Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_04_28 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 APRIL 28, 2021 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller (Alternate), Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Absent: Robin Nichinsky 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 7:02 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). MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes of March 24, 2021 with technical corrections. Moved by, Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Robin Nichinsky Abstain: Jonathan Sacks, Seth Bronheim The applications were taken out of order. Application # 2 —Case No. 3213 —Patrick Haggerty— 14 Harmony Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 1 Action: Unanimously approved James Fleming, the applicant's architect was present via ZOOM. Mr. Fleming stated that the as built survey shows the deck to be nonconforming. The Board discussed the requested variances with the Building Inspector and concluded that the requested combined side was not necessary. The Board discussed the requested variance. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller RESOLUTION 14 Harmony Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Patrick Haggerty (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as built deck on the premises located at 14 Harmony Drive Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 9 Lot 409; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck in the side yard as built is 7.4 feet where 8 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(a); the combined side yard are 16.4 feet where 18 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, this Board, in consultation with the Building Inspector determined that since the rear yard deck is narrower than the house and does not make the property any more nonconforming, it does not violate the combined yard setbacks; WHEREAS, the Building Inspector stated that required side yard should be removed from the Notice of Disapproval; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 2 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 this deck replaced an existing deck and protrudes only about one foot more into the side yard than the previous deck and the additional foot closer to the property line will have no impact since the deck sits inside the footprint of 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 although the deck could be rebuilt at a smaller footprint, it would be a significant expense to do so with no discernable benefit to neighbors. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because only 10 square feet of the deck protrudes into the required side yard and it is within the existing footprint of the house and adds no bulk. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the deck does not exceed the footprint of the house and will not generate any runoff. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 3 The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 1 - Case No. 3207—Alison and Christopher Renson— 1088 Palmer Avenue— Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Christopher Renson, the owner, was present via ZOOM. Mr. Renson stated his request to legalize an existing Mitsubishi air-conditioning unit on the side of his house. Mr. Polcari stated that when Elkan Park was built the four attached houses were considered one therefore side yard variances are necessary. 4 Mr. Sacks stated that the units are screened and not visible from the street or the nearby school. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 1088 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Alison and Christopher Renson (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an air conditioning condenser on the premises located at 1088 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 7, Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The installed AC unit in the side yard is 13.2 feet where 25 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240- 42B(2)(a); the combined side yards are 13.2 where 60 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 42B(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-A 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. 5 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 a quiet unit and located a significant distance from any other structure and it 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 the other side of the house abuts the adjacent structure and the proposed placement is the least obtrusive location. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small, quiet and barely visible from the road or adjacent properties. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is preexisting,quiet and generates no bulk or visual impact. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 6 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application # 3 - Case No. 3214—David and Janine Wickland—48 Lookout Circle—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Janine Wickland, the owner, and Joseph Guglielmo, the applicant's architect were present via ZOOM. Mr. Guglielmo stated the request to enclose a five-square foot nonconforming corner of the existing screened porch. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 48 Lookout Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. 7 WHEREAS, David and Janine Wicklund (the "Applicant") requested a variance to enclose an existing screened porch on the premises located at 48 Lookout Circle, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 28, Lot 365; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed porch enclosure in the side yard is 8.38 feet where 10 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 el. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposal is to enclose an existing screened porch, which is 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 it is preexisting nonconforming and any change to the porch would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it encroaches only five square feet into the side yard setback 8 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 will be no change to the bulk or footprint of the house. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 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. 9 Application # 4 - Case No. 3215—CVS Pharmacy— 1330 Boston Post Road—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jim Polinsky, from Signs Inc., on behalf of the applicant, was present via ZOOM. Mr. Polinsky stated that he already appeared before the Board of Architectural Review, which approved the proposal. He further explained that when the store reopened the one replacement light was installed and is internally illuminated. The applicant now requests adding a "Health Hub" sign, also internally illuminated. Hours of illumination were discussed. Mr. Polcari stated that the Town Code requires the lights to be turned off one hour after closing. The Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 1330 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, CVS Pharmacy (the "Applicant") requested a variance for internally illuminated wall signs on the premises located at 1330 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 10, Lot 463; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The internally illuminated signs as proposed is not permitted pursuant to Section 175-12C and 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 10 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 Fernwood shopping center already has illuminated signs and the proposal is consistent with what is already there. 