Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_05_03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Wednesday,May 3, 2023, $" -, Conference Room C,First Floor at 7:00 PM I— if i FoUhjLC11CC1 i PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Chair Irene O'Neill,Vice Chair Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Randy Heller, Alternate Arthur Katz, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Rich Polcari, Building Inspector Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Francine Brill, Board Secretary ABSENT: Carol Miller, Board Member CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. The Chair announced that items numbered 4,7,9 and 10 on the agenda are adjourned for failure to properly notice the public hearing. Ms. Hochman asked Ms. Brill whether the documents to be discussed this evening have been duly noticed and posted on the Town web site 24 hours prior to the meeting. She answered yes to both. Application #1 - Case #3325 - Gjoko - 176 Myrtle Blvd. The public hearing remains open. The applicant's architect presented revised renderings and showed how changes were made to reflect comments from last month's meeting. Don Mazin, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board. 1 The Board discussed parking and Mr. Polcari stated that one apartment generates need for 2 additional parking spaces. Mr. Polcari explained that variances apply to the entire building, not the increment based on what is proposed. The following submissions were distributed and entered into the record as exhibits: Exhibit 1: Letter from Michael A. Coughlin as CEO of Coughlin Insurance Service, principal and Owner of the premises at 178 Myrtle, Larchmont(the Coughlin Building), which abuts the subject property. The letter confirms that Coughlin is in favor of this application. Exhibit 2: Email from Town Clerk saying that the number of spaces in the Town's agreement for Lot C is "no less than 30 spaces" and no Lot C overnight permits have been sold this year. Public Comments: Jessica Baccal representing Larchmont Terrace Condo, adjacent to subject property stated that her clients oppose the application, even with the proposed modifications, because parking remains a problem in the neighborhood and because the proposed addition will be out of character with the neighborhood and negatively impact privacy of residents of Larchmont Terrace. Jonathan Sacks observed that the proposed addition is at least 20 feet away from any apartment unit at Larchmont Terrace and the addition will be partially obscured by planters and parapet wall. Kevin Moore—a resident of Larchmont Terrace stated that his view will be negatively impacted and the proposal is out of character with neighboring buildings. Mr. Sacks stated that the zoning allows for a 44-foot-high building and that,just as in New York City, views are not protected from development of nearby lots. Elizabeth Ledkovsky—another resident of Larchmont Terrace thanked the applicant for making an effort to address concerns stated last month and wants to better understand the proposed revisions. Chairman Wexler stated that the project will not cast shadows on neighboring residences, including Larchmont Terrace. Vice Chair O'Neill pointed out that the applicant responded to comments from the last meeting by proposing changes to massing and the roof. Mr. Mazin stated that the B-R zoning designation is designed to facilitate residential development. Chair Wexler stated that the proposed design is far superior to what was presented last month and will enliven Myrtle Blvd. 2 John Hollowitz from Larchmont Terrace (an owner and resident, not speaking on behalf of Larchmont Terrace) stated that he has listened to the proposed revisions and now withdraws his opposition to the proposal. He stated that the proposed roof with planters is better than the current industrial roof and that the greenery will be both attractive and preserves ligh. He stated his belief that the applicant took the concerns of condo residents into account. He further stated that he reviewed the shadow studies prepared by the applicant, show that shadows will not get cast on his building. The Board discussed what referrals are necessary/. It was agreed that review by the Board of Architecture Review should take place before any action is taken on the application but site plan review by the Planning Board can take place after variances are granted. To provide the applicant with feedback, the Chair requested a nonbinding straw poll: Vice Chair O'Neill stated that the proposal is minimally intrusive and is consistent with Myrtle streetscape. Mr. Heller stated that the proposal, as revised,is a vast improvement over last month and that he is prepared to support it. Mr. Sacks stated that balancing the benefit to the applicant against vs. the detriment to the neighbors, he looks at properties as a whole and concludes that this will improve the view for most apail,uients and it will be a significant improvement to streetscape and any impact due to intensity of use is minimal. Mr. Marsh stated that he supports revised plan. Mr. Katz stated that he agrees with his colleagues and further stated that he thinks the front terrace will enhance the street scape. The public hearing remains open. Application #2 Case #3332 - Meredith Shaw -126 East Garden Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Benny Salinitro, the applicant's engineer explained the proposal to allow existing driveway to remain. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 3 Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 126 East Garden Road, 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, Meredith Shaw (the "Applicant") requested a variance for driveway side yard setback on the premises located at 126 East Garden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 14, Lot 272; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The driveway will have a side yard setback of 1.7 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to 240- 79B(1)(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 the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 Board makes the following findings as required: 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 only change is that cars will not be able to access a garage, requiring cars to park in driveway, which could also happen if there were access to a garage, so the neighbors would not be impacted. 4 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 this is a very tight side yard that can only support the driveway's current width and there is no room to expand. