Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_01_26 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 JANUARY 26, 2022 Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler Chair, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Carol Miller, Seth Bronheim (Alternate) Also present via Zoom: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Elizabeth Aitchison, Environmental Planner, Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. Ms. Hochman stated that tonight's meeting has been convened in accordance with Chapter 1 of the New York State Laws of 2022 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 FIGS; 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 all applications on for public hearing were duly noticed. Mr. Wexler welcomed Ms. Fiddelman, the new Town Board Liaison. Application No. 1 - Case # 3260—Ryan and Nicole Fiftal— 1122 Palmer Avenue—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 1 Chris Longero from Lewis and Lewis Architects addressed the Board to request a screened rear porch. He further stated that the house backs up to Central School. He further stated that the existing deck is tired and needs replacing and the new plan calls for the stairs to be changed to improve functionality. He further stated that the existing AC will remain under the new screened porch. The existing conditions and proposed plan was discussed. Mr. Polcari stated that the existing deck received a variance in 1987. The Board discussed the size of the deck and the encroachment into the setback, noting that the encroachment would be 50 square feet. 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 Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1122 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Ryan and Nicole Fiftal (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a rear screened porch addition on the premises located at 1122 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 6, Lot 319; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed screened porch will have a rear yard of 22 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(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-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 2 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 proposed porch will replace an existing, deteriorating deck and faces no other houses and further, it will not be visible from Palmer Avenue or Central School. 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 there is no other place to locate the porch given the placement of the house and lot size. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it totals only 50 square feet and will be a foot farther from the property line than existing 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 runoff will be captured in drywells. 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. 3 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 resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case # 3261 —Diana Rogers—33 Maple Hill Drive —Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Larry Gordon, the applicant's architect, Joe Guglielmo, and the owner, Ms. Rogers, were present via ZOOM. Mr. Guglielmo stated that they are here to replace the existing nonconforming stair and platform in the rear to create better access from the kitchen to the outside. Elevations and photos were shown. Mr. Wexler stated that the impervious surface is being replaced with pervious material. There were no public questions or comments. 4 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 RESOLUTION 33 Maple Hill 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, Diana Rogers (the "Applicant") requested a variance to demo concrete stairs and replace with new wood landing and steps on the premises located at 33 Maple Hill Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 22, Lot 264; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed platform and steps in the rear yard will be 13.49 feet where 25 feet 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 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 new 5 deck and stairs will increase the functionality of the house by replacing an existing deck and extending it slightly to square an area that is within the envelope of the home; further, it is in the rear/side yard and will not be visible. 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 this is the simplest and least impactful way to increase the functionality of the deck and it has no impact to nearby properties. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is only a marginal increase in encroachment into the required yard. 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 be a wooden,pervious deck,which will allow water to flow through, as compared to existing concrete, impervious deck. 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 resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case # 3263 — Simon and Jane Sikorski—89 Rockland Avenue —Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jane and Simon Sikorski, and their architect, Rick Yestadt, were present via ZOOM. Mr. Yestadt stated that they are here requesting an addition over the exiting one-story on this oversized lot. The proposed site plan was shown and discussed and Mr. Yestadt explained the building plans. Mr. Marsh stated that the house is located far away from neighboring houses and it is also below street level on Forest, minimizing the impact. 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 7 RESOLUTION 89 Rockland 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, Simon and Jane Sikorski (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition 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 addition will be 15.16 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(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-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 Chair of the Board noted certain corrections to be made to the drawings; 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 house is getting a facelift, adding architectural features to the front porch, resulting in an appearance that is visually consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. Further the adjacent houses are more than 90 feet away with a 6 foot drop off, mitigating any visual impact of the addition to neighboring properties. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 8 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 will be substantially within the existing footprint,balancing out the front porch and continuing the front elevation and the corner that will encroach from the front porch at the 2nd floor and attic space will be built atop the existing structure. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the property is large and the resulting floor area ratio is well within the required limits. 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 minimal increase in lot coverage and the property is well screened with mature plantings. 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: I. 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. 9 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 and prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Building Department corrected C-1 and A-1 Drawings. