Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_05_25 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 MAY 25, 2022 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Carol Miller, Arthur Katz (alternate) Absent: Seth Bronheim, Randy Heller Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Sabrina FIddelman, 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. 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#3281 -Jennifer and Ross Prussin— 10 Dimitri Place—Public Hearing This matter is adjourned because the notification sign was not updated to reflect meeting date. Application #2 - Case #3284—Amanda and Charles Michael - 22 Orsini Drive -Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Marsh stated that he used to live at this house but he has no financial interest in the outcome of this application. He further stated that he will be impartial in his review. Mr. Katz stated that he lives next door and also will be impartial in his review. Sal Alini, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request conversion of a garage to habitable space, conversion of a porch to a mud room and legalization of the air conditioning compressor and generator. Mr. Alini explained the proposal and showed photos. Mr. Polcari explained that permits were given by mistake in 2000 during a renovation and must be corrected. He further stated that there have been no complaints. The Board discussed the variances requested. 1 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 variances Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 22 Orsini 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, Amanda and Charles Michael (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an alteration, as-built AC and stand-by generator on the premises located at 22 Orsini Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 19, Lot 175; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed garage conversion to den will have a side yard of 6.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a), The proposed conversion of the open porch to mud room will have a side yard setback of 6.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a), The rear steps and platform to the mud room will have a rear yard setback of 11.5 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3), The mud room will have a rear yard setback of 15 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3), The rear steps and platform to the mud room will have will have a rear yard setback of 11.5 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3) The two air conditioning compressors will have a rear yard setback of 11.5 where 25 is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3) The stand by generator will have a rear yard setback of 4.2 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(3) The side yard setback will be 5.0 where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS,the conversion of the garage to a den and conversion of an open porch to a mudroom increases the pre-existing non-conformity of the house; and WHEREAS, the Board expressed its desire that the generator be tested only during times that will be less disruptive for neighbors; and 2 WHEREAS, the Board expressed concern that the air conditioning compressor be located no closer to the Property line than shown on the submitted survey; 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 conversion of the garage to a den does not increase the encroachment into the side yard, as it is within the same footprint and only a small change in outward appearance; • the conversion of the open porch to mudroom encloses an existing porch and will not be visible from neighboring houses or the street; • the legalization of the compressor is unobjectionable because it is a small encroachment which has existed without complaint for 15+years • the legalization of the generator is unobjectionable because it is pre-existing , common in the neighborhood and the applicant has agreed that it will be exercised only Monday—Friday during the day. 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 converting interior space to other use is a practical solution to minimize encroachment into required yards. The Board further finds that the applicant explored other locations for the generator and all of them were infeasible due to proximity to windows. 3 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because interior renovation changes little to the outside appearance of the house; enclosing an existing structure does not add bulk or increase the footprint; AC compressors and generators are common in the Town and their proposed locations are practical and unobjectionable. 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 conversion of the den and porch will not increase shadows or runoff and, further, there have been no complaints about the existing AC compressor and generator. 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. 4 7. Generator shall be exercised only during weekdays during daytime hours. 8. The air conditioning compressor shall remain in the same location as it is shown on the submitted survey and shall be moved no closer to the property line. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application#3-Case#3285-Thomas Opladen—288 Rockingstone Avenue—Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Randi Opladen addressed the Board to legalize the generator stating that it is well screened and has no impact on the neighbors. Ms. O'Neill asked why it is positioned so far from the house and Ms. Opladen answered that the installer did so for safety purposes. Mr. Sacks stated that it seems the installer is doing what is best for them, not for the homeowner. He further suggested that the propane tanks be placed on the left side of the house and tuck the generator closer to the house. The Board suggested that the matter be adjourned, and encouraged the applicant to speak with the installer to move it closer to the house, which would require either less of a variance or no variance. Mr. Polcari suggested that the installer could contact the building department if they have questions. The matter was adjourned. Application #4 - Case #3286 -Angela Miata Zmuda—32 Pryer Manor - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to request extension of an expired variance. He further stated that they were not able to get the permit within the 6 months from the issuance of the variance and there have been no changes to the proposal, as originally requested and granted. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 5 Action: Unanimously approved The Board agreed to authorize an additional six months with the same conditions. Motion: To approve the requested extension Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously Approved RESOLUTION 32 Pryer Manor, 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 no abstentions. WHEREAS, Angela Miata Zmuda (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a proposed one- story addition and front steps on the premises located at 32 Pryer Manor, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 6, Lot 285; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed front addition in the front yard will be 18.7 feet where 30 feet is required, pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the proposed front portico will be 21 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1);the proposed front steps will be 21.7 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); the proposed front addition will be 21.3 feet as proposed 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 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 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 Applicant was granted a variance for this property on May 26, 2021, which expired six months after the date it was granted; and WHEREAS, the Applicant stated that although they failed to get a building permit within six months, there have been no changes to the proposal, as originally requested and granted WHEREAS, the Board agreed to grant a new variance on the same findings,terms and conditions that were stated in the prior resolution; and 6 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 architectural design will enhance the appearance of the house. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the house is pre- existing nonconforming and burdened with two front yards, each requiring a 30-foot setback and the proposed plans are the only way to meet the homeowner's goal to expand the kitchen and make the first floor more usable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the rights of way are very large and there will be a setback of over 30 feet from one street and approximately 28 feet from the other street. 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 lot coverage is less than allowable and the applicant will comply with all stormwater runoff requirements. 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: 7 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 #5 - Case #3287 -Brian and Jodie Sherman—4 Dundee Road - Public Hearing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, and the home owners were present to address the Board. Ms. Lewis stated that the garage has had flooding issues and the owners want to modify their driveway to prevent their garage from flooding. She explained the plan and submitted photos which were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. Mr. Wexler asked whether alternatives were explored. The Board discussed the size of the garage as well as its proximity to the property line. Mr. Wexler stated that it is a large structure and very close to the property line and suggested ways to break up the mass. Mr. Marsh suggested decreasing the garage to accommodate only one car. PUBLIC COMMENTS Robin and Rich Westin of 7 Avon Road, the closest neighbor, addressed the Board. Ms. Westin stated that the area is not well screened because the plantings are mostly deciduous and will have no leaves part of the year. She further stated that the plantings are not tall enough to screen the height of the structure. 8 Ms. Westin further stated that the scale of the structure would be a detriment to her property as it will have a negative impact on the enjoyment of their home and yard. She entered photos into the record, which were marked Exhibit 2. Mr. Wexler requested the applicants to explore alternatives and Mr. Sacks suggested the applicant and neighbors should discuss the different options. The matter was adjourned. MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of April 27, 2022 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Approved Vote: Yes: Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller, Irene O'Neill ADJOURNMENT The meeting was at 8:45 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 9