Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_08_30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK AUGUST 30, 2021 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky Absent: Seth Bronheim, Carol Miller Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison, Meredith Robson, Town Administrator Mr. Wexler stated that Application No. 8, 26 Plymouth Avenue, is adjourned because there was no date on the sign. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE NO. 3231 —Jeffery and Alexander Fisher - 87 Griffen Avenue—Public Hearing Continued Julianna Alzate of Sean Jancski Landscaping Design Architects presented, stating that they corrected the plan to include the measurements to the stairs. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 87 Griffen Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jeffery and Alexander Fischer (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as built patio, and stairs on the premises located at 87 Griffen Avenue, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 5, Lot 992; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as built patio in the rear yard is 39.5 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 1 35B(3), the as-built patio stairs are 35.8 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 35B(3); 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 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 minor encroachment is not visible from the street or neighboring properties. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the Board deemed it unreasonable to rebuild the patio for a 1/2 foot encroachment that does not impact the neighboring properties or the environment. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment is only 1/2 foot into a 40-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 it generates no additional runoff, adds no bulk or massing, will not block light nor change anyone's perception of the backyard. 2 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. APPLICATION NO. 2 —Case No. 3235—Gjoko Shkrelli— 176 Myrtle Blvd. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved Donald S. Mazin Esq., the applicant's attorney, stated that they submitted plans for a second- floor apartment above the existing salon for a two-bedroom apartment in this B-R zone. He stated that the owner has six parking permits in Lot B and there is plenty of metered parking in the area. He entered into the record Local Law 2 -2012, Exhibit 1, two photos, Exhibit 2 and 3, 3 and a resolution dated April 1998, Exhibit 4. He further stated that the owners of the Coughlin building have no objection to the proposal. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Wexler asked when the variance was granted for the front of the building, was there parking? Mr. Mazin stated that the resolution required that the owner apply for three off-street parking permits. Ms. Hochman stated that the prior resolution restricts the height of the building. Mr. Gemmola, the architect, explained the plans and photos. Mr. Sacks stated that the roof over the front is in the setback and non-conforming and the application is wrong. Mr. Polcari stated that even a terrace in that area would require a variance. Mr. Mazin stated that they will supply a new, corrected application and plans. Mr. Wexler questioned whether the staircase requires access through the salon. Nico Shkrelli, the owner/applicant's son, stated that the staircase is separate from the salon. Gjoko Shkrelli, the owner/applicant, stated that at the time of the 1998 resolution there was no other way but to use the parking meters, as there were no spaces to purchase a permit. Public Comments: John Holwits, of 2 Washington Square, stated that he has concerns about elevation whether the applicant will comply with required conditions. The matter was adjourned to September 21, 2021. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE No. 3238 —Elizabeth Crocker and Peter Ellingboe - 658 Forest Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jim Fleming, the applicant's architect, and Lyn Peterson of motif-designs were present. Mr. Fleming stated that the play set was observed to be too close to the property line and now requires a variance. The Board discussed the request. 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 4 RESOLUTION 658 Forest Avenue, 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 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Elizabeth Crocker and Peter Ellingboe (the "Applicant") requested a variance to install a children's play apparatus on the premises located at 658 Forest Avenue Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 10, Lot 459; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The children's play apparatus in the side yard will be 3.5 feet where 5 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(c); a rear yard will be 3.2 feet where 5 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-38B(3)(c); 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 it is not visible from the street and it is well screened from neighboring properites. 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 property is 5 burdened by two front yards and the applicant has demonstrated that the present location has the least impact on neighborhood and any other location would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because playsets are abundant in the Town and its location has no impact on neighboring properties as evidenced by letters of support submitted by both 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 it has not impact on runoff, drainage, air or light. 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. 6 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. APPLICATION NO. 4 —Case No. 3239 -Robert and Elizabeth Ryan—759 Forest Avenue— Public Hearing Continued Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained the application to expand the existing deck. She added that last month it was found that since the deck is attached to the house, a combined yard variance is also needed. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 759 Forest 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 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Robert and Elizabeth Ryan (the "Applicant") requested a variance to expand a deck on the premises located at 759 Forest Avenue, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 20, Lot 336; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck as proposed will have 44.3% lot coverage where 35% is permissible as required pursuant to Section 240-37 F; the combined side yards are 19.6 where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B (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-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 7 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 it will be replacement of a ground level deck that will be elevated but less visible from the street and the design is consistent with the house and 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 footprint of the house and the location of the kitchen door makes this the best location and there is no viable alternative. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the new deck will be smaller than the current platform and it will intrude less into the required side yard setback and the elevation will visually enhance the appearance of the house and make it more practicable for the homeowners. 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 deck will allow water to run through it and adds no bulk or mass to 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. 8 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. APPLICATION NO. 5 —Case no. - 3240—Rrezarta and Dastid Hoti—5 Winthrop Avenue - Public Hearing Continued Ms. Hoti stated that they are trying to bring the fence into compliance. She submitted two letters from her neighbors in favor of the fence, which were entered into the record as Exhibits 1 and 2. The Board discussed the rock wall and fence. Ms. Hoti explained that the exposed rock was leveled because the yard was not safe for children to play, and the fencing is necessary because the properties are on a slope Mr. Sacks stated that each house on the block steps down from Boston Post Road and, therefore, there is a reason for the fence. He further stated that the abutting neighbor mitigated the view of the fence with arborvitaes. The Board discussed the unique situation. There were no public questions or comments. 9 Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 5 Winthrop Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Rrez and Dasted Hoti (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a fence on the premises located at 5 Winthrop Avenue, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 10, Lot 247; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence as built is 8.6 feet where 5 feet is permissible as required pursuant to Section 240-52 for a building in an R-6 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, given the unique topographical changes from property to property on this street the fence is well balanced, blends with existing conditions and consistent with adjacent properties with similar fences. 