Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_09_21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD IN THE COURT ROOM ON SEPTMEBER 21, 2021 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Vice Chair, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller, Alternate Absent: Seth Bronheim, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel, Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Francine M. Brill, Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM. Ms. Brill confirmed all applications were duly noticed. Application # 1 —Case #3244 - Nestor Kyristsis - 26 Plymouth Road - Public Hearing - continued Mr. Kyritsis returned and addressed the board to legalize his HVAC system because it is too close to the property line. He entered two letters into the record marked Exhibit 1 and 2. Mr. Polcari stated that there have been no complaints and 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 RESOLUTION 26 Plymouth 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 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Nestor Kyritsis (the"Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an HVAC system on the premises located at 26 Plymouth Road, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 10, Lot 622; and 1 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning condenser unit as installed in the front yard is 23.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1); the AC duct work is 26.6 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), the AC in the side yard setback is 3.9 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a), the AC duct work is 4.8 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b), the combined side yard setback is 10.3 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,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 ductwork and compressors are small and unobtrusive and nothing is visible from the street because house is raised up above grade. 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 and, given the pre-existing nonconformity, there is no way to avoid a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small, 2 unobtrusive and typical for the neighborhood. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the unit has a relatively small footprint and adds negligible bulk to the property. 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. 3 Application # 2 —Case #3247 - Guilherme Ribenboim - 14 Fairway Drive - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Ms. Brill stated that this was duly noticed. Dan Sherman, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request a swimming pool in the front yard on a lot with two front yards. Mr. Wexler stated that this is a unique situation because there is no other option. Mr. Polcari stated that the Town Code allows pools only in rear yards. Mr. Sherman entered into the record a photo of neighboring houses with swimming pools, it was received and marked Exhibit 1. The Board discussed the proposed pool. Public Comments Paul Limberg from across the street stated that the proposed pool will create a lot of noise during construction and the pool will negatively impact his life and property value because there is not enough screening. He entered into the record photos, which were received and marked Exhibit 2. Jacob Levitt, Mamaroneck Sustainability Committee, stated that they want to protect trees, because their removal will change the skyline, creating wide-open spaces. He stated that trees filter water, reduce air pollution and produce oxygen. Arlene Novich, also from the Sustainability Committee, stated that they wish to preserve and restore the tree canopy and asked the Board to request the plan be revised to preserve the trees. Mr. Sacks stated that the trees behind the house could not be seen and questioned how their removal will impact the neighborhood. He added that the protection of trees should be taken up with the Town Board, as the Zoning Board has a specific purview. Mr. Polcari stated that an application for tree removal has not been applied for yet, because it comes after a variance is issued. Mr. Ribenboim, stated that one tree where the pool is to be located is dead and the other is so close to the proposed pool location that must be removed. He further stated that he has already planted six new trees and intends to plant more. He further stated that a large 40-inch oak will not be removed. 4 Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance with conditions. Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 14 Fairway Drive, 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, Guilherme Ribenboim (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a new inground pool and patio additions on the premises located at 14 Fairway Drive, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 33, Lot 1007; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The swimming pool as proposed in the front yard is not permitted as required pursuant to Section 192-5A.(1)(c) for a building in an R-20 one District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); an 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 proposed location is a front yard because it has street frontage but it serves as rear yard. 5 In addition, there are many other houses on Fairway with pools opposite Prince Willow and the property is well screened . 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 "front yard" functions as a rear yard and no other location would be practical. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is usual, customary and typical in this neighborhood and the subject property is very large and meets all other dimensional requirements. 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 tree removal will be a separate application and review process and erosion will be reviewed by the building department. 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. 6 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. All construction vehicles must enter from Fairway Drive, not from Prince William Lane. 8. L-1 Plans dated 8/3/21 must be corrected to show which trees will be removed. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 3 —Case 33248 - Marcin and Megan Makowiecki - 48 Marbourne Drive - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Ms. Brill stated that this was duly noticed. Fouad Pouyafar, from Pristine Construction addressed the Board, stating that the homeowners are seeking to install generator. The Board discussed the proposed location on this flag lot. Mr. Pouyafar submitted a letter from the most impacted neighbor, which was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance with conditions. Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 48 Marbourne Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 7 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, Marcin and Megan Makowiecki (the "Applicant") requested a variance for to install a 24kw stand by generator on the premises located at 48 Marbourne Drive, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 30, Lot 350.2; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The generator has a side yard of 9.6 feet where 15 feet is required pursuant to 240-35B(2)(a) 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 generator will be tucked into the left side of the property and well screened by trees between 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 applicant explored alternative options and the proposed location is aesthetically hidden and not near windows. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 8 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is in the side yard next to two existing air conditioning units and will be exercised only 10 minutes weekly until needed during a power outage. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. i. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it sits quiet most of the time and is not visible and it doesn't block any light or create additional runoff. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 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. 9 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of August 30, 2021. Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved NEW BUSINESS Ms. Katz and the Board discussed trees. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40PM Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 10