Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_03_24 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 MARCH 24, 2021 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky, Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Absent: Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller (Alternate) Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:20 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, and 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. Ms. Brill called the roll and the Chair announced that there was a quorum present (via ZOOM). In response to a question from Ms. Hochman, Ms. Brill stated that all applications on the agenda for public hearing have been duly noticed. Application # 1 - Case No. 3205—Gandhar Savur—75 Myrtle Blvd. —Public Hearing Gandhar Savur, the owner, was present via ZOOM. Mr. Polcari stated that he had earlier approved the plan and mistakenly missed that the detached garage is now attached and part of the structure and, therefore, needs a variance. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Savur stated that the garage is in the same location only it is now sharing a wall with the structure and that the roof is now flat rather than pitched. He noted that two of his neighbors submitted letters in favor of the application. The Board discussed the requested variance. 1 Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. He further stated that there were no emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. 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 75 Myrtle Blvd., 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, Gandhar Savur (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as-built garage on the premises located at 75 Myrtle Blvd., Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 24 Lot 383; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The rebuilt garage in the side yard is 1.4 feet where 8 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-39B(2) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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 garage 2 has been rebuilt in the same likeness and within the existing footprint of the prior garage, which was original to the house. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the garage was preexisting nonconforming so any change would require a variance and the garage as rebuilt is safer and cleaner than the prior structure. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because the resulting side yard is 1.4 feet instead of 8 feet, but given that the earlier nonconforming structure was in place for 80+ years and that it has been rebuilt in the same likeness and footprint and that the other side yard setback is much larger, the overall impact is not substantial. 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 new garage is no taller or larger than the prior structure. 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 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #3 —Case No. 3208—APPLE Bank— 1289 Boston Post Road—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved George Boyle, the applicant's architect, was present via ZOOM. Mr. Boyle stated that the applicant seeks approval for internally illuminated signs. He further stated that the applicant appeared before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on March 4, 2021 and that on March 5, 2020 the BAR issued a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals recommending approval and stating that the proposal is aesthetically acceptable. The Board discussed the placement of the signs and the hours of illumination. Mr. Polcari explained the requirements for safety lighting. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. There were no comments. He further stated that there were no emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. 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 Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION APPLE Bank— 1289 Boston Post Road Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, APPLE Bank (the "Applicant") requested a variance for illuminated signs on the 4 premises located at 1289 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 12 Lot 489; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The internally illuminated signs as proposed are not permitted, pursuant to Section 175-12 C; no signs are permitted on the side wall of a structure, pursuant to Section 175-11 B, in a B-R 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 previous business also had illuminated signs and the proposed placement and graphics are better designed than the prior signs. In addition, the applicant is proposing attractive landscaping. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because given the location on Boston Post Road and the width of the street and the relationship of the front facade to the curb line, these signs are appropriately placed and provide necessary and appropriate illumination. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 5 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the signs are in appropriate scale with the building and the property, and the previous occupant had illuminated signs which generated no complaints. 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 Boston Post Road is a commercial road, most of the signs face a shopping center which also has illuminated signage and the applicant's signs will not be visible to residences. 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. 6 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #4 —Case No. 3209—Vinay Sharma —39 Holly Place—Public Hearing Harish Peri was present via ZOOM. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Pen stated that the applicant requests one Mitsubishi air conditioning condenser unit. The Board discussed the placement of the unit and Mr. Marsh stated that it is concealed by a wall and shrubbery. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. There were no comments. He further stated that there were no emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. 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 Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 29 Holly Place, 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, Vinay Sharma (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 29 Holly Place in the Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 23 Lot 211; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: To legalize an air conditioning condenser unit Section 2 Block 23 Parcel 211 The condensing unit in the side yard is 4.8 feet where 10 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 37B(3)(a); a rear yard of 12.1 feet where 25 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-37B(3); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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 is quiet, concealed and located a considerable distance from nearest neighbor and has been in this location for a number of years without complaint. 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 an unusual shape and the house is placed back in the corner and the proposed location is the most efficient for operation of the unit. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small, quiet and concealed. 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 quiet and will not add bulk or generate 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. 8 C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #5 —Case No. 3210—Megan Zaumeyer— 108 Murray Avenue—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Megan Zaumeyer, the owner and Timothy Lener, the applicant's architect, were present via ZOOM. Mr. Lener shared his screen. He stated that this is a corner nonconforming lot and the applicant requests a front yard stair case to allow safe and convenient access to their rear yard. The Board discussed the proposed action. