Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_10_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 04 - 47 MINUTES Fp o? ` Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 / z October 23,2024 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 Irene O'Neill, 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: Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison 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-24-43 - 6 Crest Avenue -Annie Balagot-HVAC Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Annie Balagot, the owner and applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Board discussed whether the amount of variance requested would be sufficient for installation of the unit. At the request of the Board, the Building Depaitment will issue a revised Notice of Disapproval for the record to allow the applicant a greater dimensional encroachment. 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 October 23, 2024 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 6 Crest 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,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Annie Balagot(the"Applicant") requested a variance for HVAC on the premises located at 6 Crest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 23 Lot 484; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed heat pump on the left side will have a side yard setback of 6' where 10' is required,pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed heat pump on the right side will have a side yard setback of 4'where 10' is required, pursuant to 240- 37 B (2)(a); for a property in an R-10 Zoning District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, to allow greater flexibility for installation of the unit, without unreasonably increasing the impact of the requested variance, the Board suggested and the Applicant agreed that the left side yard setback should be 5'6" instead of 6' and the right side yard setback should be 3'6"instead of 4'; 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 houses on either side are at a considerable distance from location of the units, separated by a driveway and the garage. Further, the units are small and quiet and hardly noticeable from the street or neighboring properties. 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 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 rear yard has uneven terrain and insufficient space to install the units. Further, the proposed location will enable more efficient connections. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units are small and narrow and will be installed on a pad very close to the house. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the units have a low Dba rating of 5 lwhich is similar to the sound of a refrigerator running or moderate rainfall. 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. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 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. ZBA-24-40 -28 Copley Road-Jennica Stone—Heat Pumps Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Richard Camp, the applicant's father, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. A letter of support was submitted from the neighbor at 26 Copley Road, and is entered into the record as Exhibit A. The Board discussed whether the amount of variance requested would be sufficient for installation of the unit. At the request of the Board, the Building Depai intent will issue a revised Notice of Disapproval for the record to allow the applicant a greater dimensional encroachment. 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 28 Copley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jennica Stone (the "Applicant")requested a variance for heat pumps on the premises located at 28 Copley Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 9 Lot 80; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed Heat pumps will have a side yard setback of 7' where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); for a property in an R-6 Zoning District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, to allow greater flexibility for installation of the unit, without unreasonably increasing the impact of the requested variance, the Board suggested and the Applicant agreed that the side yard setback should be 6'6" instead of 7'; and 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 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 small and quiet, installed low to the ground and will be hardly visible from the street or neighbors. 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 other locations were explored and deemed less attractive and less practical iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the units protrude as little as possible from the house and have a small footprint. 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 units are small with a low Dba rating (50/51) which generates noise similar to the pitter patter of light rainfall. 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. Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 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. 9 was switched to an earlier spot in the agenda at the request of the applicant. Application No. 9 - Case No. ZBA-24-30—6 Dimitri Place—Vikrant Yadav—New Dwelling The public hearing remains open. Vikrant Yadav, the applicant and owner, and Nick Sirrah, the engineer, 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 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved 6I Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 RESOLUTION 6 Dimitri Place, 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, Vikrant Yadav (the "Applicant")requested a variance for a new dwelling on the premises located at 6 Dimitri Place, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 21 Lot 528; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed dwelling will have lot coverage of 38.8% (2,329sqft)where 35% (2,100sgft)is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; 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, 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 all setbacks meet zoning requirements and the increase in lot coverage is slight(1.7%), which is less coverage than the prior house. 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, based on discussion at the prior Board meeting, the applicant explored alternatives which resulted in changes to the application to eliminate variances for FAR and setbacks. As redesigned, the house conforms to all zoning requirement except lot coverage. Further, the Board noted that the applicant sited the house as forward as possible to reduce the length of the driveway to reach the garage. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because a 1.7% exceedance of lot coverage (229 square feet) is considered marginal, especially because it is less lot coverage than the prior house and because all setbacks meet zoning requirements. 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 visual impact and the home owner will be required to install mitigation for flooding, such as sump pumps, battery backup etc. 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. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-39 - 67 Echo Lane -Will and Hilary Cuddy-Addition 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Will and Hilary Cuddy, the applicant and homeowner, and Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The homeowner advised the Board that they received verbal support of their proposed project from the neighbors at 61 Echo Lane and 129 Murray Avenue. The Board discussed whether the amount of variance requested would be sufficient for installation of the unit. At the request of the Board, the Building Department will issue a revised Notice of Disapproval for the record to allow the applicant a greater dimensional encroachment. 