HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_09_28 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 SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Carol Miller,
Randy Heller, Arthur Katz (alternate)
Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board
of Appeals, Town Board Liaison, Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
Ms. Hochman asked Ms. Brill whether all items on for public hearing have been duly noticed.
She answered yes. Ms. Hochman also 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
Mr. Wexler welcomed everyone and stated there was a full quorum.
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M.
Application #1 - Case #3303 - Santina Morreal - 2 Varela Lane Adjourned
Application #2 - Case #3304 -Andrea and Michael Keating - 19 W Brookside Drive -
Public Hearing Continued
Paige Lewis, of Lewis and Lewis Architects, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and
stated that they responded to Board comments and concerns: They are leaving the garage in
same location and modified and lowered the roof, making the area for storage only. The
footprint and bulk has been reduced from the original proposal. She further stated that they tried
to make the proposal zoning compliant but it would not work.
Ms. Lewis showed the Board both the previous plan and the present plan for the one car garage
and stairs to the storage area.
The window in the storage area was discussed because a neighbor expressed concern about
someone looking down into his house. It was agreed that the window would be opaque.
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 as modified
Moved By Stephen Marsh, Seconded by Carol Miller.
Action: Unanimously approved
1
RESOLUTION
19 W Brookside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,New York
After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller,the following resolution was
proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Andrea and Michael Keating (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a garage
renovation and addition on the premises located at 19 W Brookside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,
New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2,
Block 17, Lot 810; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
addition as proposed will have a side yard setback of 2.3 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to
Section 240-37B(2)(c), a rear yard setback of 2.3 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section
240-37B(3)(b) and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District(the Notice of
Disapproval); and
WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements
from the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has
heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a
public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, the neighboring property owner expressed concern about view from the proposed
second story window into the neighboring house and the applicant agreed to reduce ability to see
into neighbor's house; 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 applicant has revised the
proposal to minimize impact to neighbors by reducing overall height and bulk and maintaining the
existing footprint. Further, the Board determined that the appearance of the garage will be
improved.
2
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 explored the possibility of
shifting the structure away from the property line but determined that it would hamper the needed
turning radius to provide access for a car into the garage. Instead,the applicant decided to maintain
the existing footprint and reduce proposed height and bulk.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is substantial because it is very close to the property line but this
is mitigated due to the fact that the existing footprint will remain the same size and the original
proposal has been redesigned to reduce the bulk.
iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental
conditions because it will not expand the existing footprint or significantly increase bulk, so there
will be no additional impervious surface and no additional runoff.
v. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under
the circumstances presented.
B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious
to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty
detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood
and the health safety and welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or
modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant.
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the
review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
resolution.
3
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 new second story window will be installed to allow natural light to enter the room but shall
minimize the ability to view into the interior of the house on the neighboring property by using
opaque glass.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
Application #3 Case #3305 -Aubrey Evans - 19 Country Club Drive
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Aubrey Evans, the owner, addressed the Board to explain the application for a spa in the front
yard. It was pointed out and discussed that a spa has the same requirements as a pool. Fencing
was discussed.
Mr. Evans decided to withdraw his 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
Application #4 - Case #3306 -Raymond and Cathy Sultan - 446 Weaver Street
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Jose Gomez, the applicant's representative, stated that he wants to convert existing attic space to
habitable space. The Board discussed the request, noting that the Town Building Department
inspection for a Certificate of Occupancy failed to pick up on a violation of the approved plans.
Mr. Sacks explained that he opposes this request because the originally approved plans did not
call for habitable attic space and he believes this request would substantially increase the FAR
which is not permissible under the Zoning Code.
4
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
Action:
Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh,
No: Jonathan Sacks
RESOLUTION
446 Weaver Street, Town of Mamaroneck,New York
After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to I, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Raymond and Cathy Sultan (the "Applicant") requested a variance for finishing
an attic on the premises located at 446 Weaver Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 21, Lot 159;
and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
finishing of the attic will create a total floor area of 5267 sq. ft. where 4370 sq. ft. is permitted
pursuant to Section 240-59.1B(3) for a building in an R-10 Zone District (the Notice of
Disapproval); and
WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements
from the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has
heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a
public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to
6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as
required; and
A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs
any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching
this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors.
i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance.
