Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_05_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Wednesday,May 24,2023, $" Conference Room C,First Floor at 7:00 PM H t . i FoUhjLC11CC1 i PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Chair Irene O'Neill,Vice Chair Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Carol Miller, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Joe Russo, Assistant Building Inspector Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Francine Brill, Board Secretary ABSENT: Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Randy Heller, Alternate 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 duly noticed and posted on the Town web site 24 hours prior to the meeting. She answered yes to both. Application #1 - Case #3325 - Gjoko - 176 Myrtle Blvd. The public hearing remains open. The Board discussed the draft resolution prepared and circulated by counsel. Steve Marsh stated his additional observations after visiting the site and viewing it from the first-floor apai intent directly behind the subject property and stated his observation that visual impacts have been mitigated. It was noted that the Town's Board of Architectural Review considered the project and raised no objections. 1 The Board discussed the process and applicability of amending a site plan. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the draft resolution prepared by counsel, as modified Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 176 Myrtle Blvd., 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, Gjoko Shkreli (the "Applicant")requested a variance to construct a second-floor addition, above existing commercial space on the premises located at 176 Myrtle Blvd., Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 133 Lot 642; and • WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed combined business and residential use has an existing lot size of 5,000 square feet where 10,000 square feet is required; pursuant to Section 240-45A(2)(a) • The front yard setback is 0 feet 0 inches where 15 feet is required pursuant Section 240- 45 B(2)(a) • The side yard setback 0 feet 0 inches where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-45 B(2)(b). • The side yard setback 0 feet 0 inches where 5 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-45 B(2)(b). • The maximum floor area is 70% of 5,000 square feet(3,500 sq. ft.) is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45 C (2); 130% of 5, 000 square feet( 6,509 sq. ft.) is proposed • The proposed off street parking is zero (0) where 23 spaces are required, pursuant to Section 240-78 (A) • And further the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in a"B-R" Business-Residential 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 2 WHEREAS, the Secretary informed the Board that the Town's Board of Architectural Review considered this application and raised no objections; and WHEREAS, the Board noted that the Applicant is required to proceed before the Planning Board for consideration of a site plan amendment, which will lengthen the time needed to obtain a building permit and commence construction; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS,the Board makes the following findings as required: 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 design, as modified in response to comments by members of the Board and the public, blends well with the Myrtle Avenue streetscape and the greenery on the roof improves the view from many nearby apartments.Further, the Board noted that the Town's Board of Architectural Review considered this application and stated no objection to the plans. 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 other method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the preexisting one-story building is legally nonconforming and although the footprint of the building will not change, adding a second story triggers the need for variances,even though the proposed second-floor addition will encroach less than the first floor because its setbacks that are greater than the first floor. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because residential use is permissible in this zoning district and the addition of one apartment will not substantially intensify parking demand or density in the neighborhood. The addition is in the existing footprint. The increase in the FAR is not substantial as the applicant has addressed bulk, and the single apartment does not significantly increase the intensity of use. 3 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 of a single-family dwelling on top of a preexisting retail building will not increase impervious surface, nor will it substantially increase traffic, parking demand or noise. Further, the Board noted that the applicant provided a shadow study that shows there will be no substantial impact to light to the nearby properties. 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 one(1)year of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within one (1)year. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy,the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 7. The Applicant(or its successor-in-interest) shall secure and maintain agreements to ensure two (2) off-site nearby parking spaces. 4 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. Application No. 2 - Case No. 3334 -Lindsey and Evan Cohen -107 North Chatsworth Avenue—ADJOURNED Application No. 3 - Case No. 3336-Amity Joy and Steven English - 12 Knollwood Drive The public hearing remains open. The applicant's engineer explained changes to the plans that were made based on comments by Board members at the prior Board meeting. Scott Gottdiener, of 14 Knollwood Drive, shared his opinions about the prior plan and the current plans with respect to the boundary between their adjoining properties. He further stated that he appreciates the accommodations made but objects to the height of the wall that he will see from his property. The applicant responded that the stone retaining wall is in disrepair and plantings will mitigate any visual impacts. Jonathan Sacks stated that the revised plans significantly improve what was proposed at the last meeting and substantially lessen the visual impact. 