Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_04_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C" ON APRIL 27, 2022 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller, Randy Heller Absent: Seth Bronheim, Stephen Marsh Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Robert Heller, alternate, Robin Nichinsky, Town Board Liaison, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Ms. Hochman asked Ms. Brill whether the documents to be discussed this evening have been posted on the Town web site 24 hours prior to the meeting. She answered yes. The Chair welcomed Randy Heller, who has been appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and will serve as Alternate A and Town Board member Robin Nichinsky, who is sitting in for Liasion Board member Sabrina Fiddleman. Ms. Brill confirmed that all applications on for public hearing were duly noticed. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Wexler welcomed everyone and stated that there was a full quorum. Application #1 - Case #3276 Susan & David Miller—27 Rockridge Road—Public Hearing The public hearing was opened last month and remains open. The property owner and their architect, Greg Lewis, addressed the Board. Mr. Lewis stated that they reduced lot coverage as per the Board's request at the prior meeting, shaving off a lot of the driveway and removing some pavers. He gave a quick overview of the revised plan and a rendering was shown. 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 Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill 1 Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 27 Rockridge Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with 0 abstentions. WHEREAS, Susan & David Miller (the "Applicant") requested a variance for proposed front addition and porch on the premises located at 27 Rockridge Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 12, Lot 411; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front additions will have a front yard of 17.3 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-3813(1), a side yard is 8.1 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 3813(2)(a); and lot coverage will be 40.3% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 38 F; 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, at the meeting it was clarified that the front yard will be 18.3 feet, not 17.3 feet and the lot coverage will be 37.6%, not 40.3%: 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 front addition and porch will enhance the appearance of the house and is consistent with the 2 neighborhood. 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 backyard has severe slope and rock requiring any new square footage be added to the front of the house and the applicant has examined and presented a number of different options and it was agreed that the proposal is the best option. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because due to a large right of way, the distance between the front of the house and the curb will be 28 feet, which is a significant distance and, in addition, there is only 2.6% of additional lot coverage 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 proposal will not impact air or light and there will be a reduction in impervious surface by reducing the driveway and new plantings will assist with drainage. Further, any additional runoff will be addressed with erosion control. 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. 3 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 #2 - Case 43277—Scott Lomax—78 Hillcrest Avenue—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Ximena Lomax, the applicant's architect and owner addressed the Board requesting a variance for an air conditioning unit next to a grandfathered unit. The Board discussed the Dba level and the requested variance. 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 Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 78 Hillcrest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with 0 abstentions. WHEREAS, Scott Lomax (the "Applicant")requested a variance for relocation of existing AC compressor and new entry platform and steps on the premises located at 78 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 398; and 4 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The AC compressor has a side yard of 6.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(a), a rear yard of 16.5 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3); the front platform and steps will have 16.2 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(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-6 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, at the meeting it was clarified that the side yard was 5.3 feet, not 6.3 feet; 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 front porch will enhance the appearance of the front of the house and the new steps will replace the existing, deteriorating steps. Further, the air conditioning compressor will be moved to a less exposed location. 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 front platform cannot be moved and it is reasonable to locate the new compressor next to the existing compressor, especially given that the rear yard is shallow. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 5 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because compressor is relatively small and will be relocated next to existing and new steps and will not be visible. 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 moving an existing air conditioning compressor unit will not increase runoff and extending the platform in front of the house will add a minimal amount of square footage and gives rise to no environmental 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. 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. 6 Application #3 - Case #3278 - Chatsworth Gardens - 14 N. Chatsworth Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jillian Martin, representing the property owner, addressed the Board and explained the request for directional signage. She stated that the buildings were built in 1927 and the entrance to the courtyard is on North Chatsworth but the main building entrance is on Murray Avenue. She further stated that it is very confusing to visitors, delivery people and emergency personal. She concluded by stating that they are trying to make things clearer for safety and convenience. The Board discussed the placement and material of the proposed signs. 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 Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 14 N. Chatsworth, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with 0 abstentions. WHEREAS, Chatsworth Gardens (the "Applicant") requested a variance for signs on the premises located at 14 N. Chatsworth, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 27, Lot 150/152; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed free standing signs and 3 walls signs are not permitted pursuant to Section 175-10A; for a residence in an R-TA Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Town 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 7 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 it will help people better navigate through the building and direct them to proper entrances. 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 new signage is necessary to direct people to the proper locations. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they are directional and have been approved as to design, concept and proportions by the Town's Board of Architectural Review. 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 they are signs and only serve to help people navigate to the appropriate entrance. 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. 