HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_02_28 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 FEBRUARY 28, 2022
Present via ZOOM: Arthur Wexler Chair, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh
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
Absent: Carol Miller, Seth Bronheim (Alternate)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M.
Ms. Hochman stated that tonight's meeting has been convened in accordance with 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 stated that there are only four Board members present and a vote to approve would
require three members to vote in favor.
APPLICATION NO. 1 -APPEAL OF TREE PERMIT - Judith Darsky—4 Briar Del
Circle
Mr. Wexler stated that the Board heard considerable testimony at the meeting last month and
clarified that this appeal relates to the approval by the Town's Environmental Planner to remove
two trees on the property at 38 Winged Foot Drive.
1
Ms. Hochman stated that a draft resolution was prepared based on the discussion at last month's
meeting and that the resolution has been circulated and posted on the Town website.
Leo Napier, the attorney for the owners of 38 Winged Foot Drive, was present but had no
comment.
Motion: to approve the resolution as written, with the correction of two typos.
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
RESOLUTION
DENYING APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR
38 WINGED FOOT DRIVE
As Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I hereby certify that the following is the resolution
duly adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on February 28, 2022
After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, on behalf of William and Leslie Clifford (collectively, the "Applicant"), a tree
removal permit application dated November 15, 2021 was submitted to the Town Environmental
Planner, seeking permission to cut down and remove two trees on the Applicant's property located
at 38 Winged Foot Drive (the "Subject Property"), in accordance with Chapter 207 of the Town
of Mamaroneck Town Code (the "Town Code"); and
WHEREAS, the application asserted that the two trees requested to be removed were in a
compromised condition and would be negatively impacted by proposed work at the Subject
Property (the "Tree Removal Application"); and
WHEREAS, the Town Environmental Planner reviewed the Tree Removal Application and
visited the Subject Property on December 3, 2021 (the "Site Visit"); and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the Town Environmental Planner issued a permit approving
the Tree Removal Application (the"Tree Removal Permit");
WHEREAS on the same date that the Tree Removal Permit was issued, the Environmental
Planner sent written notification to residents living within 250 feet of the Subject Property, stating
that they have a right to appeal the decision to issue the Tree Removal Permit to the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Zoning Board"); and
WHEREAS, a notice of appeal challenging the Tree Removal Permit, dated December 20, 2021,
was submitted on behalf of Judith Darsky (the "Appellant"), who resides at 4 Briar Del Circle,
which is adjacent to the Subject Property (the "Appeal"); and
2
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled and duly noticed meeting on January 26, 2022,the Zoning
Board heard the Appellant, the Applicant and their representatives in connection with the Appeal
(the "Hearing"; and
WHEREAS, the record related to the Appeal and reviewed by Zoning Board members includes
the following correspondence:
• Letter dated 1/20/22 from Leo K. Napior of Harfenist Kraut&Perlstein LLP, attorney for
the Applicant
• Email dated 1/6/22 from Josh Klaczek, a neighbor of the Subject Property, to the Town
Environmental Planner
• Email from the Appellant to the Town Engineer dated 12/29/21
• Letter dated 12/23/21 from Barry Gold, former owner of the Subject Property to the Town
Environmental Planner
• Email from the Town Engineer to the Appellant dated 12/21/21
• Email from the Appellant to the Town Environmental Planner dated 12/21/21
• Letter from the Applicant's Attorney to the Zoning Board, dated 1/20/22
• Email from the Town Environmental Planner to the Appellant dated 12/20/21
• Letter & Notice of Appeal dated 12/20/21from Clifford L. Davis, attorney for the
Appellant
• Email from the Appellant to the Town Environmental Planner dated 12/17/21
• Email from the Town Environmental Planner to the Appellant dated 12/17/21
• Email from the Appellant to the Town Engineer dated 12/16/21
• Email from the Town Engineer to the Appellant dated 12/16/21
• Email from the Town Building Inspector to the Appellant dated 12/16/21
