Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_02_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES 2 '\ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting O % pp February 28,2024 _ ®I 4.2. Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Irene O'Neill, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary ABSENT: Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member The meeting commenced at 7:06 p.m. Ms. Ransom stated that all items on the agenda for public hearing had been properly noticed and all documents to be discussed this evening had been posted on the Town website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Application No. 1 - Case No. ZBA-24-1 —69 Hillcrest Avenue -Anthony& Meredith Stanford-Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Aishah Coleman and Francine Alheid, the applicant's architects, and Meredith Stanford, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Zoning Board of Appeals February 28, 2024 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 69 Hillcrest Avenue,Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Anthony& Meredith Stanford (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 69 Hillcrest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 22 Lot 166; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; Proposed rear addition will have a rear yard setback of 20.6'where 25'is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zone District" (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and 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 only variance requested relates to the rear yard setback and the proposed encroachment is in line with the existing house. Also, there are large setbacks in the front yard and left side yard. 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 anything that would tie into the rear of the house would necessitate a 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 28, 2024 variance and the proposal does not extend beyond the current encroachment. Further, the request to allow mudroom access from the back of house while including a bedroom and bathroom on first floor is considered reasonable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because less than 25 square feet will encroach into the required rear yard setback and large left side yard and front yard setbacks will remain. 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 Applicant has reduced massing by adding only one-story on the front left and two-stories on the back two-thirds of the house, and, further the Applicant has reduced overall massing by tiering the roof. In addition, the Applicant is removing the covered patio which will reduce bulk on the left side yard. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 28, 2024 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. 3356— 18 Alden Road—Maria Zeolla—Deck - RETURN Maria Zeolla, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the revised application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 18 Alden Road, 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. WHEREAS, Maria Zeolla (the"Applicant") requested a variance for a deck on the premises located at 18 Alden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 9 Lot 653; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; Proposed deck will have a side yard setback of 3.7'where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed deck will have a combined side yard setback of 14.5'where 18' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(b); Proposed deck will increase the lot coverage to 42% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; and further the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zoning District" (the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, based upon changes proposed by the Applicant, the Notice of Disapproval was revised as follows: "Zoning Board of Appeals variances needed for; Existing deck has a side yard setback of 3.7'where 8'is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Existing deck has a combined side yard setback of 11.8' where 18' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(b); Existing deck has a rear yard setback of 16' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240- 39 B (3); Existing deck increased the lot coverage to 40% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; and further the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 Zoning District" (the Revised Notice of Disapproval"); and 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 28, 2024 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 deck has existed substantially in its current position, since 2016, without complaint and although a neighbor submitted concerns when this application last appeared before the Board, the Applicant has addressed this neighbor's concerns and the same neighbor has expressed no objection. Also, this deck is well screened on three sides and will not be visible from the street. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the existing deck is nonconforming and any change to the side or rear of the house would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment is primarily created as a result of an existing nonconformity, and the increased square footage is small, 2% of total lot. Also, the deck is pervious and the area below will also remain pervious. 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 is no impact to light, air or runoff. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 28, 2024 B. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-2 — 21 Rockland Avenue—Meghan Neenan -Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Giovanni Zapata, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Charles Toothill, the neighbor at 54 Sheldrake Ave, addressed the Board to express objections to the scale of the work proposed, specifically with respect to drainage, lighting and bulk. Jonathan Sacks suggested a shadow study could be helpful. At the request of the applicant, the application was adjourned. The public hearing remains open. Board Member Irene O'Neill had to leave and Alternate Board Member Arthur Katz stepped into her position. 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 28, 2024 Application No. 4- Case No. ZBA-23-5—50 Howell Avenue— Gordon Oppenheimer —Garage Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved Board Member Arthur Katz recused himself based on a longstanding relationship with the applicant. He stated that he has no financial interest in the outcome of this application. He stepped down from the dais. Gail Hiler, the applicant's attorney and neighbor,Mitchell Green, the applicant's architect and neighbor, and Gordon Oppenheimer, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Stephen and Jason Conners, neighbors at 44 Howell Avenue, addressed the Board to express their concerns and to request that the 10' setback requirement be observed. At the request of the applicant, the application was adjourned. The public hearing remains open. MINUTES The draft minutes of January 24, 2024 were discussed, with changes proposed by Board Member Jonathan Sacks relating to the resolutions for UBX Boxing at 1370 Boston Post Road. Motion: To approve the draft minutes, as modified Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Abstain: Randy Heller, Irene O'Neill Approved: Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Arthur Wexler, Arthur Katz ADJOURNMENT After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 7IPage