Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_10_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES 32 `'\ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting O f p October 25, 2023 _ ®I 4.2. Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Irene O'Neil, Board Vice Chair Stephen Marsh, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member A Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member B ABSENT: Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Mr. Sacks arrived at the meeting at 7:42 p.m. during the 3rd application. OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary The meeting commenced at 7:06 p.m. Ms. Ransom stated that all items on the agenda for public hearing 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. Randy Heller recused himself from Application No. 1 and left the room. Alternate A, Carol Miller, and Alternate B, Arthur Katz, stood in for Mr. Heller and Mr. Sacks. Application No. 1 - Case No. 3359 -Douglas and Helen Panero - 102 Murray Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Bret Kearney, the applicant's architect, and Helen Panero, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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 102 Murray 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. WHEREAS, Douglas and Helen Panero (the"Applicant") requested a variance for an addition legalization on the premises located at 102 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 19 Lot 211; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As-built addition has a front yard setback of 20.76'where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 (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- 10 Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector provided the following clarifications: that the as-built addition has a side yard of 8 feet where 10 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-38(B)(2)(a), the front yard setback is 29.1', not 20.76' and the Zone District is R-7.5, not R-10; 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. 2I Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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 infilling the corner of the house will not be noticeable, it is in line with the existing structure and will be architecturally in keeping with existing structure. 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 incorrectly built addition has no negative impact to the neighborhood and removing it would be unnecessarily costly. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it requests less than a one-foot encroachment into the required front yard and only two feet into the required side yard and the appearance is unobjectionable and consistent with the existing structure and the neighborhood. 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 additional bulk and encroachment are very small with negligible impact. 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 Board finds that 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 Board finds that 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. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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. Randy Heller re-entered and resumed his role as Board member. Application No. 2 - Case No.23-6-Panagiotis Voyiatzis - 176 Hickory Grove Drive East Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved James Fleming, the applicant's architect, and Panagiotis Voyiatzis, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Polcari stated that there were no objections from neighbors. A letter from a neighbor residing at 168 Rocky Road, in support of the application, had earlier been submitted. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 176 Hickory Grove Drive East, 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. 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 WHEREAS, Panagiotis Voyiatzis (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 176 Hickory Grove Drive East, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 14 Lot 440; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence height is 6 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-52 for a property 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 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 new fence is identical to the old fence in height and appearance. 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 fence sits on the property line and the adjacent property owner supports the existing height because it preserves privacy. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a replacement of a prior fence with a new fence —identical height and appearance. 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 is the same as what was there previously, casts no shadows and generates no runoff. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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 Board finds that 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 Board finds that 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. 3 - Case No. 3370 -Justin Patnode - 108 Hickory Grove Drive West Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Anthony Nanna, the applicant's architect, and Ms. Patnode, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. 6I Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 There were no public questions or comments. Jonathan Sacks joined the meeting at 7:42 p.m. 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 Abstain: Jonathan Sacks Action: Yea: Arthur Wexler, Randy Heller—Nay: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 108 Hickory Grove Drive West, 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 1 abstention by Jonathan Sacks. WHEREAS, Justin Patnode (the"Applicant") requested a variance for a portico, front steps & landing on the premises located at 108 Hickory Grove Drive West, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 17 Lot 611; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed Portico will have a front yard setback of 14.6' 14.0' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (1); Proposed steps and landing will have a front yard setback of 7.6'where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-37 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-10 Zone District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, at the meeting it was clarified that the front yard setback is 14.0 feet, not 14.6'; 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. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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 addition of this covered portico will enhance the architectural features of the house and fit in nicely with the style in the neighborhood. Additionally,the proposal is consistent with many nearby houses that substantially encroach into their required front yard setbacks. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the existing house already encroaches into its required front yard setback so any addition would trigger a variance and the opportunity to install a covered portico over the front door is a reasonable request that could not be achieved by any other means. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because this open air, covered portico will not contribute to massing of the house and breaking the steps into multiple landings is an appealing design element. 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 portico adds a covered entry over the front door, open on either side and gently graded out between the first landing and first step to soften transition from grade to the front door, extending the landing to the middle of the front yard. 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 Board finds that 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 Board finds that 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: 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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. 4 - Case No. ZBA-23-2 -Brian and Alexandra Edelman - 1 Stonewall Lane Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Julianna Alzate, the applicant's architect, and Sean Jancski, the applicant's landscape architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Jancski stated that the neighbor who resides at 3 Fairway Drive, who was previously in attendance, supports the application. A neighbor who resides at 5 Stonewall Lane sent an email in opposition to the application. