Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_07_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK JULY 28, 2021 Present: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Seth Bronheim (alternate) Absent: Irene O'Neill, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller (alternate) Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison, arrived late CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:11PM Mr. Wexler stated that there are only four board members present and an affirmative vote of 3 members are required to approve any application. Ms. Brill stated that applications #2 and #5 are adjourned. Application No. 1 - CASE NO. 3223 - Michael and Joanna Maresca - 3 Glen Lane The public hearing was opened at the June meeting. Michael Maresca, the owner, stated that he requests a variance for his as-built deck and roof. There were no questions from the Board. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 3 Glen Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Michael and Joanna Maresca (the "Applicant") requested a variance for for an as- built deck 1 on the premises located at 3 Glen Lane Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 15 Lot 568; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as built deck in the side yard is 19.5 feet where 20 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 34B(2); the as built roof in the side yard is 19.7 feet where 20 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-34B(2); for a residence in an R-30 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 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 deck encroaches only 6-inches into a large setback on a large parcel. 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 encroachment resulted from an inadvertent mistake and it would be prohibitively expensive to replace with a smaller deck, given that there is no adverse impact. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment is only 6 inches on a large property. 2 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 deck is pervious and water will run through and also there is no adverse 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: 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 #3 - Case 3236 -BoFabri Realty - 9 Lafayette Road Motion: To open the public hearing 3 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Ed Jacobson, the applicant's architect, and Frank Nesci, a member of BoFabri Realty, addressed the Board. Mr. Jacobson explained the request for the addition and driveway variances. The property is narrow and nonconforming in the front but has a wide large rear yard. In order to have a garage in the rear of the house the nonconforming driveway has to be extended. The extension will be constructed with permeable pavers for storm water management. Photos of neighboring houses were shown. Mr. Wexler voiced concerns regarding the turn-around into the garage. Mr. Nesci stated that there is no other way to have a garage at this house. Mr. Sacks stated that another option is to enter the garage from the rear, as it would help the turning radius. Mr. Jacobson stated it increases the paving enormously. Public Comments: Andrew Lachow and Robin Vidner, of 11 Lafayette Road stated that they are concerned about additional impervious area added because the neighborhood has a water issue. They explained that a piece of the applicant's rear yard behind their house is a low point that collects water and is a lake after it rains. Mr. Wexler explained that the Town Code requires the applicant to retain all the water from the additions on their property. Mr. Polcari stated that the Town Engineer must approve the erosion plan before a building permit can be issued. Mr. Jacobson stated that they understand that water is a huge issue, which is why they are using permeable pavers. Ms. Vidner stated that it looks like a big addition, Mr. Sacks stated that the applicant has made an effort to minimize bulk. Peter Pinkowish, of 15 Lafayette Road showed photo of the "lake" behind the property and stated that he has lived there since 1992 and water comes from the stream and when it rains water flows toward 11 Lafayette Road. Mr. Sacks stated that the applicant will be required to submit an erosion plan. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance with a condition to maintain planting strip Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved 4 RESOLUTION 9 Lafayette Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephem Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to Owith no abstentions. WHEREAS, BoFabri Realty (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition and driveway extension on the premises located at 9 Lafayette Road, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 33 Lot 42; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition as proposed in the side yard will be 6.8 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to section 240-38B(2)(a), the combined yard setback will be 18 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38(2)(b), the driveway extension will be 1.5 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-79 B(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-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 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 design of the facade is consistent with neighboring homes and enlarging the house toward the backyard includes breaking up the monotonous side elevation and the extension of driveway down the house is in keeping with the existing driveway and follows the existing line to the back of house in an attempt to provide a garage. For the left facing setback, the same existing nonconforming line of the house is followed for the first 48 5 feet and then breaks in 1.5 feet. 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 applicant explored the possibility of getting a garage into the rear yard but that would still result in the driveway encroaching into the required side yard setback and result in more paving so it would be less desirable than the proposal. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the parcel is very large and the addition follows existing lines of nonconformance along the line of the house and the existing driveway. 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 Applicant will be required to comply with all drainage requirements to capture any increase in water resulting from the new impervious surface and the driveway will be extended with permeable pavers and will not generate any additional runoff or ponding. 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. 6 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. An 18-inch strip between the property line and the driveway shall be maintained as a green strip with planting. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #4 —Case 3237 -Brion and Kim Tingler - 56 Country Road Diane Eaton, the applicant's architect, was present and the applicant was on the phone. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Ms. Eaton stated that this nonconforming house is on a flag lot between a number of other flag lots and the area is well landscaped and the request is to pull the garage forward. Only a triangular piece of the garage is out of compliance and the front entry is proposed to be moved forward. The driveway is proposed to be moved forward and widened. The Board discussed the proposed plan. Mr. Sacks stated that the house is land locked inside rock out cropping and there is no other option for placement of the house and garage. