HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_12_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
HELD REMOTELY Via ZOOM ON DECEMBER 22, 2021
Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler Chair, Irene O’Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Robin
Nichinsky, Carol Miller (Alternate
Absent: Seth Bronheim (Alternate)
Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, Abby Katz, Town Board Liaison, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of
Appeals Secretary
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 Chapter 417 if
the laws of New York, which suspends certain provisions of the Open Meetings Law to allow
municipal boards to convene meetings and public hearings 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.
Ms. Brill called the roll and the Chair announced that there was a quorum present (via ZOOM).
Ms. Brill confirmed that the applications on for public hearing were duly noticed.
1. Case # 3254 – T-Mobile - 1380 Boston Post Road– Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Paula Ruiz, representing T-Mobile, addressed the Board to explain the signage request.
The Board discussed the color (magenta) and the size of the proposed signs.
2
Mr. Polcari stated that Town Code does not permit signs on the side of the building.
Mr. Wexler requested that the sign be smaller, due to the bold color of the proposed sign.
Ms. Ruiz explained that the color (magenta) is T-Mobile’s trademark color and that signage at all
stores are changing to that color.
Hours of illumination were discussed and Ms. Ruiz stated that they will comply with Town Code.
Mr. Sacks requested that the proposed sign not exceed the height of the existing sign.
Illumination was discussed and Ms. Ruiz stated that the signs will be up lit, not backlit.
Ms. Brill stated that the Town’s Board of Architectural Review reviewed and approved this
application.
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 Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
T-Mobile: there are 2 signs and they want to replace them in different locations. Height of
lettering can be 32 inches.
RESOLUTION
1380 Boston Post 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, T-Mobile (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for internally illuminated wall signs
on the premises located at 1380 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known
on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 9, Lot 194; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
internally illuminated wall signs as proposed are not permissible pursuant to Section 175-12C, the
wall sign as proposed on the sidewall of the structure is not permitted pursuant to Section 175-11B
(the “Notice of Disapproval”); and
WHEREAS, the Board members observed that the magenta color, which is the proprietary color
for T-Mobile, makes the proposed signs appear more prominent than the existing signs; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant explained that the proposed signs will be up lit, not back lit; and
3
WHEREAS, the Town’s Board of Architectural Review approved the aesthetics of the proposed
signs; 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 et. 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
property is located in a commercial district, surrounded by establishments with
illuminated signs, and the current establishment also has two illuminated signs.
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 both proposed signs
are consistent with existing signage and deemed by the Board to be necessary to
identify establishment to its potential customers.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there is a precedent for
illuminated signs in this commercial district and the signs will not be visible from
residences.
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
4
environmental conditions because the illumination will not impact residential areas.
v. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not
determinative under the circumstances presented.
B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood
and the health safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned
and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the
Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above
for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the
building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this
application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to
the Town Building Department.
7. The front facing sign will not exceed 32 inches with lettering not to exceed 24 inches.
8. The side facing sign will not exceed two feet with lettering proportionately reduced.
9. The applicant shall submit revised drawings to indicate that illumination will be face
lit channels.
2. Case # 3255 – Jane Sikorski - 89 Rockland Avenue – Public Hearing
5
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Jane Sikorski addressed the Board requesting to request replacing a six-foot fence, part of which
previously received a variance and part that was installed without a variance. She explained that
the properties are sloped and there is a drop off on each side of the property.
Mr. Sacks stated that the previous variance was given for a four-foot fence with a two-foot topper.
Ms. Sikorski stated that the replacement fence will have be the same. She also stated that the
fences are only visible to the immediate neighbors.
Ms. Hochman explained that once the fence is removed or destroyed a new variance is required.
There were no public questions or comments.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
89 Rockland Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Irene O’Neill, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0 with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Jane Sikorski (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a fence on the premises
located at 89 Rockland Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 10, Lot 1; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
proposed fence will be 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A; and further
the fence 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
6
WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to
6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required; and
A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors.
i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood
or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance.
The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the fence
is proposed to repair and replace a preexisting fence with a new and attractive fence
that will be barely visible, even to neighbors.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the existing fence is
in disrepair and is necessary for safety due to grade change between the subject property
and adjacent property.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a replacement in kind
and the two-feet exceeding the permissible four-foot tongue and groove fence height
will be lattice.
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 replacement fence will add no substantial bulk
to the property and it will be newer, safer and more attractive.
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
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.
