Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_05_28 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 28, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Jonathan Sacks, Board Member Randy Heller, 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: Irene O'Neill, 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. Application No. 1 - Case No. ZBA-24-34 — 18 Elkan Road — Michelle Wang - HVAC Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Paul Semenza, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Board members discussed the history of Elkan homes which were built as attached homes prior to the adoption of Town zoning requirements. Board Member Sacks asked Mr. Polcari whether he was aware of any complaints by neighbors about the existing air conditioning compressor and Mr. Polcari stated that he was not aware of any complaints. Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 18 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, 18 Elkan Road (the "Applicant") requested a variance for HVAC on the premises located at 18 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 4 Block 7 Lot 438; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Existing A/C compressor has a side yard setback of 1.3' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240- 42B(2)(a); Existing A/C compressor has a side yard setback of 15.9' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-42B(2)(a); Existing A/C compressor has a combined side yard setback of 17.2' where 60' is required, pursuant to 240-42B(2)(b); for a property in an R-A 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 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 replacement unit is quieter than the existing unit, well screened from neighbors and not visible from nearby properties or 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 attached houses are pre-existing nonconforming so any placement would require an area variance, and this location is in the same location as the prior unit. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because these types of units are common throughout the Town and within the Elkan development and this particular unit is small and 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 there will be no impact to airflow, light or runoff and the unit has a low Dba rating. 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 May 28, 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-25-18 —10 Wildwood Circle — Nathan Pagett - Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved James Fleming, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Mr. Fleming stated that a portion of the property is in the City of New Rochelle and that the Building Permit will be issued by New Rochelle Building Department. Mr. Polcari, the Town Building Inspector, explained that even though the Town will not issue Building Permits for this property, zoning compliance is required. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 10 Wildwood Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York Wage Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 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, Nathan Pagett (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 10 Wildwood Circle, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 7 Lot 90; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed kitchen addition will have a side yard setback of 8.82' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37B(2)(a); Proposed addition to the dining room will have a side yard setback of 6.57' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-37B(2)(a), 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 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 fill in an existing void and align the front and back of the house. The Board also noted that the addition will not be visible from the street and will be well screened from neighboring properties. 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 proposed addition best utilizes interior space and minimizes impacts to neighbors by continuing the straight line on the left side of the house. The Board also noted that the house is preexisting nonconforming. 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the applicant is asking for less than 20 square feet of encroachment into the side 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 properties are large — over an acre, the left side neighbor is well screened, and the addition will not be visible the street. In addition the Board noted that 20 square feet of added impervious surface would only minimally impact 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. 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 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. 3 - Case No. ZBA-25-23 — 4 Crest Avenue — Bradley Olsen — Sport Court Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Bradley Olsen, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Photos marked Exhibit A were presented to the Board and entered into the record. The Board noted that the zoning chart submitted with the application did not show lot coverage but the Building Inspector stated his recollection that the inclusion of the sport court was within the allowance for lot coverage. He further stated that he would confirm and report back to the Board on this question. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 4 Crest Avenue, 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, Bradley Olsen (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a Sport Court on the premises located at 4 Crest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 23 Lot 360; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed sport court will have a front yard setback of 6' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 37 B (1); Proposed sport court will have a side yard setback of 6' 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 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 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 sport court is flat, not visible from the street (other than the 10 foot -high hoop) and well screened from neighboring properties by arborvitae at the rear and right side the sport court. 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 proposed location is the only area in the yard that can accommodate the dimensions of the sport court, especially since the driveway is sloped. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is flat to the ground, has a permeable surface and not visible from street or neighboring properties. 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 sport court will be well screened and permeable so it will not be visible and will not generate runoff v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the 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 Depailuient. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-25-26 — 12 Spruce Road — Jesse Sirotkin - Addition Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved Chuck Toothill, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Board Member Sacks suggested that a variance for the lot coverage would not be required if the applicant removed 30 square feet from the project. He suggested removing 3' of driveway. 