10 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 surrounding built and natural environment consisting of stone outcropping and neighboring fencing makes this the only safe and viable and compatible solution. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the existing topography and surrounding fences make the height appear insubstantial. 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 is screened by tall trees and the width of the fence has no impact on water, regardless of its height, and the increased height will be safer for children and adults. 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. 11 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. APPLICATION No. 6 - CASE NO. 3242 - Jawad Metni and Mona Iskander - 89 W Brookside Drive Motion: to open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Annie Mennis, the applicant's architect, explained that the house was built in 1935 with a narrow driveway and stairs with a very odd way to enter the house. She further stated that they are requesting a variance to widen the driveway with a larger landing and a wooden pergola and the front door will remain as is. The Board discussed the variance request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 89 West Brookside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jawad Metni and Mona Iskander(the "Applicant") requested a variance for for front steps and landing on the premises located at 89 West Brookside Drive, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 19, Lot 423; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The 12 proposed steps and landing will be 21.25 feet where 30 feet is permissible as required 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,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 aesthetic changes will improve the appearance of the house by adding architectural details, transitioning the entrance to make it easier to enter and the design is attractive and similar to other nearby 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 the design takes advantage of the existing driveway grade, with a minimum number of steps to enter the house and extends minimally into the front yard setback. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the steps and platform are low and will not be visible from the street or from neighboring properties. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 13 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the stairs serve will enable people to more graciously and safely enter the house and will not add bulk or massing to the house and will not add runoff or impact light and will help to mitigate a dangerous condition. 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. APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE NO. 3243 - Kim and Andrew Hilfiger - 70 Hickory Grove Drive West Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 14 Jim Fleming, the applicant's architect stated that the applicant purchased the house as is, not realizing that there was no permit for the garage to be used as a family room. Mr. Polcari stated that someone drew what was existing but no permit was ever issued and this came to light during a title search. He further stated that if the family room were still used as a garage, it would not require a variance. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 70 Hickory Grove Drive West, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky , seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Kim and Andrew (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as-built garage conversion to family room on the premises located at 70 Hickory Grove Drive West, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 675; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The garage alteration in the side yard is 6.55 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(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-6 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 15 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 pre- existing, nonconforming garage was original to the house and converting the space to a family room does not impact the neighborhood and has not generated any complaints 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. 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 bulk of the house is not changing and converting it back into a garage would not be reasonable or desirable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment is only 1.5 feet which is considered minimal to a property of this size and the proposed change in use from a garage to a family room adds no bulk. 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 this is preexisting nonconforming with respect to the bulk and changing the use has no physical impact. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because the nonconforming garage is original to the house and prior homeowners converted the space to a family room and it was only recently determined by a title company that legalization is required. 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. 16 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. APPLICATION NO. 9 —Case No. 3245 - Andrew and Katrina Sherriff—87 Valley Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Andrew Spatz, the applicant's attorney, and Joe Melegrano, the contractor, were present. Mr. Spatz stated that there is no change in footprint only a second floor addition and he submitted five letters from neighbors in support of the project, marked Exhibit 1. He further stated that the side yard setback is consistent with other residences in the area and the reason for the request is to raise the ceiling height, because the owner cannot stand in that area. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Sacks stated that the new roof line will not be visible from the street. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 17 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 87 Valley Road, 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 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Andrew and Katrina Sherriff(the "Applicant") requested a variance for for a second floor addition on the premises located at 87 Valley Road, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 14, Lot 103; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor as proposed in the side yard will be 5.9 feet 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,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 second- floor expansion is within the existing footprint, consistent with the character of the neighborhood and is not visible from the street and only barely visible to neighbors. 18 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 small size of lot, and changes in zoning laws over time, there is no other way to add space to allow the homeowner to stand up in the room, and the existing footprint is not being expanded. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the eaves will be reduced, the addition is not visible, and sits on top of existing first floor 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 does not expand the existing footprint so no additional water runoff and only a small amount of bulk will be added so virtually no impact on light or other environmental conditions. 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. 19 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. APPLICATION NO. 10 —Case No. 3246—Dara Astmann—86 Edgewood Avenue Paudie Hanley, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board. He stated that they are here for an as-built patio. He presented a survey, which was marked Exhibit 1, showing the original patio and the garage that was removed. The Board discussed the placement of the patio Mr. Polcari stated that the 2017 permit was to remove the garage and patio and rock but not to extend the patio in question. Public comments: Jason Yunger, 88 Edgewood Avenue, stated that he is impacted because the patio abuts his property causing a privacy issue. He further stated that he was forced to remove his garden and put in plants for screening for privacy. He further stated that he did not realize that the patio extension was not permitted until he received notice for the variance. He submitted a letter into the record, marked Exhibit 2. Mr. Sacks asked when was the patio was built and Mr. Hanley responded that it was built right after the house renovation and garage demolition was finished. Mr. Wexler asked why the applicant was not present and Mr. Yunger stated that the house was sold and they are moving today. Mr. Wexler suggested an adjournment so that the owners could be present. Mr. Polcari stated that if the patio is modified a new survey will be required. The matter was adjourned to September 21. MINUTES The minutes of July 28, 2021 were discussed. Motion: To approve the minutes of July 28, 2021 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved Vote: Yes Arthur Wexler. Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks 20 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 P.M. 21