Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_11_16 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 November 16,2022 Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller, Arthur Katz, (alternate) Absent: Randy Heller(alternate), Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Also Present: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, 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 also confirmed that all applications on for public hearing were duly noticed. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. Application #1 —Case # 3303 - Santina Morreal - 2 Varela Lane - Continued The public hearing remains open. Pietro Rosato, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating that they addressed previous comments and reduced the encroachment of the deck into the side yard. Mr. Rosato stated this is an extension of the existing deck and the pergola was removed. He further stated that lot coverage will remain the same and the surface under the deck is pervious grass and gravel. 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 2 Varela Lane, 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, Santina Morreal(the"Applicant")requested a variance for a deck and pergola on the premises located at 2 Varela Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax 1 Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 30, Lot 62.2; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck and pergola will have a side yard setback of 4.3 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to 240-38B(2)(a),the lot coverage will be 37% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38(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 Building Inspector stated that as revised to eliminate the pergola, the side yard setback will be 8 feet, not 4.3 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 deck does not add any bulk to the house and the Applicant has reconfigured the design of the deck and removed the pergola; and 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 irregular shape of of the lot offers no alternative which would allow the deck to be usable; and iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because only a small amount of the deck's square footage (6 sf)will encroach int the required yard and,with respect to lot coverage, the deck 2 has slats and the surface below is gravel which makes it pervious, so there will be no additional runoff. 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 a pervious deck will not impact light, air, runoff or drainage. 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. 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. 3 Application # 2 - Case #3309 - Ryan and Mia Smith - 39 Maple Hill Drive - Continued The public hearing remains open. Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Mia Smith, the owner, addressed the Board to request a rear stoop and steps down in the rear yard setback. Mr. Lewis explained the proposed plans. The Board discussed lot coverage. Mr. Polcari stated that he rechecked the calculations and the file and found that in 2014 a 40%variance was granted and calculations show that existing lot coverage is 42.7%. The Board discussed the requested variance and whether it impacts impervious surface. 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 Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved. RESOLUTION 39 Maple Hill Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Ryan and Mia Smith (the "Applicant") requested a variance for new stairs on the premises located at 39 Maple Hill Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 22, Lot 278; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The new stairs will have a rear yard setback of 10.4 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to 240-39B(3),the lot coverage will be 43.1% where 35% is allowed pursuant to Section 240- 39F; 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 Building Inspector stated that existing lot coverage is 42.7%; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 4 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 stairs will not be visible from the street or from the left side neighbor and barely visible to the neighbor on the right side and, further, the design is architecturally consistent with the style 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 existing layout provides only one exit through the front door and the patio is in the right rear of the property which is difficult to access and the proposed stairs would provide direct access from the middle of house to rear yard patio. Therefore, the Board found that the proposed location is the only logical place for stairs and that the design to minimizes impact. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds only 28 square feet of lot coverage over an existing patio. The Board noted that existing lot coverage is 42.7% and the increase to 43.1 would be minimal. In addition, regarding the rear yard setback, the Board noted that the existing house has a 7.7 feet rear yard and the new stairs will encroach into less of the rear yard setback than the existing house. 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 stairs will be installed on impervious surface (the existing patio) so it will not generate additional runoff. 5 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. 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 #3 - Case #3314 - Kathryn Diamond - 18 Clover Street Motion: To open the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Katherine Diamond, the owner, addressed the Board to request an air conditioning compressor in the front yard. The Board discussed the Dba level. 6 Mr. Katz asked why it could not be placed in the rear yard and Ms. Diamond stated that the contractors stated it would be too far of a run for the unit to work efficiently in the room it is intended to serve. The distance from the property line was discussed and it was suggested that the owner have the surveyor mark the placement before installation is done to avoid the need to return for an additional variance request. Mr. Sacks suggested a condition that the unit be placed as close to the house as possible. 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 Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved. Motion: To approved the requested variance, with the proposed condition Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved. RESOLUTION 18 Clover Street, 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, Kathryn Diamond(the"Applicant") requested a variance for an A/C compressor on the premises located at 18 Clover Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 19, Lot 75; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The A/C compressor will have a front yard setback of 17 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to 240-37B(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-10 Zone District (the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, the Board noted that the curve on Clover Street makes it difficult to estimate the front yard setback with precision and advised the Applicant that the unit could not encroach any further than what was requested; and WHEREAS, the Applicant agreed that if it is possible to encroach less than the requested amount, that the unit would be placed as close to the house as possible; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 7 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 unit is small, narrow and very quiet (dBA rating of 49) and will not be visible from the street and it will be partially screened from neighbors by plantings. 