Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_08_02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES 32 `'\ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting % pp August 2,2023 _ ®I 4.2. Conference Room C,First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chair Stephen Marsh, Board Member Randy Heller, Alternate Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member ABSENT: Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Irene O'Neil, Board Vice Chair 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 7:02 p.m. Mr. Polcari 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. Ms. Ransom confirmed. Chairman Wexler advised audience members that despite three Board Member absences, three positive votes of the four present members and alternate members were necessary for any Board approval. Therefore, any applicant could request an adjournment. No adjournment was requested at that time. Application No. 1 - Case No. 3347—Thomas Ducrot—45 Shadow Lane Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Thomas Ducrot, the applicant and 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 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 45 Shadow Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Thomas Ducrot (the "Applicant")requested a variance to install a deck on the premises located at 45 Shadow Lane Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 2 Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck will have a rear yard setback of 4 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to 240-38B(3) for a building in an R-7.5 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 height of the deck will be below most of the neighbors and well screened from all adjoining properties. Further, the neighbor to the left, downhill from the subject property is a considerable distance from the property line. Further, the existing concrete patio already extends to the rear property line but the proposed deck would be shy of the property line by four feet. 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 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 there is no other solution which would provide on grade egress from the house in the same location as the existing concrete patio. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is substantial because it extends to four feet from the property line but given that a concrete patio is already there and that the deck will be so well-screened, this is not determinative. 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 deck will be well screened from neighbors and will add no additional impervious surface. 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. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 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. 2 - Case No. 3350 -Andrew Sliwa & Yena Jung - 85 W. Garden Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Kelly Faloon, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Steve Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 85 W. Garden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Andrew Sliwa & Yena Jung (the"Applicant") requested a variance a driveway and air conditioner on the premises located at 85 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 339; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; The Driveway as proposed will have a side yard setback of 2'where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-79 B (1)(b); Motor vehicle parking as proposed will be within 25'pursuant to 240-79 B (1) (a); The A/C compressors as installed has a side yard setback of 6' where 8'is required,pursuant to 240- 39 B (2) (a). (the Notice of Disapproval); and 4IPag Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 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 a/c compressors as installed are tucked in behind the side of the house and hardly visible from the street or neighboring properties. Further, the units have a low Dba rating. With respect to the driveway, at grade driveways are common in this area and parking in the front yard is already permitted under existing conditions. 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 proposed location for the a/c compressors is the most practical given that it is less intrusive to the homeowner and is less visible to other houses. With respect to the driveway, other waterproofing efforts have been tried and failed and the proposal is determined to be necessary to help alleviate flooding concerns. In addition, parking in the front yard is already permitted under existing conditions iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the two-foot encroachment by the a/c condensers adds very little bulk and the driveway, as proposed, will increase the side yard setback and parking in the front yard is already permitted under existing conditions. 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 a/c condensers have low Dba ratings and are well-screened with a small footprint. Further, with respect to the driveway, the side yard setback will be increased and new Cultecs 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 will capture previously uncaptured water which will alleviate flooding and slow the rate of discharge to Town property. Further, the driveway is getting smaller, impermeable surface area will be reduced and a new grass area will be planted. 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. 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. 3353—Therese and Donald Giacomo—224 Rockingstone Ave. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh 6I Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 Action: Unanimously approved Nicholas Faustina, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Board requested the applicant to resubmit plans showing reduction in the scope of the bathroom addition. The application was adjourned and the public hearing will remain open. There were no public questions or comments. Application No. 4 - Case No. 3355—Keith and Jessica Lazare—29 Holly Place Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Nestor Kyritsis, 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 Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Randy Heller, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 29 Holly Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Keith and Jessica Lazere (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition/renovation on the premises located at 29 Holly Place Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 23 Lot 211; 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 front yard setback of 29.5'where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (1); Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.6'where 10'is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 21.5'where 25' is required, 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(b); Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of 9.3' where 25'is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (3); the Proposed improvements will further increase the extent the property is nonconforming pursuant to 240-69 for a building in an R-10 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 house is maintaining the existing footprint, the one-story addition blends well with the house and is overall consistent 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 this irregularly shaped corner lot constrains available options and an addition which does not expand the footprint of the existing house will generate less impacts as compared to other options. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the setbacks will not change and only one story will be added. 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 addition will be a considerable distance from the closest neighbor and will maintain the same setbacks as the existing house. 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 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 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. 