Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_07_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 July 27,2022 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller, Randy Heller, Arthur Katz (alternate Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Also Present: Joe Russo, Assistant Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Absent: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh 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 and stated that application 92 for 3 Cornell will not be heard tonight. Application #1 - Case 43294 -Kenneth Stier - 50 Country Road—Public Hearing Continued Drew Gamels, Esq. and Mr. Stier were present. Ms. Gamels stated that in response to concerns expressed at the prior Board meeting, the applicant proposes to move the generator an additional two feet to be further from the property line. They also evaluated other options and found none that would work. For example, if placed up against the house, carbon monoxide could seep into the house and since much of the property floods, other areas would not be suitable for placement. Mr. Katz asked about the back yard and Mr. Stier stated that during Hurricane Ida there was 7 inches of water there. Mr. Katz asked if the generator could be placed in front of the house and Mr. Stier responded that the pond makes that location impractical and it would still require both front and side yard variances and be close to the house at 54 Country Road. The Board discussed an easement for the Con Ed line which would be directly under the proposed location. Ms. Gamels stated that it would only effect Mr. Stier if there was a problem with Con Ed's ability to maintain the line and she further stated that the requested variance does not implicate the easement. 1 Mr. Sacks asked whether the generator could be moved at least five feet from the property line and Mr. Stier agreed. Mr. Wexler asked for more screening as the neighbors had expressed concerns about the visual aspect of the location and Mr. Stier agreed. 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 Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 50 Country Road, 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, Kenneth Stier (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a generator on the premises located at 50 Country Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 15, Lot 482; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds:_The generator as proposed will have a side yard of 2 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(3); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an B-30 Zone District (the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, in response to a request by the Board, the Applicant agreed to move the proposed location to be five feet from the property line; and WHEREAS, to mitigate visual impacts from the adjacent neighbor's driveway, the Applicant agreed to maintain existing planting and add additional planting to enhance screening; 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 2 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 is a relatively small unit that will only operate during emergencies and testing and the neighboring property also has a generator that will operate at same time. Further, the unit will be located in the rear 1/3 of the property which allows as-of-right accessory structures 5 feet from the property line. 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 Applicant has demonstrated that it examined alternate locations and explained why such areas are not feasible due, for example, to location of windows, flooding problems, proximity to utilities and other constraints. The Board finds that the proposed location is reasonable because it is close to where the utilities enter the house and especially given that the Applicant has agreed to move it five feet away from the Property line. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small and will be located in the rear 1/3 of the property, 5 feet from the property line, which would be permissible as-of-right for accessory structures. 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 impact to air, light or runoff and the sound impact will be minimal. 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. 3 B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: I. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 add evergreen shrubs to supplement the existing line of evergreens and screen the view from neighboring property with all plantings to be maintained and replaced as necessary. 8. The Generator shall be tested only on weekdays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #3 - Case #3296 -Mark and Kristen Deflice -42 Colonial Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Eric Jacobson, the applicant's architect and the owners were present and addressed the Board Mr. Jacobson stated that they propose a one-story, 69-square foot addition for a mud room to improve interior flow. He further explained that the house is located on a corner lot and the proposed addition will cover existing impervious area. 4 The Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Randy Heller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 42 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Mark and Kristen Deflice (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a residential addition on the premises located at 42 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 230; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The addition as proposed has a front yard of 15 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39-B(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,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. 5 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 addition is designed to be compatible with the rest of the house and will be set back on a cul-de-sac off the main 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 proposed addition will be set back from where house already protrudes, closer to the cul-de-sac and will therefore be less visible from the street. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed addition is only a single story 6 x 12 and also because if this house were not burdened by two front yards, a variance would not even be necessary. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the proposed addition will not increase impervious surface and it will be tucked back inside and around the house to lessen its visual impact. 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. 6 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 #3297 -Allison Bugay and Dennis Grady- 19 Elkan Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Grady, the owner, addressed the Board. Mr. Sacks questioned the Dba level and Mr. Grady responded that it is 50 Dba, which is much less noisy than window units. The Board discussed the placement, noting that all the Elkan Road homes require variances for AC units. 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 Carol Miller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 19 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Carol Miller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Allison Bugay and Dennis Grady (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as-built AC compressor on the premises located at 19 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 7, Lot 496; and 7 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The AC compressor has a side yard of 7 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42(2)(a), has a side yard of 8 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42(2)(a), and a combined yard setback of 15 feet where 60 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-42(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 RA 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 all of the units in this development are significantly nonconforming and the proposed action does not increase the impact of such non- conformity. In addition, the appearance is consistent with adjacent properties 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 only other option would be to put window units in all the windows instead of a central compressor which would be louder and more visually intrusive. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the entire complex is nonconforming and this will not increase the appearance of nonconformity. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or 8 environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because most adjoining units have the same compressor or window units and the proposed model is deemed to be a quiet unit-the applicant stated that the unit has a 50 Dba rating which is consistent with the sound of rainfall. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: I. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 #3298 - Catherine and Paul Melamed - 45 Hillcrest Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller 9 Action: Unanimously approved Jose from Keller Eaton Architects addressed the Board and explained the proposal to convert a garage to habitable space, creating a first-floor bathroom and a study. He stated that the garage is 8 X 17 and unusable. The Board discussed the parking requirements and the widening of the driveway. Mr. Wexler suggested a pervious surface such as "grasscrete". There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 45 Hillcrest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Catherine and Paul Melamed(the"Applicant")requested a variance for alteration of existing garage to habitable space on the premises located at 45 Hillcrest Avenue Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 22, Lot 105; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The garage to habitable space has a front yard of 23.5 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), the side yard setback is 5.3 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(a), parking in the front yard is not permitted pursuant to Section 240-79B(1)(a), the parking/travel way will have a 0 foot set back where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 79B(1)(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 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 10 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 applicant currently has a substandard garage that they will convert to habitable space with no change to the house footprint or existing encroachments. Although the driveway will be closer to the property line,this condition is common on Hillcrest and will be in harmony with neighborhood. Further,the change to the front facade will be consistent with balance of 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 a preexisting non-conforming structure and there will be no change to the existing footprint of the house and there is no other place to position the driveway. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is within existing footprint and change to front facade in elevation is consistent with balance of house and the driveway is consistent with existing homes on Hillcrest. 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 impact to air, light or runoff because a pervious surface of grass and gravel will be used as surface for driveway. 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. 11 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 six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 #3299 -Josh Freidfertig - 65 Myrtle Blvd Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Eliot Senor, the applicant's engineer, addressed the Board stating that 65 Myrtle is a thru lot with road frontage on Laurel and Myrtle. The variance is necessary to locate the pool in the front yard facing Laurel. He submitted a photo, which was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. He further stated they have applied to the Planning Board for residential site plan approval because the existing structure will be torn down and replaced with a larger structure with dimensions as yet unknows. Ms. Hochman stated that the Planning Board will refer the matter to the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC). The Board discussed the request. 12 There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 65 Myrtle Blvd, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Josh Freidfertig (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a swimming pool on the premises located at 65 Myrtle Blvd Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 24, Lot 590; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The swimming pool in the front yard is not permitted pursuant to Section 192-5(c) 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 the yard fronting on Laurel 13 functions as a rear yard and it is concealed by rock ledge. 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 burdened with two front yards and pool on the Laurel side would be permissible as-of-right, subject to CZMC review, but for the fact that it is deemed a front yard. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it has the same impact as a swimming pool in a rear yard which would otherwise be permissible and, further the dimension of the pool (14 x 28) is not considered large for a swimming pool. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will be shielded from views from both Myrtle Blvd and Laurel. 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, with the current structure facing Myrtle Blvd., 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 six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 14 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 front yard shall continue to be designated as Myrtle Blvd., with the house entrance facing Myrtle Blvd., and the rear yard shall continue to be designated as Laurel. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #7 - Case #3300 -Peter and Dominique Essig - 38 Rockland Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect addressed the Board to explain the proposal to expand the front stoop and stair, increase lot coverage and add additional parking on the undersized lot. Mr. Sacks stated that lot coverage is proposed to be 46% where 35% is permitted but this is not reflected on the notice of disapproval. It was agreed that there will need to be a revised notice of disapproval. Mr. Katz expressed concern that parking in the front yard is not typical in the neighborhood. The owner stated that the slope of the driveway is dangerous and Mr. Yestadt submitted photos of cars parking in the front yard, elsewhere in the neighborhood. The photos were entered into the record and marked Exhibit land two additional photos were submitted and entered into the record, marked Exhibits 2 and 3. The Board discussed the request. Mr. Wexler stated that more information is needed such as topography and elevations. Mr. Sacks stated that he wants to see what it will look like from the street. Public Comments: Ronald Meister, a nearby resident of Rockland Avenue, stated that he feels the proposal does not fit into the neighborhood and objects specifically to parking in the front yard. The matter was adjourned and the applicant was instructed to update the sign. 15 Application #8 - Case #3301 -Melissa and Michael Rose - 60 Hickory Grove Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and explained that the house is burdened with two front yards and the owners want to convert the sun room to an insulated space. Ms. Lewis described the plans and the Board discussed the request. 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 Carol Miller, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 60 Hickory Grove Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Carol Miller, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Melissa and Michael Rose (the"Applicant") requested a variance to convert a porch to a sun room on the premises located at 60 Hickory Grove Drive Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 680; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed porch to sunroom conversion will have a front yard setback of 14.9 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section240-39-B(1); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building 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 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 not change the footprint or the bulk of the house and only will convert a screened porch to a fully enclosed sunroom. 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 proposed action is less impactful than adding on to the house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not increase the footprint or the bulk of the house and makes only cosmetic and unobjectionable changes to the exterior. 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 consistent with the neighborhood with minimal changes to the bulk or footprint of the house. 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. 17 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 six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (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 Motion: To approve the draft minutes of the June 29, 2022 meeting Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller Action: approved Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Randy Heller ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 18