Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_01_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes O� �y MINUTES 02 ` Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting z January 24,2024 _ fd1 n Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Stephen Marsh, Board Member Jonathan Sacks, 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 Randy Heller, Board Member Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison The meeting commenced at 7:04 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. 3364/ZBA-23-13 —1370 Boston Post Road—UBX Boxing Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Luis Ospina from Signs Lab, and Jamie Baum the business owner, 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 Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1370 Boston Post Road- UBX BOXING, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, UBX BOXING (the "Applicant")requested a variance for internal illumination of sign on the premises located at 1370 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 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposing to add internal illumination to an existing wall sign. Internal illumination of a wall sign is not permitted pursuant to 175-12 C for a building in a B-R Zone District(the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, there was discussion about whether light from the illuminated sign would spill into the parking lot or be too bright for drivers or neighbors; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code ("Town Code"); and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the proposed illuminated sign is consistent with other nearby signage in the commercial area along Boston Post Road and the applicant stated that the light from the sign will not project in such a way as to impact other nearby properties, further the sign will only operate as during limited nighttime hours as specified in the Town Code. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the Applicant stated that the proposed illuminated sign is consistent with requirements of the franchise and would help attract new customers. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because backlit illuminated signs are typical in commercial areas of Town. 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 Town Code regulates nighttime illumination of signs. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 31 Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 7. The illuminated sign will conform to the restrictions in Sec. 175-12.H.4 of the Town Code regarding nighttime illumination 8. No illumination after 11:00 p.m. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-23-17 — 1 Boulder Road—Evan & Kerry Pasqua Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Kimberly Martelli,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 Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Stephen Marsh seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1 Boulder Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Evan & Kerry Pasqua (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an Addition & Air Conditioning on the premises located at 1 Boulder Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 11 Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of 14.9' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed air conditioning condenser will have a rear yard setback of 17' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); for a building in an R-7.5 zoning district; and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zone District(the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Board asked the dBA of the air conditioning condenser and the Applicant did not have the information; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the one-story addition does not extend beyond existing house's rear yard setback encroachment and it is not as tall as the existing house. In addition, one side of the house is well screened with arborvitae and the other side abuts the neighboring yard. Regarding the air conditioning condenser, it will be installed next to two previously approved condensers in the rear yard, which will minimize any disturbance to 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 the house is legally nonconforming and any addition, including the installation of an air conditioning condenser, would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment of the addition is consistent with the existing encroachments, as previously approved. In addition, the proposed air conditioning condenser will be next to two previously approved units and they are well-screened. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the addition is well screened on one side and a considerable distance from the house on the other side of the property. In addition, the Applicant agreed that the dBA rating for the new condenser would be 62 or less. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. 7. DBA rating of new condenser shall be no greater than 62 dBA. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-23-21 165 Griffen Ave—Gary Newman ADJOURNED 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-23-18—3 Cabot Road—Ilya Gilkarov Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Shah Inheshmat, 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 Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Carol Miller seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 3 Cabot Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Carol Miller, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Ilya Gilkarov(the "Applicant")requested a variance for a legalization of an addition on the premises located at 3 Cabot Road, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 25 Lot 445; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As-Built addition has a front yard setback of 29.4'where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 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-6 Zone District. (the"Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and 71 Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 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 it is small in nature, consistent with nearby properties and compatible with the recent renovation, which had been earlier approved by the Board. 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 if this "bump out"had been included in the original plans, it would likely have been approved along with the other variances and, given the small amount of additional bulk, it would not be reasonable to tear it down. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not extend the footprint of the house, adds only 7 inches and is consistent with the bulk of other nearby houses. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is small and does not increase the footprint of the existing house. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 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 six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-23-22 — 8 Briar Close—Anthony McManus Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Anthony Nanna, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. & Mrs. Badimon, the applicant's neighbor at 27 Bonnie Way, addressed the Board regarding their concerns about possible run-off and drainage issues. The applicant and the neighbor agreed to work together to mitigate any concerns. 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 Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 8 Briar Close, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. 91 Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 WHEREAS, Anthony McManus (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a 2nd Floor Addition on the premises located at 8 Briar Close, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 5, Lot 442; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 22.8'where 40'is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (1); Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 8.8'where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 20.3'where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (2)(b); Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of 20.7' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (3); and further the improvements will increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-15 Zone District. (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck(the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the appearance of the house will improve, and it is consistent with nearby homes with second stories. In addition, due to the unique topography, one of the next- door houses is below grade and well screened and the other next-door house is also two-stores and at grade. The Board further notes that the proposed addition will remain in the footprint of the existing house and will not increase the width or depth. 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 existing nonconforming and very irregularly shaped, so any addition would trigger a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 10IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it does not encroach beyond the existing house nor add lot coverage. 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 not generate shadows or additional runoff. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6)months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as-built survey to the Town Building Depai intent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 MINUTES The draft minutes of December 20, 2023 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved ADJOURNMENT After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 121Page