Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_05_26 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 MAY 26, 2021 Present via ZOOM: Irene O'Neill, Acting Chair, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller (Alternate) Absent: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 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 #3220 -Angela Miata Zmuda -32 Pryer Manor Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, shared his screen and explained the requested variance to open the kitchen and increase curb appeal of the house. He further explained that the property is burdened with two front yards and is located in a flood zone. He stated that the proposed front porch would soften the facade and add character to the house. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Sacks pointed out that the property has a large right of way on both streets, which increases the distance between the proposed addition and the street. 1 Mr. Lewis stated that an erosion control permit will be required if they receive a variance. He further stated that the owner spoke to the neighbors and they were all in favor. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 32 Pryer Manor, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Angela Miata Zmuda (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed one- story addition and front steps on the premises located at 32 Pryer Manor, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 6, Lot 284; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed front addition in the front yard will be 18.7 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the proposed front portico will be 21 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the proposed front steps will be 21.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the proposed front addition will be 21.3 feet as proposed 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-10 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and 2 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 proposed architectural design will enhance the appearance of the house. 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 and burdened with two front yards, each requiring a 30-foot setback and the proposed plans are the only way to meet the homeowner's goal to expand the kitchen and make the first floor more usable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the rights of way are very large and there will be a setback of over 30 feet from one street and approximately 28 feet from the other street. 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 lot coverage is less than allowable and the applicant will comply with all stormwater runoff requirements. 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. 3 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #2 —Case #3221 — Sarah and Timothy Dillon - 11 Spruce Road Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Lisa Mocker Taylor, the applicant's architect and Saran & Timothy Dillon, the owners, were present via ZOOM. Ms. Taylor shared her screen and explained the owners' request for the first story addition under the cantilevered second floor overhang and the air conditioning placement. The Board discussed the distance between the air conditioner units and the lot line and the Dba level. 4 Because the applicant did not have specs for the air conditioner units, Mr. Sacks suggested a condition of approval the Dba level should be less than 60. Ms. O'Neill stated that due to the shape of the lots, the air conditioner units would be located and far from adjoining neighbors. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 11 Spruce Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Sarah and Timothy Dillon(the"Applicant") requested a variance for an addition and air conditioning unit on the premises located at 11 Spruce Road, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15, Lot 334; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition in the side yard as proposed will be 5.9 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); the air-conditioning unit will have a side yard setback of 8.6 where 10 feet is required 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, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and 5 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 design and materials of the proposed addition are compatible with the existing house and the surrounding area. 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 homeowner's elderly parents require a first floor bathroom and the lot coverage will be minimized by locating the kitchen under an existing second floor bedroom and the air conditioning units will be placed unobtrusively in the rear yard. In addition, the lot is irregularly shaped which precludes other altneratives. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the kitchen will be located under an existing second floor bedroom and the proposed first floor bathroom encroaches minimally into the required setback. 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 addition will only slightly extend beyond the existing encroachment. 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. 6 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. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector evidence that the DBA rating for the air conditioning units is 60 or less. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #3 —Case #3222 -David Szuchman—3 Country Lane Ms. Brill stated that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved 7 David Szuchman, the owner, explained his request for the hot tub atop a concrete slab. He further stated that the unit will be placed as close to the house as possible and screened by dense foliage. The Board discussed the location and noise. Mr. Sacks stated that there will be no effect on the neighbors as owners already entertain in the area proposed for the hot tub. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Carol Miller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 3 Country Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Carol Miller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, David Szuchman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an outdoor hot tub on the premises located at 3 Country Lane, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 20, Lot 56; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed hot tub in the rear yard will be 17.9 feet where 25 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(3); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone Districtthe "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and 8 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 proposed hot tub has a minimal footprint and will be barely visible to side neighbors and there is no neighbor to the rear. 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 hot tub will be located as close as possible to the house with considerable distance between the hot tub and the property line. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the concrete slab under the hot tub encroaches less than 8-foot into the required setback and the location is far from 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 hot tub adds no bulk to the house and will be located in an area far from neighbors that is already used for outdoor entertaining. 