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 of the signs and the property in relation to Boston Post Road, it is necessary for people coming to shopping center to see sign when it is dark. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the signs are either on or off and all the other signs facing Boston Post Road are illuminated at night. 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 amount of light given off is minimal, only enough to identify store, and it's the same as the other signs in the shopping center. 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. 11 B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. Application # 5 - Case No. 3216— Sarah and Jay Marson—20 Avon Road—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Liam Winters, Architect was present via ZOOM. Mr. Winters shared his screen and explained the request for a covered front entry and making the screened porch habitable. Photos and elevations were shown. The Board discussed the requested variances. Mr. Sacks stated that he estimates that 50% of homes in the surrounding area do not meet the required front yard setback, therefore the request would not be out of character. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 12 Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 20 Avon Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Sarah and Jay Marson (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front porch on the premises located at 20 Avon Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 6, Lot 434; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed front porch in the front yard will be 30.6 feet where 40 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); the existing side porch is 35.8 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 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 in line with nearby structures and , further, will architecturally enhance the house. 13 ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the front overhang is narrow and doesn't provide sufficient protection and cannot be expanded without a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because enclosing porch that already existed so no change to existing setbacks 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 only the steps encroach into the required yards and there will be no changes to runoff, light, air, etc. 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. 14 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 No. 3217—Jennifer Golden —2 Mardon Road—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Marsh stated that he is friends with the applicant but he has no interest in the outcome of this application and he can be impartial. Jennifer Golden and Josh Golden, the owners, were present via ZOOM. Ms. Golden stated the request to legalize existing basement stairs and an air conditioning unit that was there when they purchased the house. She further stated that the air-conditioning is screened and not visible from Cooper Lane, and the enclosure for the basement stairs is next to the neighbor's driveway. Mr. Sacks asked about the hand rail and Mr. Polcari stated that it is code compliant. The Board discussed the requested variances. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 2 Mardon Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carole Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jennifer Golden (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a central air 15 conditioning unit and stair well to basement on the premises located at 2 Mardon Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 38; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The condensing unit in the front yard (Mardon Road) is 28.7 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-39B(B)(1), the unit in the front yard (Cooper Lane) is 25.6 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), the existing covered basement entrance in the rear yard is 4.2 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3, the existing covered entrance is 5.8 feet where 25 is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-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 air conditioning unit is centered on the side of the house facing Cooper Rd and is located at the maximum possible distance from any other house; and the covered basement entrance in rear yard is preexisting and therefore will not change character of neighborhood and will shield the stairs, which will be more attractive, and the covered entrance into kitchen sliding doors is preexisting and consistent with the character of the house and the neighborhood. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 16 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 house is placed way back on the lot and there would be nowhere else to place the air conditioning units which would be less obtrusive to the neighborhood and no other location for basement and sliding doors except for rear of house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the pre-existing encroachments do not impact neighboring properties. 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 the encroachments are pre-existing, small and considerable distance from neighbors and do not add bulk or generate any 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. 17 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 # 7 - Case No. 3218—Paul Slesinger and Margaret Bradbury —54 Maplewood Street—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Kim Martelli, the applicant's architect and the owners were present via ZOOM. Ms. Martelli shared her screen and explained that an earlier variance was approved on October 23, 2019 for the deck. When the as built survey was done it showed that the deck encroaches two-feet into the required setback because an error was made during construction. The Board discussed the request and found it to be minimal. 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 54 Maplewood Street, 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, Paul Slesinger and Margaret (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a deck on the premises located at 54 Maplewood Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section , Block 18, Lot 318; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck in the side yard as built 2.1 feet where and 10 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240- 38B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming 18 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. 