Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_07_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 04 - 47 MINUTES Fp o? ` Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 / . 0 July 24,2024 0 m Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM • FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Randy Heller, Board Member Irene O'Neill, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector ABSENT: Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member Jennifer Ransom, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary The meeting commenced at 7:01 p.m. Given the absence of Jonathan Sacks and Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz as second Alternate, assumed the role of Board Member. Mr. Polcari 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-24-23 -2 Dundee Road—Peter Gross - Spa Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Peter Gross, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Gross stated that shrubbery will be planted. He further stated that the hot tub will have its own filtration system. The Building Inspector stated that no fence is required. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 2 Dundee Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Peter Gross (the "Applicant")requested a variance for a spa on the premises located at 2 Dundee Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 8 Lot 741; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed spa will be located in the front yard where a spa is not permitted, pursuant to 192-5 A (1) (c); Proposed spa will have a front yard setback of 22'where 40' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (1); for a property in an R-15 Zoning 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, to minimize intrusion to neighbors, Board members stated, and the applicant agreed, that trees and bushes need to remain and be maintained and replaced, if necessary; 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 it will be located 22 feet from the property line and well screened by privacy bushes. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 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 due to the unusual configuration of property, with three street frontages, there is no other suitable location which would not require a variance. In addition, the Board found that the 22 feet setback from property line is sufficient. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the concrete slab is only 8x8 with a 7x7 tub that is three feet high and well screened. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is self-contained, filled with a hose, with its own filtration system and requires no plumbing. 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 (6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (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 Depaitruent. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 7. Evergreens shall be planted to shield the hot tub, 3-4 feet above root ball, and shall be kept in good growing condition and any plants that die shall be replaced in the next growing season. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-24-21 — 217 Hommocks Road—Hannah & Thomas Saujet—Gates The public hearing remains open. Lisa Hochman addressed the Board to state that she attended a site visit on June 19t, along with Chair Wexler, and Board members Jonathan Sacks and Arthur Katz. She stated there was no discussion of public business during the site visit. Maximillian Mahalek, the applicant's attorney and Hannah Saujet, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and highlight recent submissions. Height and setback of the gates was discussed. The updated survey was discussed. Examples of nearby gates were discussed. The applicant requested a nonbinding straw poll and Board members shared their comments and observations. The application was adjourned and the public hearing remains open. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-25—20 Valley Road—Dominic Marchese - Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Frank Marsella, 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 Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Irene O'Neill seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 20 Valley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 4I Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Dominic Marchese (the"Applicant")requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 20 Valley Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 16 Lot 689; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 21' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (1); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zoning 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 conversion of an existing sun room to a covered porch with portico not expand the footprint of the house and will add no bulk. The Board further found that proposed design will enhance the appearance of the house and improve neighborhood character. 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 already intrudes into the required setback and the proposal is the only viable option to create portico entrance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the house is pre-existing nonconforming and the proposal will not change the existing footprint of the front of the house. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 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 increase in bulk or footprint so it will not generate an increase in in runoff or shadows. 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 (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6)months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-24-24— 18 Alden Road -Maria Zeolla —A/C Compressor Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 Maria Zeolla,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 Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 18 Alden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Randy Heller,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Maria Zeolla (the"Applicant") requested a variance for A/C compressor 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: Proposed Heat pump (A/C compressor)will have a side yard setback of 5.4'where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed Heat pump (A/C compressor) will have a rear yard setback of 15' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3); for a property in an R-6 Zoning 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 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the compressor is very quiet, small and visually unobjectionable. 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 small and substandard and any other location would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small and quiet and encroaches only 2.6 feet into the required setback. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is small, very quiet (low DBA rating for sound) and will generate no runoff or sound beyond the property line. 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 (6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6)months. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 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. ZBA-24-22 — 1333 Boston Post Road—Goodwill—Sign/Awning Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Samir Kothari, 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 Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Arthur Katz seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1333 Boston Post Road,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, Goodwill (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of wall (awning) sign over the rear door of the premises located at 1333 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 119; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed wall sign (awning sign) will face a Residential District,pursuant to 175-11G no sign shall face an adjoining residential district; in a U-R Zone District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Town Sign 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 91 Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 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 sign faces a parking lot and is next to Walgreens which already has a similar awning and signage 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 awning sign is no more objectionable than a wall sign, which also would be prohibited by Section 175-11.G of the Town Code. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the size of the lettering is not too large and the awning itself is similar to the awning on the adjoining property occupied by Walgreens. 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 although the property is adjacent to a residential area, it faces a parking lot and a school on the other side and will not be visible from any residences. 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 Sign Code and 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. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals July 24, 2024 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is hereby GRANTED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this variance is limited to the existing sign and shown on the submitted plans. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. MINUTES The draft minutes of June 11, 2024 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Approved by: Unanimously approved After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 pm. Minutes prepared by: Richard Polcari/Jennifer Ransom 11IPage