Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_04_23 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting April 23, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Irene O'Neill, Board Vice Chair Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Stephen Marsh, Board Member Dan Smith, Alternate Board Member Arthur Katz, Alternate Board Member OTHERS PRESENT: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Board Richard Polcari, Building Inspector Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Jennifer Ransom, Secretary ABSENT: Randy Heller, Board Member The meeting commenced at 7:03 p.m. Dan Smith as first Alternate, 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. Ms. Ransom further stated that a new agenda was posted today to reflect an item under Other Business for discussion, the Applicant Acknowledgement Form. Application No. 1 - Case No. ZBA-25-12 -167 E. Garden Road - Meg Side — As -built Compressor Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Margeret Side, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Board Member Sacks asked Mr. Polcari if the Building Depail.cuent has received any complaints about the AC, Mr. Polcari stated none have been received. There were no public questions or comments. Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 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 167 E. Garden 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, Meg Side (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as -built compressor on the premises located at 167 E. Garden Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 12 Lot 364; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As - built compressor has a side yard setback of 5' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (2)(a); for a property 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 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 Wage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 statements from the applicant indicated that similar sized compressors had been in the same location for more than 20 years and the Building Inspector stated that there have been no complaints. Further, these types ofunits are common throughout the town and at the site visit this unit was found to be very quiet. 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 already violates the required setbacks so any other location would require a variance and there is no need to relocate a compressor that is unobjectionable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because these types of compressors are typical, and this particular unit is quiet. 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 very little bulk to the property and was found to be 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 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Depailuient This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-25-16 - 4 Cottage Circle - Raphael Small - Patio Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Frank Diodati, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Board Member Sacks expressed concern regarding lot coverage at 35.9% with no room for error and the Applicant concurred that work has to be done precisely, and an as -built survey will be provided at the end of the project. Joanne O'Beirne of 3 Cottage Circle addressed the Board to state that she has never noticed run- off from the property and doesn't think this project will be problematic. Board Member Marsh assured her she need not be concerned as run off from her property is more likely to encroach on 4 Cottage Circle than the other way around. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 4 Cottage Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York Wage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 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, Raphael Small (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a patio on the premises located at 4 Cottage Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 2 Lot 178; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed replacement of the patio will have a rear yard setback of 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 Applicant stated that there will be no water runoff from the new patio onto neighboring properties; 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 this is an in -kind replacement of an existing patio with newer material in an area that is well screened, and the new patio will not be visible from the street. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because the new patio replaces a patio that dates back 84 years, and the new patio is unobjectionable to 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 nearby properties and will improve the function and appearance of the subject property. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because although it encroaches the entire setback, the subject property has a large side yard, and the patio backs up to an area on the neighboring property that does not function as a rear yard. 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 new patio replaces an existing patio of the same size, so there will be no increase in lot coverage. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated that water will be directed away from neighboring properties onto the subject property. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Depaittnent. 7 On the side of the subject property with zero setback, the patio shall be graded to ensure that no water runs off the subject property. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-24-29 - 1 Edgewater Place - Suzanne Tecza — Fence & Arbor Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Suzanne Tecza, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request, stating that they found the plans confusing. The accuracy of the survey was questioned. Proper elevations were requested. Andrew Spatz, an attorney representing Mr. Tunkey, who resides at 3 Edgewater Place, addressed the Board to express his client's displeasure at the state of the applicant's property and referred to an ongoing dispute. Mr. Spatz further stated that there are open violations on the subject property The Board requested the applicant adjourn to address comments and concerns expressed by Board members. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-25-8 23 Myrtle Blvd - Eamon Glackin — As -built Fence Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Edward Glackin, representing the applicant and homeowners, Eamon and Anne Glackin, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Glackin submitted copies of a previous variance granted to the adjoining property at 45 Harmon, which was entered into the record and marked Exhibit A. Neighbor Doug Bloom addressed the Board to express his support for the application. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 23 Myrtle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Eamon Glackin (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as -built fence on the premises located at 23 Myrtle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 16 Lot 334.1; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as -built fence will be 67" in height where 48" is permitted, pursuant to 240-53; for a property in an R-6 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the 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 fence sits on top of a stone wall, which is typical in this neighborhood, and enhances the Wage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 appearance of the property. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 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 fence is necessary for safety reasons due to a significant grade change. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the picket fence is a short topper on the stone wall, which, due to changes in elevation, reduces in height as it approaches the driveway. 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 stone wall and topper is outside the 30-foot sight line triangle and the wood picket fence allows light and air to pass though. 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 April 23, 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. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-14 - 83 Myrtle Blvd - Jonathan Grant - Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Paige 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: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 83 Myrtle Blvd, 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, Jonathan Grant (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 83 Myrtle Blvd, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 24 Lot 635; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 16.1' where 18' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(b); Proposed addition will have a rear yard setback of24.8' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3); ); Proposed addition will increase the floor area ratio to 2980SF where 2780SF is permitted, pursuant to 240-59.1 B (2); Existing lot coverage is 37.5% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; and further the improvements increase the 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 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 will be within the existing footprint, with no further encroachment into setbacks and no increased lot coverage. The additional 200 square feet of FAR will be internal to the house and the added external bulk will be within the existing envelope of the house. In addition, adding a second story is consistent with neighboring properties and the ridge line will be no higher than neighboring homes, and fills in what appears to be a void. 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 explored alternatives and demonstrated that stepping back the second story to within existing setbacks would significantly reduce functionality and would create a design that would be unharmonious with the neighborhood. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition will be within the building envelope, the added square footage is diminimus and the encroachment is only 1.9 feet in the side yard and .2 feet in the rear yard. In addition, lot coverage will not increase beyond existing conditions. 111Page Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because there will be no impact to air light 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 construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-25-5 - 87 Hickory Grove Drive West - Michael Naftolin — Addition, Stoop & Steps 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Paige 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: Irene O'Neill seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 87 Hickory Grove Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Michael Naftolin (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition, stoop and steps on the premises located at 87 Hickory Grove Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 17 Lot 751; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed stoop and steps will have a front yard setback of 20' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B(1); Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 26.5' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed improvements will increase the lot coverage 37.7% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 F; Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 6.7' where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a side yard setback of 7.3' where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed addition will have a combined side yard setback of 13.9' where 18' is required, pursuant to 240-39 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-6 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, at the meeting the applicant agreed to modify the plans to reduce the driveway, resulting in decreased lot coverage to 36.2%, which is the same as existing coverage, and the Building Inspector determined that a variance for lot coverage is no longer necessary; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and 13I Page Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the addition will improve the appearance of the house, making it consistent with surrounding houses. Also, the property has a large right-of-way which makes the front yard look bigger. 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 has demonstrated a need for added internal space and the house already encroaches into the side yard and extension into the rear will be in line with existing house. In addition, the proposed stoop and stairs cannot go anywhere other than front door. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the addition will not encroach further into side yards and the large right-of-way makes the front yard look bigger. The Board also noted that because the applicant agreed to reduce the driveway area, there will be no increase in 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 the Town will require a stormwater and erosion control permit to address any resulting increase in runoff 14IPage Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board as agreed to by the Applicant. 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 7 - Case No. ZBA-25-15 - 1 Jason Lane - Daniel Skolnik — Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Shahin Heshmat, the applicant's contractor and Mr. & Mrs. Skolnik, the homeowners, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. 15I Page Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 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 Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 1 Jason Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Daniel Skolnik (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 1 Jason Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 7 Lot 115; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 23.4' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 37 B (1); 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 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 16I Page Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 proposed porch, plantings and siding will improve the curb appeal of the house and is consistent with nearby properties, many of which have similar porches. 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 protect the entrance of the house from weather and icing and, given the position of the house on the lot, there is no way to add a covered porch without encroaching into the front yard setback. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the porch is open to each side, with no railing and will be in an area that is currently overgrown with large shrubs. Therefore, the end result will improve sight lines. Additionally, the portico encroaches only 7 feet into the front yard setback, and the existing home is 43 feet from curb line, burdened by large right-of-way, making the front yard appear larger. 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 open-air covered porch will not impair light, air or generate additional 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 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. 171 Page Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 2. The Applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval by the Building Inspector prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within (6) months. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application, as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Depailiuent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. MINUTES The draft minutes of March 23, 2025 were discussed. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously Approved OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary explained that the adopted minutes of February 26, 2025 inadvertently included an outdated notice of disapproval for one of the applications. The Board agreed that this is a non - substantive change and directed the Secretary to correct the mistake and file the amended minutes with the Town Clerk. Motion: To amend the adopted 2/26/25 minutes and file with the Town Clerk Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously Approved The Board discussed whether applicants should be required to affirm that the information submitted on applications is true and complete to the best of the applicants' knowledge. Ms. Hochman stated that the Applicant Acknowledgement Form will be amended and submitted to the Board for review at a future meeting. Board Members Stephen Marsh and Jonathan Sacks stated that they have discussed changing the Town Code requirements relating to HVAC and Stand by Generators and their proposal will be added to the agenda for discussion at the May meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 pm. 181 Page Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 2025 191 Page