Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_02_26 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 26, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Irene O'Neill, Board Member Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Secretary ABSENT: Randy Heller, Board Member Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison 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-24-44 — 103 Murray Avenue — Brian Moroz - HVAC Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Bobby Volk, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Product specification documents marked Exhibits A-D 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 Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 103 Murray Avenue, 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, Brian Moroz (the "Applicant") requested a variance for HVAC Legalization on the premises located at 103 Murray Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 18 Lot 141; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: An existing air conditioning condenser that has a front yard setback of 20.6' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (1); and a second existing air conditioning condenser that has a side yard setback of 7.3" where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a) for a building in an R-7.5 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 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 have existed without complaint since 2019, are low decibel, well screened and tucked into two unobtrusive areas of the property. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 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 due to the configuration of the house on the lot, with the driveway on one side and a short side yard on the other, there is no other practical location. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because these units are quiet, barely visible and common throughout the 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 they generate very little noise and will have no impact on light or air. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 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 Depaittnent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-24-55 2 Byron Lane — Fouad Pouyafar - Generator Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Fouad Pouyafar, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Arthur Katz requested proper screening as his property faces the subject property. Mr. Katz stated that despite his proximity to the subject property, he has no difficulty remaining neutral and objective in his review of this application. The Board requested the generator be screened by evergreens, minimum height of 30" above the ball and that the generator exercise only on weekdays between the hours of 10 am — 4 pm. 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: Approved Aye: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Nay: None Abstain: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 2 Byron Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0, with 1 abstention. WHEREAS, Fouad Pouyafar (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a generator on the premises located at 2 Byron Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 21 Lot 362; and 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed stand-by generator will have a front yard setback of 20' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed stand-by generator will have a rear yard setback of 23' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3); for a property in an R-6 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Board discussed the visual impact of the generator and the Applicant agreed to provide evergreen screening; 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 generator will be located as far away from the street as possible and the applicant has agreed to provide evergreen screening to mitigate any visual impact. The Board noted that the generator will be well screened from the rear neighbor on Orsini Drive. 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 options are limited given that the property is a shallow corner lot, burdened by two front yards. The Board explored alternative locations with the applicant and concluded that due to the location of operable windows around the entire house, as well as the existing patio, the proposed location is the most viable location. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is low to the ground (only approximately 30 inches above grade) and will sit mostly quietly because other than power outages, it will be exercised only every other week for five minutes. 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 low to the ground and rarely audible. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 7 The generator shall be screened with evergreen landscaping, at a minimum height of 30 inches above the root ball, on two sides from Orsini and Byron so as not to be visible from the either street. 8. All plantings shall be vigorously maintained and, if necessary, replaced no later than the next growing season. 9. The generator shall be exercised only on weekdays between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-59 — 18 Clover Street — Christopher Diamond -Porch & Stair Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Chris Nigro, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to present the application. He explained that due to a technical error the dimensional measurements shown on the plans approved in a variance earlier approved by this Board were incorrect. As such, the as -built structure encroaches into the required front yard by nearly two feet. The Board discussed the request and agreed that that despite the inadvertent two -foot encroachment, the same findings made by the Board in connection with the prior approved variance apply to this application. 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 18 Clover Street, 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, Christopher Diamond (the "Applicant") requested a variance for porch and stair addition legalization on the premises located at 18 Clover Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 19 Lot 75; and 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As -built porch and stair addition has a front yard setback of 22' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (1); As -built addition has a front yard setback of 20.1' 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 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 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. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 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 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. 