Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_06_16 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 JUNE 16,2021 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller (Alternate), Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Absent: Robin Nichinsky, Irene O'Neill, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison 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 7:11 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). The applications were taken out of order. Application #2 —Case #3230 - Matt Murabito — 19 Carleon Avenue Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Matthew Murabito, the owner, was present via ZOOM. Mr. Murabito stated that he is seeking a new air conditioning unit and replacement of a 24-year- old existing unit. He further stated that the proposed location is the only logical location on the uniquely shaped lot and any other location would also require a variance. The Building Inspector stated that proposed location has been established as the rear yard of the property. 1 Mr. Murabito stated that due to the pandemic he is unable to purchase the unit as shown in the packet and he is trying to get a smaller, quieter unit. Mr. Murabito asked to amend his request to ensure that the unit purchased fits within the proposed variance. The applicants proposed that the units would be no less than 16.5 feet to the property line with a Dba level no greater than 74. The Board discussed the placement and Dba level. Mr. Polcari stated that no hands are raised and no emails were submitted concerning this application. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Seth Bronheim Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 19 Carleon Avenue, 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. WHEREAS, Matt Murabito (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an air conditioning condenser unit on the premises located at 19 Carleon Avenue, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 4, Lot 403; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The air conditioning condenser in the side yard will be 17.1 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(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-15 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the applicant requested a setback of 16.5 feet instead of 17.1 feet due to the unique configuration of the yard and concern that the applicant would have to install a unit different from the one included in the package; 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 2 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 units are tucked into corner of rear yard and blocked from the street by the house, trees and a long driveway and there is plenty of screening to block the view from the rear neighbor. 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 unique configuration of the property, the only other location would be in the front yard, which is less desirable than placing it next to the existing unit in the rear. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will be 16.5 feet from the property line and well screened. 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 a new unit, which will have a Dba rating of 74 or less so it will be quieter than the existing unit and there are no other environmental concerns. 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 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. The unit should not exceed the Dba rating of 74. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. Application #3 —Case #3231 -Jeffery and Alexander Fischer—87 Griffen Avenue Ms. Brill confirmed that the public hearing was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Sean Janskey, the applicant's landscape architect and Jeffery Fischer, the homeowner, were present via Zoom. Mr. Janskey explained that as a result of an unintentional error in installation, a sliver of the patio projects into the required rear yard setback. 4 The Board discussed the request and Mr. Sacks stated that the steps now encroach into the variance and need to be reflected in the variance. The Board asked that a measurement to the bottom stair riser be on the as built survey. The application will be adjourned to update the survey to provide the distance from the rear property line to the face of the bottom riser of the steps. Mr. Polcari will revise the Notice of Disapproval. A new mailing is required. Mr. Polcari stated that no hands are raised and no emails submitted concerning this application. The application was adjourned and the public hearing remains open. Application #4 —Case #3232 —Hannah and Cary James —92 North Chatsworth Avenue Ms. Brill confirmed that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Hannah and Cary James, the owners, were present via ZOOM. Ms. Lewis explained the request for the front addition which requires variances for encroachments into the required front yard setback. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Wexler stated that the large town right of way is a benefit to the applicant. Mr. Sacks observed that there are significant shrubs as well as a grade change which mitigates visual impact to neighbors. Mr. Polcari stated that no hands are raised and no emails were submitted concerning this application. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 92 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Hannah and Cary James (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a one- and two- 5 story addition on the premises located at 92 North Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 18, Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition in the front yard will be 21.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1); the proposed front porch will be 17.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240.38B(1); the proposed front steps will be 15 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 proposed design is consistent and compatible with nearby houses. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the architect explained alternative plans that were less desirable, did not meet the applicant's needs and would not have been buildable without a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 6 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because, given the large right-of- way, there is a large distance between the house and the street and the visual impact is mitigated by substantial screening. 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 no impact to light or air and runoff will be addressed. 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. 7 Application #5 —Case # 3223 —Michael and Joanna Maresca —3 Glen Lane Ms. Brill confirmed that this application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Michael Maresca, the owner, was present via ZOOM and explained he requests a variance for his as built deck that encroaches into the required side yard setback. The Board discussed the request and found that the roof over part of the deck was not original therefore it would require a variance. Mr. Polcari stated that there are no hands raised and no emails submitted concerning this application. The Notice of Disapproval will be corrected and the applicant will do another mailing. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Application #6—Case # 3224 —Craig and Erin Lamarca —40 West Garden Road Jonathan Sacks recused himself based on prior interactions with the applicant. He turned off his video. Mr. Wexler stated that despite the recusal of Jonathan Sacks, three affirmative votes are still necessary for approval. Ms. Brill stated that the application was duly noticed. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Approved (Jonathan Sacks abstained.) Michiel Boender, the applicant's architect, and Craig Lamarca, the owner, were present via ZOOM. Mr. Boender explained the plans and requested a variance for lot coverage. The applicant stated that they could remove the flagstone path as well as the small composite deck in the back to reduce lot coverage to 38% instead of 40%. Mr. Marsh said the flagstone path consists of stepping stones with at least 6 inches of grass between each stone. It was pointed out that the stonewall shown on the plans, which was included in the calculation for lot coverage can be excluded, which brings the lot coverage percentage down to 37.5. The Board discussed the coverage. Mr. Wexler explained all additional impervious area would have to be captured in a drywell. 8 Mr. Polcari stated that there were no hands raised and no emails submitted concerning this application. Mr. Marsh noted that there are two letters of support from neighbors. 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 Carol Miller Action: Approved RESOLUTION 40 West Garden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh , seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0 with one abstention. WHEREAS, Craig and Erin Lamarca(the "Applicant") requested a variance for a two-story addition alteration on the premises located at 40 West Garden Road, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 99; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The two story proposed addition will have a lot coverage of 40% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-39F; 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 agreed to further reduce lot coverage to get it down to 37.5%; 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. 9 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 design is consistent with other houses in the neighborhood and compatible with the existing structure. 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 architect explored the possibility of expanding over the garage but that would have also required a variance and would have presented construction challenges. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the applicant agreed to reduce the proposed lot coverage from 40% to 37.5% by removing on-grade flagstone walkways and a composite deck. 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 stormwater system will capture any runoff generated by the project and will likely improve drainage over present conditions. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 10 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. Applicant shall submit modified drawings showing lot coverage no greater than 37.5%. 7. 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 #3229 -Jeffery and Nina Kravetz—83 West Brookside Drive Ms. Brill stated that this application was duly noticed and Jonathan Sacks turned his video back on. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Steve Basini, the applicant's architect was present via ZOOM. Mr. Basini stated that the applicant requests three variances on the uniquely shaped, nonconforming lot. He explained the plan for a full second story addition and showed photos of the neighboring homes and the screening between the properties. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Polcari stated that there were no hands raised and no emails submitted concerning this application. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved 11 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 83 West Brookside, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jeffery and Nina Kravetz (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 83 West Brookside, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 18, Lot 615; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition in the side yard will be 7 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a); the side yard will be 6 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(2)(a); the combined side yard will be 13 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and 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 house design is consistent with the nearby houses, most of which has a second story. In addition, the height will be lower than the neighboring house. 12 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 unique shape of the property necessitate a variance and the addition will be within the existing footprint. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the entire addition sits atop the existing first floor. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it does not expand the footprint so will not 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: 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. 13 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. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes of May 26, 2021with technical corrections. Moved by, Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Not approved The minutes were discussed and corrections made but there was not enough members able to vote to approve. Yes: Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller Abstain: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Seth Bronheim Absent: Irene O'Neill, Robin Nichinsky ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 14