3. Case # 3256 – Seven Madison LLC – 7 Madison Avenue – Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved
Jamie Jones representing the applicant from the sign company, addressed the Board to explain the
request, which involves refacing the existing light box on the front of the building and placing
vinyl decals on the sides of the building.
Ms. Brill stated that the Town’s Board of Architectural Review reviewed and approved this
application.
Mr. Wexler stated that this area is basically a residential environment but the signs would help the
restaurant.
8
Hours of illumination for the front sign was discussed. Mr. Wexler stated that the proposed sign
will have less illumination as compared to the previous sign.
The Board and the applicant discussed whether decal signage would be maintained and replaced.
Mr. Polcari stated that the applicant will have to go before the Planning Board for a Special Use
Permit.
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 March, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
7 Madison Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene, the following resolution was
proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Seven Madison LLC (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for three proposed wall
signs on the premises located at 7 Madison Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known
on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 132, Lot 463; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
propose front wall signs as proposed will be internally illuminated, pursuant to Section 240-
47(8)(c)[4] internal illumination is not permitted. Three proposed wall signs, pursuant to Section
240-47)8)(c)[2] only 2 signs ate permitted per business on a premises. Two wall signs are
proposed to be painted directly on the surface of the building, pursuant to Section 175-7 H signs
are not permitted to be painted directly on the surface material of a building. Two wall signs are
proposed on the side walls of the building, pursuant to Section 175-11 B signs are not permitted
on a side wall of a building for a business in a B-MUB Zone District (the “Notice of Disapproval”);
and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Board of Architectural Review approved the aesthetics of the proposed
signs; 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
9
WHEREAS, Board members expressed concern that failure to maintain or replace vinyl decal
signage would be unsightly; and
WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to
6 NYCRR§ 617 et. 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 prior
restaurant in same location had similarly sized signs and the proposed signs will have
less illumination than the prior signs. The front facing sign will simply reface the
existing light box with a new company name and smaller letters and less illumination
than the prior light box. The vinyl applied decal letters on side of building will not be
illuminated and will identify the building from the side and will provide a small amount
of branding on a long, expansive blank wall. There will be no illumination to disturb
nearby residences.
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 illuminated signs are
not permissible under the Town Code, even though the prior restaurant had similar
signs. The Board finds that it is reasonable for this restaurant, which has three exposed
sides, to install signage on two sides in order to promote its business to potential diners
driving by.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the letters on the proposed
sign are smaller than the prior sign and illumination of the front sign will be reduced
on front with no illumination on side facing sign. Further, there will be no impact to
residential neighbors.
iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
10
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or
environmental conditions because the vinyl applied decal letters are only for daytime
visibility, not illuminated, and the forward facing light box illumination has been
reduced. As a result, the illumination will have no negative impact to residential
neighbors.
v. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because the nonconforming
garage is original to the house and prior homeowners converted the space to a family
room and it was only recently determined by a title company that legalization is
required.
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 applicant shall maintain the glued-on vinyl letters and promptly replace any letters
that fall off.
11
4. Case # 3257 – Brian and Tami Chez – 8 Bonnie Way – Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved
Brian Chez and Shahin Heshmat, the applicant’s architects, addressed the Board to request an
addition over the existing garage.
Mr. Heshmat stated that they are matching the façade of the existing house.
Mr. Sacks asked for an explanation as to why it is necessary for the addition to extend beyond the
first floor. Mr. Heshmat explained that over the garage is the only place to create a master suite
and it would be too small and tight if not expanded beyond the footprint.
Mr. Wexler stated that the property is large but the house is forward on the lot close to the neighbor.
He further stated that the column holding the addition does not look substantial, and suggested
changes.
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 Robin Nichinsky
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
8 Bonnie Way, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Irene O’Neill, seconded by Robin Nichinsky, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Brian and Tami Chez (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a proposed addition
on the premises located at 8 Bonnie Way, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the
Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 4, Lot 92; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
addition as proposed has a front yard of 33.7 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-36B(1), a side yard of 8 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(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-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
12
WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has
heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a
public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Board members and the applicant agreed that the design of the column supporting
the portion of the second-floor addition which extends over the back yard would be more visually
appealing with greater mass; and
WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to
6 NYCRR§ 617 et. 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 bulk
of the addition will be constructed over an existing garage, similar to nearby houses
and visually consistent with the design of the house and the portion of the addition that
extends over the backyard of the house adds only 50 square feet and does not extend
as far back as the neighboring house.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the proposed location
is deemed reasonable for its intended use and appears unobtrusive and, further, any
other location would require a variance.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the house is already
nonconforming and the addition is mainly within the footprint of an existing garage
with a second story addition that adds only 50 square feet.
iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
13
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or
environmental conditions because it will not add significant impervious surface and the
adjacent house to the left has similar height and dimensions.
v. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not
determinative under the circumstances presented.