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the location of the driveway,in relation to the side yard, is not changing and the cars to be parked there could also be parked in the same spots under existing conditions. Further, there will be a decrease in lot coverage or impermeable surfaces. 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 driveway adds no bulk and there will be an overall reduction in impermeable surfaces as compared to current conditions. 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. 5 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 #3333 -Andrew and Nikki Hann - 29 Cornell Street Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved David Goessl, the applicant's engineer and Frank Diadoti addressed the Board stating that the owners received a variance for the swimming pool but found that when the as-built survey was completed that it encroaches 6 increases more than granted. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. 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: Unanimously approved Approved upon same findings as last time. RESOLUTION 29 Cornell Street, 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 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Andrew and Nikki Hann (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as-built in-ground swimming pool on the premises located at 29 Cornell Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 2, Lot 121; and WHEREAS,the Board previously issued a variance for an inground pool at this property on June 29, 2022 and subsequent to its installation, the Applicant discovered that the coping of the pool extends 6 inches into the required setback; and 6 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: _ The as-built in-ground pool has a rear yard setback of 12.0 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)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-30 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board) an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 Board determined that the 6 inch encroachment beyond what had earlier been approved is not substantial and further determined that the following findings, which the Board made on June 29, 2022 remain applicable: 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 pool will be located in a far back corner of the property and will be well screened and not visible from nearby properties or the 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 house sits on a corner, burdened by two front yards and the rear back corner of the property is the only suitable location. Further, the applicant studied alternatives to lessen the variance, all of which were found infeasible. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because an inground pool adds no massing and, further,its location in the lower part of the yard and screening mitigate visual impacts and further, with respect to this Applicant, that the additional 6 inches is diminimus. 7 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 are four Cultecs to capture the water so it will not generate additional runoff to the neighborhood and there will be no visual impacts. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within 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 #3335 -Ilya R. Gilkarov -3 Cabot Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 8 Action: Unanimously approved Shahin Heshmit, the applicant's architect, stated that request a front yard variance for a second floor addition which will not change the footprint of the nonconforming house. He further stated that the house has a very low ceiling height. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 3 Cabot Road,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, Ilya R. Gilkarov (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 3 Cabot Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 25, Lot 445; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition in the front yard will be 14.9 feet where 30 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-39 B(1); 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 the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 Board makes the following findings as required: 9 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 enhance the curb appeal of the house and, as compared to the current design, it will appear more similar to nearby homes which have also been renovated. 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 make the second floor usable and currently it is substandard with sloping, low ceilings and, because the house is located so close to the front property line, there is no feasible way to add a second floor unless the house were to be demolished and rebuilt. Further, there will be no change to the house's footprint which already encroaches into the required front yard setback and the second-floor addition will encroaches the same amount as the first floor. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there will be no changes in footprint of the house and the second floor encroaches even less into required setback. 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 increase in runoff and no objectionable visual 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. 10 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 Depaiainent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #6—Case #3336 -Amity Joy and Steven English - 12 Knollwood Drive— Adjourned to 5/24/23 Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Bart Rodi the applicant's engineer, addressed the Board to request a replacement of a deteriorated, storm-damaged,railroad tie, crumbling stone wall with a masonry concrete wall 6 feet behind the wood wall. The Board discussed the height and asked if the grade could be terraced, as it is a massive. Mr. Wexler asked if the wall could be softened. Mr. Marsh stated that he walked the property and from the Leatherstocking the proposed wall would be barely visible. Mr. Katz asked about the neighbor's objection and Mr. English stated that the neighbor's stone wall is higher. Mr. Sacks stated that he is concerned about the total massing and how concrete would impact the abutting neighbors as well as the effect on the Leatherstocking trail. 11 The application was adjourned and the public hearing will remain open. Application #8 - Case #3338 - Brian M. Haddad- 7 Pheasant Run Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Brian Haddad, the owner, addressed the Board to request a second floor addition. The Board discussed the plan. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. 