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. 9 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #4 —Case #3223 —Mary Stone - 26 Bonnie Way Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Shahin Heshmat, the applicant's architect was present via ZOOM. He stated the proposal to square off the house, remove steps that have no function, re-arrange the interior design of the house. Mr. Sacks stated that the house is burdened by a large front right of way and the proposal will increase the curb appeal of the house. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. 10 Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 26 Bonnie Way, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Mary Stone(the"Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed first floor addition on the premises located at 26 Bonnie Way, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 4, Lot 52.2 and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition in the front yard will be 30.3 feet where 40 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); the combined side yard setbacks will be 28 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(2); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-15 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. 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. 11 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 squaring off the house will enhance the curb appeal, making the house more symmetrical. 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 proposed plans are the only way to square off the house and remove unnecessary external stairs to improve functionality of the dining room. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because due to the large right of way, there is a large distance between the house and the street and the applicant is adding only a minimal amount of square footage. 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 encroachment into the required yard will be minimal and the proposed addition will not generate any negative visual 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: 12 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #5- Case #3224 -Ben and Kim Vinzant— 110 Carleon Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's attorney and Ben & Kim Vinzant, the owners, were present via ZOOM. Mr. Lewis shared his screen and explained the request for a second-floor addition over a non- conforming first floor. He stated that the proposed addition will match the facade, windows and roof of the house. Mr. Vinzant stated that he met with neighbors and they voiced no objections. The Board discussed the request and the removal of the rear chimney. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved 13 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 110 Carleon, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Ben and Kim Vinzant (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 110 Carleon, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 4, Lot 188; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition in the side yard as proposed will be 7.6 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-36B(2)(a); the combined side yard setbacks as proposed will be 16.2 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to 240-36B(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-15 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. 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 14 addition does not increase the footprint, architecturally balances out the appearance of the house and maintains the character of the house and the surrounding neighborhood. 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 homeowners want to add a second-floor master bath and rework their kitchen and the proposed encroachment is the least amount necessary to accomplish their goals. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because only the architectural features extend minimally into required setbacks. 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 other than a slight architectural overhang which encroaches into the required setback, the house remains within the existing footprint of the 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: 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. 15 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #6 Case # 3225 - Maureen and Jeff Winner—206 Mulberry Lane Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect and Maureen Winner, the owner, were present via ZOOM. Ms. Lewis shared her screen and explained the request for the second-floor addition. Three letters in support of the application from neighbors were entered into the record. Mr. Sacks stated that this property is burdened with a large right of way, and also that even with the addition the house will be at a lower elevation than the neighboring house on the left. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved 16 RESOLUTION 206 Mulberry Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Maureen and Jeff Winner (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 206 Mulberry Lane, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 13, Lot 505; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition in the front yard is 39 feet where 40 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 36B(1); a side yard of 9.1 feet where 10 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(2); the combined side yards are 23.4 where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(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-15 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. 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 addition is consistent with other nearby houses, as evidenced by letters of support submitted by neighbors. 17 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 reasonable given the large right of way and the fact that houses to right and left will remain above the house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the footprint of the house will not change and the elevation of the house will change only minimally. 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 new impervious surface and minimal visual impact to 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. 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. 18 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #7—Case #3226 -Lindsey Cohen—107 North Chatsworth Avenue Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Lindsey Cohen, the owner, was present via ZOOM and stated that she would like to install central air conditioning. Ms. Cohen further stated that the installers met with The Building Inspector to discuss the placement. Ms. Cohen further stated that the Dba level for the smaller unit is 53/55 and the larger unit is 57. the units are just for cooling. Mr. Sacks stated that because the house is on a corner lot, the proposed location for the units are as far as possible from neighboring houses. Ms. Cohen stated that her neighbors are aware of the proposal and they are supportive. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 107 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. 