4 - Case No. ZBA-25-2 - 29 Mountain Avenue — Michael Ricci — Motor Vehicle Parking Wage Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Frank Diodati, 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 29 Mountain Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Michael Ricci (the "Applicant") requested a variance for Motor Vehicle Parking on the premises located at 29 Mountain Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 29 Lot 640; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Motor vehicle parking for one vehicle as proposed will be 5' from the front lot line where 25' is requires pursuant to 240-79 B (1) (a); Motor vehicle parking for two vehicles as proposed will be 3' from the side lot line where 5' is requires pursuant to 240-79 B (1) (b); for a property 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 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 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 several properties allow parking in required yards due to flooding hardship. For example, it was noted that the house at 19 Mountain Drive has no garage and two cars park within side and front yard setbacks and the house at 26 Mountain Drive has a car parked in a recessed parking spot in a large retaining wall, and at 28 Mountain Drive the garage is underneath the front yard of the house. Therefore, the Board found that this proposal is compatible with the interesting and unique parking solutions nearby. 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 is attempting to address a basement flooding issue by sealing up the garage, installing attenuation and storage galleries in the rear yard. The Board noted that eliminating the garage (to alleviate flooding) necessitates storage of two cars in front of the house in the existing setbacks. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because there will be minimal encroachment into the required setbacks and also noted that there is a massive right- of-way (approx. 35 feet) which provides the appearance of a much larger front yard. The Board further noted that the parked cars will be a considerable distance from street. 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 this project will provide a positive impact by reducing the rate of water flowing off the property, resulting in less need to pump water off the property. 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. 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 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-25-4 - 84 Edgewood Avenue — Susan Boccardi - Generator Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Marc Susswein and Susan Boccardi, the homeowners, 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 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved Aye: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Nay: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 84 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Susan Boccardi (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a Generator on the premises located at 84 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 28 Lot 64; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed standby generator will have a rear yard setback of 15.8' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed standby generator will increase the lot coverage to 48.7% where 35% is permitted; pursuant to 240-38 F; for a property 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 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 generator is located in an unobtrusive spot and well -screened on both sides and generators of this type are common in the Town. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the applicant demonstrated that it examined options in the front yard and rear area near garage but both were deemed impractical because would have resulted in eliminating a recreation area or too close to the garage, at risk of being hit by a car. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the house is already noncompliant for lot coverage and the generator will increase lot coverage by a very small amount (one -tenth of I %). 1. 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 visual or audible impacts. 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. 141Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 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 Depailinent. 7. The generator shall be exercised only on weekdays between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-24-52 - 46 Vine Road — Shane Kolpon - Deck Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Justin Mineri, 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: Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 46 Vine Road, 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, Shane Kolpon (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a deck on the premises located at 46 Vine Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 8 Lot 27; and 15I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed deck will bring the lot coverage to 45.8% (3,251 sj) where 35% (2,486 sf) is permitted, pursuant to 240-38F; 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, the Board members discussed whether the proposed lattice would create the appearance of more bulk on the property and the applicant agreed to recess the lattice; 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 existing deck is in a state of disrepair and the replacement deck will be an improvement in appearance and safety. 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 existing lot coverage already exceeds allowable lot coverage and the deck is the only way to access the rear yard due to the topography of the property. Further, the Board finds that the deck is necessary to allow expansion of the family's living and recreational space. The Board noted that the size of the current deck (12x16) is too small and that the size of the replacement deck, which will add144 square feet is reasonable. In addition, the applicant agreed to recess the lattice on the rear of the deck. 16I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the replacement deck is pervious and will not greatly increase the size of the existing deck. 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 replacement deck will be pervious so it will not impact runoff and it will be only slightly larger than the existing deck. 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 Depai intent. 171 Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 7. The lattice on the rear of the deck shall be recessed to soften any potential visual impact. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 7 - Case No. ZBA-24-51 - 7 Lakeside Drive - Toni Dorf — Sport Court RETURN The public hearing remains open. Nischal Arjune, the applicant's architect, and Tom Dorf, 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Aye: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Nay: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 7 Lakeside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Tom Dorf (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a sport court on the premises located at 7 Lakeside Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 17 Lot 370; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed sport court will have a front yard setback of 3' where 30' is required; pursuant to 240- 39 B (1); Proposed sport court will have a rear yard setback of 2' where 25' is required; pursuant to 240-39 B (3); for a property in an R-6 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 181 Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 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, the Board discussed the potential visual impact as well as concerns about balls going into the street and the applicant agreed to install landscaping around the sport court; 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 sport court is flat with low visibility from the street except the hoop which could just as easily be visible from a driveway location, which would not require a variance. The Board also notes that the applicant took the Board's suggestion to screen the court to improve aesthetics and help keep errant passed balls on the court instead of the street. 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 property is on a corner lot burdened by two front yards with uneven topography. The court will be located on the flattest portion of the property, with no other location deemed viable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because although the dimensions are substantial, and it will be installed very close to the property line, the sport court adds no massing to the property and therefore the impact is not substantial. 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 applicant agreed to plant arborvitae around the 19I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 court to reduce likelihood of balls drifting onto street as well as provide screening. Also, the Board notes that even with this additional impervious surface, the total lot coverage is less than 27%, well below the allowable 35%. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty zculty 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. 7 All plantings surrounding the sport court shall be vigorously maintained and, if necessary, replaced no later than the next growing season. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 8 - Case No. ZBA-24-14 - 45 Cooper Lane — Melissa Kaplan -Macey — Subdivision - RETURN 201 Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, Melissa Kaplan -Macey, the applicant and owner, and Matt Behrens, the applicant's attorney were present to address the Board. Board members and the applicant discussed the draft resolution prepared by counsel based on Board members' comments at last month's meeting. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To approve the draft resolution prepared by counsel, as amended Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Aye: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh Nay: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 45 Cooper Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. WHEREAS Melissa Kaplan -Macey (the "Applicant") requested a variance for lot width, street line frontage, combined side yard setback and parking/travel way location on the premises located at 45 Cooper Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 17, Parcel 545 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS the Applicant has expressed an intention to subdivide the Property to create a new lot to be developed for a new one -family dwelling, hereinafter referenced as Lot A (the lot with the existing dwelling) and Lot B (the new lot to result from the subdivision); and WHEREAS the detached garage and the porte-cochere associated with the existing dwelling is shown on the plans on Lot B; and WHEREAS the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board has jurisdiction with respect to subdivision approval and residential site plan approval; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed subdivision will create two non- conforming lots; Both lot A& lotB will have a lot width and length of street line frontage of 50' where 60' is required, pursuant to 240-39 A(2); Lot A will have a combined side yard setback of 16.2' where 18' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B(2)(b); Lot A proposed parking and travel way for two vehicles will be 1' from the side lot line where 5' is required„ pursuant to 240-79 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 Town Zoning Code; and 211Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 WHEREAS Zoning Board members expressed concern about the cumulative bulk on the Property resulting from the development of a new house on Lot B; and WHEREAS the Applicant volunteered to record a restrictive covenant against the entire Property (Lot A and Lot B) to limit the allowable floor area/built square footage; and WHEREAS the Zoning Board opened a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2024, which continued on October 23, 2024 and closed on January 21, 2025, with the record left open to receive additional written comments; and WHEREAS the Zoning Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and submissions by the Applicant 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, after discussion and deliberation, 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 variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because two (2) 50' x 125' lots would be consistent with the existing built character in the surrounding area. The Board found it significant that the lot depth exceeds by 25% the minimum required lot depth in this zoning district and noted that the current placement of the existing home on Lot A is anchored to the right side of the Property allowing for a larger side yards/distance between existing house on Lot A and the house which may be developed on Lot B. The Board finds that the Applicant demonstrated that approximately 39% of the lots in an 800 square foot radius have 50' lot width/frontage. Further, the Board finds that since the subject property is very large, subdivision to create a new buildable lot would prevent oversized and out - of -character development from replacing the Applicant's existing house, which the