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved 7 RESOLUTION 56 Country Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Brion and Kim Tingler (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a 1 story garage addition. Front steps and driveway addition on the premises located at 56 Country Road, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 15 Lot 815; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 37.7feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1), the proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 31.2 feet where 50 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1), the side yard setback will be 16.7 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2), the driveway set back will be .7 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-79B(1)(a); and further the additions 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 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 (a) with respect to the front yard variance, the property is a unique flag lot with a house that is set somewhat forward on the flag portion and the proposed addition stays inside the setbacks as much as possible and the distance from the street to the garage is more than 100 feet, which makes the visual impact from the street negligible; (b) with 8 respect to the side yard and driveway variances, all of the side yard issues are created due to existing nonconformities and the existing driveway has been moved forward for a turnaround which does not change the amount of the encroachment and the left side of the proposed addition to the house along the property line is consistent with the existing nonconforming encroachment. 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 front yard is burdened by rock outcroppings and the position of house on the lot prohibits any other location and the existing driveway is remaining and only being extended along the same line of encroachment. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the front yard encroachments will be a considerable distance to the street well screened and the driveway encroachment is consistent with the existing structure follows the line of the existing encroachment. 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 parcel is large, the lines of existing encroachments will remain the same and therefore will result in no meaningful impacts to light, air or stormwater runoff. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 9 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 #6 - Case 3239 -Robert and Elizabeth Ryan - 759 Forest Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect addressed the Board, stating that a sewer line is shown on the survey but there is no easement on record. Mr. Marsh stated that it is actually a storm drain. Mr. Ryan, explained that the nextdoor neighbor connected a storm water line which, in turn, connects to the Briarcliff drain line. Ms. Lewis explained the proposal: there is a large wood platform in need of repair in the rear yard and the applicants would like to replace it with a deck from their kitchen without steps. They propose a deck lined up with the house which exceeds lot coverage requirements because the deck will be higher than 18 inches. Mr. Sacks stated that because the deck is being attached to the house a combined side yard variance is also required. The request has to be re-noticed. Mr. Sacks asked if the existing deck was included in lot coverage and Ms. Lewis responded no. The matter was adjourned and a sign with a new date will be posted. Application #7 - Case 3240 -Rrezarta and Dasted Hoti-Winthrop Avenue 10 Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Ms. Hoti stated that she seeks to legalize a fence that was installed in 2017 and explained that when they went to close the permit, they found that their 6-foot fence on a retaining wall requires a variance. Mr. Polcari stated that the permit was issued in error by a prior building inspector. Ms. Hoti explained the need for the fence to prevent her children from falling over the wall. The Board discussed the leveling of the property, the height of the wall and the fence. Mr. Sacks stated that there are elevation changes and the Board has rejected a number of other similar requests. Mr. Wexler suggested that the applicant speak to her effected neighbors and to learn whether they have any objections to the proposed legalization. The matter was adjourned. Application #8 - Gregory and Rachel Licht— 125 Hickory Grove Drive East Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect and Ms. Licht, the owner, were present. Ms. Lewis explained the plan, stating that they propose to add up and extend behind the garage, adding a mud room. The elevations were shown and the plans were discussed There were no public questions or comments. Motion: to close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: to approve the requested variance Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 125 Hickory Grove Drive East, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Gregory and Rachel Licht (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor 11 addition over existing garage on the premises located at 125 Hickory Grove Drive East, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 14 Lot 201; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition in the side yard will be 8.8 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2), the combined side yard will be 14.2 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-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 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 house presents itself to the street as a one-story garage attached to a 2.5 story house and the inclusion of the additional floor above the garage and roof structure will be in character with the 2.5 story homes nearby. 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 given the width of the lot, a narrow lot, there is no other way to achieve a harmonious addition to the house that is in character with the neighborhood. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 12 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there will be no change to the existing side yard 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 is set way back from its property line with no impact to the larger neighborhood. 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. 13 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 9 - Case 3242 - Jawad Metni and Mona Iskander - 89 W Brookside Drive There was no one present on behalf of the applicant. The matter was adjourned. MINUTES The Board discussed the draft minutes of May and June. Motion: To approve the draft minutes of May 26, 2021 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: to Approve the draft minutes of June 16, 2021 with technical corrections Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Arthur Wexler Action: Unanimously approved ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45PM. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 14