Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_11_17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD REMOTELY Via ZOOM ON NOVEMBER 17, 2021 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler Chair, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Carol Miller (Alternate), Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Absent: Robin Nichinsky, 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 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. Ms. Hochman stated that tonight's meeting has been convened in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order Chapter 417, 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 and 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. Hochman asked Mr. Polcari and Ms. Brill whether the documents to be discussed this evening have been posted on the Town web site 24 hours prior to the meeting. They answered yes. This is a new requirement of the Open Meetings Law. Ms. Hochman further stated that it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all documents received in appropriate format and in a timely manner. Ms. Brill called the roll and the Chair announced that there was a quorum present (via ZOOM). Ms. Brill confirmed that both applications on for public hearing were duly noticed. 1. Case # 3252 —Armin and Kelly Schulz—7 Edgewood Avenue—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved 1 Gregory Lewis of Lewis and Lewis Architects addressed the Board, stating that they wish to convert the existing garage to a home office with a shed area in the front. He explained that the garage is within the footprint of the house and the change of use triggers the need for a variance, as the sidewall is only 6 feet from the property line where 8 feet is required. Existing house photos were shown, as well as proposed elevations. 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 Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Roll Call Vote: YES: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller RESOLUTION 7 Edgewood 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, Armin and Kelly Schultz (the "Applicant") requested a variance to to convert an existing attached garage to a home office on the premises located at 7 Edgewood Avenue, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23, Lot 161; and. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed office space within the existing garage has a side yard of 6 feet where 8 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); the combined side yards are 11.6 feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(b) and further 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 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 existing house footprint will not change and the proposed office will be interior to the existing garage with no perceptible impact to neighboring 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 house is preexisting nonconforming, with encroachment into side yard setbacks and therefore any change that intensifies the use but does not alter the bulk of the house would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because a change in use from a garage to a home office will have no impact to nearby houses. It does not structurally change the house or increase the side yard encroachments. 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 change of use will not result in any structural increase—there will be no increase in impervious surface, no added bulk or height. 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. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. 2. Case # 3253 —Amy and Peter O'Hara - 5 Harmony Drive - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, of Lewis and Lewis Architects addressed the Board, requesting a shed dormer on the rear second floor on this pie shaped lot. Ms. Lewis shared her screen and explained the request. She shared photos of the property and neighboring houses. The dormer addition will be for an office and bedroom. Elevations were shown and discussed and Mr. Wexler stated that the front elevation plan will need to be corrected. 4 Mr. Sacks voiced concerns that the addition will be extremely close to the neighbor's similar dormer on 3 Harmony Drive. He asked if there was a way to minimize the impact. The Board and Ms. Lewis discussed making changes to the proposed windows. Ms. Lewis stated that she will correct the front elevations and side elevations as discussed. 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 Roll Call Vote: YES: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller RESOLUTION 5 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, Amy and Peter O'Hara (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a second floor addition on the premises located at 5 Harmony Drive, Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 29, Lot 624; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The second floor addition has a side yard of 4.5' feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to 240- 39B(2)(a), the other side yard setback is 4.3' feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to 240- 39B(2)(b), the combined side yard setback is 8.8 feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to 240- 39B(2)(a), the rear yard setback will be 17.8 where 25 is required pursuant to 240-39B(3); and further 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 5 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 existing three pie lots are all burdened with nonconforming structures close to one another and the proposed addition will only impact the rear elevation in a manner that is consistent with neighboring properties who each have shed dormers 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 addition is the minimum size that meets the needs of the homeowners, and any addition would require a variance iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will be built within the existing footprint, only on the rear half of 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 it will not exceed the existing footprint and will not have any significant impact to runoff, air or light. 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. 6 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 the issuance of any building pemit, the Applicant shall submit revised plans reflecting an updated elevations and that the size of the proposed windows will be reduced to be similar to the smaller narrower windows that currently exist. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Code. MINUTES The minutes of October 27, 2021 were discussed. Motion: To approve the minutes of October 27, 2021 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Roll call vote: 7 Yes: Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Carol Miller Abstain: Arthur Wexler, Seth Bronheim ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 8