• Letter dated 12/7/21 from the Town Environmental Planner providing instructions about
how to appeal tree removal permit for the Subject Property
• Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Subject Property (ER-1) dated 6/18/21
• Topographical Survey for the Subject Property dated 1/19/21
• Application for Tree Permit dated 11/19/21
WHEREAS, according to the email dated December 16, 2021 from the Town Engineer to the
Appellant, "[t]he work at [the Subject Property] was required to obtain coverage under a Surface
Water& Erosion Control Permit in accordance with Town Code Ch. 95"; and
WHEREAS, according to the email dated December 16, 2021 from the Town Building Inspector
to the Appellant, an erosion and sediment control permit for the Subject Property was issued on
November 9, 2021; and
WHEREAS, an arborist report by Michael Orsino, Certified Arborist NY90303A, submitted by
the Applicant, dated January 21, 2022, states that he visited the Subject Property and recommends
removal of both trees, as approved by the Tree Removal Permit; and
WHEREAS, another arborist report by Dan Dalton, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist NY
90094B, ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified, submitted by the Applicant, dated January 22,
2022, on letterhead of Almstead Tree, Shrub & Lawn Care, states that he performed a Level I
3
Visual Tree Risk Assessment,using practices outlined in the International Society of Arboriculture
Best Management Practices for Tree Risk Assessment, on two trees, a 17.5" Mockernut Hickory
and a 26.0" Northern Red Oak located on the Subject Property, which report notes specific
evidence of decay, disease, structural weakness and compromised root systems and concludes with
a recommendation that both trees be removed prior to any landscaping or site work; and
WHEREAS, a letter dated January 10, 2022 to the Appellant from Wayne Cahilly Horticultural
Services, LLC, by Wayne Cahilly, Certified Arborist, Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, New Jersey
Licensed Tree Expert, states that he examined a Pin Oak tree on the Appellant's property and based
on a review of the sediment and erosion control plan for the Subject Property dated August 17,
2021,that a multi-trunked Hickory tree marked for retention on the Subject Property will not likely
survive, and, further, that the health of the Pin Oak on the Appellant's property will be
compromised as a result of work on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, a letter and proposal to the Appellant from Emerald Tree & Shrub Care Company,
by Michael Wheeler, ISA Certified Arborist ID NY06528A, dated January 24, 2022 states as
follows in connection with a Red Oak located on the Appellant's property:
"The planned grading for your neighbors property has a high likelihood of turning
this tree from an asset into a liability. Should it fail your home is a direct target.
Your neighbors Shagbark Hickory, and nearby Oaks are also likely to suffer stress
and decline from any regrading. "
WHEREAS, at the Hearing, the Zoning Board members heard testimony from and engaged with
the Town Environmental Planner, an attorney representing the Applicant, an attorney representing
the Appellant, an arborist representing the Appellant, as well as the Appellant, herself, and
WHEREAS, Chapter 207 of the Town Code of the Town of Mamaroneck (Trees) sets forth the
following criteria for the removal of trees:
§207-4. Criteria for removal of trees.
A. Permits for the removal of trees may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1)If the presence of trees would cause hardship or endanger the public or the person or property
of the owner.
(2) On property to be occupied by buildings or structures, within a distance of IO feet around the
perimeter of such building or structure, depending upon tree species and conditions to be
determined by the Environmental Planner.
(3)If the trees substantially interfere with a permitted use of the property, and the removal of the
trees shall be performed in a selective manner.
(4)If the property shall have an approved cut or fill of land deemed by the Environmental
Planner to be injurious or dangerous to the trees. (Emphasis added.)
(5) Where the trees to be removed are dead or so substantially diseased that, in the opinion of the
Environmental Planner, the tree constitutes a potential danger.
4
B. Notwithstanding Subsection A of this section, if the Environmental Planner determines that a
tree is hazardous to life or property, it may grant a permit for the immediate removal of such tree
without having to follow the procedures or requirements set forth in
Subsections A, B, C, F and G of§207-6 of the Code or§207-10 of the Code.