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 additional square footage will
not be visible, as there are only interior changes proposed. The roofline of the house will not
change and house will not appear larger. The only changes to the exterior of the structure will be
larger windows on the front and rear. Further, the Board determined that the appearance will be
consistent with the existing house and the surrounding 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 applicant desires to add play space
for children and there is no available basement area.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is substantial because the applicant is asking for an amount of
square footage that significantly exceeds what is permissible but this factor is mitigated because
the house is zoning compliant with respect to height, lot coverage and setbacks.
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 is to finish interior attic space in order to increase habitable area
within the structure and there will be no external 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.
6
2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the
review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit.
3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within 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 43307 - Stephen Moser - 161 Murray Avenue
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Stephen Moser, the owner, addressed the Board and explained the application. He submitted a
plan which was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1. He explained that the AC unit
will be placed behind the garage and is a quiet Mitsubishi.
The Board discussed the boundaries of the nonconforming property and with respect to the
location of the garage.
Mr. Polcari stated that applicable regulations allow a garage to be heated and cooled, with a
bathroom. He further stated that he cannot control how people use their garage.
Mr. Sacks questioned whether this should be considered a change of use. Mr. Wexler stated the
only thing before the Board is the AC encroachment into the required yard.
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 Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh
Action: Unanimously approved
7
RESOLUTION
161 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York
After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Stephen Moser (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an air conditioning
condenser on the premises located at 161 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 18, Lot
391; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
AC unit will have a side yard setback of 6 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to 240-38B(2)(a),
and a rear yard of 4.2 where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(3); and further the
addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69
for a building 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 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 air conditioner is small,
minimally visible to neighbors, with a quiet Dba rating and to be located in the rear yard, behind
the garage, and there are no neighboring houses in close proximity.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the
applicants other than an area variance.
8
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because another location would require extra
piping which would be less efficient and more costly.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small and quiet and
practically hidden from view.
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 unit is small, adds no bulk, will not generate significant runoff and has a
low dBa rating.
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 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.
9
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 #3308 - Konstantin Gubareff - 95 Colonial Avenue.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Konstantin Gubareff,the owner, addressed the Board and explained the application.
The Board discussed the proposal.
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 Stephen Marsh
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
95 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Konstantin Gubareff (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a patio on the
premises located at 95 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 12, Lot 337; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
patio will have a rear yard setback of.3 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-50;
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
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 patio will enhance the use and
appearance of the backyard, it is not visible from the street and the closest neighboring property is
at a higher elevation with a retaining wall separating the 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 given existing rock outcroppings and
topography, there is no other feasible location for the patio.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the patio will be pervious, relatively
small and will add no bulk.
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 pavers will be pervious and will generate minimal if any additional runoff
and since it adds no bulk it will not impact light or generate shadows.
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.
11
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 #8 - Case # 3309 - Ryan and Mia Smith - 39 Maple Hill Drive.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Gregory Lewis, of Lewis and Lewis Architects, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant
and he explained the plan and elevations.
The Board discussed the calculations and questioned why existing lot coverage exceeds what
was approved in connection with a variance approved by the Board in 2014.
Mr. Lewis stated he relied on the survey to make calculations.
Mr. Sacks stated that the applicant's request is substantial and asked whether there is any way to
decrease lot coverage.
The matter was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
MINUTES
12
The Minutes of August were discussed.
Motion: To approve the Minutes of August
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller
Action: Unanimously approved
NEW BUSINES
Mr. Polcari stated that the Town Board is discussing a change to the notification radius.
The Board discussed the change and Mr. Wexler stated that he will send a memo stating that the
Board agrees that 300-foot radius is acceptable.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Minutes prepared by
Francine M. Brill
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
13