Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024_03_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes O� �y MINUTES 02 ` Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting o March 27, 2024 _ rn Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM FOUNDED 1661 PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Irene O'Neill, Board Member Carol Miller, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison Jennifer Ransom, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary ABSENT: Stephen Marsh, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member The meeting commenced at 7:08 p.m. Given the absence of Mr. Marsh, Ms. Miller as first Alternate, assumed the role of Board Member. Ms. Ransom stated that all items on the agenda for public hearing had been properly noticed and all documents to be discussed this evening had been posted on the Town website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Application No. 1 - Case No. ZBA-24-2—21 Rockland Avenue—Meghan Neenan—RETURN The public hearing remains open. Giovanni Zapata, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and changes made after the last Board meeting. 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 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 21 Rockland Avenue, 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. WHEREAS, Meghan Neena (the "Applicant")requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 21 Rockland Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 2,Parcel 392; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Proposed two story rear addition will have a side yard setback of 7.2' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed two story rear addition will have a combined side yard setback of 17' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(b); Proposed second floor front addition will have a side yard setback of 7.2' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); Proposed second floor front addition will have a combined side yard setback of 17.2' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-37 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-10 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 height and setbacks of the house and proposed addition are similar to surrounding nonconforming houses with similar sized homes on similar sized lots. 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 March 27, 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 demonstrated that other options were explored and explained why such options were deemed undesirable. Making the building narrower would not allow addition of enough interior space necessary for balance, functionality and aesthetics, nor reduce impact, specifically the height. Further, it should be noted that the immediate neighbor that is most affected by the increase in height would be affected in the same manner had the applicant built"As of Right", therefore the variance has no additional impact. Additionally, it was noted that the neighbor sent an email to the Building Inspector and the Board to indicate that he had no issue with the addition as proposed. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the footprint of the house will not expand and the existing setbacks will remain the same and similar to nearby houses which conform to R6 dimensional 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 minimally adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there may be some impact to the immediate neighbor on right, affecting light and air, but that is mostly due to the placement of the house on that lot, which is also preexisting nonconforming, and the rear yard of the neighbor on the right, which is significantly undersized. However, the Board determined that it would not penalize the applicant due to existing conditions of such neighbor's property. 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. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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 Depaitinent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-23-5— 50 Howell Avenue—Gordon Oppenheimer —Garage Addition - RETURN The public hearing remains open. Gail Hiler, the applicant's attorney and neighbor,Mitchell Green, the applicant's architect and neighbor, addressed the Board to explain the application and changes made after the last Board meeting. 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 or Randy Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by Randy Heller seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 50 Howell Avenue,Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Carol Miller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Gordon Oppenheimer (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a garage addition on the premises located at 50 Howell Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4,Block 4,Parcel 656; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of 23' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (3); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to 240-69 for a building in an R-15 zoning district" (the"Notice of Disapproval"); and 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 WHEREAS, the Applicant withdrew the request for variances for side yard setbacks; 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 this is a large corner lot with a lot of open space and, because it's a corner, the rear setback provides ample distance from the neighbor, who is a considerable distance away from the proposed addition. Further, the house, as expanded with the proposed addition, will be similar to other surrounding homes in neighborhood. 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 objections expressed by a neighbor at the prior Board meeting, the Board advised the applicant to explore alternatives, which resulted in the applicant finding a better option. As such, the applicant has revised its proposal by moving the garage, which negates the need for any encroachment into the required side yard setback. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the structure will encroach only two feet into the required 25-foot 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 lot coverage won't change because the applicant is offsetting added coverage with reductions in impervious surface to ensure no net increase in impervious surfaces. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-4 - 15 Spruce Road -Michael Malenbaum —Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Paige 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. 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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 Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 15 Spruce Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Michael Malenbaum (the"Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 15 Spruce Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 15,Parcel 348; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Proposed right side addition will have a side yard setback of 6.1"where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); Proposed left side addition will have a side yard setback of 5.0" where 10'is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); Proposed additions will have a combined side yard setback of 10.2 where 20' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(b); Proposed additions will have lot coverage of 37.7% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-38 F; 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 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 proposed addition will not be visible from the street or objectionable to neighbors. In addition, there will be minimal encroachment into the side yard setbacks by 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 very small extensions of the existing exterior of the house - in one case replacing an unused deck and in the other case enclosing a porch area to make a mudroom. 