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. There were no comments. He further stated that there were no emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 9 Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 108 Holly Place, 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, Megan Zaumeyer (the "Applicant") requested a variance to add front steps on the premises located at 108 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 19 Lot 204; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed steps in the front yard will be 6.5 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 38B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,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 steps blend well with the house,will add no new bulk and the design is consistent with nearby houses. 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 steps are necessary to provide a safe path to the backyard and any other location would also require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 1. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the new steps will not be visible to neighbors and they are well designed to be compatible with the look 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 project is well designed and the steps will add no bulk to the existing structure. 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. 11 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #6 - Case# 3211 -Jef& Mellissa Benbanaste - 641 Forest Ave. - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jef Benbanaste, the owner, was present via ZOOM. Mr. Benbanaste stated that he is requesting a variance for an air conditioning condenser unit next to his existing unit. The new unit will be less than eight feet from the property line. His property is pie shaped. The unit will be next to the neighbor's detached garage. The Board questioned the precise measurement, stating that an as built survey will be required. Mr. Wexler observed that the shape of the property makes the placement difficult and the proposed location appears to be the most appropriate location. He further suggested that the variance be for 7 feet but asked that the unit be placed as far from the property line as possible. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. There were no comments. He further stated that there were no emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. 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 641 Forest 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, Jef and Melissa Benbanaste (the "Applicant") requested a variance for requesting installation of an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 641 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15 Lot 131; and 12 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The condensing unit as proposed in the side yard will be 8 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-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, because the applicant's survey was hand drawn, the Board was concerned that the measurements may not be accurate and suggested that the applicant be given an extra foot with the unit to be located as close to the house and as far from the property line as possible; 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 will be placed alongside an existing condensing unit servicing first floor, in the side yard, below street level and blocked by neighbor's garage and the utility side of their driveway and it is barely visible from the street or sidewalk. 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 based on the shape of the property and the location of the house on the property, the proposed location, adjacent to the existing unit, is the most logical place to locate a second unit. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 13 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is barely visible from the street and well concealed by the neighbor's garage. 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 small and quiet and not visible or audible from the street or neighbor's house. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. a. As required by the Board, the unit shall be placed as close to the house and as far from the property line as possible, resulting in a side yard no narrower than seven feet. 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. 14 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 7 — Case No. 3212 — Danko Panchich and Caroline Teuscher - 60 Carleon Avenue—Public Hearing Susan Nolan, the applicant's landscape architect, and the owners were present via ZOOM. Ms. Nolan stated the applicants wish to widen a portion of their driveway from 10 feet to 18 feet, and change the front walkway to the street rather than through the driveway. The lot coverage is currently 36.5% and the proposed action would increase lot coverage to 39%. Ms. Nolan stated that the owners have to back down the driveway to enter the garage under the rear of the house. The Board discussed the request and whether there was a way to decrease the impervious area. Drainage was discussed. Ms. Nolan stated the Cultec units can capture stormwater from 1000 square feet of impervious area, which is much more than the proposed 417 square feet. The Board conducted a nonbinding straw poll, indicating their support for the application. Mr. Polcari made an announcement inviting members of the public to comment. There were no comments. He further stated that there were no emails received or virtual hands raised concerning this matter. 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 Robin Nichinsky Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 60 Carleon Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Robin Nichinsky,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Danko Panchich and Caroline Teuscher(the "Applicant") requested a variance for a driveway expansion and walkways on the premises located at 60 Carleon Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 4 Lot 271; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The driveway and walkways as proposed will have 39% lot coverage (3396 sq. ft.) where 35% is permitted (3045.18 sq. ft.) pursuant to Section 240-36F; 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 15 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,the Board expressed concern about the amount of impervious lot coverage and asked the Applicant to create a drainage system that would retain an amount of runoff in excess of what would otherwise be required; 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 adds no bulk to the house and it will increase the functionality of both the garage and driveway and add a gracious walkway to the front door. 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 the minimum increase in impervious surface to allow the homeowner to park a car in the driveway and still pass with another car. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because it will result in lot coverage 4% over required maximum of 35% and 3% over existing conditions, but that this factor is not determinative because no bulk will be added to the property and the applicant agreed to construct a larger drainage system. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 16 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the applicant agreed to increase capture and retain stormwater resulting in increased storage of runoff, in excess of the amount of impervious surface added 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. 7. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, Applicant shall submit plans showing increased retention of water by using a calculation of impervious surface two times more than what is required. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. 17 MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of February 24, 2021 with technical corrections. Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Arthur Wexler Action: Approved Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Abstain: Seth Bronheim ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 PM. Minutes Prepared by Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 18