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1 Stonewall Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed 91 Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Brian and Alexandra Edelman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a swimming pool on the premises located at 1 Stonewall Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3 Block 33 Lot 581; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed swimming pool will be located in the front yard where it is not permitted pursuant to 192-5 A (1)(c);in an R-20 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 this is a corner lot burdened by two front yards and the front yard in question is on Old White Plains Road with no neighbor on that side. Also, the proposed pool is 40 feet from the property line and there is a large right-of-way, creating a considerable distance from any other structure. Also, the structure and house are oriented to Stonewall Lane and would not otherwise encroach into the front yard if the property were not a corner lot. 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 demonstrated that they looked at many alternatives and went to great lengths to minimize the variance requested and no other solution was deemed feasible or desirable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. so Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment is small and unobtrusive. Further, it was noted that if the house were larger, a variance would not have been required because the regulation prohibits the pool from projecting beyond 40 feet from the house. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because drainage issues will be addressed by the Town's erosion control requirements and the neighbor who complained about noise is two houses away and a pool is no noisier than a play set or badminton court. 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 Board finds that 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 Board finds that 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. 11IP <: Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 Application No. 5 - Case No. 3368/ZBA-23-10 -Elena and Scott Rodger - 18 Carleon Avenue Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Rick Yestadt, 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 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 18 Carleon 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. WHEREAS, Elena and Scott Rodger (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 18 Carleon Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 4 Lot 21; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a right side yard setback of 6'where 10'is required,pursuant to 240-36 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a left side yard setback of 9'where 10'is required,pursuant to 240-36 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 15' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (2)(b);and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-15 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 12IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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 changes to the front elevation make for an architecturally pleasing variation. 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 on a uniquely narrow and nonconforming lot so any change to the front or footprint of the house would trigger the need for variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because while narrow, the property is deep front to back and the proposal will not exceed the encroachment of the existing house. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the massing of the structure toward the back of the house is broken up into two elevations which helps to break up the transition from low to high with a mid-span roof on the rear addition. Also, the property is well screened on the right and left side of the house. 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 Board finds that 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 Board finds that 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. 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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. 6 - Case No. ZBA-23-1 —James & Sarah Coady- 43 Mohegan Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jonathan Sacks stated a past association with the applicant related to civic duties. Ms. Hochman asked whether he has any financial or other interest in the outcome of this application and he answered that he has none. Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Sarah Coady, the 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 Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Randy Heller seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 14IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 RESOLUTION 43 Mohegan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, James Coady(the "Applicant")requested a variance for a hot tub on the premises located at 43 Mohegan Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 5 Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed hot tub will be located in the front yard where it is not permitted, pursuant to 192-5 A (1)(c); in an R-15 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 the hot tub will be concealed by a retaining wall and shrubbery and the variance is needed only because the house is on a corner lot burdened by two front yards. 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 burdened by two front yards, and the proposed location is the ideal location. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 15Irage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the dimensions of the hot tub are 13 x 9 feet and the height is only a couple of feet off the ground and it is well screened. 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 is well screened and will not generate any water 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 Board finds that 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 Board finds that 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. 16 Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 Application No. 7 - Case No. 3365/ZBA-23-9 -Sean and Jacqueline Mulcahy -23 Alden Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved James Fleming, the applicant's architect, and Sean Mulcahy, the 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 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 23 Alden 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, Sean and Jacqueline Mulcahy(the"Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 23 Alden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 9 Lot 735; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed second floor addition will have a side yard setback of 5.6'where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed second floor addition will have a combined side yard setback of 14'where 18' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(b); Proposed improvements will have lot coverage of 50.7% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; 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 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 17IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the applicant proposes a 2nd floor addition on his one- story house in the same foot print as the existing house and the proposed style and size are consistent with nearby two-story houses. In addition, lot coverage will be the same as what already exists. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the applicant has gone to great lengths to keep the addition within the same footprint and it pushes no further into required setbacks and lot coverage will remain the same. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because intrusion into existing setbacks will remain unchanged and although lot coverage is substantial, there is no appreciable change from what presently exists. 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 only a slight increased shadow on the house to the left and there should be no additional runoff since the footprint is not to be expanded. 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 Board finds that 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 Board finds that 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. 18I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 25, 2023 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. MINUTES The draft minutes of September 27, 2023 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes of the September 27, 2023 meeting, with the proposed correction Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Abstained: Carol Miller Absent: Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved ADJOURNMENT After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 19I Page