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. 19 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 # 8 - Case No. 3219—Aimee Carino and Brian Stenson — 16 Rockland Avenue —Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Aimee Carino, the owner, was present via ZOOM. Mr. Lewis stated that the all work was done without a permit and the generator under the deck has to be moved for safety reasons. The Board addressed the seven variances separately. The request for the variance for the patio was discussed and the owner agreed to reconstruct the patio to be five feet from the property line in both the rear and side. Therefore, no variance for the variance is necessary. The applicant also agreed to reduce the height of the fence from six feet to 5 feet high. Therefore there is no need for a variance to legalize the fence. Three of the seven variances are no longer necessary. The generator from under the deck will be relocated to a safer location Lot coverage was discussed. The deck was discussed. There were no public questions or comments. 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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 16 Rockland 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,Aimee Carino and Brian Stenson(the"Applicant")requested a variance to legalize 20 deck, fence, and generator on the premises located at 16 Rockland Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 22, Lot 364; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck in the side yard is 6.8 feet where 10 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); the combined yard setback is 14.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37(2((a); the side yard setback to the patio is 3 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-50; the rear yard setback is 3 feet where 5 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-50; the fence height is 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52, the stand by generator in the rear yard is 21 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section240-37B(3), and the lot coverage is (1750 sq. feet) 37.9% where 35% feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-37B(5); and further the additions increase 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 agreed to make changes so that three of the seven above variance requests are unnecessary; 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 for each of the variances requested. (1) The deck in the side yard is 6.8 feet where 10 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); and (2) the combined yard setback is 14.6 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37(2((a): 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 nobody 21 can see it. The deck does not extend beyond the existing house into the right side yard setback and it is not visible from the street and blocked by the house on Rockland and doesn't extend into the required rear yard setback. 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 house in on a pre- existing nonconforming, undersized lot and burdened by excessive setbacks on a small property. Further, while it could have been built narrower within setback, it would not have been but then it would not have been functional and could not have been used as intended. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the deck extends into the required side yard by a very small amount and, further, it is elevated only 3.5 feet off the ground and adds no bulk to the 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 deck is permeable and will allow water to pass through and adds no bulk and it is only 3.5 feet high so it will not visually 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. (3) the side yard setback to the patio is 3 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-50: The applicant has agreed to reconstruct the patio to yield a minimum of 5 foot planting area between the properties. Therefore, this variance is no longer necessary. (4) the rear yard setback is 3 feet where 5 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-50: These variances are no longer necessary because the applicant has agreed to will reconstruct the patio and reestablish it within the setback. (5) the fence height is 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52: 22 This variance is no longer necessary because the applicant has agreed to re-intall the fence to comply with height requrirments. (6) the stand by generator in the rear yard is 21 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section240-37B(3), and 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 not be visible from the street or from neighboring properties and will be screened by evergreen foliage. Further, it will placed behind the deck in the rear yard, with only a four-foot encroachment and only two feet off the ground. 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 backyard location is as far from neighboring properties as possible and there is no other safe alternative to meet the distance requirements from the house and windows. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it runs only one time per week for service and during emergencies. 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 most of the time and does not visually impact neighbors. Further, it has existed at this location without complaint. 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. (7) the lot coverage is 37.9% where 35% feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 37B(5); 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. 23 The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the deck is included in lot coverage because it is 3.5 feet above ground whereas it would not have counted if it were less than 18 inches high. Further the deck is permeable and adds no mass and the walkways, driveway and generator pad are on grade. Further, neighbors of the property submitted letters in support of the application. 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 with a 5000 square foot lot, the property was practically at the maximum allowable lot coverage without a functional deck. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the overage is not due to asphalt or another impervious surface but to the permeable deck, which adds 2.9% of lot coverage. 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 permeable deck does not add massing to the house 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. 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: 24 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 267-1(2) of the Town Code. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Katz stated that the Town Board has hired a consultant to study the floor area ratios. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45PM Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 25