HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_01_11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM"C" ON January 11,2023
Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Carol
Miller, Randy Heller(alternate)
Absent: Arthur Katz, (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 7:02 P.M.
Mr. Wexler stated that he would take the applications out of order.
Application #4 - Case #3321 - Sarah Vollbracht- 81 W Garden Road—Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Sarah Vollbracht addressed the Board stating that she sold the house and is here on behalf of the
new owners. She further stated that the units were there when she purchased the house and need
to be legalized.
Mr. Polcari stated that the Building Department has received no complaints
Mr. Sacks stated that they are in the most practical placement on the site.
There were no public comments or questions.
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
1
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
RESOLUTION
81 W Garden Road, 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, Sarah Vollbracht(the"Applicant")requested a variance for AC condensers on the
premises located at 81 W Garden Road,Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax
Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 18, Lot 333; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
AC condenser has a front yard setback of 15.9 feet where 30 feet is required pursuant to 240-
39B(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
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 is well screened by landscaping,
not visible from the street and it has been in place since at least 2005, with no complaints.
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 the house is burdened by two
front yards, the house already encroaches into the required front yard, and the proposed/current
placement is unobjectionable.
2
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is well screened and a significant
distance from any other residence.
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 does not generate significant noise, visual impacts 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.
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 Lion 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
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Application #1 - Case #3318—Stephen and Suzie Rabinowitz—212 Hommocks Road—
Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller
Action: Unanimously approved
Stephen Rabinowitz stated that he received a variance two years ago for the proposed project but
due to Covid and supply chain issues it has expired.
Mr. Sacks asked whether the plan is the same as previously submitted two years ago and Mr.
Rabinowitz responded yes.
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
212 Hommocks Road, 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, Stephen and Suzie Rabinowitz (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an
addition on the premises located at 212 Hommocks Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and
known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 16, Lot 75;
and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
addition as proposed in the side yard will be 18.5 feet where 35 feet is required pursuant to
Section 240-33B(2); and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is
nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 Zone District(the Notice
of Disapproval); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant was granted a variance for this property on January 27, 2021, which
expired six months after the date that the resolution approving such variance was filed; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant stated that although they failed to get a building permit within six
months, there have been no changes to the proposal, as originally requested and granted; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application to extend the date to get a
building permit; and
4
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 Board agreed to grant a new variance on the same terms and conditions that were
stated in the prior resolution; 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 is barely visible from the street
and there will be no increase in the footprint and it is in scale and consistent with the existing house
and nearby properties.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the
applicants other than an area variance. IMP
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 house is already
nonconforming and the lot has an irregular trapezoid shape so any addition would require a
variance and the proposal is reasonable for the reasons above stated.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it adds only 433 square feet to the
house, which is on a large lot, and it does not increase the encroachment into the setback because
it is on top of an existing structure.
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 adds no impervious surface and the addition does not extend past the main
ridge of the house so it will not negatively impact neighbors. Further, it generates no visual
impacts and any runoff will be captured.
5
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 g 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 #2 - Case #3319 —Amanda Arbeter—21 Carriage House Lane - Adjourned
Application #3 - Case #3320 -Patrick& Laura Maloney- 29 Stoneyside Drive -Public Hearing
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Patrick Maloney stated that he sold the home and is has submitted the application to legalize the
units for the new owner. It was noted that an owner authorization form was missing from the
6
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
submission. Mr. Maloney stated that he will make sure that it is submitted to the Building
Department.
Mr. Maloney stated that one unit was installed prior to his ownership, about 20 years ago, and
that the second unit was installed 12 years ago,but the contractor did not get a permit.
The Board discussed the Dba level, and Mr. Maloney submitted documentation to the Secretary,
which was marked Exhibit 1.
Mr. Sacks asked why the units could not be placed in the front yard and Mr. Maloney responded
that it would be unattractive and further from the air handlers. Mr. Maloney further stated that
he explored moving the units to the rear yard but that would also require a variance, be less
effective and a large expense.
The Building Inspector stated that the Building Department has received no complaints.
