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