board finds architecturally appealing and contextually appropriate. Currently, as -of -right under R-6 zoning, the Property can accommodate a 4,730 square foot. single-family house, which is double the size of the existing 2,358 square foot house on the Property. Further, the Board finds it to be compelling that the Applicant has agreed to impose dimensional restrictions in the form of voluntary deed restrictions on the entire Property (i. e., Lot A and Lot B) 22I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 to ensure continued contextuality with the character of the neighborhood and alignment with the Town's land use goals. Regarding the requested variance for the vehicle/travel way location for Lot A, the Board finds that the request is consistent with the character of nearby properties, including those on either side of the Property. For example, to the north, both 51 and 53 Cooper Lane contain a shared driveway with no setbacks from the side lot line. To the south, 37 Cooper Lane contains a driveway that is also directly adjacent to the side lot line. As such, no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to nearby properties will be created by this area variance. Finally, the combined side yard setbacks for Lot A will not result in a change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the existing house will remain in the same location and the Board considers the 1.8' reduction in combined side yards to be insignificant. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the Applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the Applicant 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 Property is 100' wide, and an area variance for the lot width allows the creation of two lots, each 50' in width. There is no alternative for the creation of two lots that have a zoning compliant, 60' lot width, for this Property. With respect to the vehicle/travel way location on Lot A, the Applicant cannot achieve her goals via a reasonable alternative due to the location of the existing house on the lot, which necessitates the location of the vehicle/travel way. The combined side yard setback for Lot A similarly cannot be achieved via a reasonable alternative due to the location of the existing house on the lot. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that a 16.7% deviation in the required lot width, especially in the context of its conformity with neighboring built configurations, is not considered substantial. The Board further finds that the Applicant's proposed vehicle/travel way location will not have a negative or adverse effect on the neighborhood, and therefore, is not considered substantial. Similarly, the Board finds the request to reduce Lot A's combined side yard by 1.8' (16.2' instead of 18.0 , a 9% deviation) is insubstantial in its numeric shortfall as well as its dimensional impact. The Board finds that the variances will not be out of character with the surrounding community, nor have a negative impact. As such, the Board finds that these variances are not substantial. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variances will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the Applicant has undertaken to impose restrictive covenants limiting the bulk on the entire Property, Lots A and B, which will ensure that both parcels will remain contextual and in conformity with the existing character of the immediate and surrounding neighborhood. 23I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 The Board also finds that by closing the visual gap that currently exists on Cooper Lane and preventing an oversized development, the result will be positive for the community. Finally, the Board notes that the Town's building and engineering departments are required to ensure that storm water management, grading and utility connections comply with applicable and technical requirements and the Town Planning Board will be required to review the proposed subdivision and residential site plan applications pursuant to the standards and requirements of Chapters 190 and 178 of the Town Code, respectively. 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 submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals 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 any building or demolition permit for the Property. 3. If subsequent events (e.g., conditions imposed by the Town Planning Board) require any modification to the plans as approved by this resolution, a determination shall be made by the Building Inspector as to whether the modification is substantial and should be further considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4. Any improvement of the Property, including but not limited to demolition of the detached garage and the porte-cochere, shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5. Prior to any letter of completion/certificate of occupancy for Lot A or Lot B, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department. 24I Page Zoning Board of Appeals February 26, 2025 6. In connection with the anticipated subdivision of the Property, which is subject to Planning Board approval, prior to the filing of a subdivision plat with the Westchester County Division of Land Records, the Applicant shall be required to (i) secure a Town demolition permit for the detached garage and porte-cochere and (ii) complete such demolition and (iii) secure a letter of completion from the Town Building Department to confirm that such demolition results in two zoning lots in accordance with the approved plans; and 7 Within six (6) months of the date the Planning Board approves the proposed subdivision, and to the satisfaction of Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Applicant shall execute restrictive covenants against the Property limiting the square footage of any dwelling on Lot A to 2500 square feet and any dwelling on Lot B to 2750 square feet, in both cases exclusive of basement (the "Restrictive Covenants"). 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, and at the same time the Applicant files a subdivision plat as referenced in Condition #6 hereof, the Applicant shall also file the Restrictive Covenants in the Westchester County Division of Land Records and, immediately thereafter, submit proof of such recording to the Town Building Department. 9. This Resolution and the Restrictive Covenants shall run with the land. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. MINUTES The draft minutes of January 21, 2025 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Approved Aye: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Jonathan Sacks Nay: None Abstain: Arthur Katz The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 25I Page