Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_12_17 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting December 17, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Randy Heller, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Arthur Katz, Board Member Dan Smith, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Town Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Secretary Jan Johannessen, special counsel to the Board for 1-5 Vine Street/SEQRA issues ABSENT: Irene O'Neill, Vice Chair and Board Member Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. Alternate Member Dan Smith 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. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes from November 6, 2025 Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Dan Smith Action: Approved: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz, Dan Smith Abstained: Randy Heller Motion: To approve the draft minutes from November 19, 2025 as revised Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved: Stephen Marsh, Arthur Katz, Randy Heller, Dan Smith Abstained: Arthur Wexler Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 Application No. 1— Case No. ZBA-25-49 - 104 Edgewood Avenue — Christopher Day - Patio Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Christopher Day, the applicant and homeowner addressed the Board 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Yea: Arthur Wexler, Randy Heller, Stephen Marsh, Dan Smith Nay: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 104 Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Christopher Day (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a patio on the premises located at 104 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 1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed patio will have a front yard setback of 13.4' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 38B(1); Proposed patio will have a side yard setback of 1.2' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-50; Proposed patio will have a rear yard setback of 0.0' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-50; 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 Wage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 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: 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 patio is on -grade, not visible from street and well shielded by existing trees and a solid five-foot fence. 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 subject property is a corner lot burdened by front yards and the irregular footprint of the house constrains the location of a patio. Further, the Board found that reducing the size of the patio would unreasonably reduce its functionality. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the patio is on -grade, well screened and will not change how this portion of the subject property is used. 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 will be required to comply with the Town's stormwater requirements as set forth in Chapter 95 of the Town Code. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 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. 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-25-50 — 104 N. Chatsworth Avenue — Gary Owen - HVAC Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Gary Owen, the applicant and homeowner addressed the Board 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 Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Wage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 RESOLUTION 104 N. Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Gary Owen (the "Applicant") requested a variance for HVAC on the premises located at 104 N. Chatsworth Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Blockl8, Lot 265; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Existing compressor #1 has a front yard setback of25.7"where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 38 B(1); Existing compressor #2 has a front yard setback of 24.8" where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B(1); Existing compressor #3 has a front yard setback of 29.4 " where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B(1); 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: 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 compressors are very quiet and extraordinarily well shielded by a tall and wide line of arborvitae. 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 subject property is a corner lot Wage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 which constrains the available options due to front yard setback requirements. Further, the Board found that moving the units to the rear yard would unreasonably interfere with use of the back yard for sitting and dining. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the compressors are small and encroach only minimally into the front yard setback. The Board further found that the two units that face Glenn Road are separated from the nearest neighbor by a street and that neighbor's front yard and the compressors which are up against the house encroach into the required setback by less than 1 foot and slightly less than 6 feet, respectively. 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 compressors are quiet and encroach minimally into a large grassy front yard. 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. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 Application No. 3 — Case No. ZBA-25-52 — 13 Dante Street — Michael Rosenblum — HVAC, Steps and Platform Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Luigi Ndoci, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board and the Board discussed the request. Notice of Disapproval will be revised to include the variance request for the rear yard setback. 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 13 Dante Street, 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, Michael Rosenblum (the "Applicant") requested a variance for HVAC, Steps and Platform on the premises located at 13 Dante Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 22, Lot 614; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed compressors will have a side yard setback of 5' where 8' is required, pursuant to 240- 39 B (2)(a); The proposed steps and platform will increase the lot coverage to 55.8% where 35% is permitted pursuant to 240-39 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-6 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector stated that the proposed steps and platform will have a rear yard setback of 24.2' where 25' is required pursuant to 240-39 B (3); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 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: 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 steps and platform are not visible from street and the compressors on the left rear corner of the house will be obscured behind the neighbor's wood fence. 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 location of the proposed steps and platform are dictated by the existing steps and access to the driveway and relocating them to the front yard would be both unsightly and unreasonably burdensome to the Applicant. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the compressors encroach minimally into the required setback and the platform and steps do not increase encroachment beyond the existing house. In addition, due to a large existing driveway, the proposed increase in lot coverage will be negligible (less than 0.8%). 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 platform and steps are permeable, and noise generated by the compressors will be negligible. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 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. 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. 4 — Case No. ZBA-25-62 — 22 Dante Street — Burton Corwin— Front Porch and Steps Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Paige Lewis, the applicant's architect, and Deidre Corwin, the homeowner, addressed the Board and the Board discussed the request. Based on comments made by members of the Board, the applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 5 — Case No. ZBA-25-63 — 25 Mohegan Road — Robert Joyce - AC Wage Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Pam Joyce, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board 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: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 25 Mohegan Road, 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, Robert Joyce (the "Applicant") requested a variance for AC on the premises located at 25 Mohegan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2, Block 8, Lot 530; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Existing AC condenser has a front yard setback of 32.8' where 40' is required, pursuant to 240- 36B(1); Existing AC condenser has a rear yard setback of 23.6' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-36B(3); Existing AC condensers will increase the lot coverage to 38.3% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-36F; for a property in an R-15 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 101 Page Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required: 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 front yard is very large and the condensers are well screened. In addition, the rear yard backs up on the Leatherstocking trail. Therefore, the Board finds that the condensers are not visible from the street and do not impact neighbors. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because due to different elevations on the subject property and the pre-existing patio and deck, it would not be feasible to relocate the units to a compliant area of the property. In addition, the property is pre-existing noncompliant with respect to lot coverage and the incremental increase in lot coverage is only 8 additional square feet. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment into the required rear yard setback is small and the condensers in the large front yard are well -screened. In addition, because the property is already developed with a large driveway, pool and patio, the increased lot coverage resulting from the condensers is only 8 square feet which is 0.1 %. 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 the condensers have been there for 15+ years without complaint and they do not contribute more than negligibly to noise, lot coverage or impervious surface. 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. 111Page Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 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 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. 6 — Case No. ZBA-25-60 —1122 Palmer Avenue — Ryan Fiftal - AC Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Chris Lonegro, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board and the Board discussed the request. Board Member Heller referenced a letter from a neighbor stating no objections to the location of condensers. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Arthur Wexler Action: Yea: Arthur Wexler, Randy Heller, Stephen Marsh, Dan Smith Nay: Arthur Katz 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 RESOLUTION 1122 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Arthur Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Ryan Fiftal (the "Applicant") requested a variance for AC on the premises located at 1122 Palmer Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 6, Lot 319; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed A/C condensers will have a side yard setback of 7.7' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38B(2)(a); 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 Board observed that the proposed location in the side yard has insufficient screening; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required: 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 condensers are tucked in next to the house with a driveway separating them from the neighboring house and the Applicant agreed to provide additional screening to shield the units. 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 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, due to expressed concerns about safety the Applicant desires to relocate the units from under the rear yard and demonstrated that the proposed location has the best proximity to existing piping. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposal is to relocate existing units and the amount of protrusion into the required setback will be small relative to the size of the side yard. The Board noted that it has proposed for these types of encroachments to be permitted as -of -right. 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 are quiet and will be shielded from view. 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. 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. 141Page Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 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. 6. The condensers shall be screened from view either by extending line of arborvitae or otherwise screened. 7. All plantings installed to screen the unit 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. 7 - Case No. ZBA-25-56 — Seton Road — JAF Builders — Adjourned The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on October 22, 2025 and remains open. The application has been adjourned to January 2026. Application No. 8 — Case No. ZBA-25-64 — 69 Murray Avenue — Kristin and Craig Patrick — Addition of a dormer Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Marek Gazda, the applicant's contractor and Mariella Malizia, the applicant's architect addressed the Board and the Board discussed the request. Marek Gazda presented a photo to the Board showing the interior area in garage where the dormer is proposed and it was entered into the record as Exhibit A. There were no public questions or comments. Kristin Patrick, the homeowner, addressed the Board and stated that she spoke with her neighbors, and they had no objections. Based on comments by members of the Board, the applicant requested an adjournment to explore alternatives. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 9 - Case No. ZBA-25-21 — 1-5 Vine Street — Elk Vine Street LLC/Mansisbro, Inc. — Continued Public Hearing This is a continuation of a public hearing that was opened on June 25th. 15I Page Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 William Null of Cuddy and Feder, Rex Gedney of Crozier Gedney Architects and Gary Hirsch of Elk Homes, addressed the Board to identify and explain documents that were submitted after the last Board meeting. Parking was discussed. Jan Johannessen of KCSJ Consulting, special SEQRA consultant for the Board, addressed the Board to explain how he evaluated applicant's parking analysis and agrees with their conclusions, particularly because the project is next to a commuter rail station. , Hailey Pedicano of Cuddy and Feder addressed the Board regarding the December 8th memorandum issued by Town of Mamaroneck Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) and advised the Board that the applicant intends to return to CZMC in January. Ms. Pedicano explained that in response to comments by CZMC, the one page of the Full Environmental Review Form (EAF) Part 1 was revised. The revised EAF was presented to the Board and entered into the Record as Exhibit A. Tyler Prozis of Beach Avenue, addressed the Board to state his support for the project in addressing the need for more affordable and transit -oriented housing in the community and referenced a pro -housing resolution passed by the Town Board. Maria Cattau of 20 Baldwin Avenue, addressed the Board to express concerns regarding parking and the need for landscaping. Jan Johannessen addressed the Board to explain the three parts of the EAF required for the SEQRA process. Part 2 EAF forms were passed to all Board Members and the process of completing the questionnaire was undertaken. Mr. Johannessen invoked SEQR guidance published by the New York State Depailment of Environmental Conservation to assist in determining the magnitude of identified impact. The Board completed its review, and Mr. Johannessen marked up Part 2 of the EAF accordance with the discussion. Mr. Johannessen stated that additional changes may or may not be necessary once CZMC has completed its review, which is expected to happen at its January meeting. Mr. Johannsen stated that he would be prepared to guide the Board through the EAF Part 3 at the next meeting. Mr. Null summarized the discussion of the Part 2 EAF and requested that a draft determination of non -significance (i.e., a negative declaration) be prepared. The Board discussed and agreed that a draft negative declaration would facilitate the discussion at the next meeting. Ms. Hochman, Counsel to the Board, was also requested to prepare draft a draft resolution to facilitate discussion. Mr. Null addressed the Board to explain the applicant's proposal to fund infrastructure improvements related to drainage, pedestrian access and landscaping. Mr. Null stated that pedestrian access funds could be applied to an elevator, if all necessary approvals are obtained, 16I Page Zoning Board of Appeals December 17, 2025 and further stated that if such elevator were approved, the applicant would be responsible for ongoing maintenance. The applicant requested an adjournment and the public hearing remains open. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary 17I Page