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 7 Pheasant Run,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, Brian M. Haddad (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 7 Pheasant Run, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 6, Lot 147; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 23.7 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 residence in an R-10 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 12 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 Board makes the following findings as required: A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposed addition will sit in the same footprint as the existing house,which is preexisting,nonconforming. Further,the design and size are in character with nearby properties and the large lot can accommodate more bulk. Further, because the property is on a cul-de-sac, there will be more distance between the proposed addition and the other nearby houses. 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 preexisting nonconforming and there is no other practical way to add a second story. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not increase the footprint of the existing house and encroaches no further into required setback. 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 negatively impact light, air or 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. 13 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 #11 —Case #3341 —Konstantine Gubareff—95 Colonial Avenue requesting a variance for an air conditioning compressor Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Konstantine Gubareff, the owner, addressed the Board to request a variance to relocate his air conditioning compressors from the front to the side of the house, as they were originally intended to be on the side of the house. Mr. Sacks questioned the Dba level and Mr. Gubareff responded that they are 55 and will be more efficient as they will be eliminating the extra piping to the front of the house. 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 Arthur Katz 14 Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 95 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Arthur Katz,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Konstantine Gubareff(the "Applicant") requested a variance for an air conditioning compressor 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 proposed A/C unit has a side yard of 5.5 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B 2)(a); the A/C unit has a side yard of 6.1 feet where 8 feet is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(2)(a); 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 the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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 Board makes the following findings as required: A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposed location in the side yard with screening and opposite the neighbor's larger a/c units, is better than existing conditions where the units are in the front yard and not well screened. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 15 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 location is the most logical alternative as the refrigerant line runs to this location and uses less pipe that the current location and the proposal will minimize impacts to its neighbor because it will be closer to the neighbor's own, larger units. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they are smaller and quieter than existing units and not visible from street. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because they will improve conditions because much quieter and smaller than existing units. 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. 16 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 #12 - Case #3342 -Drew and Jonathan Kramer- 3 Wellhouse Lane Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Drew Kramer, the owner, addressed the Board to request a six-foot privacy fence. She explained that her neighbors have a very active driveway which borders her property and she feels very exposed. The Board discussed the proposed fence and suggested that the request be modified to have the rear fence be 6-feet, with the remaining fence compliant at 5-feet and Ms. Kramer agreed. 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 Mr. Sacks voted against the application. RESOLUTION 3 Wellhouse Lane, 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, Drew and Jonathan Kramer(the"Applicant")requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 3 Wellhouse Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3, Block 40, Lot 870; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed fence will be 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A; for a residence in an R-20 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and 17 WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck 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, based on discussion, the Applicant proposed to amend its application so that only the fence in the rear yard would be 6-feet high and the fence in the left front/side and right-side yard side yard will be five-feet high; minimizing the need for a variance only for the 6-foot high rear fence; 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 Board makes the following findings as required: 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 6-foot fence in the rear will not be visible from the street, so it will not impact neighborhood character. 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 unique condition of the neighboring house's driveway wrapping around the rear yard of the subject property provides no other alternative to provide privacy to the applicant's rear yard. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because only one section of fence will exceed the height restrictions in the Town's Zoning Code, and it will not be visible from the street iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will allow applicant to enjoy more privacy in back yard and will require 18 digging post only once for every eight feet,reusing existing posts of chain link fence, and therefor will minimize site disturbance. Further, the fence will not generate runoff and will be planted under a canopy of trees. 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. 7. The Applicant shall be required to maintain the existing planting along the Applicant's side of the fence. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft Minutes of March 29, 2023, as prepared by counsel and circulated Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller. 19 Action: Approved ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 20