Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_03_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES F. 7,0 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Wednesday,March 29, 2023, z, Conference Room C,First Floor at 7:00 PM LLF FOUNDED 1C.C1 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Chair Irene O'Neill, Vice Chair Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Carol Miller, Board Member Randy Heller, Alternate Arthur Katz, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Rich Polcari, Building Inspector Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Francine Brill, Board Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. Ms. Hochman asked Ms. Brill whether the documents to be discussed this evening have been posted on the Town web site 24 hours prior to the meeting. She answered yes. Application #1 - Case #3325 - Gjoko - 176 Myrtle Blvd. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Ms. Brill stated that this application was duly noticed. Two board members stated that they are clients of Gjoko hair salon but that it would not impact their review of this application and that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of this matter. Donald Mazin, the applicant's attorney, explained the proposal. 1 Mr. Mazin submitted a photo of the Cambium and it was entered into the record and marked Exhibit 1-2023. Mr. Mazin also submitted a copy of Local Law No 2.—2015, which addresses parking in Washington Square. Mark Mustacato, the applicant's architect, showed and explained the plans. Mr. Wexler asked what the proposed square footage is and Mr. Mustacato responded 2,442 square feet. Ms. Hochman explained that this proposal requires review by the Board of Architectural Review and site plan approval by the Town Planning Board. Mr. Mustacato showed photos of the burnt-out building when Mr. Gjoko purchased it, and a photo of the existing roof view. Mr. Wexler asked for alternatives to the roof structure, stating that it looks like a house on top of the building. Mr. Mustacato stated that a flat roof would not be appealing. Mr. Sacks asked for an argument to justify increasing the FAR. Parking requirements were discussed. Mr. Polcari stated that documentation is needed to evidence that Coughlin would be able to give up parking spaces for use by the applicant and remain zoning compliant. Mr. Mazin submitted two additional photos, which were entered into the record and marked Exhibit 2 and 3 The Board and Mr. Mazin discussed the 1998 variance granted to the applicant, which imposes restrictions on the height of the building. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jessica Bacal, an attorney retained by the Larchmont Terrace Condos at 2 Washington Square, addressed the Board. She stated that her clients oppose the proposal as inconsistent with the existing development in the neighborhood and because it would create adverse impacts related to light and air. She also stated that the last application for this parcel included affordable housing. Mr. Sacks and Mr. Katz asked Ms. Bacal whether she can present any evidence of the negative impact to the residents of 2 Washington Square. Ms. Bacal stated that the height and design of the addition will change the character of the neighborhood and added that a lower roof would have less of an impact. Rick Yestadt, a resident of 2 Washington Square, stated that the east facing residents on the lower floor would be impacted because their views across I-95 would be impeded. 2 Susan Levit of 2 Washington Sq. apt. LH, the lobby level, stated that her apartment would directly overlook the roof top and her quality of life will be impacted. Kevin Moore, apartment LI stated that the proposal will negatively impact light and air. Elizabeth Ledkovsky, apartment LF, stated that she agrees with her neighbors and also stated there is insufficient parking in the area. She further stated that if the roof line were lowered it would maybe be less impactful. John H stated that he is in support of neighbors' request to lower the roof height. Mr. Mustacato stated that he will investigate changes to the roof profile. Mr. Wexler asked that the applicant should come back to this Board with modifications to the roof, after which the application would be referred to both the Planning Board and the Board of Architectural Review. Application #2 — Case # 3330 - Evelyn and Andres Sadler - 1 Crest Avenue Ms. Brill stated that this application was duly noticed. Ms. Sadler stated that the property's railroad tie retaining wall and fence was in disrepair and replaced with a stone wall which steps back into their property. The new fence replaces the original fence. Mr. Polcari stated that the current/proposed fence is a better solution than what was there before and there have been no complaints. Mr. Marsh stated that he was impressed with the fence because the chain link almost disappears. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There was no one present who asked to be heard on this matter. 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 1 Crest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 3 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, Evelyn and Andres Sadler (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 1 Crest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 23, Lot 264; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The existing fence on the retaining wall is 9.8 feet where 5 feet is required pursuant to 240-52A and further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-10 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the fence impacts only one side yard neighbor from the neighbor's back yard and is not visible from elsewhere and consists of an unobtrusive black chain link fence that allows air and light to penetrate. 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 is necessary to prevent someone from falling and plantings or a"Guard Rail"would not provide sufficient protection and would be more obtrusive. 4 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the fence replaces what was existing and encroaches a small overall area relative to the side of the house and, further, it is consistent with the remainder of fencing between the two 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 fence adds no bulk and generates no impact on air, light or erosion. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 5 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy,the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application #3 - Case #3331 - M. Farooq Kathwari/ Clock Tower Larchmont Corp. —2 Madison Avenue Motion: To open the public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Steve Wrabel, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board. The owner, Mr. Kathwari, the General Manager, the architect and the owner of Strength Lab were also present. Mr. Wrabel stated that the two prior tenants were for office use and the new tenants are service/retail uses which are permissible but do not comply with the applicable parking requirements. He further explained that one tenant, The Strength Lab, has limited participants and employees and the participants of the other tenant, the Karate school, are mainly dropped off. He further stated that the peak hours of use are after school and in the evenings. As such, Mr. Wrabel asserted that the intensity of use will decrease and the overall actual parking impact will be less than the prior tenancies. The Board discussed the parking requirements and intensity of uses. Mr. Polcari stated that any change in an intensity of use would require a site plan amendment by the Town Planning Board. Ms. Hochman stated that the applicants appeared before the Planning Board at its March meeting and, despite the fact that it was recognized that a variance for parking is necessary, Board members seemed generally favorable to the application. She further explained that the Planning Board determined that no action would be taken until the Zoning Board made a determination with respect to the parking variance. The Board discussed the number of existing parking spaces and the need to encourage small businesses. Ms. Hochman stated that the variance, if approved, would apply to the entire building. There was no one present who asked to be heard on this matter. 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 6 Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 2 Madison Avenue,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, M. Farooq Kathwari/ Clock Tower Larchmont Corp. (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a change of use of two suites from office to service business on the premises located at 2 Madison Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 33, Lot 602; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed change of use will require 38 spaces where 26 spaces were previously required. The total amount of parking spaces required for the property is 120 where 47 parking spaces are provided pursuant to Section 270-78A; and further the business increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an B-R Zone District (the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, at the meeting it was clarified that 48 parking spaces are provided; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because there will be no change in the 7 number of parking spots and, as explained by the representatives of the tenants, the number of business employees and the business patrons expected to use the parking spots would not increase parking demand. 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 space is fixed and there is no ability to add parking spaces and there are no other practical means to accommodate these businesses. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the building operated with the same number of parking spaces at a higher intensity of use. 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 physical change to the building or parking area and parking demand is not expected to increase. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because the Town Zoning Code does not reflect how the utilization of leased space actually generates parking demand. 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. 8 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 Motion: To approve the draft minutes of January 11, 2023 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: approved Motion: To approve the draft minutes of February 22, 2023 Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene 0' Neill Action: approved Vote: Yes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Abstain: Carol Miller OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the draft resolution regarding the interpretation of 240-70B Motion: To approve the draft resolution as modified. Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved 4-1 Vote: Yes: Irene O'Neill, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Carol Miller Abstain: Arthur Wexler RESOLUTION Appeal of Determination by the Town of Mamaroneck Building Inspector re Zoning Compliance of Proposed Development at 15 Holly Place and Interpretation of Section 240-70.B of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck On motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller, the following was APPROVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Zoning Board") on February 22, 2023, upon the following resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. 9 WHEREAS, an application was submitted to the Town of Mamaroneck Building Depailiuent to construct a single-family house (the "Application") on property located at 15 Holly Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 21, Lot 318 (the "Property"); WHEREAS,the Application requires approval by the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board(the "Planning Board") pursuant to Chapter 178 of the Town of Mamaroneck Code, the Town's Residential Site Plan Law; and WHEREAS, the following plans (hereinafter referred to as the "Plans") were among those prepared by representatives of the Applicant and reviewed by the Town Building Inspector: • Plans entitled: "New Residence @ 15 Holly Place", prepared by Marsella Architects, P.C. • Property Survey, prepared by Stephen T. Johnson, P.L.S. WHEREAS,in a memorandum to the Planning Board dated December 9,2022 the Town Building Inspector stated that the building proposed to the erected on the Property, as reflected on the Plans, would be zoning compliant(the"12/9 Zoning Compliance Memo"); and WHEREAS, in reaching his conclusion in the 12/9 Zoning Compliance Memo, the Building Inspector invoked Section 240-70.B of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck(the"Zoning Code") to "step down" the required side yard setback requirements and determined that the R.2F Zoning District is the residence district in which said lot would meet the current requirements; and WHEREAS, Section 240.70.B of the Zoning Code provides as follows: In the case of a lot which does not meet the required dimensions in a residence district, the minimum required front and rear