Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_09_24 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 24, 2025 Conference Room C, First Floor 7:00 PM PRESENT: Arthur Wexler, Board Chairman Irene O'Neill, Vice Chair and Board Member Randy Heller, Board Member Arthur Katz, Board Member Dan Smith, 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: Stephen Marsh, 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. Chairman Wexler re -ordered the agenda to act on the draft minutes and to allow Application No. 10 to be addressed before the other applications. MINUTES Motion: To approve the draft minutes from July 23, 2025 Moved by: Dan Smith seconded by Randy Heller Action: Approved: Arthur Wexler, Arthur Katz, Randy Heller, Dan Smith Abstained: Irene O'Neill Motion: To approve the draft minutes from September 4, 2025 Moved by: Arthur Katz seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 Application No. 10 - Case No. ZBA-25-40—1-16-450 Seton Road — Gertrude Pfaffenbach - Challenge to Interpretation of Decision by the Building Inspector Mr. Polcari, Town Building Inspector, addressed the Board to state, that after further research, he has changed his decision and agrees with the challenger's reasoning as to why the lot does not comply with zoning. Mr. Polcari further stated that he will issue a "Notice of Disapproval." Mr. Polcari explained to Ms. Pfaffenbach, the challenger, that if the developer submits an application for a zoning variance, it would likely be before this Board for a public hearing in October or November. Ms. Hochman added that the notification provisions of the Town Code would require new mailing notices to be sent and signs to be posted. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Application No. 1- Case No. ZBA-25-9 — 26 Dante St — Clifford Shapiro — Continued Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on July 23, 2025, and remains open. Steven Shapiro, the homeowner and Kathy Nickerson, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There was discussion regarding alternate locations, however, the homeowner stated that his insurance company may not in the future allow the units in other locations due to various safety reasons and the contractor agreed. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Irene O'Neill seconded by Randy Heller Action: Yea: Dan Smith, Randy Heller, Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill Nay: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 26 Dante Street, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 WHEREAS, Clifford Shapiro (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an Energy Storage System on the premises located at 26 Dante Street,, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 21 Lot 66; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: proposed side yard setback of 5.8' where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); 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 Applicant stated that he would install plantings to screen the unit; 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 unit is small and will protrude only about 6 inches from the side of the garage and it will be scarcely 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 Applicant demonstrated that he and his contractor considered other areas of the property, all of which they deemed infeasible due to locations of stairs, windows, etc. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. 3IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the unit is small, wall -mounted 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 the unit is small and quiet and adds no 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 plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector 3. Construction, if any, shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. If a building permit is required, the Applicant shall obtain such building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. 7. All plantings installed to screen the unit shall be vigorously maintained and, if necessary, replaced no later than the next growing season. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 2 - Case No. ZBA-25-33 — 69 Hillcrest Ave — Anthony Stanford — Return The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on July 23, 2025 and remains open. Francine Alheid and Aishah Coleman, the applicant's architects, addressed the Board to explain the application and revisions made since the last meeting. The Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance for the addition and the rear steps Moved by: Dan Smith seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance for the shed Moved by: Dan Smith seconded by Randy Heller Action: Approved Yea: Dan Smith, Randy Heller, Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill Nay: Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 69 Hillcrest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Dan Smith, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 1, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Anthony Stanford (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an as -built rear addition and shed on the premises located at 69 Hillcrest Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 22 Lot 166; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: The as -built rear addition has a rear yard setback of 19.5' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3); The as -built rear steps have a rear yard setback of 12' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3); the as -built shed has a rear yard setback of 4.7' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (3)(b); The improvements raise the lot coverage to 35.8% where 35% is permitted, pursuant to 240-39 (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-6 Zone District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and 5IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 WHEREAS, Mr. Polcari stated that he would issue a revised Notice of Disapproval to remove the lot coverage variance request as it is no longer needed based on new calculations; 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 and steps are not visible from the street or neighboring properties. • While the shed is visible from the street and neighboring properties, it replaces an unattractive carport. The Board further noted that requested variance for the shed is small in nature. 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 addition is located in the optimal location to square off the rear of the house which improves the symmetry and the steps are necessary for egress. The Board further noted that the nonconforming depth of the yard does not allow for alternatives. • Although the shed could be moved forward, a majority of the Board determined that it could be difficult and costly to move it and noted that it could be safer to have the shed next to the fence because moving it forward would leave a small opening in the fence. Wage Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because • The amount of the encroachment related to the addition and steps is very small relative to the size of the yard. • The shed is small and the encroachment (3 inches) is very small relative to the size of the 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 A concrete patio was already in existence where the addition and steps are located so there will be no significant change in the amount of impervious surface. The shed adds only 3 inches to an existing slab so there will be no significant change in the amount of impervious surface. vi. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that except for the error attributed to the surveyor, the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 7IPage Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 3. Construction, if any, shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. If a building permit is required, the Applicant shall obtain such building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 3 - Case No. ZBA-25-27 7 Madison Avenue — Tom Torre - Return The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on June 17, 2025 and remains open. Rosana Bone, the applicant's sign contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Board members requested a revised submission to reflect changes in the proposed size and coloring of the sign and Ms. Bone agreed. Dolores Battalia, of 2 Washington Square, addressed the Board to express concerns about traffic and parking and she further stated that she would like the signs reduced in size. The Applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 4 - Case No. ZBA-24-29 —1 Edgewater Place — Suzanne Tecza — Return The public hearing was opened at the Board meeting on April 23, 2025 and remains open. Suzanne Tecza, the applicant and homeowner, addressed the Board to explain the application and changes made after the last Board meeting. The Board discussed the request. There were no questions or comments from members of the public. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance for a 5' fence Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Arthur Wexler Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance for an arbor Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Arthur Wexler Action: Approved Wage Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 Yea: Randy Heller, Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill Nay: Dan Smith, Arthur Katz RESOLUTION 1 Edgewater Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Arthur Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED by a unanimous vote with respect to the fence and a vote of 3 to 2, with respect to the arbor. There were no absentions. WHEREAS, Suzanne Tecza (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a fence and arbor on the premises located at 1 Edgewater Place, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 5 Lot 190; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed arbor will have a front yard setback off Edgewater Place of 0' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed arbor will have a front yard setback off Dillon Road of 17' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (1); Proposed arbor will have a side yard setback of 5.8' where 8' is required, pursuant to 240-39 B (2)(a); Proposed fence will be 4' in height where 3' is permitted, pursuant to 240-53; for a property in an R-6 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS. Mr. Polcari stated that he would issue a revised Notice of Disapproval to change the fence height from 4' to 5' as approved by the Board; 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 September 24, 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 fence is attractive and identical to nearby fencing in the neighborhood and it stops before the sidewalk. • The arbor is the first of its kind on the block, with lattice that matches the side fence and a majority of Board members found it to be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with nearby fences. ii. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant not requiring a variance because • A fence is the only option to separate the properties, and the extra foot of height matches and is compatible with nearby fencing, with the same lattice on top. • While the arbor is merely aesthetic, a majority of Board members found it to be attractive and unobjectionable. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because • The proposed fence is no more substantial than another nearby fence and the lattice at the top softens its appearance. The Board also noted that the white color is typical of nearby fences. • The arbor is substantial compared to other houses, but a majority of Board members found that this factor is not determinative, due to its aesthetic appeal. 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 fence adds no bulk and no impervious surface and lattice adds transparency. • The arbor adds no impervious surface and allows sun, light and air to pass. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 10I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 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 plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 3. Construction, if any, shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. If a building permit is required, the Applicant shall obtain such building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 5 - Case No. ZBA-25-38 — 8 Briar Close — Anthony McManus Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Anthony Nanna, the applicant's architect addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. 111Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 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: Irene O'Neill seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 8 Briar Close, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Anthony McManus (the "Applicant") requested a variance for legalization of an addition on the premises located at 8 Briar Close, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 5 Lot 442; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: As - built addition has a (1)side yard setback of 8.6' where 10' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (2)(a); As -built addition has a (2)combined side yard setback of 20.1' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-36 B (2)(b); As -built addition has a (3)rear yard setback of 18.1' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-36 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-15 Zoning District (the "Notice of Disapproval"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the requirements from the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Board examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard any and all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§ 617 et. seq. and accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required; and A. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors. i. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. 121 Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 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 as built, the addition is a very minor deviation from the earlier granted variance. 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 homeowner discovered inaccuracies in the survey which were corrected in the final survey and the Board determined that tearing it down would be infeasible, expensive and unnecessary. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the dimensional changes from the earlier approved plans are very minor. 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 changes are very minor and the footprint was not expanded. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 131 Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 3. Construction, if any, shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. If a building permit is required, the Applicant shall obtain such building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 6 - Case No. ZBA-25-39 — 23 Glen Eagles — Kai Liekefett Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Oran Ben -Simon, the applicant's contractor, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. Motion: To close the public hearing Moved by Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Motion: To approve the requested variance Moved by: Randy Heller seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 23 Glen Eagles Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Randy Heller, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Kai Liekefett (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a legalization of HVAC compressors on the premises located at 23 Glen Eagles Drive, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 8 Lot 396; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Existing compressors have a side yard setback of 7.9' 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 141Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 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 compressors are barely visible from the street, well screened by bushes and have been there for nearly 10 years with no 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 two front yards so any other location would likely require a variance. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the compressors are considerably distant from surrounding houses and well screened. 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 compressors have existed in the same location for 10 years without complaint, which is evidence of no adverse visual or noise impacts. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 15I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 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 plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 3. Construction, if any, shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. If a building permit is required, the Applicant shall obtain such building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 7 - Case No. ZBA-25-32 — 2 Campbell Lane — Nicole & Matthew Bruno Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Nicole and Matthew Bruno, the applicants and homeowners addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. There were no public questions or comments. 16I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 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: Arthur Katz seconded by Randy Heller Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 2 Campbell Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Katz, seconded by Randy Heller, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, Nicole & Matthew Bruno (the "Applicant") requested a variance for an entry landing on the premises located at 2 Campbell Lane, Town of Mamaroneck, New York and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 1 Block 10 Lot 251; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: Proposed entry landing will have a front yard setback of 27.0' where 30' is required, pursuant to 240-38 B (1); and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in an R-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. 171 Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 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 it enhances the appearance of the house. 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 it is necessary for safety purposes. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the encroachment into the large front yard is very small. 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 a small amount of impervious surface to large front yard. v. Whether the difficulty is self-created. The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. B. For the reasons stated above, the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. C. For reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 181 Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 3. Construction, if any, shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. If a building permit is required, the Applicant shall obtain such building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. Application No. 8 - Case No. ZBA-25-44 —1 Edgewood Ave — Issam Gargouri Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Isam Gargouri, the applicant and homeowner and Chris Teeter, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Pictures of the property were presented to the Board and entered into the record as Exhibit A. Applicant requested an adjournment. The public hearing remains open. Application No. 9 - Case No. ZBA-25-37 — 10 Elkan Road — James McDonnell Motion: To open the public hearing Moved by: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill Action: Unanimously approved Joseph Guglielmo, the applicant's architect, addressed the Board to explain the application and the Board discussed the request. Pictures of the property were presented to the Board, submitted to the Secretary and entered into the record as Exhibit A and B. 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: Arthur Wexler seconded by Irene O'Neill 191 Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 Action: Unanimously approved RESOLUTION 10 Elkan Road, Town of Mamaroneck, New York After review, on motion of Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 5 to 0, with no abstentions. WHEREAS, James McDonnell (the "Applicant") requested a variance for a deck and patio on the premises located at 10 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 420; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the following grounds: (1) Existing deck has a left side yard setback of 0.' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(a); (2) Existing deck has a right side yard a side yard setback of 6.9' where 25' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2)(a); (3) Existing deck has a combined side yard setback of 6.9' where 60' is required, pursuant to 240-42 B (2) (b); (4) Existing patio has a left side yard setback of 2.5' where 5' is required, pursuant to 240-50; (5) Existing patio has a right side yard setback of 2.1' where 5' is required; pursuant to 240-50; (6) The existing improvements create a lot coverage of 37.2%where 25% is permitted, pursuant to 240-42 A (3); (7) and further the improvements increase the extent by which the property is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building 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. 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 these connected 20I Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 townhouses on deep lots are unique in the Town, and the deck and patio have existed without complaint for nearly 80 years. 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 configuration of these attached townhouses leaves the applicant with no other options for the 18-foot wide property. iii. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that the variance is not substantial because the subject property is a townhouse attached to others in a zoning district which does not reflect what was built; and the lot is very deep. 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 deck and patio have been there for almost 80 years and add no new 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 plans submitted in connection with this application as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and accepted by the Applicant. 2. To the extent conditions or modifications imposed by the Board require revision of the submitted plans, the Applicant shall submit such revised plans for review and approval by the Building Inspector. 211Page Zoning Board of Appeals September 24, 2025 3. Construction, if any, shall be in compliance with the approved plans. 4. If a building permit is required, the Applicant shall obtain such building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this resolution. 5. Such building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months of the issuance of the building permit. 6. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a final as -built survey to the Town Building Department to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. This resolution is hereby certified and shall be filed with the Town Clerk. The meeting was adjourned at 9:49 pm. Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Ransom Secretary 22I Page