Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_05_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES 32 `'\ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting / pp May 22, 2024 _ ®I 4.2. 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 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: Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member The meeting commenced at 7:03 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-24-11 -20 Colonial Avenue- Lance Widner -Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Joseph Guglielmo, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Guglielmo stated that the applicant was deployed for active duty and was unable to pursue a building permit within the time frame required by the resolution obtained in 2022. The Board members reviewed and discussed the 2022 resolution, including the findings and agreed that there have been no changes in facts or circumstances. There were no public questions or comments. Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 2024 Motion: To close the public hearing and approve the requested extension of the 2022 resolution upon the same terms and conditions Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESTATED RESOLUTION 20 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Lance Widner (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 20 Colonial Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1,Block 20,Lot 293; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.2' where 8' is required,pursuant to 240-39B(2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 16.2' where 18' is required,pursuant to 240- 39B(2)(b); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to 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 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 addition is in the rear yard and extends an existing nonconforming structure further back within the rear yard setback. It will continue along the existing line on the right side of the house and does not extend beyond houses on adjoining properties. In addition, it is not visible from the street. 2IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 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 architect demonstrated that extending the right side of the house will avoid an unnecessary jog into the kitchen which they plan to enlarge and the Board found the applicant would be unnecessarily burdened if required to pursue any other alternative. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it encroaches minimally, only 21 square feet, into the required side yard. 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 encroachment is minimal. 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. 31 Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 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-24-12 - 64 Maple Hill Drive -Jillian & Aaron Marcus—HVAC, Rear Stoop & Steps Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Christopher Taormina, the applicant's architect and Aaron Marcus, the applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Secretary of the Zoning Board stated that letters of support from neighbors were emailed to the Board members prior to the meeting and have been entered into the record. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 64 Maple Hill Drive,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, Jillian & Aaron Marcus (the "Applicant") requested a variance for HVAC, rear stoop & steps on the premises located at 64 Maple Hill Drive, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1,Block 19, Lot 89; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The proposed compressors will have a side yard setback of 5.3' where 10' is required,pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); Proposed compressors will have a rear yard setback of 23.5' where 25' is required,pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed rear stoop and steps will have a rear yard setback of 18.7' where 25' is required,pursuant to 240-38 B (3) for a building in an R-7.5 Zoning District (the"Notice of Disapproval"); and 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 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 elimination of the stoop and stairs and replacing the existing deck will not be visible from the street or neighboring properties and the a/c units are unobtrusively tucked into rear of the 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 applicant explained that they explored other locations for the a/c units and all other options were rejected as infeasible. In addition, the stoop and stairs are necessary to provide an exit from the house into the rear and will actually encroach less into the rear yard than the existing deck. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the two a/c units are small and quiet and the area of encroachment into the rear yard will be reduced as compared to what is there now. 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 a/c units are quiet and the stoop and stairs replacing the existing deck will not give rise to any impacts to light, air or runoff. The Board also noted that the most impacted neighbor has written letter in support. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 2024 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-24-10 -38 Myrtle Blvd - Christopher Fathers —Front Porch, Stair Addition & Parking Area Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved James Fleming, 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 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 2024 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 38 Myrtle Blvd, 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,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Christopher Fathers (the "Applicant") requested a variance for front porch, stair addition & parking area on the premises located at 38 Myrtle Blvd, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23,Lot 98; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The front porch and stair addition will have a front yard setback of 6.0' where 30' is required,pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed parking area will have a front yard setback of 9' where 25' is required,pursuant to 240-78 B (1)(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-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 proposed addition is consistent in appearance with nearby houses on Myrtle Blvd. which are set forward and will improve the look of the house. In addition, the parking is just filling in an existing area that is already used as a turn and will improve safety to homeowners without negatively impacting neighbors. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 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 lot is shaped oddly with effectively three front yards so any conceivable change would require a variance because the lot is nonconforming in every direction. As such, based on how the house is positioned on the lot and the location of the front door, and the applicant's desire to protect the entrance of the house from the elements, there are no other viable options. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the total amount of additional square footage and impervious surfaces, over and above what is already built, is negligible and unobj ectionable. 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 increase in runoff will be negligible and there will be no impact to air and light. 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. 81 Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 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. 4- Case No. ZBA-24-15 - 101 N. Chatsworth Avenue - Jeffrey Colen —AC Relocation Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Jeffrey Colen, the applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. An updated survey, marked Exhibit A and specifications marked Exhibit B, were 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 101 N. Chatsworth Avenue, 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 5 to 0,with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jeffrey Colen (the "Applicant")requested a variance for AC Relocation on the premises located at 101 N. Chatsworth Avenue Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section. 1 Block 14,Lot 610; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Relocation of A/C Compressor will have a side yard setback of 7.5' 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 Building Inspector clarified that the encroachment into the side yard is 6.5', not 7.5 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 9IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 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 the unit is to be relocated next to existing mechanical equipment in an area that is well screened and deep into the property, so not visible from the street nor from adjacent neighboring property. 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 desires a level backyard and given the dimensions of the lot, any other location would require a variance and it is preferable to locate all of the mechanicals close together. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the compressor is very small and quiet and will not impact surrounding 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 compressor is quiet, compact, located next to existing mechanical equipment and well screened. 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. 10IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 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 Depai tin ent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. OTHER BUSINESS ZBA-23-9 23 Alden Road—Sean Mulcahy—Request for Extension. A resolution by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals was granted to the applicant on October 25, 2023 for a second-floor addition and front porch. A condition in the resolution required that the applicant obtain a building permit within six (6) months. No building permit was obtained and the applicant submitted an application for an extension prior to its expiration. The Board discussed the request, determined the request to be reasonable and agreed to extend the resolution for six (6) months, upon the same terms and conditions. Motion: To approve the requested extension Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals May 22, 2024 3325 176 Myrtle Blvd—Gjoko Shkreli - Request for Extension A resolution by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals was granted to the applicant on May 24, 2023 for multiple area variances in connection with construction of a second-floor addition above existing commercial space. A condition in the resolution required that the applicant obtain a building permit within one (1)year. No building permit was obtained and the applicant submitted an application for an extension prior to its expiration. The Board discussed the request, determined it to be reasonable and agreed to extend the resolution for one year, upon the same terms and conditions. Motion: To approve the requested extension Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved MINUTES The draft minutes of April 24, 2024 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Abstain: Irene O'Neill Approved by: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Randy Heller, Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz ADJOURNMENT After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 12IPage