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
RESOLUTI ,
29 Stoneyside 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, Patrick and Laura Maloney (the "Applicant") requested a variance for AC
condensers on the premises located at 29 Stoneyside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 11, Lot
32; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
AC condensers as proposed will have a side yard setback of 7.8 feet where 10 feet is required
pursuant to 240-37B(2)(a) 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
7
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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, Applicant forgot to include owner authorization with application; 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 units are near the rear of the
house,not visible from the street and at a considerable distance from neighbors and separated from
the adjoining property by a wood fence. Further, the units have existed for over 20 years and 12
years, respectively, with no complaints by neighbors.
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 placing the units elsewhere would be
further from mechanicals and it would be costly to move them. Further, the current/proposed
location is unobjectionable.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the two units are small and located a
considerable distance from nearby properties and, further,the units encroach less into the required
yard than the house itself.
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 will not significantly increase visual impacts, noise or runoff.
v. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
8
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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. This approval is conditioned upon the Applicant submitting an authorization by the Owner of
the Property, to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
Application #6- Case #3324 -John Cuddy and Nina Recio -Interpretation
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Mr. Cuddy and Ms. Recio appeared before the Board to challenge a determination made by the
Building Inspector and request an interpretation of the Town's Zoning Code with respect to an
application to develop an undersized lot next to their house.
9
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Ms. Hochman stated that the Board of Appeals has authority to decide any question involving
the interpretation of any provision of the Zoning Code including a determination made by the
Building Inspector. She further stated that the role of the Board is to decide whether to uphold or
overturn the Building Inspector's determination and the Board must rely only on evidence in the
record to support its decision. She explained that the Board is required to use the"de novo
standard"when reviewing the Building Inspector's original determination and has the authority
and responsibility to interpret the provisions of the Zoning Code and make any determination in
its opinion as ought to have been made by the Building Inspector.
At issue is the application of Section 240.70B of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck(the
"Zoning Code") which states as follows:
In the case of a lot which does not meet the required dimensions in a residence district, the
minimum required front and rear yards shall be those of the residence district in which said lot's
depth would meet the current requirements, the minimum required side yards shall be those of
the residence district in which said lot's width would meet the current requirements, and the
minimum required floor area shall be that of the residence district in which said lot's area , ould
meet the current requirements.
This section is sometimes referred to as the"step down"provision.
Mr. Polcari invoked this provision to determine that the development of the subject undersized
lot does not require any variances. Mr—Polcari further determined that the R.2F Zoning District
is the residence district in which said lot would meet the current requirements.
Mr. Polcari read into the record and explained his letter to the Board dated January 6, 2023
which provides the history and application of Section 240.70.B and the R.2F Zoning District. He
stated that the term "residence district" is defined in the Zoning Code within the definition of
"District" in Section 240.5 as any district prefixed by "R" and that this was his basis for
concluding that R.2F can be invoked to apply the regulations of Section 240.70.B. Mr. Polcari
pointed out that the R.2F Zoning District also contemplates development of single-family
houses. Mr. Polcari provided examples and supporting documentation which demonstrate a
precedent for this interpretation. 11
Mr. Cuddy and Ms. Recio stated that they object to such a large house on a lot that is only 50
feet wide and challenge Mr. Polcari's determination on the basis that an R.2F Zoning District
contemplates multi-family housing, which is not a residence district as contemplated in Section
240.70.B. Mr. Cuddy explained that 2-family houses are qualitatively different from single-
family houses and therefore R.2F should not be applicable for residential step down.
Ms. Recio stated that the Building Inspector's application of the step down precludes Zoning
Board review of these types of applications and further stated that the Zoning Board is the body
which has the requisite expertise to evaluate these types of applications.
10
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Board discussed the interpretation and language in the Zoning Code. Mr. Sacks asked the
applicant whether they know if there is any relevant case law.
The Chair requested a nonbinding straw poll.
Mr. Marsh stated that the"step down"provision was used appropriately and there is no
ambiguity because it allows stepping down to any residence district prefixed by R. He further
stated that R.2F is a residence district which allows single-family residence on 5000 sf lot.
