Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_09_07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES 32 `'\ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting o / pp September 7, 2023 _ ®I 4.2. Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chair Irene O'Neil, Board Vice Chair Stephen Marsh, Board Member Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Randy Heller, Alternate Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member ABSENT: Carol Miller, Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary The meeting commenced at 7:04 p.m. Given the absence of Ms. Miller, Mr. Heller, as first Alternate, assumed the role of Board Member. Ms. Ransom stated that all items on the agenda had been properly noticed and all documents to be discussed this evening had been posted on the Town website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Application No. 1 - Case No. 3361 —Anthony Calogero & Siobhan Kranz - 110 Murray Avenue - INTERPRETATION Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Stephen Moser, the applicant's architect and Kathy Zalantis, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board to explain the interpretations requested and the justifications for such requests. The Board and representatives of the applicant discussed such requests. After considerable time, without consensus on the interpretations, Ms. Zalantis stated that they are looking to move forward with the application, regardless of whether their interpretation requests are approved. The Board, with agreement from the applicant, decided to turn the discussion to the requested variances. Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 There were no public questions or comments. The application was adjourned and the public hearing will remain open. Application No. 2 — Case No. 3354—Anthony Calogero & Siobhan Kranz — 110 Murray Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Stephen Moser, the applicant's architect and Siobhan Kranz, homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the requested variances. There was a pause in the discussion to allow other applications to proceed and then the Board returned to this matter. Andrew Tucker,neighbor at 124 Murray Ave, addressed the Board to state his concerns about placement of the ac and generator location which he feels is too close to his property. After considerable discussion, the Chair requested Ms. Hochman to prepare a draft approval resolution reflecting what was stated to facilitate discussion and, perhaps, approval at the next meeting of the Board. The application was adjourned and the public hearing remains open. Application No. 3 — Case No. 3353—Therese and Donald Giacomo— 224 Rockingstone Ave. The public hearing remains open. Nicholas Faustina, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by 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 224 Rockingstone Avenue, 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. 21 Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 WHEREAS, Therese and Donald Giacomo (the "Applicant") requested for an addition/renovation and air conditioner on the premises located at 224 Rockingstone Avenue Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 15 Lot 315; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of 18.7' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of 3'where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed window box will have a rear yard setback of 6.0' where 25'required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed air conditioning compressor will have a rear yard setback of 12.5' where 25' required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); the Proposed improvements will further increase the extent the property is nonconforming pursuant to 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zoning 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 facia of the roof structure of the proposed addition should follow the wall below it to limit as much as possible its encroachment into the side property line; 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, as designed,the front porch will present a forward facing entrance to the house by adding a gracious entrance facing Rockingstone. The HVAC on the side of the house is a significant distance from the property line, which functions as a side yard and 12.5 feet would not trigger a side yard variance. The window box is decorative addition off the kitchen that is well-screened from adjacent property. Although the addition in back of the house will reduce the separation between the properties from 3.9 feet to 3 feet, it will be well screened from the adjacent property and not visible from 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 lot is very irregularly shaped, on a corner, burdened with two front 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 yards and the house as situated is existing nonconforming with street frontage that wraps around nearly three sides of the structure, constraining available options. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the back left corner variance is substantial, resulting in only three feet from the property line; but also finds that this is necessary to allow the proposed mud room and first floor bathroom and, further, since the existing structure is already only 3.9 feet to the property line, this additional encroachment by only a few additional inches is not substantial. 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 stormwater runoff or noise because there will be considerable distance between neighboring properties and, further, since the rear yard addition is only one story, any impacts to site line from the street and light and air impacts to neighbor will be minimized. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but 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. 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 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 facia of the roof structure of the new addition in the rear yard shall follow the wall below it. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4- Case No. 3362—Maureen Knowles — 63 Hillcrest Ave. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Board member Irene O'Neill had to leave temporarily and Alternate Board Member Arthur Katz stepped into her position while she was absent. Maureen Knowles, applicant-homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 63 Hillcrest, 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, Maureen Knowles (the"Applicant") requested a variance for an air conditioner on the premises located at 63 Hillcrest Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 22 Lot 145; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; Existing A/C compressors have a rear yard setback of 21' where 25' is required, 5I Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 pursuant to 240-39 B (3);Existing A/C compressors have a side yard setback of 7.8'where 8'is required,pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); for a building 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 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 these are existing air conditioning units in place since 2019 without complaint and similar units are common throughout 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 this location is the most logical place for the compressors and any other location would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the equipment is very close to house and the house is pre-existing nonconforming and the equipment adds no bulk 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 they will not impact air, light or water runoff and they are low Dba so will not generate noise impacts. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but 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 No. 5 - Case No. 3363 —Lori Bandazian —32 Deane Place Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh 71 Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 32 Deane Place, 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, Lori Bandazian (the "Applicant")requested for an addition on the premises located at 32 Deane Place,Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 5 Lot 372; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; Proposed garage addition will have a front yard setback of 12.9' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed closet addition will have a front yard setback of 6.7' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1) and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zoning 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 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 is small and designed to square out the front entryway into the house and square under the existing overhang on the south/east side. In addition, the Board notes that letters of support were received from all the adjoining neighbors. 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 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 homeowner wants the existing small garage to be enlarged to give it more utility and to square out the house, making it more consistent with the adjacent properties and any other option would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the existing building envelope will remain the same and additional square footage is 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 it will not generate impacts related to air, light or runoff. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but 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. 9IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 7, 2023 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 No. 6 - Case No. 3356—Maria Zeolla — 18 Alden Road The public hearing remains open. Maria Zeolla, the homeowner-applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Michael Africk, neighbor from 20 Alden Road, addressed the Board to express his concerns, including the proximity to his house and lack of privacy. The application was adjourned and the public hearing will remain open. MINUTES The draft minutes of August 2, 2023 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes of the August 2, 2023 meeting Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Approve: Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz Abstain: Irene O'Neill and Jonathan Sacks ADJOURNMENT After concluding all items on the agenda,the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 10I Page