HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_09_23 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 SEPTEMBER 23, 2020
Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill,
Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim (Alternate)
Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the
Zoning Board of Appeals
Absent: Carol Miller (Alternate),
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:22 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).
Ms. Brill confirmed that all of the applications scheduled for public hearings tonight were duly
noticed.
Application # 1 – Case No. 3185 – Mark Teich – 11 West Drive – Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Mark Teich, the applicant, stated that he purchased the home in 2002 and the air conditioning
units were already there. He replaced the units in 2015 and in 2019 sold the house. He
submitted this application to legalize the units for the new owners.
Mr. Polcari stated that he could find no documents showing whether the units existed prior to the
2001 Town Code. He further stated that there have been no complaints.
1
The Board discussed the location of the units.
Mr. Sacks stated that based on the survey the only place that would not require a variance is the
other side of the house. Mr. Teich responded that the unit is for the master suite above the unit.
Mr. Polcari stated that the supply lines would be too great a distance for efficiency.
Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment.
There were no members of the public who wished to speak and there were no emails or written
comments received concerning this application.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill
RESOLUTION
11 West Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
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 with no abstentions.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky
Nays: None
WHEREAS, Mark Teich (the “Applicant”) requested a variance to replace the central air
conditioning unit on the premises located at 11 West Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 7, Lot 112;
and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
air conditioning unit as proposed has a side yard setback of 4 feet where 10 feet is required,
pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-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
2
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 has
existed for many years without any complaint and it is located a considerable distance
from neighboring houses.
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 possible
alternative would be both costly and reduce the functionality of the unit by locating it
further from the air handler.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it replaces an existing,
unobjectionable unit.
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 has a low DBA rating and is located a
substantial distance from any neighbors.
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.
3
B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood
and the health safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned
and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the
Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above
for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the
building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this
application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code.
Application # 3 – Case No. 3171 – Andree Bogaeerts and George Stone – 80 Howell
Avenue- Public Hearing continued
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Unanimously Approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Mr. Stone and Ms. Bogaeerts, the owners, along with their attorneys, Andrew Spatz, Esq, and
Martha McCarty Esq., were present.
Mr. Wexler questioned the height of the fence on the retaining wall and the exact property line.
Mr. Spatz stated that the applicants wish to replace the existing fence which is in disrepair with a
similar fence. There are currently plantings screening the fence and they will add additional if
required. He further stated that Weaver Street is extremely busy and they wish to screen their
yard from truck head lights and traffic as the yard is higher and they can see over the top of the
fence.
4
Mr. Sacks stated that he understands the fence would provide privacy from the inside out, but he
is concerned with the imposing nature of the wall and fence from the outside. Mr. Sacks
suggested the fence be stepped back so the applicants could plant screening on their property as
the land on Weaver Street is owned by the County.
Martha McCarty spoke about the corner property, stating that they are in the process of
researching ownership.
Mr. Wexler stated that the Board requires more information including an elevation from Weaver
Street and the full height of the fence measured from the grade on Weaver Street.
The matter was adjourned and the public hearing remains open.
Application # 4 – Case # 3190 - Jonah and Lexi Platt – 118 North Chatsworth – Public
Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Robert Keller, the applicant’s architect, presented to the Board.
Mr. Polcari stated that a variance was granted in 2019 for the deck.
Mr. Keller stated that they have returned for a new variance because the applicants realized that
the 9-foot wide garage is not usable and wish to put the garage under the deck. He further stated
that the new proposal results in less lot coverage.
The Board discussed the proposal.
Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. There were no
members of the public who wished to speak and there were no emails or written comments
received 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: Unanimously approved
Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Stephen Marsh
5
RESOLUTION
118 North Chatsworth, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following
resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky
Nays: None
WHEREAS, Jonah and Lexi Platt (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a garage addition
with deck above and exterior stair. on the premises located at 118 N. Chatsworth Avenue on the
premises located at 118 North Chatsworth, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 13, Lot 339; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
garage addition with deck above in side yard as proposed will be 7.6 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 deck
was previously approved in 2019 and the proposed deck and garage are in line with,
and slightly smaller than, what was previously approved.
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 the current garage is
too narrow and the proposed solution is comparable with what the Board had
previously approved.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposal is smaller than
what was approved by the Board in 2019.
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 proposed deck will not generate any 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 # 3191 – Ross A. and Lisa J. Fieldston – 1 Split Tree Road – Public
Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Ross Fieldston ,the owner ,was present.
Mr. Fieldston stated that he would like to install a pool on his odd shaped corner property
requiring two variances -- one from the house and one from the rear yard. He explained
alternatives which were considered and all but one would require variances. The only one that
would not require a variance would result in a small pool that would take up the usable yard
space and not be viable as that size does not have an automatic pool cover available. He further
stated that most of his neighbors have a pool.
The Board discussed moving the pool closer to the rear property line allowing for a further
distance from the house. The Board asked for a detail drawing of the pool, showing where the
deep section is to be located and how the pool cover will be mounted.
Rock removal was discussed.
Mr. Wexler suggested 12 feet from the rear property line and 8.7 feet from the house with the
pool, including coping being 40X22.
Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. There were no
members of the public who wished to speak and there were no emails or written comments
received 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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler
8
RESOLUTION
1 Split Tree Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler, the following resolution
was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions.
Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O’Neill, Robin Nichinsky
Nays: None
WHEREAS, Ross A. and Lisa J. Fieldston (the “Applicant”) requested a variance to construct a
pool on the premises located at 1 Split Tree Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known
on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 5, Lot 1010; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
pool as proposed will be 7.7 feet from the principal structure where 15 feet is required, for an
inground swimming pool pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(a); the rear yard setback will be 15 feet
where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 192-5(1)(b) for a residence in an R-20 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
neighborhood already has several pools and the proposed location in the back, left
corner of the property is a considerable distance from neighbors.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
9
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 Applicant
presented a number of alternatives that were less desirable due to impractical size of
the pool or too close to rock outcroppings on Murdock and all of the other
alternatives would have located the pool closer to neighboring structures. The
proposed location is the furthest point away from neighboring houses. The Board
also noted that the Applicant is burdened by a large front yard which limits
alternatives.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because of the substantial distance
of the pool from nearby houses. Further, the reduced distance between the pool and
the house does not appear to impose any adverse impact to homeowners or neighbors.
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 pool will be located within the required setbacks
and will not generate any additional 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.
10
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. The pool shall be no closer than 12 feet to the rear property line from the outside
point of the coping.
7. The distance between the pool and the lower right of house shall be a minimum of 8.7
feet.
8. The pool shall not be any greater than 22 x 40 feet, including coping.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code.
MINUTES
Motion: To approve the minutes of August 26, 2020 as modified
Action: Unanimously approved
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Sacks stated 15 Mardon Road hasn’t return since February and questioned whether the
application should be stricken, Ms. Hochman stated that in light of disruptions caused by
COVID-19, this case should not be dismissed at this time. Mr. Polcari stated he will reach out to
the applicant.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
Minutes prepared by
____________________________________________
Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
11