9IPage Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Approved Aye: Stephen Marsh, Randy Heller, Dan Smith Nay: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks (only with respect to lot coverage) RESOLUTION 12 Spruce Rd, 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 3 to 2, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Jesse Sirotkin (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an addition on the premises located at 12 Spruce Rd, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 15 Lot 584; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed addition will have a front yard setback of 28.3' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 38 B (1); the proposed improvements will increase the lot coverage to 37.3% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-38 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-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. 101 Page Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the design complements the architecture of the house and is in character with nearby houses. 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 encroachment into the front yard setback is necessary to have a covered front entrance with a reasonably sized entry with door swinging into the house. In addition, the applicant demonstrated that the front yard encroachment is the minimum amount necessary to achieve their goal. Although the applicant stated that they would remove a portion of lot coverage to stay at net zero increase, the majority of Board members thought that would impose an unreasonable and unnecessary burden for a small decrease in lot coverage. The Board notes that the addition is being constructed on an impervious patio which, without the addition, does not count in lot coverage and although the addition must be included in lot coverage calculations, it does not increase impervious surface on the property. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the front yard encroachment is a one-story structure which is compatible with the architectural elements of the house. The majority of Board members found the additional 35 square feet of lot coverage to be insubstantial. 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 total square footage added is 82 square feet and built on or covering over walkways and existing patios so will not increase impervious surface. Also, the one-story addition will not impact light or add shadows to neighboring properties. A majority of Board members found that less than 1.15% increase in lot coverage would not generate appreciable runoff or create negative visual impact. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 111Page Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the 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. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-22 — 833 Fenimore Road — W. Macksoud — Car Port Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Polcari distributed a revised notice of disapproval which clarified that the request is to legalize a garage. Stephen Moser, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application. Mr. Moser explained that the Board granted a variance for an unenclosed car port in December 2023 but the property was sold and the new homeowner put a garage door on the front of the car port and glass doors on the sides to enclose the space. 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 The Board discussed the request and concluded that the findings made in connection with the earlier resolution approving the variances remain applicable to this request. In particular, the Board finds that the addition of a garage door and glass panels creates no adverse impact because it is in harmony with the house, set back 50 feet from the street, on a hill and not visible from neighboring properties and only marginally visible from the street. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 833 Fenimore Road, 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, Wadih Macksoud (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a Garage on the premises located at 833 Fenimore Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3 Block 20 Lot 479; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As - built garage as modified has a front yard setback to the facia of 21.5' where 40' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (1); 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. 131 Page Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the garage was rebuilt in the same location at the same size as was there for 40 years, without complaint. 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 property is burdened by unique topography with a lot of rock and a steep hill, so the proposed location is the only feasible location. In addition, the Board found the conversion to a garage increases security and is unobjectionable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the garage is well screened and at a considerable distance from the street and nearby properties. 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 no change in runoff light or shadows. 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. 141Page Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 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 Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-24-29 - 1 Edgewater Place - Suzanne Tecza — Fence & Arbor The public hearing remains open. Suzanne Tecza, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. James Tunkey, the neighbor at 3 Edgewater Place addressed the Board to express objections to the work proposed. Documents marked Exhibit A — D were presented to the Board and entered into the record. Suzanne Tecza presented a document, marked Exhibit E to the Board, and it was entered into the record. The Board requested a site plan to illustrate the location of the proposed arbor. The application was adjourned, and the public hearing remains open. Motion: To approve the draft minutes Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Arthur Wexler Action: Approved: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Dan Smith Abstain: Randy Heller OTHER BUSINESS 1) 1-5 Vine Street, Mansisbro Inc. — Application for Proposed Apartment Building 151 Page Zoning Board of Appeals May 28, 2025 William Null of Cuddy and Feder, Gary Hirsch of Elk Homes, architect Rex Gedney and John Canning. addressed the Board to present a high-level summary of their proposal for a new apaituient building at 1 — 5 Vine Street. The applicant's team requested to be on the next agenda for a public hearing. 2) Applicant Acknowledgement Form — Revision Motion: To approve the amended Applicant Acknowledgement Form Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Approved: Arthur Wexler, Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh, Dan Smith Abstain: Randy Heller 3) Proposed changes to Town Code with regard to Generators and HVAC systems. This item was not discussed and will be on the agenda for the next ZBA Meeting on June 17, 2025. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 16I Page