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 67 Echo 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, Will and Hilary Cuddy(the"Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 67 Echo Lane, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 18 Lot 65; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 7.3' where 10'is required,pursuant to 240-38 B (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, to allow greater flexibility for installation of the unit, without unreasonably increasing the impact of the requested variance, the Board suggested and the Applicant agreed that the side yard setback should be 7' instead of 7'3"; 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 9IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 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 house the second story addition is small and compatible with the first floor design and looks like it is part of the existing house. 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 a trapezoid shape and the house is preexisting nonconforming so any addition would require a variance and the left side is the most practical area for expansion. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a relatively small second floor addition and steps in from the existing nonconforming first floor 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 the footprint of the house will barely increase— only a small area in the back left corner - and lot coverage, which will increase slightly, will remain under allowable lot coverage. 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. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 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. 4 - Case No. ZBA-24-38 -33 Harrison Drive - Catherine Wei-Dean - Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, 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 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 33 Harrison Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Catherine Wei-Dean (the"Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 33 Harrison Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 2 Lot 256; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 27' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B(1); Proposed steps and platform will have a front yard setback of 19' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-36 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 design will break up the massing and add architectural features which will enhance the appearance of the house and be in keeping with neighborhood character. Further, the front steps, which protrude into the setback, are at a significant distance from the road. 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 of where the house is situated on a corner lot, there are limited options and, further, the steps are necessary to access the house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the added square footage to the house is small, the distance to nearby houses is large and the encroachment into the setback is minor. 12I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 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 impact on light, air 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. 5 - Case No. ZBA-24-37- 12 Senate Place - Roman Vaculin —Addition & A/C Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 13 I n .. _ .. Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 Frank Marsella, the applicant's architect and Roman and Harini Vaculin, the applicants and homeowners, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Three (3) letters of support from neighbors were presented to the Board and entered into the record, marked Exhibit A. Photos of the rear and side of the house were presented to the Board and entered into the record, marked Exhibit B. 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: Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 12 Senate Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Roman Vaculin (the "Applicant")requested a variance for an addition and A/C compressor on the premises located at 12 Senate Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 12 Lot 618; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed A/C compressor will have a side yard setback of 3'where 8' is required,pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.3'where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 5.1'where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 11.4'where 18' is required,pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(b) 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, 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 14IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the design will improve the appearance of the house and is in keeping with to nearby houses. In addition, the a/c compressor will be concealed behind the chimney and the adjacent property also has an a/c unit on that side. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the house is pre-existing nonconforming on a small lot with setbacks already encroached by the house and the second story addition will not increase those encroachments. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the second story addition will encroach no further into side yards than what currently exists. Further, the a/c unit is smaller than the existing unit and there will be a fence to provide a visual barrier and sound attenuation. 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 second-floor addition will be built on within the existing footprint and will therefore not increase runoff and the a/c unit has fairly low Dba and sits adjacent to neighbor's unit. 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: 15IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 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. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6- Case No. ZBA-24-21 - 217 Hommocks Road - Hannah & Thomas Saujet—Adjourned This matter is adjourned at the request of the applicant. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 7- Case No. ZBA-24-14 -45 Cooper Lane - Melissa Kaplan-Macey— Subdivision The public hearing continues from the prior month. 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. A letter of support from a neighbor was presented to the Board and entered into the record, marked Exhibit A. Photos of surrounding houses were presented to the Board and entered into the record, marked Exhibit B. Nicole Martin, the neighbor at 33 Cooper Lane addressed the Board to express support for the application. Board members and the applicant discussed the dimensional requirements for development in an R6 zoning district and potential restrictions on bulk. Lisa Hochman, counsel to the Board, explained that a restrictive covenant limiting bulk could be permissible, depending on the specific restrictions. The applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 8 - Case No. ZBA-24-28 - 59 Myrtle Blvd. -FormTec USA/Michael Charitou—Addition 16IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2024 The public hearing continues from the prior month. Kathy Zalantis, the applicant's attorney, and Andrew Zimmerman, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The applicant stated based on Board members' comments at the prior meeting, that the plans were revised to slightly reduce lot coverage and eliminate requests for side yard setback variances. Board members commented on how this lot is unique in the neighborhood. The applicant requested an adjournment to make additional revisions to their plans. The public hearing remains open. MINUTES The draft minutes of September 25th were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Approved by: Arthur Wexler, Randy Heller, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz Abstain: Irene O'Neill The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 pin. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 17IPage