3354—Anthony Calogero & Siobhan Kranz— 110 Murray Avenue - ADJOURNED Application No. 6- Case No. 3361 —Anthony Calogero & Siobhan Kranz — 110 Murray Avenue— Interpretation -ADJOURNED Application No. 7- Case No. 3357—Andrew Sage and Leora Frankel— 16 Knollwood Drive Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh 91 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 Action: Unanimously approved Emmanual Damore,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 Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Arthur Katz, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 16 Knollwood Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Arthur Katz, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Andrew Sage & Leora Frankel (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a generator and air conditioning on the premises located at 16 Knollwood Drive Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 5 Lot 389; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed A/C units will have a side yard setback of 4.2'where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed stand-by generator will have a side yard setback of 5.9' where 10' is required,pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a) (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. 10IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 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 a/c and generator is not adjacent to any dwelling but will be adjacent to and at a significant distance from the Leatherstocking trail, well- screened and not visible from the trail or neighboring properties. 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 other location would encroach unreasonably into the backyard. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units have a small footprint and they are quiet and well screened from the street and the Leatherstocking Trail. 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 units are quiet and well screened from other properties and the Leatherstocking Trail. 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. 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 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. 8 - Case No. 3343—Sam Jess—2 Fernwood Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Steven Accinelli, the applicant's lawyer and Tom Curro, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 2 Fernwood Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Sam Jess (the"Applicant") requested a variance an addition, deck and air conditioning on the premises located at 2 Fernwood Road Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 18 Lot 126; and 12IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 7.1' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 7.1'where 10'is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 24.6'where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (1); Proposed deck will have a rear yard setback of 23'where 35' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (3); ); Proposed deck will have a side yard setback of 7.1' where 10' is required,pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed A/C compressors will have a side yard setback of 4.5' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); and further the improvements increases 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 corrected that the required rear yard setback is 25 feet; 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, with respect to the addition, the existing side yard setback is being maintained and the proposed changes to the design are consistent with the existing structure and nearby houses. With respect to the a/c units,the location is well screened, the footprint is small and the units are quiet. With respect to the deck,the proposed extension is behind hedges, well-screened and will not be visible. 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 narrow and any expansion to enhance interior living conditions would require a variance. Further, any other location for the a/c units would require a variance and shrinking the deck to eliminate a rear yard variance would render it nonfunctional. 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed addition will not extend beyond existing encroachments, the proposed a/c units are small, well-screened and quiet and the deck expansion will add no bulk and not further encroach into existing yards. 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 height of the house with the proposed addition will be in line with the existing ridge line; the left side addition will be set back far from the left side neighbors and the side yard will be well screened from the neighbor. Further, the a/c units are small, quiet and well screened and will not generate appreciable runoff and the deck extension will add no impervious surface or bulk to 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 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. 14IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 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. 9 - Case No. 3356—Maria Zeolla — 18 Alden Road Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Maria Zeolla, the homeowner-applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. In particular,the Board expressed concern about the width of the deck. The application was adjourned and the public hearing will remain open. There were no public questions or comments. Application No. 10 - Case No. 3358—Brian and Alexandra Edelman— 1 Stonewall Lane Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Julianne Alzate, the applicant's landscape architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1 Stonewall Lane, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Brian &Alexandra Edelman (the"Applicant") requested a variance for a Sport Court 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 15IPage Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; Proposed sport court will have a rear yard setback of 5.5'where 40' is required, pursuant to 240-35 B (3); Proposed sport court will have a side yard setback of 5'where 15'is required, pursuant to 240-35 B (2)(a) (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 flat, on-grade sport court will be placed in the rear of yard, at the end of the driveway, and only a basketball hoop will be visible from the street and neighbors. Further, the area is well-screened from neighboring properties and there is no outdoor lighting proposed. 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 similar"structure"with the same square footage would require a variance so this is the best location because the on-grade sport court will be similar to a continuation of the existing driveway, with a change in surface material. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the "structure"is flat, with the exception of a basketball hoop and a portable net for driving golf balls. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 16I Page Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is flat, will not cast shadows and any potential drainage impacts will be taken into account by the Town Building Department before a permit is issued. 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. 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. No outdoor lighting shall be installed for the sport court. 8. All landscaping shown on the approved plan shall be maintained in a vigorous growing condition and all plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants of comparable size and quality at the beginning of the next immediately following growing season. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 17I Page Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2023 MINUTES The draft minutes of June 28, 2023 were discussed. Motion: to approve the draft minutes of the June 28, 2023 meeting Moved by Randy Heller seconded by Arthur Wexler Action: Unanimously approved ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 9:56 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary,Zoning Board of Appeals 18I Page