Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_01_21 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 21, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Irene O'Neill, Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Secretary ABSENT: Anant Nambiar, Town Board Liaison Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member The meeting commenced at 7:00 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-24-58 - 54 Deane Place - Joanne Grossman — Retaining Wall, Railing and As -built AC Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Joanne Grossman the applicant and Charles Toothill 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 Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 54 Deane Place, 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. WHEREAS, Joanne Grossman (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence, a/c units and retaining wall on the premises located at 54 Deane Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5, Block 5, Parcel 307; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "Proposed retaining wall and railing will be 9.0' in height where 4' is permitted, pursuant to 240- 52 A; As -built A/C compressor has a front yard setback of 25.6' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39B (1) for a property in an R-6 zoning district" (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck (the "Board") an application for relief from the requirements from the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because, with respect to the fence and retaining wall, the fence on top of retaining wall is thin wrought iron and will disappear behind a row of arborvitae trees which screen the fence as well as the retaining wall. With respect to the a/c units, the Board found that they are set low, hardly visible from the street and blocked by a retaining wall, which will also muffle noise. 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 January 21, 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, with respect to the fence and retaining wall, the applicant needs a retaining wall for a functional driveway, which was pushed closer to the street to save a mature tree. In addition, the guard rail atop the retaining wall is necessary for safety. With respect to the a/c units, pushing the units further toward the house would put them within the flood plain. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because, with respect to the retaining wall and fence, while a nine -feet high wall sounds substantial, given the transparency of the fence/railing as well as the topography, the impact is not considered substantial. With respect to the a/c units, they are quiet and not visible from 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, with respect to the retaining wall and fence, the wrought iron railing allows air and light to pass through and allows trees to grow on either side, unimpeded. With respect to the a/c units, they are quiet, muffled by the retaining wall and will not be visible from street. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the Board finds that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-24-19 - 21 Kenmare Road - Andrew Taylor — As -built Shed Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Mark Blanchard, the applicant's attorney and Andrew Taylor, the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Property record documents marked Exhibit A, were presented to the Board and entered into the record. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 21 Kenmare Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS Andrew Taylor (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as -built shed on the premises located at 21 Kenmare Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4, Block 9, Parcel 55; and Wage Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 WHEREAS the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "As - built shed has a rear yard setback of 0' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3)(b); As - built shed has a side yard setback of 3.6' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(c); As - built shed increases the lot coverage to 40% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; 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 Board members expressed concern about the shed's state of disrepair; and WHEREAS the Applicant stated that they intend to refurbish the shed; and WHEREAS the building inspector stated that the lot coverage would be 38.6% without the shed; 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 shed appears to have been there for well over 25 years, with only one known complaint from a neighbor who did not appear or submit written comment. In addition, letters of support were submitted by owners of adjoining properties stating that their view of the existing shed is unobjectionable. 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 yard is small and the shed, given its state of disrepair, would not withstand relocation. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because, with respect to the rear yard variance, the shed is well -screened and adjacent to the side yard of the adjoining property. The variance for 40% lot coverage is substantial, but the Building Inspector stated that the shed accounts for only 1.4% of lot coverage. 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 have been no neighbor complaints about runoff, visual impacts nor blocking light/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. 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department. 7 The Applicant shall submit a cost analysis signed and sealed by a design professional, certifying that the cost of repair is less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). 8. If the shed it to be rebuilt, the resulting lot area must be no more than 38.6%, otherwise a variance will be required. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-51 - 7 Lakeside Drive - Tom Dorf — Sport Court Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Zoe and Tom Dorf, the applicant and Nischal Arjune, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. At the request of the applicant, the application has been adjourned. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-24-56 - 1 Boulder Road - Evan Pasqua — As -built Shed Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Evan Pasqua, the applicant, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Steve and Abbey Moses, neighbors at 41Villa Road, stated their objections and presented documents to the Board, which were entered into the record as Exhibits A — G. The applicant and neighbors requested a temporary adjournment to discuss the application. The applicant and neighbors returned with an amicable decision acceptable to both parties. 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 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1 Boulder 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 Evan Pasqua (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as -built wood storage shed on the premises located at 1 Boulder Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1, Block 11, Parcel 1, and WHEREAS the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: "As -built wood storage shed has a side yard setback of 0.2' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (2)(a); As -built wood storage shed has a rear yard setback of 0.5' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); As -built wood storage shed increases the lot coverage to 38.4% 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 the adjoining property owners testified that the roof of the shed was negatively impacting the health of their arborvitae; 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 most neighbors expressed preference that the structure as built is more visually appealing than a wood pile covered with tarp and the only objecting neighbor stated that their objections are addressed if Wage Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 the roof is no higher than the adjacent retaining wall. 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 entire rear of house encroaches into the required setback and, unlike other potential locations, the proposed location of the structure is suitably flat and at a reasonable distance from the house. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the Building Inspector stated that the roof is the reason that a variance is required and the applicant addressed the neighbor's concerns by agreeing to lower the height of the roof. 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 reducing the height of the structure (and lowering the roof) addresses the negative impact to the adjacent arborvitae. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 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 Department. 7. The top rear of the shed roof shall be no higher than adjacent retaining wall. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-24-14 - 45 Cooper Lane - Melissa Kaplan -Macey - RETURN The public hearing continues from November. Greg Lewis, the applicant's architect, Melissa Kaplan -Macey, the applicant and owner, and David Steinmetz, the applicant's attorney, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. The applicant requested a non -binding straw poll of Board members, the results of which were favorable to the applicant. The Zoning Board requested Ms. Hochman to prepare a draft resolution for approval which will be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting. Motion: To close the public hearing and allow the record to remain open for written comments Moved by Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved MINUTES The draft minutes of December 18, 2024 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Irene O'Neill Approved: Irene O'Neill, Stephen Marsh, Randy Heller, Jonathan Sacks Abstain: Arthur Wexler The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 pm. 10I Page Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals January 21, 2025 111Page