Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_10_22 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 22, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman 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: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Joseph Russo, Assistant Building Inspector Jennifer Ransom, Secretary Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison joined the meeting in progress ABSENT: Richard Polcari, Town Building Inspector The meeting commenced at 7:07 p.m. Chairman Wexler advised that, as reflected on the revised agenda, 1-5 Vine St will be heard at a special meeting to be held on November 6th. 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-25-42 — 3 Wildwood Road — Susan Distasio Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Jim Fleming, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 3 Wildwood Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Susan Distasio (the "Applicant") requested a variance for second floor addition and legalize first floor addition on the premises located at 3 Wildwood Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 16 Lot 378; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As - built first floor has a rear yard setback of 19.4' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); Proposed second floor addition will have a rear yard setback of 19.4' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (3); 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, 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 is at the Wage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 rear left corner of the house, not visible from the street and consistent with the architectural elements of the house. The Board also finds that the as -built first floor addition, which was previously approved, is in line with the existing house and the proposed second floor will sit on top of the first floor addition with a low roof 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 pre-existing nonconforming so any addition would require a variance, and the proposed addition is within the existing footprint. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition squares off the house and the proposed second floor addition does not expand the footprint. 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 lot coverage remains the same and impervious surface will not change. 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 in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 2. To the extent 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. 6. Prior to issuance by the Building Depaitcuent of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-25-27 7 Madison Avenue — Tom Torre — Return The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on June 17, 2025 and remains open. Arthur Wexler excused himself temporarily and Irene O'Neill assumed the position of Chairwoman. Tom Torre the owner of the property addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Pictures of signs on neighboring properties were presented to the Board and entered into the record as Exhibit A. Mr. Wexler returned to the meeting and resumed his position as Chairman. Nathan Grimshaw, of 10 Byron Lane, addressed the Board to express concerns regarding the number and dimensions of the signs. Mr. Russo stated that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved the signs as previously submitted, however, with changes requested by the Zoning Board, the applicant must return to BAR. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance 4IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 7 Madison Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Tom Torre (the "Applicant") requested a variance for signs on the premises located at 7 Madison Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 32 Lot 463; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The two as -built wall signs are mounted on the side walls, which is not permitted, pursuant to 175-11 B; for a property in a B-MUB 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, Mr. Russo stated that the Applicant is required to return to the Town Board of Architectural Review; 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 sign is flush with the building and not illuminated. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 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 a variance is required for any side wall and this free-standing building exposes two vacant walls, on which it is reasonable to install signage iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the dimensions of the signs are 2 feet x10 feet with lettering no greater than 12 inches and the sign is flush with the building and not illuminated. In addition, the Board notes that the applicant has reduced the size of the sign in response to comments by the Board. 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 signs are flush with the building and not illuminated. 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 in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent 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 Wall signs shall be in compliance with the approved plans. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 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 the wall signs are not installed 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. 3 - Case No. ZBA-25-44 — 1 Edgewood Ave — 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 changes to the application after the September meeting and the Board discussed additional revisions which may be needed. There were no public questions or comments. The Applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-25-6 — 6 Byron Lane — Tracey Regan Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Tracey Regan, the applicant and 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: Randy Heller seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 6 Byron Lane, 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. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 WHEREAS, Tracey Regan (the "Applicant") requested a variance for motor vehicle parking on the premises located at 6 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 386 ; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Motor vehicle parking for two vehicles as proposed will be 4' from the rear lot line where 5' is required 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 required pursuant to 240-79 B (1) (a); for a property in an R-6 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, Mr. Russo noted that the correct reference to the Town Code should be it should be 240-79 B(1)(b); 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, Board members expressed concern about car headlights disturbing the rear yard neighbor and the applicant agreed to install a hedge or fencing at the end of the driveway to mitigate any visual impact to the neighbor; 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 cars are parked in the very back of the property, not visible from the street, in the same location where they have been parked, with a small amount of additional encroachment. 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 October 22, 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 the Applicant demonstrated that alternatives were explored and deemed unsatisfactory and/or infeasible; in addition, the Applicant asserted that blocking the garage will mitigate a water runoff problem. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposal is a minor deviation from existing conditions -- very small change from existing conditions, 2 feet in one location and 1 foot in another. 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 area is already paved, and some pavement will be removed and replaced with permeable surface to better absorb water. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is not self-created because the driveway is shared, and parking options are limited. 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. B. 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 in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 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. Prior to issuance by the Building Department of a letter of completion, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. 7. In order to mitigate the potential visual impact of headlights to the rear yard neighbor, the applicant shall install and maintain a hedge or fencing at the end of driveway, at a height at least as tall as the hood of a car. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-55 — 11 Spruce Road — Timothy Dillon Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Rick Yestadt, the applicant's architect, and Sarah Dillon the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Board members and Mr. Russo discussed the Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector. 