19 WHEREAS, Lindsey Cohen(the"Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 107 North Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 14, Lot 466; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The condensing unit in the front yard is 25 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 38B(1); a front yard of 28 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-38B(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, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. 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 air conditioning units will be set back far from the street in an area that functions as a side yard and at 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 the house is burdened by two front yards on a corner lot, each requiring a 30-foot setback, and there is no 20 other suitable location on the property that would be less intrusive than what is proposed. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the two units are 25 and 30 feet from the front lot lines and located in an area which functions as a side yard but, because it's a corner lot, requires a 30-foot setback. 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 have a low DBA rating, below 60, and they will be located a considerable distance from neighboring houses. 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. 21 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #8 —Case #3227 -Brandon and Erika Sutcliffe—20 Bonnie Way Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect was present via ZOOM. She shared her screen and explained the applicant's request for a front portico and side deck on a nonconforming house. She further explained that the brick facade will be removed to make the addition more consistent with the rest of the house. The Board questioned the distance of the rear deck from the side yard setback and it was determined that the closest point is 7.4 feet not 7.8 feet. Mr. Sacks questioned the increase in coverage and Ms. Lewis explained that the existing concrete under the deck will be enlarged. Mr. Sacks stated that this house also has a large right of way. Ms. O'Neill stated that the Board has already approved several porticos on this street. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 20 Bonnie Way, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. 22 WHEREAS, Brandon and Erika Sutcliffe (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed one-story addition and front steps on the premises located at 20 Bonnie Way, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 4, Lot 68 and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition in the front yard will be 27.7 feet where 40 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); the proposed front steps will be 26.5 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); The proposed rear deck will be 7.8 feet where 10 feet is proposed pursuant to Section 240-36-b(2)(a), the combined side yard setbacks will be 23.6 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1)(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-15 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Notice of Disapproval was amended to read as follows: The proposed addition in the front yard will be 27.7 feet where 40 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); the proposed front steps will be 26.5 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); The proposed rear deck will be 7.4 feet where 10 feet is proposed pursuant to Section 240-36- b(2)(a), the combined side yard setbacks will be 23.2 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1)(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-15 Zone District (the "Amended Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. 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. 23 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 addition of the portico will improve the appearance of the house and the neighborhood has several similar and even larger porticos nearby and the deck expansion will not impact the character of the neighborhood. 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 lot is preexisting nonconforming so any change to add a portico or alter the deck will require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the percentage encroachment is very small given the large size of the lot. 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 slight increase in impervious surface will generate a negligible increment of 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. 24 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. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #9 —Case #3228 -Laura Bardier—79 Myrtle Blvd Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Alvaro Bonfiglio, the applicant's architect was present via, ZOOM. He shared his screen and explained the applicant's request for the addition. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 79 Myrtle Blvd, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Laura Bardier (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 79 Myrtle Blvd, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 24, Lot 625; and 25 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition in the side yard will be 6.1 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); the combined side yard will be 14.4 feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-6 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; 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 any and 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 el. 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 addition will not expand the existing footprint, does not max out the available floor- area-ratio (FAR), is consistent with nearby homes and there is considerable buffer separating the property from houses on adjacent 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 this proposed plan is the only feasible option to add a bedroom to accommodate an elderly family member. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 26 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not expand the existing footprint and leaves available FAR. 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 impervious surface and only marginally impacts on light and air. 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. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 27 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #10 —Case #3229 -Jeffery and Nina Kravetz—83 West Brookside Drive Ms. Nichinsky stated that she knows the applicant but she can be impartial. Ms. O'Neill stated that there was no sign on Lansdown. The applicant stated that they did not post a sign on Lansdown because they were not aware it was necessary to do so. The Board discussed the Town Code requirements for notification. Ms. Hochman stated that the Board can discuss the matter but cannot open a public hearing. The matter was adjured to June 16, 2021. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes of April 28 with technical corrections. Moved by, Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Yes: Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller Abstain: Robin Nichinsky ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 28