8 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 #4 - Case #3279 - Sonia Chalot and Louis-Paul Roger - 35 Valley Road -Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved The property owner and architect, Sonia Chalot and Paige Lewis, addressed the Board and explained the proposal. Ms. Lewis stated that the nonconforming lot is only 45 feet wide where 75 feet is required in that zone, and there is a major elevation change to the rear from N. Chatsworth. Ms. Lewis further explained that the air conditioning units do not have adequate air flow because they are under the house and, further, that they generate a lot of heat that affects the home because of their location. Ms. Lewis showed the elevations, existing and proposed, as well as the plans. The Board discussed the plans and the Dba level of the air conditioning units. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing 9 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Carol Miller, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 35 Valley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Carol Miller, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with 0 abstentions. WHEREAS, Sonia Chalot and Louis-Paul Roger (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed addition and air conditioning units on the premises located at 35 Valley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15, Lot 501; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition will have a side yard setback of 8.4 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a),the proposed porch roof will have a side yard setback of 6.5 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a), the addition will have a side yard setback of 4.3 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a), the three A/C units will have a 4.6. side yard setback where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a),the combined yard setback will be 10.8 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 3813(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-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. 10 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 sits on an undersized lot and the proposed addition extends minimally into the side yard. 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 building is already nonconforming and any expansion would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed addition is small and unobtrusive. 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 no appreciable impact to runoff, light or air. 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. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #5—Case #3280 -Kurt Lippincott—54 Myrtle Blvd.—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved The applicant, Kurt Lippincott, addressed the Board to request a fence in his rear yard on top of a raised play area with a 10-foot drop. Mr. Sacks stated that there is no other alternative as a guard rail would not prevent children from failing over the edge. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 54 Myrtle Blvd, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with 0 abstentions. WHEREAS, Kurt Lippincott (the "Applicant") requested a variance to legalize a fence on the 12 premises located at 54 Myrtle Blvd, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23, Lot 58; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence as existing is 14 feet high where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52; 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 property is built into a mountainside and the fence is unobtrusive, attractive and compatible with the surrounding area. 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 feasible means for the Applicant to prevent serious injuries from falling. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is located in the rear yard, unobtrusive and only visible to the Applicant 13 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 is no impact to runoff, light or air. 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. Application#6- Case#3281 -Jennifer and Ross Prussin— 10 Dimitri Place—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved 14 The property owners and their architect, Lisa Piper Gilbert, addressed the Board to request a variance for a rear yard addition. Ms. Gilbert stated the plans were shared with all impacted neighbors, each of whom signed letters stating that they have reviewed the plans. Ms. Gilbert further stated that the shared driveway and deck received variances in 2021. Ms. Gilbert further stated that the existing garage is unusable due to the construction of the deck and the size of the garage. A photo was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. The shared driveway was discussed. Mr. Sacks expressed concerns about the shared driveway and asked whether there is an easement. Public Comments Vilrant Yadav of 8 Dimitri Place stated that there is an easement but he did not bring a copy. He further stated that according to the easement, no one should use the easement to park, but since the previous variance was granted the second car is partially on the easement. Photos were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 2. Mr. Yadav explained how the proposal would impede his use of the shared driveway. Ms. Hochman found the 1958 easement online and read it into the record. The Board asked that the matter be adjourned so the applicants could have the easement delineated. Mr. Sacks stated that another solution is to construct a substructure under the grass lawn so grass will grow, and a car can be parked there completely on the owner's property. He further stated that the question involving the easement is a legal issue, and the applicant should look for a solution to get the cars out of the easement. The matter was adjourned. Application #7 - Case #3282 —Jake Cutler - 7 Edgewater Place—Public Hearing This matter was struck from the agenda because it was not properly noticed. Application#8 - Case #3283 —Huong Nguyen and Selven Veerargoo —22 Edgewood Avenue - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 15 Denis Cucinella, the applicant's representative, addressed the Board to request a generator. Mr. Wexler asked about the placement of the propane tanks and Mr. Polcari stated that they are allowed where they are proposed to be located. Mr. Cucinella stated that the tanks will be screened with plantings. The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 22 Edgewood 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 0 abstentions. WHEREAS, Huong Nguyen and Selven Veerargoo (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a stand-by generator on the premises located at 22 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23, Lot 304; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed generator will have a rear yard of 14.5 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 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 Applicant stated that that the tanks will be screened with plantings; and 16 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 will be located in the interior of the property and screened from neighbors' view by existing garage and the propane tanks will also be screened with planting. 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 dimensional requirements, any location would require a variance iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the tanks and the generator will be screened with plantings and they are also common within the neighborhood 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 generator and tanks will be visibly screened and the generator will only operate during power outages or when exercised weekly. 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. 7. The Applicant shall ensure that the generator is exercised only on weekdays between 10 am and 1pm. 8. The applicant shall ensure that the generator is properly screened to limit visibility of tanks and generator—but to allow servicing. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. MINUTES The draft minutes of March 23, 2022 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes of March 23, 2022 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved NEW BUSINESS Mr. Polcari asked the Board if they were comfortable with eliminating paper as the Town would like to go paperless. Some Board members agreed but most would prefer to receive paper packets. 18 ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals, Secretary 19