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 Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 11 Spruce 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. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 WHEREAS, Timothy and Sarah Dillon (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 11 Spruce Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 15 Lot 334; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.3' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240- 38 B(2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 12.1 ' where 20' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B(2)(b); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-7.5 Zoning (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, Board members observed that the proposed new air conditioning unit also requires a variance for side yard setback of 8.7' where 10' is required; and WHEREAS, Board members also observed that the second floor architectural detail of a matching soffit and trim detail encroaches further into the required side yard, resulting in a side yard setback of 5.3' where 10' is required, which was not reflected on the Notice of Disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Board noted that the dimensions to the foundation are accurate, as reflected in 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 second story is consistent with architectural elements of the house and seamlessly blends with the existing structure, which was found to be aesthetically appealing. In addition, the Board finds that the 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 back left corner of the property is not visible from the street and the new third a/c unit is next to existing a/c units. 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 first floor is pre-existing nonconforming and the second floor sits atop first floor, encroaching minimally beyond the first floor encroachment. In addition, the Board finds that there is no other reasonable location for the new a/c unit which makes side yard encroachment unavoidable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because 300 SF and only 18 sf encroaches into side yard setback, a singular triangular piece and most of addition is within the setback. A/c is not substantial because it is quiet and narrow. 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 addition will add no new impermeable surface and the ridge line of the addition will match the existing ridge line. In addition, the Board determines that the new a/c unit is very quiet. 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 in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 2. To the extent 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. 6. Prior to issuance by the Building Department of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-25-43 — 74 Howell Ave — David Polizzi Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Mitch Green the applicant's architect, and Rosalea Polizzi the homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Town Board Liaison, Sabrina Fiddelman joined the meeting. 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 Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 74 Howell Ave, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 WHEREAS, David Polizzi (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 74 Howell Ave, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 5 Lot 428; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.9' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B(2)(a); Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 35' where 40' is required, pursuant to 240-36 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-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 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 proposed addition is relatively small compared to the size of the existing house and it will take over a good portion of the existing front porch. In addition, the Board finds that it is consistent with nearby properties and attractive. 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 wants to expand the dining room, and the applicant has requested a minimal variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 14IPage Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the footprint of the house will remain unchanged due to enclosure of an existing porch - the enclosure will encroach no further into the front yard, other than 1.5 feet of bay window, to match the bay window on other side of the house. 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 adds minimal bulk and will not increase the footprint, therefore, no change in light, air or runoff 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 in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent 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. 6. Prior to issuance by the Building Department of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector 15I Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 7 - Case No. ZBA-25-51 — 753 Forest Avenue — Gregory and Paige Lewis Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Gregory Lewis, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 753 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Gregory and Paige Lewis (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 753 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 20 Lot 351; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.6' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B(2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 12.6' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B(2)(b); Proposed addition will increase the lot coverage to 37% where 35% is permitted pursuant to 240-37 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-10 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 161 Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 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, Mr. Russo stated that the proposed a/c to be relocated encroaches into the side yard resulting into a side yard setback of 7.0' where 10' is required; 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 lot is pre-existing nonconforming, and the small addition would maintain the sideline of the house. The Board further notes that the relocated a/c unit is not visible from the street and well screened by shrubbery. 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 seeks to expand an existing kitchen and there is no other suitable location to relocate the a/c unit. In addition, the Applicant demonstrated that alternatives were considered and rejected due to infeasibility. Regarding lot coverage, the Board notes that the applicant proposes to remove a portion of the driveway and the patio, which is lower than 18 inches, is not included in the definition of lot coverage. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition and relocated a/c unit maintain the 6.6 feet side yard, extending into the rear yard. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 171 Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the driveway will be altered to increase permeable surface, and the one-story addition will not cast any shadows on neighboring properties. 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 in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent 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. 6. Prior to issuance by the Building Department of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Depaitiuent to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 8 - Case No. ZBA-25-56 — Seton Road — JAF Builders Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved 181 Page Zoning Board of Appeals October 22, 2025 Fred Grippi, the applicant's architect and Josh Freitberg, the developer, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Board members stated that they could not get a sense of the project and requested architectural, site and elevation plans for review at the next meeting. Andrew Radcliffe of 12 Seton Road stated concerns about the project, particularly the size of the proposed dwelling. Gertrude Pffafenbach of 2 Seton Road stated concerns regarding the size and water runoff. Andrew Galvin of 16 Lynwood Road stated he would like nothing built on the lot. Saray Winter of 6 Wildwood Road expressed her preference for old houses and her concerns regarding new building. Lee Marshan 7 Seton Road expressed concerns regarding environmental impacts with respect to shadows and drainage issues. The Applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 9 - 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 a Special Meeting on November 6, 2025. MINUTES Due to the late hour, the draft minutes of September 24, 2025 were tabled until the next meeting The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary 191 Page