C. The determination of the Environmental Planner shall be final and shall depend upon the
species of the tree, the degree of injury and the likelihood of the survival of the tree and
consideration of the general welfare and the overall environment of the area, except that it shall
be subject to such review as is authorized by§207-6H; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Planner stated that because the two trees in the Tree Removal
Application are located within approved areas of fill, the introduction of fill this close to the two
trees will kill them; therefore, she granted the Tree Removal Permit pursuant to 207-4.A(4)
(emphasized above); and
WHEREAS, Section 207-6 of the Town Code sets forth the tree removal procedure, including
§ 207-6H, which provides a right to appeal the decision, as follows:
Any person, firm, organization or corporation entitled to receive notice of a decision or
determination made by the Environmental Planner has the right to appeal that decision or
determination to the Board of Appeals, which may affirm, annul or modem that decision or
determination. Notice of that appeal must be in writing, must be accompanied by the appellant's
reasons for annulling or modifying the Environmental Planner's decision or determination and
must be received by the Environmental Planner no later than the 14th day after the notice of a
decision or determination was mailed to the appellant. The Environmental Planner's decision and
determination shall be stayed until the Board of Appeals decides the appeal or the appeal is
dismissed or withdrawn. The decision of the Board of Appeals on that appeal shall be filed with
the Environmental Planner.
WHEREAS, the attorney representing the Appellant stated that that raising the grade on the
Subject Property will put at risk three other trees on the Subject Property as well as one tree on the
Appellant's property; and
WHEREAS, the attorney representing the Applicant stated that the Appellant does not refute the
Tree Removal Permit, but rather, the appeal is based on the potential impact related to adding fill
to the yard, which could impact three other trees; and
WHEREAS, members of the Zoning Board noted that their authority is limited to the two trees
granted for removal pursuant to the Tree Removal Permit and that the health of three other trees
noted by the Appellant are outside the Zoning Board's authority because such trees were not part
of the Tree Removal Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board Chair invited the Appellants arborist to speak about the two trees
which were granted removal pursuant to the Tree Removal Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant'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; and
5
WHEREAS, the Appellant's arborist 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; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board Chair invited the Appellant to address the Board to share her
concerns; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant stated that she had a tree die several years ago due to regrading at an
adjacent property which is why she knows that raising the grade at the Subject Property will put
other trees at risk; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant further stated that she engaged two arborists, and both said that three
other trees would die and could hit her house; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Board members expressed sympathy for the Appellant but concluded that
her objection relates to the issuance of the erosion and sediment control permit, not the Tree
Removal Permit.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Appeal is DENIED,because there has been
no information presented which refutes the determination made by the Town Environmental
Planner in granting the Tree Removal Permit.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
APPLICATION NO. 2—Case # 3268 -Ariadne Decker and John Elton— 1 East Drive
John Elton and Ariadne Decker were present via ZOOM.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Mr. Decker stated that the original fence was there when they purchased the property and that
they removed the original fence and replaced it with a new fence. Mr. Polcari stated that there
have been no complaints and that this came to light when the Town's Code Enforcement Officer
saw the fence being installed and issued a violation.
Mr. Sacks stated that the only solution which would not require a variance would be a guard rail
on top of the retaining wall, but it would not work in this location. He further stated that safety is
a valid concern and that the fence is consistent with others in the neighborhood.
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
6
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
RESOLUTION
1 East 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 4 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Ariadne Decker and John Elton (the"Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a
fence on the premises located at 1 East Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on
the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 7, Lot 438; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
fence as built is 9.7 feet where 4 feet is permissible as required pursuant to Section 240-52A; and
further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to
Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and
WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements
from the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has
heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a
public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to
6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required; and
A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors.
i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood
or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance.
The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the fence
is on top of a retaining wall midway into property, not on property line. In addition,
there have been no complaints from neighbors and it is consistent in appearance with
other fences nearby and it is handsome and blends well with the architecture of house.