Ms. O'Neill stated that she agrees with Mr. Marsh and that Section 240-70.B supports the
determination made by the Building Inspector.
Mr. Wexler stated that safeguards are needed to prevent residents from overdevelopment and that
lots below 6000 square feet should be required to come to the Zoning Board for relief. He further
stated that the use of the term "residence district"in Section 240.70.B applies only to single
family zones. He further stated that the relatively recent practice of developing very large houses
on narrow lots necessitates a determination that undersized lots should only step down to
residence districts which are restricted to single-family development.
Mr. Sacks stated that he is sympathetic with the objections of Mr. Cuddy and Ms. Recio but he
has not heard enough evidence to overturn the Building Inspector's determination. He explained
that because R.2F contemplates development of single-family homes it is available as a step
down zone. He added that R.2F is equivalen`ttto what could have been an R.5 Zoning District.
Ms. Miller stated that she would vote to uphold the Bft4.*ng Insp: +etermination because
she finds Section 240.70.B to unambiguously apply to Any reside w ,_: zone. She added that to the
extent it is determined that R.2F should not apply, or that all lots certain size should be
referred to the Zoning Board, perhaps this could be raised as issue for the drafters of the
Town's comprehensive plan. She believes that a change to the Town Code may be appropriate
to address this. She later added that she was persuaded by the Building Inspector's assertion that
there is precedent of applying Section 240.70.B to allow step down to R.2F.
Mr. Heller stated that he agrees with the others that the Building Inspector properly interpreted
the Zoning Code, finds no ambiguity in Section 240.70.B and believes that use of the term
"residence district" includes R.2F.
Each of the Board members expressed sympathy for Mr. Cuddy and Ms. Recio and hope that the
builder will take their concerns into account. They further stated that this may be an issue which
requires consideration by the Town Board.
Ms. Hochman was requested to prepare a draft resolution for Board members to discuss and
consider acting upon at the next meeting.
The matter was adjourned to February 22, 2023.
11
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Application #8 - Case #3315 - Kristen & Michael Vasquez - 7 Maple Hill Drive-Public
Hearing Continued
The public hearing was opened on November 16, 2023.
Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and presented the new plan. In
response to prior comments by the Board, he demonstrated that the front has been lowered to
reduce impact to the street. He also presented a 3D rendering, as requested, to clarify the
lowering of the eve and ridge.
Mr. Wexler stated that plan A-7 needs correction, as the eve is wrong on lAt drawing. Mr. Lewis
stated that will submit a corrected plan to the Building Department.
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: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
7 Maple Hill Drive, 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,Kristen and Michael Vasquez(the"Applicant")requested a variance for an addition
on the premises located at 7 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 216; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
first floor addition as proposed will have a front yard setback 27.9 feet where 30 feet is required
pursuant to 240-39B(1), the second floor addition will have a front yard setback of 26.9 feet
where 30 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1), The addition will have a floor area of
3007sqft where 2830sqft is permitted 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
12
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 front facade, elevation and
massing have been redesigned to be compatible with 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 Applicant wishes to expand interior
dining, bedroom and office space. In addition, in response to prior comments from the Board, the
Applicant modified its plans by lowering the ridge line of the addition by two feet and also lowered
the eaves on either side.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition encroaches only
approximately three feet into the required 30-foot front yard 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 a stormwater plan is required to be submitted to address any 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
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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.
(a) Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Building Department
corrected plans (A.7).
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 -built survey to the Town
Building Department.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
Application #9 - Case #3326 - Stephanie and Joseph Signora - 287 Rockingstone Avenue
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board along with Chris Lonegro and the
owners.
Mr. Lonegro stated that the applicant requests variances for side yard setback and lot coverage.
He further stated that they intend to widen the narrow driveway and shift the wall and stair and
that the addition will be built over existing impervious area.
Mr. Marsh stated that there is a lot of ledge rock on the site.
Mr. Lewis stated that erosion controls will be installed and there will be 12 inches of gravel
under the proposed driveway with pervious pavers.
14
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Board discussed the request.
