Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_09_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 04 - 47 MINUTES o? ` Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Fp 1 / • . z September 25, 2024 _ �: Q n Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM • FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Randy Heller, Board Member Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary ABSENT: Irene O'Neill, Board Member Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison The meeting commenced at 7:07 p.m. Given the late arrival of Mr. Wexler,Mr. Sacks assumed the role of Chairman. Mr. Sacks stated that Chairman Wexler and Board Member Marsh were running late leaving only 4 members. He further stated that an approval requires an affirmative vote by three members, and that, before an application is taken to a vote, the applicants may request a non-binding straw poll and may choose to adjourn to the next meeting. Mr. Wexler arrived at 7:12 PM and took the position of Chair. Ms. Miller as first Alternate, assumed the role of Board Member. 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-24-7— 1385 Boston Post Road—Proclinix- Sign Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Carol Miller Action: Approved: Arthur Katz, Jonathan Sacks, Randy Heller and Carol Miller Dr. Alan Siegel, the applicant, representing the tenants and himself, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, stated that the application had received prior approval from the Town Board of Architectural Review. Chair Wexler and Board Member Marsh joined the meeting. Board members asked if the applicant would confine illumination until an hour after closing and the applicant stated no objection. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Action: Approved: Carol Miller, Arthur Katz, Jonathan Sacks and Randy Heller Abstain: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Approved: Carol Miller, Arthur Katz, Randy Heller and Jonathan Sacks Abstain: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh RESOLUTION 1335 Boston Post Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with two (2) abstentions. WHEREAS, Alan Siegel/Proclinix (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an illuminated sign over the rear door of the premises located at 1335 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 196.2; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed standing sign will advertise multiple businesses where the advertisement of a single business if permitted, pursuant to §175-11 C; Proposed standing sign is oriented perpendicular to the street where the code requires a standing sign to be generally oriented to face the street which it is adjacent to pursuant to §175-11 C; Proposed internal illumination of a sign is not permitted pursuant to §175-12 C for a property in a B-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 Building Inspector stated that the Town's Board of Architectural Review approved the illuminated sign, as proposed; 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 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 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 is only 6 feet tall,moderately illuminated and compatible with surrounding uses. In addition,the Board noted that signs adjacent and across the street are internally illuminated and, further, that no residences would be impacted. 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 multiple different uses in this building need to be advertised and the sign needs to be perpendicular and illuminated to be seen. Further, the building is setback from the street and a recessed, an unilluminated sign would be hard to see unless you were right in front of the building. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because this is a commercial district with similar signage on nearby properties and the illuminated sign will not be visible from residential 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 sign is relatively small and the sign (and the light emanating from the sign) will not be visible from residential areas and only illuminated for up to one hour after closing. 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. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 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 proposed sign as shown on the submitted plans. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that such sign shall be illuminated only during operating hours and for one hour after closing. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-24-36—20 Valley Road-Dominic Marchese—Roof Line Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Frank Marsella, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Amy Jogis, the neighbor at 7 Birch Road, addressed the Board to express objections to the scale of the work proposed, specifically with respect to concerns about encroachment of her privacy, lighting and drainage. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 20 Valley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 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: The roof line as approved and built has a side yard setback of 2.8'to the rake (3.3'to the face) where 10' is required,pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); 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 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 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 it is aesthetically designed and modifies the existing roofline with a small projection which does not increase the roof's projection into the rear setback. 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 change is needed to direct rainwater to the proper gutter. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it encroaches only a small area into the required rear yard and it improves aesthetics because it breaks up rear massing of the house and creates the appearance of less bulk. 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 have a negligible impact to light and runoff will be directed to gutters. 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. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 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. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-35— 18 Alden Road—Maria Zeolla—AC Compressor Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Maria Zeolla, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request to move the a/c compressor to the rear yard to create more clearance for a walkway in the front yard. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 18 Alden Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York Wage Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 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: As-Built Heat pump (A/C compressor)has a rear yard setback of 12' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3); As-Built Heat pump (A/C compressor) increases the lot coverage from 43.6%to 43.7%where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; 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 the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the units are located away from the street, well screened from all neighbors and tucked in neatly in back 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 the applicant demonstrated that she attempted to place in the side yard but such placement limited the feasibility of walking around the units to the rear yard. In addition, the Board noted that regardless of where the units are located, the lot coverage would increase by the same amount. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because they are in the rear yard, 12 feet from the property line, well concealed and these units do not even sit on the ground, allowing the ground underneath to remain permeable. 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 they will emit very little sound (low Dba rating), fenced in and well screened to limit sound travel and will not generate any additional runoff because the units project out above the ground. 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. 81 Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 Application No. 4— Case No. ZBA-24-21 —217 Hommocks Road—Hannah & Thomas Saujet—Gates The public hearing remains open. Maximillian Mahalek, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Photos with renderings of the northern gate, submitted and marked Exhibit A, and the southern gate, submitted and marked Exhibit B, were presented to the Board and entered into the record. Mr. Mahalek stated that these renderings were intended to show what the gates would look like if they were painted various colors other than white, as suggested by Board members, to lessen the visual impact and better blend into the surroundings. Anthony Zavaglia, who resides on Weaver Street, asked when the gates were installed. Mr. Mahalek stated they were installed in 2023. The Board requested the applicant explore painting the gates a different shade of gray and return with more accurate color renderings and paint samples. The application is continued and the public hearing remains open. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-24-14—45 Cooper Lane—Melissa Kaplan-Macey - Subdivision Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Melissa Kaplan-Macey, the applicant and owner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Anatasia Marceau, the neighbor at 37 Cooper Lane, addressed the Board to express objections to the application, specifically with respect to the character of the neighborhood, lighting and drainage. Photos marked Exhibit A and a FEMA Zone Table marked Exhibit B, were presented to the Board and entered into the record. Mr. Wexler excused himself to take a phone call for a few minutes and then returned. Abby Katz, the neighbor at 40 Cooper Lane, addressed the Board to express support for the applicant, as well as concerns that that the application may not be able to satisfy the required findings to be made by the Board. Jamie Brennan, the neighbor at 46 Cooper Lane, addressed the Board to express support for the application. Four (4) letters of support from neighbors were presented to the Board and entered into the record, marked Exhibit C. Board members and the applicant discussed whether there could be restrictions on future development and counsel was requested to research this issue. The applicant requested an adjournment. 91 Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 The public hearing remains open. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-24-28 - 59 Myrtle Blvd. - FormTec USA/Michael Chariton -Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Kathy Zalantis, the applicant's attorney, Andrew Zimmerman, the applicant's architect and Michael Charitou, the applicant and owner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Russ Columbo, the neighbor at 55 Myrtle Blvd, addressed the Board to express objections to the scale of the work proposed, specifically with respect to drainage, bulk and proximity to his property. A letter of objection was presented to the Board and entered into the record, marked Exhibit A. Chris Fathers, the neighbor at 38 Myrtle Blvd, addressed the Board to express objections to the scale of the work proposed. Karen Bonaparte, the neighbor at 44 Myrtle Blvd, addressed the Board to express objections to the scale of the work proposed. Board members expressed concerns about the size of the development, specifically as it violated the rear and side setbacks, and asked the applicant to explore alternatives. The applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 7 - Case No. ZBA-24-30—6 Dimitri Place—Vikrant Yadav—New Dwelling Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Vikrant Yadav, the applicant and owner, and Nick Sirrah,the engineer, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Michael Hinse, the neighbor at 5 Byron Lane, addressed the Board to express objections to the scale of the work proposed, specifically with respect to flooding. Eric Kaplan, the neighbor at 8 Dimitri Place, addressed the Board to express objections to the scale of the work proposed, specifically with respect to flooding and air conditioning. The applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 25, 2024 MINUTES The draft minutes of July 24, 2024 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Arthur Wexler Approved by: Arthur Katz, Randy Heller and Arthur Wexler Abstain: Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks, Carol Miller The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 11IPage