Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_06_11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes O� �y MINUTES 02 ` Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting o June 11,2024 _ rn Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Irene O'Neill, Board Member Carol Miller, Alternate 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: The meeting commenced at 7:01 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-24-18 - 1330 Boston Post Road-Wonder -Jason Bottcher— Illuminated Signage The Building Inspector stated that the Town's Board of Architectural Review considered and approved this proposal. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Diana Kolev, the applicant's attorney, Jason Bottcher of Wonder, and Jorge Arrieta, Project Manager of CAD Signage, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Representatives of the applicant described the restaurant operation and explained why the illuminated sign is requested. Hours of operation were discussed. Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 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: Randy Heller seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1330 Boston Post 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 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jason Bottcher, on behalf of HDR Holdings, LLC., d/b/a Wonder (the "Applicant")requested a variance for illuminated signage on the premises located at 1330 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 10, Lot 463; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed internally illuminated wall sign. Internal illumination of a wall sign is not permitted pursuant to 175-12 C for a building in a B-R 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 Building Inspector stated that the Town's Board of Architectural Review considered and approved this application; 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, the Board discussed the hours of operation for the restaurant and determined that the hours of illumination should not exceed the hours of the restaurant's operation; 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. 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 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 sign will be located within a shopping center in which there are already illuminated signs and the prior occupant of this space had a similar illuminated sign. Further,neither the sign nor its illumination will be visible from residential 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 due to the extreme setback of the facade from the road, an illuminated sign is necessary to be visible by those passing by on West Boston Post Road. Further, all illuminated signs in the Town require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it will replace a similar illuminated sign and the material (perforated vinyl) is unobjectionable, as evidenced by the approval of the Town's Board of Architectural Review. 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 sign will be mounted and on a pre-existing structure and the illumination will not negatively impact 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: 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 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. 7. Hours of illumination shall be limited to the restaurant's hours of operation. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-24-16 - 61 Cooper Ln. - Michael Espinoza—Proposed Improvements Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Angela Loffa, the applicant's landscape architect addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Polcari, the Building Inspector, advised the Board that a neighbor had complained about water run-off and that the Town Code Enforcer inspected the property and found no evidence. The Building Inspector further stated that any run-off will be addressed because the Applicant will be required to apply for a Surface Water and Erosion Permit with the Town Engineering Department. Michael Posen, the neighbor at 82 Hickory Grove, expressed concerns about removal of arbor vitae bushes screening his property. Ms. Loffa assured him the screening would remain. Kathy Sears, the neighbor at 88 Hickory Grove Drive expressed concerns about the removal of trees and the proposed wall disturbing a tree on her property. Ms. Loffa advised the neighbor that a retaining wall will be built and a tree removed for construction, however, plantings will be replaced. 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Randy Heller, Irene O'Neill, Carol Miller,Arthur Katz Nay: Jonathan Sacks RESOLUTION 61 Cooper Lane, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Michael Espinoza (the"Applicant") requested a variance for proposed improvements on the premises located at 61 Cooper Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Lot 567; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed improvements will have a lot coverage of 42.1%where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39F; 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 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, based on testimony from neighbors, the Board determined 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 the rear of the property, where the retaining walls are to be located, is well screened by plantings which will be protected during construction and replaced if needed. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 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 the applicant desires to improve their backyard by flattening out the property and adding two retaining walls in the back corners,which will not be visible from street. Retaining walls are necessary to flatten the backyard due to a large slope. Although this property already exceeds permissible lot coverage, including the walls in calculations adds only 155 square feet of additional lot coverage and any drainage impact will be addressed by a stormwater plan to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineering Dept. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that although an increase in lot coverage from 39%to 42% is substantial, 155 square feet of additional lot coverage is not substantial because a stormwater plan will be required to take additional impervious surface into account and the retaining walls will not be visible from the street or adjacent property. 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 modifications to the rear yard will slow the rate of runoff across the property allowing surface water to percolate back into the soil and limiting free flow across the property onto neighboring properties. In addition, a stormwater plan will be required. 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. 6IPag Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 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. 7. Trees and plants serving as screening shall be no less than what is shown on the submitted plans. 8. All plantings shown on the plan shall be kept in good growing condition and anything that dies is required to be replaced in the next growing season. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-17 - 8 Nancy Lane - Timothy McCarthy- As-built: Deck and Stairs Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jonathan Hodash, the applicant's architect addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The applicant had received a variance in 2018 for the work but the as-built survey had slightly different dimensions as compared to the plans approved with the variance. The Board reviewed and discussed the findings made in the 2018 variance and found that they remain applicable because the as-built dimensions were off by mere inches. 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 upon the same findings and conditions as approved in 2018 Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESTATED RESOLUTION 8 Nancy Lane,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, Timothy McCarthy (the"Applicant") requested a variance for as-built deck and stairs on the premises located at 8 Nancy Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 2, Lot 312; and 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as-built deck has a rear yard setback of 18'where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-40 B (3); The as-built stairs has a rear yard setback of 14.4' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-40 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-2F 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 front porch is small and violates the front yard setback by less than 10 square feet and the rear yard stairs encroach less and less of the required setback as they descend to grade. 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 it is an irregularly shaped lot. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because in the rear yard, the deck is 45 inches above grade and the wall projects only 18 inches into the required rear yard setback and the front porch is small. 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 based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance will not 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it will not generate any light, noise, pollution or runoff. 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-24-20 - 110 N. Chatsworth Ave. - Ovidio Bacallao - Garage Modification Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Ovidio Bacallao, the applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 The applicant provided photographs of the property flooding; they were marked Exhibit A, B & C,presented to the Board, and entered into the record. 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 Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 110 N. Chatsworth Ave,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, Ovidio Bacallao (the "Applicant")requested a variance for a garage modification on the premises located at 110 N. Chatsworth Ave, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 13, Lot 254; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed garage modification will have a side yard setback of 3.4'where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38B(2)(a); 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. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 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 new garage will replace an existing structure and is the same distance from the street and it will intrude no further into the setbacks as compared to the existing garage. Further, it is well screened from the adjacent property to the right. 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 garage needs to be raised to mitigate flooding problems and needs to be a sufficient size to accommodate a car, which dictates its dimensions and location. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it's a replacement of an existing garage, with the same setbacks, only at a higher elevation. 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 grade and driveway will be changed to accommodate the new height which is expected to reduce runoff and mitigate flooding in the area. 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. 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 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. 5 - Case No. ZBA-24-21 - 217 Hommocks Road - Hannah & Thomas Saujet— Two Gates Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Maximillian Mahalcu, the applicant's attorney, and Thomas and Hannah Saujet, the homeowners, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Building Inspector explained that the applicant applied for a permit for the first gate, which was granted. It was later discovered that both gates require a height variance. The applicants stated that both gates were installed with their understanding that no variances were necessary. Mr. Mahalcu presented photographs of the gates; they were marked Exhibit A,presented to the Board, and entered into the record. The Building Inspector stated that, to date, no complaints have been received from neighboring properties. The height, design and material of the gates were discussed. The installed gates were reviewed against the plans submitted to the Town Building Department, and it was determined that what was built does not match the submitted plans. There were no public questions or comments. The applicant offered to arrange a site visit for Board members. At the request of the applicant, the application was adjourned. The public hearing remains open. MINUTES The draft minutes of May 22, 2024 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Abstain: Carol Miller 12I Page Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2024 Approved by: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Randy Heller, Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz ADJOURNMENT Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 8:48pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 13IPage