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 very narrow and any change to the existing house would trigger a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because additional square footage will be insignificant and, further, the Applicant will remove a walkway and steps. 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 new one-story structure will create no significant visual impacts from massing and will be over existing impervious surface so runoff will not increase. 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. 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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. 4 - Case No. ZBA-24-5— 54 Deane Place—Joanne Grossman — Fence & Retaining Wall Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Nicholas Shirriah, the applicant's engineer, and Joanne Grosman, the homeowner, 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: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 54 Deane Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Joanne Grossman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence and retaining wall on the premises located at 54 Deane Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5,Block 5, Parcel 307; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Proposed fence/retaining wall will be 8.4" in height where 4' is permitted, pursuant to 240-52 A for a building in an R-6 Zone District" (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and 9IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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 creation of a below grade parking area on a street that is used to get to a parking area from a park entrance driveway will not be visible to neighbors or the community. 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 explored other options but given the existing grade and slope of the property, determined this to be the most practical and least intrusive option. Further, going below grade and creating a retaining wall is necessary to retain the soil. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the retaining wall is necessary due to existing topography and there will be no visual impacts. 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 increase in runoff. The Applicant explained that due to the slopes and the height of the water table, there will be a rain garden instead of dry wells. 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. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5- Case No. ZBA-24-3 — 18 Clover Street—Christopher & Katie Diamond—Addition, Porch, and Stair Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect and Katie Diamond, the homeowner, 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 11 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Carol Miller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 18 Clover Street, 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. WHEREAS, Christopher & Katie Diamond (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition, porch and stair on the premises located at18 Clover Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2,Block 19,Parcel 75; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Proposed porch and stair addition will have a front yard setback of 24' where 30' is required,pursuant to 240-37 B (1); Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 28.8' where 30' is required,pursuant to 240-37 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-10 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 addition will replace an existing deck and step with an enclosed area which is used as a side yard and considerably far from street. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 12I Page Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 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 house is on a corner lot, burdened with two front yards, creating a large setback requirement, so any addition would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is a small encroachment into large lot. 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 proposed addition is small, and the encroachment is minimal, and, as a result, there will be no impact to runoff, light or air. 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. 13 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 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. 6 - Case No. ZBA-24-6— 125 Murray Avenue—Daniel Davidson —Recreation Room & HVAC Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks 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 Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 125 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill,the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, Daniel Davidson (the "Applicant")requested a variance for a Recreation Room and HVAC on the premises located at 125 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck,New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1,Block 18,Parcel 167; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Proposed recreation room will have a side yard setback of 2.2' where 5' is required,pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(c); Proposed recreation room will have a rear yard setback of 2.3' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3)(b); Proposed A/C condenser will have a side yard setback of 1' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); Proposed A/C condenser will have a rear yard setback of 6.1'where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed parking will be .9' from the side lot line where 5' is required,pursuant to 240-79B(1)(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-7.5 Zoning District" (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and 14IPage Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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 converting an existing garage to make it into a play/storage room adds no bulk and changes only exterior doors and windows. It will not be visible from the street and there will be no changes to what the neighbors will see now. 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 converting existing non-conforming space is more feasible and less intrusive than other options. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there will be no added bulk and the proposed a/c condenser unit is small and quiet. 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 no increase in runoff because the existing footprint of the house will not change and there will be no increase in noise because the air conditioner will be extremely quiet. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 15I Page Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 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 Depaitrnent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. MINUTES The draft minutes of February 28th were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Abstain: Carol Miller Approved by: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Randy Heller, Irene O'Neill ADJOURNMENT After concluding all items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm. 16 Zoning Board of Appeals March 27, 2024 Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 17I Page