Two letters in support of the plan were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1
There were no public questions or comments.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill
Action: Unanimously approved
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller
Action: Unanimously approved
RESOLUTION
287 Rockingstone Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions.
WHEREAS, Stephanie and Joseph Signora (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an
addition on the premises located at 287 Rockingstone Avenue , Town of Mamaroneck, New
York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 10,
Lot 61; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declineNo issue such permit on the following grounds: The
one-story addition will have a side yard setback of 4.6 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to
240-38B(2)(a), both side yards will be 10.9 where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section240-
38B(2)(b); the lot coverage will be 37.6% where 35 is permitted pursuant to Section 240-38F;
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.
15
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 changes are
compatible with neighboring properties and enhance the appearance of the house.
ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the
applicants other than an area variance.
The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method
feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the property is burdened with a tandem
driveway that is difficult to navigate, on a narrow street where parking is limited and the applicant
demonstrated that it examined several other alternatives, all deemed unsatisfactory.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the bulk of added space is over existing
impervious surface, dry wells will capture any runoff and the driveway expansion will utilize
pervious pavers and gravel to allow water to infiltrate.
iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 1110
The Board finds that the variance will not adversely 'on e ct the local physical or environmental
conditions because there will be no significant negative 1inpact to air, light or runoff.
v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. Ns.
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.
16
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 #3269/3322 -Vikas Pathani - 251 Murray Avenue
Ms. O'Neill left the meeting and Mr. Heller, alternate, took her place.
Motion: To open the public hearing
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks
Action: Unanimously approved(with Mr. Heller voting i• - of Ms.
41'w
The Board discussed the request.
4\
r
There were no up blic questions or comments.
Motion: To approve the requested variance
Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller
Action: Unanimously appro ` :3'th Mr. Heller voting in place of Ms. O'Neill)
t
RESOLUTION
251 Murray Av", ^ , Town of Mamaroneck, New York
After review, on motion of seconded by , the following resolution
was proposed and unanimously ADOP ;`: ) by a vote of_to_, with_abstentions.
WHEREAS, Vikas Pathani (the "Applicant") requested a variance for extension for a
driveway expansion on the premises located at 251 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,
New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1,
Block 13, Lot 103; and
WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The
driveway expansion and accessory building lot coverage will be 43 %where 35% is permitted
pursuant to Section 240-38F, the A/C compressors will have a side yard setback of 6.5 feet
where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a); and further the addition increases
the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in
17
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
an R-7.5 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant was granted a variance for this property on March 23, 2022, which
expired six months after the date that the resolution approving such variance was filed; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant stated that although they failed to get a building permit within six
months, there have been no changes to the proposal, as originally requested and granted; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application to extend the date to get a
building permit; 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 Board agreed to grant a new variance on the same findings,terms and conditions
that were stated in the prior resolution; 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 orcommunity. 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 this type of encroachment is
common within the area and the area 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.
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 any location on the property would
require a variance and the proposed placement of the air conditioning unit is logical because it is
well-screened area and close to the mechanicals.
iii. Whether the area variance is substantial.
The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the air conditioning units are common
and unobjectionable with respect to visual impacts and noise.
18
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Further,with respect to lot coverage,the applicant proposes to use a product called Hexpave,which
will be permeable and covered with grass. It will not be visible because it is a subterranean paving
system. In addition, all area below the deck will remain pervious, including the shed which will
be raised off the ground to allow water to percolate underneath. Therefore, a negligible amount of
impervious surface will be added to the property.
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 DbA of the air conditioner is 70,which is considered diminimus as it is less
than a vacume cleaner.
Further,with respect to lot coverage, there will be no adverse impact since the surfaces added will
be primarily pervious,allowing the ground to continue to absorb water and there will be no impacts
related to light or air.
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.
19
These draft minutes have not yet been approved or adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this
application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board.
6. Prior to certificate of occupancy,the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town
Building Department.
This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
MINUTES
Motion: To approve draft minutes of November 16, 2022
Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller
Action: Unanimously approved (with Mr. Heller voting in place of Ms. O'Neill)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
4 -gm._ AL
Minutes Prepared by
_..,
Francine M. Brill,
Secretary,Zoning Board of Appeals
111
20