Loading...
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