7
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 it is necessary to
prevent falls from and this location is the safest and most reasonable alternative.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the fence itself is compliant
but due to topography and the retaining wall, it exceeds the height requirement.
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 adds no bulk and has no impact on air, light,noise,
water, etc.
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.
8
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 # 3269 -Vikas Pathani—251 Murray Avenue
Greg Ralph the applicant's architect was present via ZOOM.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Mr. Ralph stated that he would like to postpone the application because he has heard from
several concerned neighbors and he would like to address their concerns.
Ms. Hochman stated that the date on the sign must be changed.
The matter was adjourned to March 23rd
APPLICATION NO. 4—Case # 3262 -Jonas Littman— 1011 Old White Plains Road
Mr. Littman was present via ZOOM.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Mr. Littman stated that he received a previous variance for the generator, but the contractor
moved the unit closer to the lot line, by 18 inches, to prevent damage when plowing the
driveway. He also stated that he learned that he is required to legalize an A/C compressor, even
though his contractor told him a permit wasn't necessary.
Mr. Sacks stated that the units are a significant distance from the closest neighbor, screened and
a very low dBA, as well as the most practical location.
Mr. Marsh stated that the only conforming place for the generator would be the middle of the
front yard.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
9
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
RESOLUTION
1011 Old White Plains Road, 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, Jonas Littman (the "Applicant") requested a variance n existing stand by generator
and A/C compressor on the premises located at 1011 Old White Plains Road, Town of
Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as
Section 3, Block 25, Lot 265; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
generator in the rear yard is 33.1 feet where 40 feet is permitted, pursuant to Section 240-35B(3);
the A/C compressor is 28.9 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(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-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
generator and compressor are located over 300 feet away from the closest neighbor and
a large wooded area separates the two houses and the 18-inch deviation from the
previously approved location is considered a minimal change.
10
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, with respect to the
generator, the one area that would not have required a variance would have placed the
generator in the middle of the front yard,which is less aesthetically desirable; and with
respect to the AC compressor, the proposed location on the side of the house is
necessary to avoid windows and doors.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is hundreds of feet away
from the closest neighbor and its location was moved 18 inches simply to make it easier
to remove snow from the driveway. Further, the AC compressor extends just 18 inches
past the side of the house and is almost 30 feet from property line and the unit has a
low dBA rating.
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 AC compressor is a split system with a low dBA
sound rating and the generator sits quiet most of the time,with the exception of weekly
cycling.
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.
11
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the
review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this
application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town
Building Department.
7. The weekly testing of the generator shall be only during daytime hours.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
APPLICATION NO. 5—Case # 3270 - Richard Barrella — 6 Baldwin Avenue
Kristen Wilson, the applicant's attorney, was present via ZOOM.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Ms. Wilson stated that the applicant requests a side yard variance to legalize the A/C unit in the
side yard, which is not visible to the neighbors. She further stated that the dBA level is 77.
The Board discussed the placement of the unit and Mr. Wexler stated that there is no location on
the property which would not require a variance. Ms. O'Neill stated that the unit is located at a
point which is furthest away from the neighboring houses. Mr. Sacks stated that he had to search
to locate the unit.
There were no public questions or comments.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously Approved
RESOLUTION
6 Baldwin Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
12
After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Richard Barrella (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize one A/C
compressor on the premises located at 6 Baldwin Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 26, Lot 422;
and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
as-built a/c unit has a side yard of 6.9 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-
39B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming
pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-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 11 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 it is pre-
existing with no complaints and located behind a shed. In addition, it is located close
to the house and the neighboring house is set much further back.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because any other location
would require a variance and would be more intrusive and objectionable as compared
to the existing location.
13
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because its encroaches minimally,
only 1.1 foot, into the required side yard setback.
iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or
environmental conditions because it is small, unobtrusive and quiet with no impact to
runoff. In addition, the neighboring house is a considerable distance from the unit.
V. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not
determinative under the circumstances presented.
B. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the
difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the
neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or
modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the
review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application,
as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town
Building Department.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
14
APPLICATION NO. 6—Case # 3271 - Caren and Jonah Weintraub—4 Robins Nest Lane
Caren and Jonah Weintraub and their architect, Paige Lewis, were present via ZOOM.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved
Ms. Lewis presented and shared her screen for the front porch and second floor addition and
explained that this property is burdened with two front yards
The Board discussed the existing and proposed plans. Mr. Sacks asked for a topographical
survey because he is concerned about the massing.
The pitch of the roof was discussed.
Mr. Wexler asked if the massing could be softened and requested a section drawing, a sketch,
and a rendering be presented at the next meeting.
Mr. Sacks asked for letters of support from neighbors.
There were no public questions or comments.
The matter was adjourned to March 23rd. The public hearing will remain open.
APPLICATION NO. 7—Case # 3272 -Douglas and Helen Panero — 102 Murray Avenue
Douglas and Helen Panero, and their architect, Joseph Bruno, were present via ZOOM.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Mr. Bruno stated that the applicant requests a side yard variance and he shared his screen to
explain the project.
The Board discussed 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 Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill
15
Action: Unanimously Approved
RESOLUTION
102 Murray 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 4 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Douglas and Helen Panero(the"Applicant")requested a variance an addition on the
premises located at 102 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 19, Lot 211; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
proposed addition will have a side yard of 8 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-38 B(2)(a); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District(the"Notice
of Disapproval"); and
WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements
from the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has
heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a
public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS,this is a Type 11 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
addition is extremely small, squaring out space in the existing footprint of the house.
The portion of the addition in front encloses a covered porch and in the rear encloses
an existing porch which is not visible to neighbors or from the street.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
16
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the proposed bump
out will increase flow and usability of the interior with minimal impact beyond the
footprint of the existing foundation.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it encroaches only four
square feet into the required front yard setback with a similarly small encroachment in
the rear under an existing overhead. The additional bulk, a total of 21 square feet, will
not be visible from the street or from neighboring properties.
iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or
environmental conditions because it will not impact air, light or water 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.
17
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—Case # 3273 - Lance Widner—20 Colonial Avenue
Lance Widner and his architects, Larry Gordon and Joe Guglielmo, were present via ZOOM.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Mr. Guglielmo shared his screen and showed the proposed floor plan to enlarge the existing
kitchen. He explained that although the second floor has a 6-inch overhang, the addition will
align with the first-floor wall. He further stated that they received letters in support from the
adjoining neighbors and forwarded them to Ms. Brill to be entered into the record.
The Board discussed the requested variance.
There were no public questions or comments
Motion: To close the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
RESOLUTION
20 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh , seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS,Lance Widner(the"Applicant")requested a variance for an addition on the premises
located at 20 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 20, Lot 293; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
proposed addition has a side yard of 6.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-
39B(2)(a), a combined side yard setback of 16.35 feet where 18 feet is required pursuant to
Section 240-39B(2)(b); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District(the "Notice
of Disapproval"); and
18
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
addition is in the rear yard and extends an existing nonconforming structure further
back within the rear yard setback. It will continue along the existing line on the right
side of the house and does not extend beyond houses on adjoining properties. In
addition, it is not visible from the street.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible
to the applicants other than an area variance.
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the architect
demonstrated that extending the right side of the house will avoid an unnecessary jog
into the kitchen which they plan to enlarge and the Board found the applicant would be
unnecessarily burdened if required to pursue any other alternative.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it encroaches minimally,
only 21 square feet, into the required side 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 the encroachment is minimal.
19
V. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not
determinative under the circumstances presented.
B. For the reasons stated above,the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the
difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the
neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or
modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the
review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution.
4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application,
as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town
Building Department.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
MINUTES
The Minutes of December 22, 2021, and January 26, 2022, were discussed.
Motion: To approve the minutes of December 22, 2021
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously Approved
Motion: To approve the minutes of January 26, 2022
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Approved
20
Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh
Abstain: Jonathan Sacks
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 P.M.
Minutes prepared by
Francine M. Brill
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
21