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 12 Knollwood Drive, 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, Amity Joy and Steven English (the"Applicant") requested a variance for a retaining wall and fence on the premises located at 12 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 372; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed fence and wall in the rear yard will be 15.2 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A; for a residence in an R-10 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and 5 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 replacement wall will be located 400 feet away from the Leatherstocking trail, at an upward grade and screened with significant shrubbery and,to the extent it can be seen from neighboring properties, the applicant has addressed any visual impact to neighbors by proposing tiered placement of the wall and material which looks like stone with interlocking concrete, along with significant planting. 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 wall, which is in a state of significant disrepair, is necessary to retain soil and stabilize the property and protect a steep drop off, from which a guardrail would be ineffective. Further, the Board notes that and the applicant has responded to comments to make the retaining wall look as natural as possible. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because any visual impacts have been appropriately mitigated due to distance from nearby properties, tiered placement of the wall, natural looking materials and substantial plantings. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will reduce potential for erosion without adding significant impervious 6 surface. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created,because this is replacement of a deteriorating retaining wall which is necessary for safety and stabilization of the property. 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. The Applicant shall install and maintain substantial greenery as shown on the approved plans. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4 - Case No. 3337-Lexus of Larchmont- 1435 Boston Post Road Peter Gaito, Jr. presented on behalf of the applicant and explained the proposal. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 7 There were no questions or comments from members of the public. The Board discussed the application. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION Lexus of Larchmont- 1435 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review,on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Lexus of Larchmont(the"Applicant") requested a variance for signs on the premises located at 1435 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 11, Lot 249; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The six wall signs height will be 36 inches where 32 inches is permitted pursuant to 175-11B, the side wall signs are not permitted pursuant to Section 175-11B, internal illumination is not permitted pursuant to Section 175-12C, nine signs are proposed where two signs are permitted pursuant to Section 240-45H(8)(c)[2], internal illumination is not permitted pursuant to Section 240-45H(8)(c)[4]; and further the addition 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, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS,the Board discussed whether the illuminated signs would be objectionable to nearby apartments at night; and 8 WHEREAS, there was confusion about the number of signs reviewed by the Town's Board of Architectural Review (the "BAR"); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required: 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 to replace existing signage to make it more contemporary,the size of the letters will not increase,the signage is consistent with that of nearby businesses and the signs will be illuminated only during business hours or 9:00 p.m., whichever is earlier. 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 broken up facade of the building requires additional signage in order to be visible to those driving by the building. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed signage is similar to pre- existing signage which has existed without complaint for 20+ years and consistent with signage on nearby commercial properties. 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 signs will not be illuminated after the close of business or 9 p.m.,whichever is earlier. 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. 9 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. The illumination of the signs shall be extinguished upon the exit from the building of the last customer or 9:00 p.m., whichever occurs first. 8. To the satisfaction of the Town's Building Inspector, the Applicant shall confirm that the BAR reviewed the correct plans for this Application. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5- Case No. 3339 -Derek Davidson - 19 Spruce Road Joe Carpenzano, of Reliable Fence Company,presented on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the proposal is to replace an existing rotting fence and the neighbors are splitting the cost. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill 10 Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 19 Spruce Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Derek Davidson (the"Applicant") requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 19 Spruce Road,Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15, Lot 342; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence in the side yard will be 6 feet where 5 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A; for a residence 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 Applicant and the neighbor who owns the property on the other side of the fence both agree that the proposed replacement fence is necessary and appropriate; 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: 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 owners of the two adjoining properties agree that the existing fence is deteriorating and in need of repair and the replacement 11 fence will be well-screened and not be visible from the road or from any other 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 the owners of property on either side of the fence agree that the fence is deteriorating and in need of replacement. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the replacement fence is acceptable to both property owners and not visible from other neighboring properties or the road. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will not add any bulk or impermeable surface. 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. 12 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. 3340 - Caity and Daniel Weida - 7 East Drive The applicants addressed the Boad to explain their request. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no questions or comments from members of the public. The Board discussed the application. Motion: To close the Public Hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 7 East Drive, 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, Caity and Daniel Weida (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence on the premises located at 7 East Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 7, Lot 408; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The fence as proposed will have a height of 10.66 feet where 4 feet is permitted pursuant to Section 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 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 13 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: 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 black aluminum fence is consistent and in character with other nearby fences in neighborhood. 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 on a hill with a significant amount of rock outcropping and there is a steep drop off which makes the proposed fence necessary for safety. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the fence does not run for a significant distance and its appearance is consistent with other fences in the area. 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 will have no impact to runoff, light or air. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 14 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. 7 - Case No. 3343 -Benjamin and Leslie Lathrop - 11 Ellsworth Road The property owners addressed the Board to explain the request. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved The Board discussed the application. 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 15 RESOLUTION 11 Ellsworth Road,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, Benjamin and Leslie Lathrop (the"Applicant") requested a variance for three (3) air conditioning compressors on the premises located at 11 Ellsworth Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 14 Lot 246; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The first air conditioning compressor will have a rear yard of 16 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)(a); the second air compressor has a rear yard of 14.5 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)(a); the third air compressor has a rear yard of 18 feet where 25 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3)(a); and further the compressors increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence 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, it was discovered at the Board meeting that the side yard encroachment is 7.5 feet where 10 feet is required 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: 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 location is furthest from the closest neighbor, they will not otherwise be visible and, further, these types of units are typical in this community. 16 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 corner lot is burdened by two required 30-foot front yard setbacks, the rear yard is undersized and the remaining side yard is just over 7 feet so any location would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units add no bulk and are quiet and barely visible. 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 have a low DBA rating and barely visible. 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. 17 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy,the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 7. The units shall not encroach into the required side yard setback beyond the existing structure and shall be placed no closer than 7.5 feet from the property line. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 8 - Case No. 3345 -Jennifer and Damon Wright- 29 Carriage House Lane The homeowners, Jennifer and Damon Wright, addressed the Board to explain the project. Impervious surface, lot coverage and erosion controls were discussed. It was noted that if the back deck/patio were lowered, the amount of lot coverage would be less but the amount of impervious surface would be the same. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved There were no questions or comments from members of the public. The Board discussed the application. 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 29 Carriage House Lane, 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, Jennifer and Damon Wright (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a terrace, steps and pool on the premises located at 29 Carriage House Lane, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 14 Lot 246; and 18 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed terrace will have a rear yard setback of 38.9 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3), the proposed rear steps will have a rear yard of 36 feet where 40 feet is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3); the lot coverage will be 37% 39% where 35% is required pursuant to Section 240-35F, the proposed pool coping is 10.1 feet where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(b); and further the proposals increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District(the Notice of Disapproval); and WHEREAS, the Applicant made chances to the plans to reduce lot coverage to 37%; and WHERAS, the Board noted that despite what it says in the Notice of Disapproval, the application would not increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240- 69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required: 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 large lot abuts Winged Foot Golf Club (WFGC) in the rear yard, and the changes to the front of the property are similar in appearance to nearby properties. Further, and the circular driveway allows for parking of cars on the property, which would otherwise be parked on the street. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 19 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 many alternatives were considered but deemed infeasible and lowering the height of the proposed terrace would have technically lowered lot coverage but would have been the same amount of impervious surface. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because rear yard encroachments are minimal since it extends into the vast expanse of WFGC and any impacts to lot coverage, such as runoff, will be mitigated. 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 large lot and proximity to the golf course can accommodate the added bulk and any drainage impacts will be mitigated by requirements with the Town Code. 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. 20 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 May 3, 2023, as prepared by counsel and circulated, as revised Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved Abstained: Stephen Marsh and Carol Miller ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M. Brill Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals 21