yards shall be those of the residence district in which said lot's depth would meet the current requirements, the minimum required side yards shall be those of the residence district in which said lot's width would meet the current requirements, and the minimum required floor area shall be that of the residence district in which said lot's area would meet the current requirements. WHEREAS, John Cuddy and Nina Recio (the "Challengers"), who reside adjacent to the Property, filed an application with the Zoning Board dated December 8, 2022 (the "Challengers' ZBA Application") to appeal the Building Inspector's determination in the 12/9 Zoning Compliance Memo; and WHEREAS, the Challengers' ZBA Application was placed on the Zoning Board's agenda for its duly noticed public meeting held on January 11, 2023 (the "Meeting"); and WHEREAS, at the Meeting, the counsel to the Zoning Board("ZBA Counsel") stated(i)that the Zoning Board has authority to decide any question involving the interpretation of any provision of the Zoning Code including a determination made by the Building Inspector; (ii)that the role of the Zoning Board is to decide whether to uphold or overturn the Building Inspector's determination and the Board must rely only on evidence in the record to support its decision; and (iii) that the 10 Zoning Board is required to use the "de novo standard" when reviewing the Building Inspector's original determination and has the authority and responsibility to interpret the provisions of the Zoning Code and make any determination in its opinion as ought to have been made by the Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, at the Meeting,the Building Inspector read into the record and summarized his letter to the Zoning Board dated January 6, 2023 (the "Building Inspector's Letter"), to (i) explain the history and application of Section 240.70.B and the R.2F Zoning District within the Town; and(ii) provide examples and supporting documentation which demonstrate a precedent and rationale for (a)his interpretation of the Zoning Code and(b)his determination in the 12/9 Zoning Compliance Memo; and WHEREAS, at the Meeting, the Building Inspector further stated, as set forth with more particularity in the Building Inspector's Letter, that (i) the term "residence district" is defined in the Zoning Code within the definition of"District"in Section 240.5 as any district prefixed by "R" and that this was his basis for concluding that R.2F can be invoked to apply the regulations of Section 240.70.B; and (ii) the R.2F Zoning District contemplates development of two-family and single-family houses; and WHEREAS, at the Meeting, the Challengers stated, as set forth with more particularity in the Challengers' ZBA Application: (i)that they object to such a large house on a lot that is only 50 feet wide; and (ii) that they challenge the Building Inspector's determination in the 12/9 Zoning Compliance Memo on the basis that an R.2F Zoning District contemplates multi-family housing, which, they assert, is not a residence district as contemplated in Section 240.70.B; (iii) that 2- family houses are qualitatively different from single-family houses and therefore R.2F should not be applicable for residential step down; and(iv) that the Building Inspector's interpretation of the Sec. 240-70.B precludes Zoning Board review of these types of applications even though the Zoning Board is the body which has the requisite expertise to evaluate these types of applications; and WHEREAS, other than the Challengers, no member of the public nor any representative of the Applicant was present at the Meeting and no written questions or comments were received; and WHEREAS, Zoning Board members applied the guidance hereinabove recited by ZBA Counsel and reviewed, considered, discussed and debated the arguments and concerns presented by (i)the Challengers, as presented in their testimony at the Meeting and in the Challengers' ZBA Application; (ii) the determination and rationale of the Town Building Inspector, as presented in his testimony at the Meeting as well as the Building Inspector's Letter and(iii)the language and application of the Zoning Code as well as relevant contextual history and precedent; and WHEREAS, at the Meeting, the Chair of the Zoning Board (the ZBA Chair) stated, (i)that safeguards are needed to prevent Town residents from overdevelopment; (ii)that lots below 6000 square feet should be required to come to the Zoning Board for relief; (iii)that the use of the term "residence district"in Section 240.70.B applies only to single family zones; and(iv) that the relatively recent practice of developing very large houses on narrow lots necessitates a 11 determination that undersized lots should only step down to residence districts which are restricted to single-family development; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the hereinabove comments made by the ZBA Chair, other members of the Zoning Board stated that(i)the language of Section 240-70.B is unambiguous and allows stepping down to any residence district prefixed by "R"; (ii)R.2F is a residence district which allows single-family residence on 5000 sf lot; (iii) R.2F is equivalent to what could have been an R.5 Zoning District; (iv) there is precedent of applying Section 240.70.B to allow stepping down to R.2F; and(v)the Challengers presented no evidence to justify overturning the Building Inspector's determination in the 12/9 Zoning Compliance Memo; and WHEREAS, Zoning Board members stated at the Meeting that the issues raised in the Challengers' ZBA Application and the ZBA Chair's remarks may require consideration by the Town Board; and WHEREAS, at the Meeting, Zoning Board members expressed sympathy for the Challengers and that they hope that the Applicant will take their concerns into account; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the Meeting, the Applicant revised the Plans and the Building Inspector issued to the Planning Board an updated zoning compliance memo, dated January 20, 2023; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023, the Planning Board approved the Application subject to the revised plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Zoning Board upholds the determination of the Building Inspector as reflected in the 12/9 Zoning Compliance Memo. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board finds that the term "residence district" in Section 240.70.B of the Zoning Code does not exclude the R.2F residence district. This decision is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 12