B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood
and the health safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned
and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the
Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above
for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the
building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this
application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to
the Town Building Department.
7. To the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, the plans shall be modified so that the
slender column that supports the addition be integrated into two walls, one which is
parallel to the house including the column about 18-20 inches wide and one wall that
is perpendicular to the house of the same dimension.
5. Case # 3258 – Jeffrey Colen – 101 North Chatsworth Avenue – Public Hearing
14
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved
Jeffrey Colen, the applicant, addressed the Board to request a variance to install a heat pump for
cooling and heating. He further stated that the proposed unit is quiet and compact. He further
stated that the system would be ductless on the first floor with central ducts on the upper level.
The Board discussed the dBa and dimensions of the proposed unit.
The Board discussed the placement and observed that there is no place on the property that would
not require a variance.
There were no public questions or comments.
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 Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
101 North Chatsworth Avenue, 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, Jeffery Colen (the “Applicant”) requested a variance to install a heat pump on the
premises located at 101 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known
on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 14, Lot 610; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
heat pump as proposed has a side yard of 6 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-
38B(2)(a), a side yard set back of 6.3.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
15
WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to
6 NYCRR§ 617 et. 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 pumps
are small, tall, extremely low dBa and to be installed in an unobtrusive location next 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 any location would
require a variance and the proposed location is closest to the air handlers and inside
split.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units are unobtrusive
and small with low noise output.
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 proposed small quiet units add no bulk and will
not substantially impact sound, heat, light or air flow in the neighborhood. In addition,
the heat pumps are deemed environmentally friendly as compared to other methods of
heating and cooling homes.
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.
16
B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood
and the health safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned
and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the
Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above
for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the
building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this
resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this
application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to
the Town Building Department.
6. Case # 3259 – Mark Meckler - 25 Cornell Street – Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Fouad Pouyafar, the applicant’s contractor addressed the Board to request a variance to install a
generator.
Mr. Pouyafar stated that the owner contacted the adjacent neighbor who asked that the testing
times be weekdays only and otherwise he had no objections. The applicant stated that the unit will
test every two weeks for five minutes at a Dba of 58.
Screening was discussed and the applicant stated that additional planting will be provided to screen
the unit from the street and neighbor.
17
Mr. Sacks asked that a copy of the email between the owner and neighbor be made part of the
record.
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 Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
25 Cornell Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Robin Nichinsky, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Mark Meckler (the “Applicant”) requested a variance for a generator on the premises
located at 25 Cornell Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment
Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 2, Lot 159; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
generator as proposed has a side yard setback of 9.7 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to
Section 240-34B(2); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 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, the Applicant agreed to test at during weekday daytime hours and to add screening
to mitigate the view from the adjacent property; and
WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to
6 NYCRR§ 617 et. 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
18
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
generator will not be visible from the street and the adjacent neighbor had no
objections. Further, the noise will only be audible during bi-weekly testing for 5
minutes during daytime hours, or during a power outage.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the proposed location
is next to existing air handlers. Further, choosing an alternate location in the rear yard
would require 60 feet of trenching and increase the applicant’s cost substantially and
changing the location to the front of the house would be unsightly.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the noise level is acceptable
and testing is infrequent and added bulk is not substantial
iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or
environmental conditions because generators have become typical though out the Town
and within this neighborhood and the proposed model requires testing only every two
weeks for 5 minutes and it will not be visible from the street.
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.
19
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 generator shall be tested only during weekday daytime hours.
8. To the satisfaction of the Town Building Inspector, the applicant shall install screening
to shield the generator from the adjacent neighboring house.
MINUTES
The Board discussed the draft minutes of November 11, 2021. Mr. Sacks proposed a change to
page 6.
Motion: To approve the minutes of November 11, 2021 as amended
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O’Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Ms. Nichinsky stated that this is her last meeting and thanked the Board and staff stating it was a
pleasure working with all as she learned and enjoyed the experience.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
20
Minutes prepared by
______________________________
Francine M. Brill
Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals