid fence which is allowable as-of-right. 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 deer can continue to follow paths through the applicant’s property and, further, the deer are not trapped or forced onto the nearby road or neighboring properties. 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: 4 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 #5 – Case #3188 – David and Paula Krenkel - 21 Hillside Road – Public Hearing Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Chairman Wexler and Ms. Nichinsky stated that they know the applicants but it will not influence their review of the application. Motion: To open the public hearing Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill Mr. Krenkel stated that he requests a variance to place an AC unit on the right side of the house. The unit has a Dba of 51. He further stated that the installer told him that the placement of the unit is the least complicated location. The Board discussed the request. 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 Irene O’Neill Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky 5 RESOLUTION 21 Hillside Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 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 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky, Nays: None WHEREAS, David and Paula Krenkel (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 21 Hillside Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 28, Lot 240; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The AC compressor in the side yard as proposed will be 5.3 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(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 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 unit is low profile with low noise emissions (DBA). 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 require a variance and the proposed location is the least intrusive to neighboring properties. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small and well placed with a low DBA rating. 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 unit is small and well placed with a low DBA rating. 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. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 7 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 #6 – Case #3189 – Ana and James Brennan – 46 Cooper Lane – 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 Greg Lewis, the applicants’ architect, and the owners were present. Mr. Lewis showed the proposal requesting a front portico with new door and windows. The Board discussed the plan and elevations. 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 Stephen Marsh Motion: To approve the requested variance Action: Unanimously approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION 46 Cooper Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky, Nays: None WHEREAS, Ana and James Brennan (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a front entry portico on the premises located at 46 Cooper Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 487; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The portico in the front yard as proposed will be 26.5 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-6 Zone District. 8 (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 aesthetically improves the lines of the house, is consistent with existing architecture and surrounding properties and set back from the line where the garage extends out into the property. 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 there is no other area of the house to add a portico and it is necessary to protect visitors and packages from inclement weather. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is open, not enclosed, and takes up only 12 square feet, which is a minimal amount of space. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 9 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because although it will redirect a small amount of rain, it will not have any other environmental impacts. 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. 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. OTHER BUSINESS Jonathan Sacks requested a clear zoning chart with coverage calculations for 4 Blossom Terrace. The Board discussed the packet and will give suggestions as to what is helpful and/or unnecessary for their review. ADJOURNMENT 10 The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Minutes prepared by _______________________________ Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11