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case # 3265—Jenna and Joseph Pizzutelli - 15 Roxborough Road — Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Pizzutelli, the homeowner and Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect were present, via ZOOM. Mr. Lewis shared his screen and explained the plans. 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 Carol Miller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 15 Roxborough Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Carol Miller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jenna and Joseph Pizzutelli (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed addition on the premises located at 15 Roxborough Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 22, Lot 94; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition as proposed has a front yard of 26.39 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 10 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. 1. 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 is at the end of the road, not facing other houses and there is large distance separating the property from neighboring houses and, further, the addition will be built over the existing first floor. 2. 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 applicant chose the least intrusive place for an addition because it will be built on top of what already exists. 3. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there will be no increase to the actual encroachment because the addition will be built within the existing footprint. 4. 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 house is a great distance from other houses in the 11 neighborhood, barely visible and will not increase impervious surface. 5. 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 resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case # 3266—David and Nazanin Munroe - 767 Forest Avenue — Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 12 David and Nazanin Munroe and their architect, Greg Lewis, were present via ZOOM. Mr. Lewis stated that the Munroes have lived in this old house for 10 years and would like to demolish it and build a new house. They request a variance for the encroachment of the garage into the front yard setback. He further stated that the proposed house will be conforming and centered more on the property. He explained that the owners would like to install solar panels on the south facing roof. Construction materials and design were discussed. Mr. Marsh stated that the plan improves the functionality of the driveway and keeps it further away from the neighbors. Mr. Lewis stated that two letters in support from impacted neighbors were part of the packet. 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 767 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler , seconded by Stephen Marsh the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to ,0 with no abstentions. WHEREAS, David and Nazanin Munroe (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed new dwelling on the premises located at 767 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 10, Lot 50; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed new dwelling will have a front yard of 14.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-36B(1); 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 13 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 proposal is better than what presently exists, as the house currently is only one foot from the property line and proposed house will be set back 15 feet; further, the massing at that point will be only a 1-story 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 given the existing condition and steepness of the site, no other option is feasible without requiring a variance and the proposed house is deferential in contours leading to the rear. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because even though it encroaches 10 feet into the required front yard, it improves present conditions. 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 house is further away from front property line and the garage in front has no windows that will be used during daytime hours. 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. 14 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 resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 7 - Case # 3267—Carol Buckler and Robert Muffly - 32 Hillcrest Avenue— Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Carol and Robert Muffly, the owners, and their architect, Paige Lewis, were present via ZOOM. Ms. Lewis stated that the owners request a variance to convert their garage to a home gym. She further stated that when they discovered the state of the garage's disrepair, they determined it is necessary to replace the structure. She explained that the garage tilts to the side and the framing is disintegrating. Ms. Lewis explained the plan and stated that they are using the existing foundation and the only changes will be the installation of a new rear door and windows and a change to the front garage door. 15 The Board asked whether the structure could be moved elsewhere on the property to comply with setback requirements. Ms. Lewis explained the slope of the yard prevents moving it further back. She further stated that a new foundation would be costly. Mr. Sacks stated that replacing the garage with a home gym would not change anything; it would just look like an improved garage. Mr. Marsh stated that the same location makes sense as it would have the least impact on the neighbors. Ms. Lewis stated they have submitted letters in support from their neighbors. 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 RESOLUTION 32 Hillcrest 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, Carol Buckler and Robert Muffly(the"Applicant")requested a variance for a garage conversion to a home gym on the premises located at 32 Hillcrest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23, Lot 456; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The home gym as proposed has a side yard of 2.03 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1)(c); 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 Applicant stated that the garage is in a state of disrepair and needs to be rebuilt; 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 16 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 home gym and storage will be built within the same footprint and same size as existing garage. 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 moving the structure to the rear 1/3 of the property would cause more disturbance and unnecessarily increase the cost to the applicant, by a substantial amount. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it's a replacement structure of the same size and footprint. 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 generate no additional runoff or visual impacts. 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. 