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 unit will operate more efficiently if it is placed as close as possible to the room it will serve. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the Applicant is burdened with a corner lot which has two required front yards and the house already encroaches into both front yard setbacks and the additional encroachment by this small A/C unit and compressor will be minimal. 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, quiet and will generate 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. 8 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. 7. The Applicant shall install the unit in a location which is as close to the house as possible. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #4 - Case No. 3315 - Kristen and Michael Vasquez - 7 Maple Hill Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Michael Vasquez, the owner, were present to request a variance for a new kitchen area, formal dining room and an office on the second floor, which would require a 3-foot encroachment into the front yard. Mr. Lewis stated that the driveway will be reduced. The Board discussed the site plan and elevations and massing and requested a rendering. A corrected plans was also requested. 9 There were no public questions or comments. The matter was adjourned. Application # 5 - Case # 3316 - Andrea and James Barnard - 15 Copley Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Sal Alini, the applicant's architect and Mr. Barnard, the owner, were present to address the Board and explain the request for a variance of previously approved plans. They explained that the proposed plan to convert storage space in the attic to a bedroom does not change the bulk or visual impact of the house. Mr. Polcari stated that a variance is required for FAR in the attic, regardless of whether they make it into a bedroom. Mr. Polcari explained NYS code requirements regarding egress, windows and sprinklers. Mr. Sacks voiced concerns regarding the impact of density, not just the issue of bulk. 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 Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved VOTE: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Carol Miller No: Jonathan Sacks RESOLUTION 15 Copley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Andrea and James Barnard (the "Applicant") requested a variance for interior alteration on the premises located at 15 Copley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 9, Lot 806; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The existing floor area ratio (FAR) has a total square footage of 3393 square feet where 3310 square feet permitted pursuant to 240-59.1, the existing lot coverage has a total area of 10 52% where 35% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39F for a building in an R-6 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant stated (and the Building Inspector confirmed) that when the patio was excluded from the calculation,the lot coverage is 44.6%, not 52%; 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 it changes only interior use of space and there will be no perceived change from the outside; the mass of the structure will not increase. Further, the existing lot coverage of 44.6% has been the same for 10+ years, with no changes to the driveway, footprint of house or walkways. 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 justified that he needs to maximize the use of his house to accommodate family members and wants to utilize existing square footage rather than expand the footprint of the house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the FAR only increases by 83 square feet and legalizing existing lot coverage is not substantial because much of the lot coverage is due to a a long,gravel driveway to a single car garage. The Board further noted that the gravel driveway helps to maintain 60%permeability. 11 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 converting the use of existing, interiour FAR will not impact the mass of the structure and lot coverage will not change. 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. 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#3317-Alexandra Schmerge & David Brooten -93 Edgewood Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 12 Action: Unanimously approved The homeowners were present to explain their requiest to accommodate air conditioners. The Board discussed the distance of the units from the property line and distance from neighbors. The Board discussed the Dba levels. 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 93 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_abstentions. WHEREAS, Alexandra Schmerge and David Brooten (the"Applicant")requested a variance f to install 2 Mitsubishi A/C units on the premises located at 93 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 27, Lot 335; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The AC compressors will have a front yard setback of 20 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to 240-3813(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-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 13 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 A/C compressors are small and relatively low Dba units which will be installed at a significant distance from other houses and A/C compressors are common in the Town. 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 is burdened with 2 front yards and they propose to install the units in the yard which functions as a side yard, which is the most practical location. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because small, quiet and common throughout the town. 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 both units are small and relatively quiet (the Daikon is 71 Dba and the Mitsubishi is 55 Dba) and both are to be located a considerable distance away from nearby houses. 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: 14 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 The draft minutes of October 26, 2022 were discussed. Motion: To approve the minutes of October 26, 2022 Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved VOTE: Yes: Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks Stephen Marsh Abstain: Arthur Wexler, Carol Miller ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 15