Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_07_23 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 23, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Randy Heller, Board Member 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, Town Building Inspector Sabrina Fiddelman, Town Board Liaison Jennifer Ransom, Secretary ABSENT: Irene O'Neill, Vice Chair and Board Member Dan Smith as first Alternate, assumed the role of Board Member. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Ransom stated that all items on the agenda for public hearing had been properly noticed and all documents to be discussed this evening had been posted on the Town website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Application No. 1- Case No. ZBA-25-9 — 26 Dante St — Clifford Shapiro Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Kathleeen Nickerson, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. The Board suggested the applicant seek an alternate location for the storage system that would not require a variance. The Board requested an updated survey showing measurements from the unit to property lines and renderings of the installed storage system units. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 The application was adjourned, and the public hearing remains open. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-25-27 7 Madison Avenue — Toni Torre - Return The public hearing was opened last month and remains open. Rosana Bone, the applicant's sign contractor and Tom Torre, the property owner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Richard Polcari, Building Inspector, stated that the application was reviewed and approved by the Town Board of Architectural Review. Victoria Amon of the Cambium addressed the Board to express objections to the deli, the size of the signs and concerns about attracting an undesirable element from the highway. Ms. Hochman stated that a special use permit was granted by the Planning Board and it will expire and be up for extension 2 years from the date it was granted. She further stated that applications for special use permits, including extensions of special use permits, require public hearings which provide members of the community with an opportunity to assert their objections to the Planning Board. Karim Bejjih of the Cambium addressed the Board to express concerns regarding the size of the signs and visibility from apartment windows and the highway. The Board requested the applicant to compare the proposed signs with other building signs in the Town with respect to the proportion and design. The application was adjourned, and the public hearing remains open. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-25-17 — 9 Fairway Drive — Rohit Sachdeva A variance for this property was granted in 2023, however, the as -built survey showed the deck was overbuilt, triggering the need for a new variance. Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Mr. & Mrs. Sachdeva, the applicant and homeowners, 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 Dan Smith Action: Unanimously approved Wage Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 9 Fairway Drive, 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, Rohit Sachdeva (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as -built Deck on the premises located at 9 Fairway Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3 Block 33 Lot 851; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The deck as -built has a side yard setback of 7.1 ' where 15' is required, pursuant to 240-35 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-20 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 additional projection of four inches of the as -built deck into the required side yard will not be visible from neighboring properties or the street. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 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 the property was pre-existing nonconforming so a deck of any size would require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the additional encroachment of the deck is only four inches and not visible to neighbors or from the street. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because the additional encroachment is only four inches and the deck is permeable with soil underneath. 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 July 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 Department. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-25-30 — 768 Forest Avenue — William Kelly Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved William Kelly, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. An application for a variance was previously approved in 2023 for the prior owner. However, a building permit was not issued. The Board members concluded that the circumstances have not changed and therefore the findings from the 2023 resolution remain valid. 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 Stephen Marsh Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 768 Forest Avenue, 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, William Kelly (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of HVAC Compressor on the premises located at 768 Forest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 2 Block 23 Lot 76; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Existing compressor (1) has a front yard setback of 15.5' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240- 37 B (1); Existing compressor (2) has a front yard setback of 16.2' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-37 B (1); The Existing compressors increase the lot coverage to 37% where 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-37 F; 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 the compressors are well screened, not visible from the street or nearby properties and have existed for many years with no complaints. 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 on a corner and only 18 feet setback from the street and the proposed location is most logical place on the property with no impacts to neighbors. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because it is well screened and not visible from neighboring properties or the street. iv. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the variance will not adversely impact the local physical or environmental conditions because it is well screened with dense vegetation, no runoff and the 76 Dba will not be 6IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 audible to others. 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. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-34 31 Country Road — John Foulke Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved Mr. Schmitt, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 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 Dan Smith Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 31 Country Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Dan Smith, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, John Foulke (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a hot tub on the premises located at 31 Country Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 3 Block 15 Lot 69; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed hot tub will be located 0.0' from primary structure where 15' is required, pursuant to 192-5 A (1) (a); for a property in an R-30 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. 8IPage Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 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 hot tub will be well screened and not visible to any neighbors or 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 applicant wants the hot tub located close to the house and alternative locations at a greater distance from the house would not be any more desirable or have less of an impact to neighbors. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the 10x10 hot tub has a cover with a lock and is located within a yard that is already fenced. 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 10x10 hot tub will be installed on an existing impervious patio. 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. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 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 Depaiinnent. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-25-29 5 Leafy Lane — John Donovan Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Larry Gordon and Joseph Guglielmo, the applicant's architects, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Maria and John Cattau of 20 Baldwin Ave stated concerns regarding visibility from their 2nd floor window to the proposed hot tub location. They requested adequate screening be maintained. John Donovan, the homeowner addressed the Board to explain that prior to the meeting, he had invited his neighbors to discuss the proposed work and had assured them that screening would be provided. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Stephen Marsh seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 5 Leafy Lane, 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. unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 WHEREAS, John Donovan (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a hot tub on the premises located at 5 Leafy Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 26 Lot 499; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed hot tub will be located 1' from primary structure where 15' is required, pursuant to 192-5 A (1) (a); for a property in an R-7.5 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, rear neighbors who reside at 20 Baldwin Avenue expressed concern that existing screening be maintained and the homeowner expressed no objection; 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 hot tub will not be visible from street and it will be well screened from neighbors ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because if it were moved further from the house it would still need variance for encroachment into required rear yard setback. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 11I Page Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the proposed location, under and within the footprint of an existing covered patio, generates no adverse impacts. Further, the Board concluded that locating the hot tub further away from the house would serve no purpose. 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 hot tub will be installed on an existing impervious surface. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 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 Depailment. 7. The existing vegetative screening that borders the rear property line toward Baldwin Avenue shall be maintained, or replaced, as necessary, for as long as the hot tub exists. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 Application No. 7 - Case No. ZBA-25-33 69 Hillcrest Avenue — Anthony Stanford Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Francine Alheid and Aishah Coleman, the applicant's architects, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. A variance was originally granted in 2024 for this property. However, the finished project exceeded the variances granted. The Board requested the applicant scale back some of the project to be more in line with the original variance. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. The application was adjourned, and the public hearing remains open. Application No. 8 - Case No. ZBA-25-29 1 Edgewater Place — Suzanne Tecza This application was not discussed and has been adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 24, 2025. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 9 - Case No. ZBA-25-21 — 1-5 Vine Street — Elk Vine Street LLC This application was not discussed and has been adjourned to a special meeting on September 4, 2025. The public hearing remains open. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes with changes from June 17th Moved by: Jonathan Sacks seconded by Stephen Marsh Action: Approved: Arthur Wexler, Stephen Marsh, Randy Heller, Jonathan Sacks, Dan Smith Abstain: Randy Heller Motion: To approve the draft minutes with changes from June 25th Moved by: Arthur Katz seconded by Jonathan Sacks Action: Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 pm. Minutes prepared by: 13I Page Jennifer Ransom Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2025 141Page