17 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 resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 8 -APPEAL OF TREE PERMIT -Judith Darsky-4 Briar Del Circle Ms. Hochman noted that this is the first time this Board will be hearing an appeal of a tree removal permit and she read the relevant section of the Town Code into the record. Ms. Aitchison, the Town's Environmental Planner, explained that the owners of 38 Winged Foot Drive applied to remove two trees on their property. She stated that they had already received an erosion control permit. Ms. Aitchison further explained that the trees will not be removed until after the building permit is issued. Ms. Aitchison stated that the Town Tree Code (Chapter 207) lists acceptable reasons for tree removal: if they are hazardous; in an area of proposed construction; or an area of fill; or the impact of fill will kill the trees. Ms. Aitchison stated that she determined that the two trees requested to be removed met the applicable criteria in the Tree Code. Clifford Davis Esq., representing Ms. Darsky, who resides at 4 Briar Del Circle, addressed the Board. He stated that the Town Tree Code provides for the protection of trees and that the two trees, a mature Oak and Hickory, are beautiful and not at risk. He further stated that raising the grade on the property at 38 Winged Foot will put at risk three other trees on the property at 38 Winged Foot as well as one tree on Ms. Darsky property, 4 Briar Del Circle. Mr. Davis further stated that Ms. Aitchison's statement of findings was inadequate and he requested a reversal. 18 Leo Napier, the attorney for the Cliffords, who own the property at 38 Winged Foot, stated that Mr. Davis and Ms. Darsky are not refuting the tree permit to remove two trees at 38 Winged Foot, but rather, their appeal is based on the potential impact related to adding fill to the yard, which could impact three other trees. The Board discussed their authority under the Tree Code and whether or not Ms. Darsky's appeal relates to the tree permit. After discussion, the Board members agreed that their authority in this appeal is limited to the two trees granted for removal pursuant to the tree permit and that the health of three other trees noted by Ms. Darsky are outside the Zoning Board's authority because they were not part of the tree permit issued for 38 Winged Foot Drive. Mr. Sacks stated that the Board should hear anything regarding the two trees that were the subject of the tree permit and Mr. Wexler invited Ms. Darsky's arborist to speak about the two trees to be removed. Ms. Darsky's arborist stated that he wasn't asked to inspect the two trees. He was asked to evaluate the health and risk of three other trees. He further stated that depending on the depth of fill in that area, the two trees which were the subject of the tree permit could be killed. Ms. Aitchison stated she agrees. Mr. Sacks suggested that Ms. Darsky's concerns about the three other trees are related to the erosion permit that was issued for 38 Winged Foot Drive but the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review erosion permits. Mr. Sacks further stated that the determination by the Town Environmental Planner regarding the two trees to be removed appears to have a sound and rational basis, due to the fact that the importation of fill would cause root structure damage, causing those two trees to be compromised and dangerous to the house at 38 Winged Foot. Also, Mr. Sacks noted the arborist reports, which stated that those two trees have damage to the canopy and trunk. As to the appeal by the neighbor, Mr. Sacks stated that no evidence was presented which contradicts Ms. Aitchison's findings. Ms. O'Neill wanted it noted that the homeowner of 38 Winged Foot Drive presented arborist reports supporting removal of the two trees granted removal under the tree permit. Ms. Darsky thanked the Board. She stated she had a tree die several years ago due to regrading at an adjacent property. She further stated that the removal of the two trees authorized by the tree permit is not what is bothering her, it is the raising of the land that is a problem. She stated that she engaged two arborists, and both said three other trees would die and could hit her house. Ms. Darsky asked why she should be responsible for the removal of trees that her neighbors kill just because they want a flat yard. Mr. Sacks stated he is sympathetic, but the erosion permit is outside the Board's purview. Mr. Hochman said that she will prepare a draft resolution based upon what has been put into the record and the Board can consider and discuss whether to take action on such draft resolution at the next meeting. 19 The matter was adjourned to February. Application No. 4 - Case # 3264—Jonathan Sacks - 27 Marbourne Drive—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Jonathan Sacks recused himself as a Board member and addressed the Board as an applicant for a variance for five air conditioning units and a stand-by generator that were installed by the building contractor before he purchased the home. He further stated that believed the builder submitted plans and received approval in 2005, as a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the house. He further stated that when he reviewed his file, he found that they were never permitted and would need variances. He explained that there is no other feasible location on his property, as there are easements on two sides, the services are underground to that side and the front would not be a good location because the units would be more visible. He further stated that the units have a low Dba rating and that they test weekly on Wednesdays at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Polcari stated that there have been no complaints Mr. Marsh stated that the units are totally screened. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Irene O'Neill, Carol Miller RESOLUTION 27 Marbourne Drive, 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 4 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jonathan Sacks (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as built stand by generator and as built 5 A/C compressors on the premises located at 27 Marbourne Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 34, Lot 26; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as-built generator has a side yard of 11.95 feet where 15 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 35B(1)(a); the 5 A/C compressors has a side yard of 14.1 feet where 15 feet is required pursuant 20 to Section 240-35B(1)(a); for a residence in an R-20 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 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 units have been in place since the applicant purchased the home in 2005 and they have been operating without complaint. Further, they are typical in the neighborhood and are located where the utilities enter the house. Further, the units are well screened with mature plantings. 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 this property is burdened with an easement which wraps around the back and right side of the house which leaves only the front yard,which would be less practical,less attractive and more costly. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units are located unobtrusively on the side of the house and encroache only a small amount into well screened side yard setback. 21 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 units have a low Dba rating and the generator runs only during power outage and during weekly cycle tests lasting 10 minutes. Further, they generate negligible 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. 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. MINUTES The minutes of December 22, 2022, were postponed until next month. 22 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. Prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 23