Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_11_19 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting November 19, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Irene O'Neill, Vice Chair and Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Arthur Katz, Board Member Dan Smith, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Polcari, Town Building Inspector Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board ABSENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Jennifer Ransom, Secretary Irene O'Neill, Vice Chair, assumed the role of Chairwoman. Richard Polcari, Town Building Inspector, assumed the role of Board Secretary. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Polcari 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-25-44 —1 Edgewood Avenue — Issam Gargouri — Return The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on September 24, 2025 and remains open. Isam Gargouri, the applicant and homeowner and Chris Teeter, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the revisions made pursuant to requests by the Board. There were no questions or comments by members of the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Stepen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Issam Gargouri (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a front porch on the premises located at 1 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 23, Lot 146; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed second floor/roof alteration will have a front yard setback of 29.4'where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed front portico will have a front yard setback of 24.4' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed front steps will have a front yard setback of 23.5' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-6 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 portico will have open sides and will be supported by only two columns and several houses in the area have Wage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 similar porticos over their front doors. In addition, the second floor will sit on top of the nonconforming first floor, leaving the footprint of the house unchanged. 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, in response to Board comments, the applicant modified the garage structure to conform to zoning requirements and the applicant has minimized impacts of the second floor addition by lining it up with the first floor. The Board finds there is no need to consider alternatives to the proposed portico, since it is unobjectionable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the pre-existing first story extends only six or eight inches into the front yard setback and the open portico adds little massing to the structure. 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 is adding square footage to areas now occupied by the garage, driveway and patio in the rear yard, which are already impervious. 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 plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified to the extent set forth herein. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 2. To the extent set forth herein, if any conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 3. Construction shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-25-56 — Seton Road — JAF Builders — Return The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on October 22, 2025 and remains open. Fred Grippi, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain how the plans have been modified to address comments by the Board and concerns expressed by neighbors. The house has been reduced in size. While the lot area would support a 3,960 square foot house, the revised plans reduced the footprint and square footage, resulting in a 3,694 square foot house. The Board and Mr. Grippi discussed the proposed front yard setback (30 feet), which meets zoning requirements but does not align with adjacent properties which are set back much further from the street (60 feet). The Board and Mr. Grippi discussed the proposed roofline in relation to neighboring houses, which will be the same as the house to the right and lower than the roofline of the house to the left, which is uphill from the subject property. The Board and Mr. Grippi discussed that the property to the right is most impacted by the proposed development since its patio is close to boundary line. Mr. Grippi stated that he is amenable to flip and reconfigure the design of the proposed house to take massing off the right side and add more space to the back right corner of the property. This is expected to expand the distance from 10 to 21 feet. The Board requested the applicant return with more detailed renderings. The Building Inspector explained how he calculated lot width on this irregularly shaped lot. Meg Radcliffe of 12 Seton Road stated concerns about tree removal and that she would prefer nothing to be built on the vacant lot. Kerry Jacobs of 19 Seton Road stated concerns about driving safety, street lighting, drainage, and that she would also prefer the lot to remain vacant. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 Gregory McAndrew of 1 Seton Road stated concerns about the impact on the character of the neighborhood, sight lines and that he would prefer nothing to be built on the property. After a nonbinding straw poll, the Board requested Ms. Hochman to provide a draft approval resolution to facilitate discussion at the next Board meeting. The Applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-25-57 —1 Lookout Circle — Nicholas El-Hage Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Eve Penzer, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1 Lookout Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Nicholas El-Hage (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of A/C compressor on the premises located at 1 Lookout Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 17, Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Existing A/C Compressor has a rear yard setback of 17.4' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38B(3); 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 Wage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 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, 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 compressor is well hidden and located in a nook down the driveway against the house, obscured from the street and adjacent properties. In addition, the Board noted that the compressor is in the same place as the previous unit, it has a low decibel rating and that the most impacted neighbor submitted a letter in support. 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 moving the compressor to the front yard would be more obtrusive, even ifscreened by landscaping. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is small, quiet and well screened. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the compressor is small, quiet, well screened and located away from nearby properties and the street. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 The Board finds that the difficulty may not be self-created because the compressor was replaced into the same location it pre-existed. The Board further noted that even if the difficulty were self- created, this factor would not be determinative. 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 plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified to the extent set forth herein. 2. To the extent set forth herein, if any conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-25-48 — 3 Carleon Avenue — Elizabeth Carroll Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect and Liz Carroll, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. The Applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-47 — 52 Country Road — Cortney Stanley Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 Cortney Stanley, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Irene O'Neill seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 52 Country Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Cortney Stanley (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as -built shed on the premises located at 52 Country Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3 Block 15 Lot 463; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As - Built Accessory Building in the front yard has a front yard setback of 11.5' where 50' is required pursuant to 240-34B (1), for a property in an R-30 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 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 small shed is many feet away from neighboring houses, well -shielded by trees and far from the road. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the side and rear yards are used for sports and other activities and moving the shed to those areas would impact utilization and provide no benefit. Also, the Board found that moving the shed closer to the house would not offer any benefit. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the shed is small (6 x 8 feet), well - screened and far from neighboring houses and the 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 the shed is small and unobtrusive. 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 plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified to the extent set forth herein. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals November 19, 2025 2. To the extent set forth herein, if any conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-25-21 — 1-5 Vine Street — Elk Vine Street LLC — Adjourned at the request of the applicant The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on June 17, 2025 and remains open. The application is adjourned to the next meeting on December 17, 2025. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes of October 22, 2025 Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved OTHER BUSINESS The Board discussed a memo from the Town Attorney regarding a proposed amendment of mailing notification requirements for land use applications. No board members objected to expanding the mailing area beyond 300 linear feet for properties greater than 5,000 square feet in the B-MUB, B-R, SB-R or LI zoning districts. Board members expressed concern that a 1,300 linear feet mailing area may be excessive and burdensome under certain circumstances; e.g., for small scale/non-structural requests (e.g., moving HVAC units or certain signage variances). Board members suggested that there may be a reasonable basis to distinguish among applications for which the enlarged mailing area would be triggered; for example, in cases where the estimated project cost exceeds a certain specified amount. Further, the Board members thought it significant that, according to the Building Inspector, Westchester GIS provides only up to 1,000 linear feet in radius. The Board asked Ms. Hochman to convey their comments to the Town Attorney. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary 10I Page