Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_01_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD REMOTELY via ZOOM ON JANUARY 27, 2021 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller (Alternate), Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison (arrived late) Absent: Irene O'Neill CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:19 P.M. Ms. Hochman stated that tonight's meeting has been convened in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order 202.1, as extended, which suspends certain provisions of the Open Meetings Law to allow municipal boards to convene meetings via videoconferencing. She asked the Zoning Board Secretary to confirm that tonight's meeting had been duly noticed. Ms. Brill so confirmed. Ms. Hochman further stated that members of the public received notice on how to view and participate in tonight's public hearings in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order 202.15, as extended, she stated that this meeting is being broadcast live on LMC-TV (channel 35 on FIOS; channel 76 on Optimum) and online at LMCTV.org., and that a transcript will be provided at a later date. Ms. Brill called the roll and the Chair announced that there was a quorum present (via ZOOM). Application #1 - Case #3193 -Josh Goldstein & Heather Garrett - 1 Colonial Ln - Public Hearing Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved unanimously Bruce Reinheimer, the applicant's landscape architect, and Mr. Goldstein were present via ZOOM. Mr. Reinheimer stated that they request a variance for a pool in the side yard in this irregular oversized lot complicated site. The Board discussed environmental impacts, placement of the pool equipment and the amount of ledge rock. Mr. Sacks stated that the proposed placement of the pool would not be seen by the adjoining neighbors. 1 Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, second by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 1 Colonial Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS, Josh Goldstein and Heather Garrett (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a swimming pool on the premises located at 1 Colonial Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 20, Lot 107; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The pool in the side yard as proposed is not permitted,pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(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-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. 2 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 pool will be obscured from neighboring houses. It is in a side yard which functions as a rear yard and well screened and, due to irregularly-shaped footprint of the lot and house, the proposed location is reasonable. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the proposed location is adjacent to existing usable outdoor space on the property and any other location would push the pool further into the rear yard which is limited by exposed ledge rock. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it extends only 16 feet into the side yard which, given the overall size of the property, is 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 the applicant will install underground Cultec chambers to capture runoff from new impervious surface and because the location of the pool minimizes the amount of ledge rock that will need to be excavated. 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: 3 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #2 - Case# 3196 -Yazdi & Allison Kapadia - 63 Harrison Drive - Public Hearing Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Kapadia was present via ZOOM. He stated that the AC unit was already installed when they purchased the house and was told the unit was there since 2007. He further stated that placement in the side yard would negatively impact his neighbor. Mr. Sacks asked if there have been any complaints from neighbors and Mr. Polcari responded no. Mr. Wexler stated that the current placement is the least impactful. The Dba rating was discussed. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. 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 Robin Nichinsky, second by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved 4 RESOLUTION 63 Harrison Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS, Yazdi and Allison Kapadia(the"Applicant") requested a variance to legalize an HVAC condenser unit on the premises located at 63 Harrison Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501, Lot 311; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning condenser unit in the front yard is 27.6 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)(a); 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 unit is well screened by shrubbery and has been in the same location without complaint since around 2006 (before the applicant moved into the house). ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 5 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 existing location is the most logical place on this corner lot and it would be prohibitively expensive to move with no benefit. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it imposes a minimal encroachment into the required front yard. 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 is not visible from the street and does not negatively impact neighbors. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 3 —Case #3298 —Jake Cutler—7 Edgewater Place—Public Hearing Mr. Cutler was present via ZOOM. Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Sacks stated that he wanted to clarify that this is a legalization. Mr. Cutler stated that he replaced an existing six-foot fence with a five-foot solid fence with a one- foot topper. Mr. Marsh stated that all but two panels are screened by the neighbor's garage. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Robin Nichinsky, second by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 7 Edgewater Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS, Jake Cutler (the "Applicant") requested a variance to replace an existing fence on the premises located at 7 Edgewater Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505, Lot 180; and 7 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence in the side yard as proposed will be 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240- 52A; 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 fence is behind the house and barely visible due to a structure in the neighbor's yard. In addition, the fence is finished on both sides and provides privacy to both the applicant and the adjacent property owner. 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 top one foot of the fence is decorative and would need to be removed or replaced, which would not benefit anyone. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the fence height is only six feet where five feet is permitted. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 8 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it increases privacy and to the extent that its visible, it is a nice-looking fence. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #3199 - Case #3199 - Imran Ahmed & Irmak Ince - 721 Forest Ave—Public Hearing Mr. Ahmed was present via ZOOM. Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller 9 Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Ahmed stated that they request a variance for two existing AC units that were present when they purchased the house. The units were there since 2010. One unit requires a 9-inch variance and the other a 17-inch variance. A letter of support from the most affected neighbor is part of the file. Mr. Sacks stated that he viewed the site and observed that the neighbor has AC units and a generator facing the applicant's property. Mr. Sacks asked whether there have been any complaints from neighbors and Mr. Polcari responded no. Ms. Nichinsky thanked the applicant for a comprehensive packet and Mr. Ahmed thanked Mr. Polcari and Ms. Brill for their help. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, second by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 721 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS, Jake Cutler (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of 2 HVAC condenser units on the premises located at 721 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220, Lot 420; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The 1 unit in the side yard is 8.6 feet where 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); the other unit is 9.1 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and 10 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 unit has existed since at least 2010 without complaint and it sits well-screened in an alcove in the applicant's side yard near the rear yard and adjacent to the neighbor's HVAC units and generator. 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 it is already in the best practical location and relocation would be cost prohibitive. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units are small in volume with a small footprint, low Dba and minimal encroachment into the required yard. 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 a small footprint, low Dba and adds no bulk. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 11 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #5 - Case #3200 - Gregory & Jennifer Nason—21 Mohegan Rd—Public Hearing Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Jennifer Nason were present via ZOOM. Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved Ms. Lewis stated that they request a variance for a front porch and shared her screen to explain the plan. Mr. Marsh stated that the porch does not protrude further than the neighbors. as shown on A1.2. 12 Mr. Sacks stated that he found the mark outs helpful and could see that the front of the porch will sit behind the front of the neighboring house. Mr. Wexler stated that the porch enhances the house. Four letters in favor of the proposal from neighbors are part of the record. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, second by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 21 Mohegan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS, Gregory and Jennifer Nason (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front porch addition on the premises located at 21 Mohegan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208 Lot 515; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front porch as proposed will be 29.5 feet where 40 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); the steps as proposed will be 28.6 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(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-15 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 13 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 well designed to complement the existing house and includes elements that are represented in the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the house will still be slightly behind the neighboring house to the left and there is a large amount of property separating the property from the neighbor to the right and a large right-of-way to make the distance to the street even larger. 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 entire house is already sitting inside the front yard setback so anything added to the front of the house would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds only 412 square feet which is considered minimal in light of the relationship to surrounding properties and the street and also because it is consistent with the existing character of the house. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there are no visual impacts to lines of sight. 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. 14 B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #6—Case #3201 — Stephen Rabinowitz—212 Hommocks Road—Public Hearing Ms. Nichinsky stated that she knows the applicant but can be impartial. Paul Sheinberg, Architect and Stephen Rabinowitz were present via ZOOM. Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Sheinberg stated that they propose a second-floor addition on a nonconforming house, on a nonconforming lot. He further stated that the addition is in keeping with the scale of the house. The Board discussed the vegetation between the properties and Mr. Wexler stated that it is a nice integrated addition. 15 Mr. Rabinowitz stated that he spoke to his neighbors about the addition. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. 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 Robin Nichinsky, second by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 212 Hommocks Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS, Stephen Rabinowitz (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 212 Hommocks Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 416, Lot 75; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor in the side yard as proposed will be18.5 feet where 35 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-33B(2); for a residence in an R-50 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. 16 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 there will be no increase in the footprint and it is in scale and consistent with the existing house and nearby 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 existing house is already nonconforming so any addition would require a variance and the proposal is reasonable for the reasons above stated. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds only 433 square feet to the house and does not increase the encroachment into the setback because it is on top of an existing structure. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it adds no impervious surface and the addition does not extend past the main ridge of the house so it will not negatively impact neighbors. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 17 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 7 - Case #3202 - Jay & Katherine Quesnville - 21 Copley Rd—Public Hearing Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Chris Longero were present via ZOOM. Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Longero shared his screen and explained the proposal to repair and enlarge an existing nonconforming deck. He further stated that this property has three street frontages and that the addition to the deck will be screened by plantings Mr. Marsh stated that it makes sense to square off the corner of the deck. Mr. Sacks asked the size of the requested addition, Mr. Longero responded 16 square feet. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, second by Stephen Marsh. Action: Unanimously Approved 18 RESOLUTION 21 Copley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS,Jay and Katherine Quesnville(the"Applicant")requested a variance for a deck addition on the premises located at 21 Copley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Lot 819; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck and stairs in the front yard as proposed will be 18.1 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-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 it squares out a corner of the existing deck that has existed without complaint since 1999. In addition, the slightly enlarged deck is consistent with the character of the existing house and nearby houses and it is well-screened and a substantial distance from the street, which distance is increased because of the right-of-way. 19 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 there is no other way to square out the deck. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds only 16 square feet to an exterior deck just above grade level, adds no bulk and will make the deck look more compatible with the house. 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 increasing the deck will have no impact on light, air or stormwater. 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. 20 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #8 - Case #3203 -Andrea & Tim O'Neill - 261 Rockingstone Ave -Public Hearing James Fleming, the applicant's architect, and Andrea and Tim O'Neill were present via ZOOM. Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Fleming stated the were before the Board a year ago for the front deck and are here tonight to request a second story addition. He shared his screen and explained the plan. Mr. O'Neill stated that the addition will give them a master bedroom on the second floor and open up space on the first. Mr. Sacks stated the net effect on lot coverage (72 square feet) is minimal. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no additional emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, second by Robin Nichinsky. Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 261 Rockingstone Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Robin Nichinsky, Carol Miller Nays: None WHEREAS, Andrea and Tim O'Neill (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second story 21 addition on the premises located at 261 Rockingstone Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115, Lot 104; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second story addition in the front yard as proposed will be 20 feet where 30 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7-5 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, 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 will sit within the footprint of the existing house, is consistent with the architectural style of the house, sits on a large property with a large right-of-way on Forest Avenue (a double striped and wide road) so it is considerably distant from the property across the street and also a considerable distance from adjacent property. 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 constraints of the existing house make many rooms unusable and any improvement would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 22 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the triangle that violates setback is only 72 square feet which is de minimis in light of the overall size of property. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the addition will not exceed the height of the existing roofline so will not create additional shadows and will not otherwise impact light, air or 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. 23 MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of December 16, 2020 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 24