HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_03_01 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes TOWN OF MAMARONECK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
MARCH 1, 2006
Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman
Frederick Baron
Irene D. O'Neill
Arthur Wexler
Linda S. Harrington
Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel
Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building
Maria DiCioccio, Public Stenographer
Carbone &Associates, LTD
111 N. Central Park Avenue
Hartsdale, New York 10530
Daniela Gerardi, Recording Secretary
A. Old Business
1. Request for a rehearing of Case 2672, 53 Edgewood
The Board discussed the request from Edward Ryan to reopen the matter and hear arguments to
reconsider the variance already granted on 53 Edgewood Avenue. After a brief discussion,
Chairman Gunther asked if any Board member wished to propose a resolution to reopen the
matter, for public hearing at the next Board meeting. No Board member proposed such a
resolution. As a result, the matter remains closed. For re-opening, the Board is required to
unanimously vote in favor of a re-hearing.
B. New Business
1. KP Industries and AKP Signs
Donald Mazin (applicant's attorney) approached the Board and stated his client, Sleepy's, is
proposing to erect three awning signs that are internally illuminated and to allow the lettering for
the awning signs to be 18 inches. Mr. Mazin also stated his client opened up a new store and
desire new signs in number and at same locations as the two prior tenants. Mr. Mazin continued
to say his client adjusted the size of the lettering to comply with the recommendations of the
Board.
Chair Gunther read comments from the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). The BAR was in
support of a variance to allow the existing canopy lighting system to remain. The BAR was not in
favor of canopy signage facing the side street. The BAR does favor one front canopy sign and
one rear canopy sign. The BAR does not favor the placement of a logo sign on the canopies. The
Board accepts the size of the lettering on the front facing canopy.
The Board finds that the record made by the applicant is not sufficient, the benefit to the applicant
does not outweigh any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community or surrounding
properties and denied the variance of erecting three awning signs. The Board finds that the record
made by the applicant is sufficient, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health,
safety or welfare of the community or surrounding properties and granted the variance for the
internally illuminated awning signs and for the lettering to be 18 inches.
Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes
March 1, 2006
Page 2 of 6
CERTIFICATION
As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck,
I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on March 1, 2006.
CASE NO. 2706— KP Industries and AKP Signs
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was
unanimously APPROVED 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED:
WHEREAS, KP Industries and AKP Signs submitted an application to the Building
Inspector, together with plans to erect two additional signs on the premises located at 1331
Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
411, Lot 119. The signs as proposed are internally illuminated where pursuant to Section 240-
45H(8)(c)[4] illuminated signs are not permitted, the lettering for the awning signs as proposed is
18 inches pursuant to Section 175-11 (L)for signs in a "B" Business Zone District; and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that
the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with
particular reference to Section 240-45H(8)(c)[4]; and
WHEREAS, KP Industries and AKP Signs submitted an application for a variance to this
Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the
application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice
thereof and a hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings
as required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the adjoining
properties or community in the vicinity of the house. In reaching this conclusion, the Board
considered the following factors:
A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a
detriment to nearby properties:
The proposed variance would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood and would not create a detriment to nearby properties. Only Applicant's
name will be internally illuminated. There are three businesses in the same building
(Applicant, Seasons Too and Blockbuster). These stores are all located in the same
building, the skin and frame go all around the building and are internally illuminated and
only the skin of the sign will change to create a more unified appearance.
B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to
the applicants other than an area variance:
Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes
March 1, 2006
Page 3 of 6
The applicant could not achieve their goals via an alternate design. The other two
business in the building have illuminated signs therefore the applicants illuminated sign
would create a more unified appearance.
C. Whether the area variance is substantial:
The Board feels the variance is not substantial since these signs existed at the same
location for over ten years.
D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:
There appears to be no indication that the variance will have an adverse impact on the
neighborhood. These signs existed at the same location for over ten years thus the
character of the neighborhood should not be affected.
E. Whether the difficulty is self-created:
The difficulty was not self-created.
F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this
Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
G. 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.
H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the
applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this
Board will enable such reasonable use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no
other.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this
Resolution.
3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months
and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit.
4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in
connection with this application.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
CERTIFICATION
As Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck,
Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes
March 1, 2006
Page 4 of 6
I hereby certify that the following is the Resolution adopted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals at the meeting held on March 1, 2006.
CASE NO. 2706— KP Industries and AKP Signs
After review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following resolution was
unanimously adopted, 5-0.
RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment
pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required.
On motion of Ms. Harrington, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution to DENY the application
for a variance was APPROVED:
WHEREAS, KP Industries and AKP Signs submitted an application to the Building
Inspector, together with plans to erect two additional signs on the premises located at 1331
Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block
411, Lot 119. The applicant has proposed three awning signs for the new business where two
signs are required pursuant to Section 240-45H 8-2 (c) (2); and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that
the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with
particular reference to 240-45H 8-2 (c) (2); and
WHEREAS, KP Industries and AKP Signs submitted an application for a variance to this
Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and
WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the
application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice
thereof and a hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings
as required by New York State Town Law§267-b:
1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance does not
outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community.
In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors:
A. The Town Board changed the sign law in November`2004 to only allow two signs on
businesses to lessen the impact on the panoramic views of neighboring residents and to
stop the proliferation of signage on the Boston Post Road.
B. The proposed variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood and it would create a detriment to nearby properties. Also the Board finds
that the location of the present building bearing one sign in the front of the building and
one sign in the back of the building is more than adequate for the announcement of the
business within.
C. The applicants could achieve their goals via an alternate design that would clearly mark
the identification of the business and its entry points that were visible to all on the Boston
Post Road
D. The proposed erection of two additional signs will have an adverse impact on physical
and environmental conditions on the neighborhood by creating unnecessary visual
overload.
Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes
March 1, 2006
Page 5 of 6
E. The Board views adding two additional signs would have a substantial impact on the
neighborhood. The business is clearly visible and the additional signage is unnecessary
F. The Board feels the difficulties noted in the application process were self-created.
G. The denial of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance
and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare due to
its small size and placement.
This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law.
2. Ferrira
Joel Negrin (applicant's attorney)stated his client is proposing to subdivide the lot and construct a
one family dwelling. Mr. Negrin continued to say his client is proposing 4,925.7 square feet,
where 5,000 square feet is required with a shortfall of 75.3 square feet and a width and street-line
frontage of 49.26 feet, where 50 feet is required with a shortfall of.74 feet (9 inches)therefore the
variance being requested is minimal. Mr. Negrin also stated the neighborhood has included multi-
family apartment houses and 2-family houses for many years therefore the subdivision to allow
lots for 2 1-family houses will not increase the density of the neighborhood or otherwise adversely
affect the neighbors.
Joe Russo (1055 Palmer Avenue)stated he is opposed to the granting of a variance because he
feels it would alter the character of the neighborhood causing congestion and overcrowding of the
land. Mr. Russo also stated the subdivision would greatly reduce the value of his property, it will
not protect and conserve the value of homes in the area, and he would loose his privacy, view,
and morning sunlight.
Davis Stowell (6 Blossom Terrace)stated he is opposed to the granting of a variance and fells the
granting of the variance will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
John Baum (9 Blossom Terrace)stated he is opposed to the granting of a variance and fells the
granting of a variance will adversely effect the physical and environmental conditions of the
neighborhood.
The Board requested comments from the Planning Board and adjourned this application to its
next meeting on March 22, 2006.
3. Cowles
Eric Jacobsen (applicant's architect)stated to the Board his client is proposing to construct a two-
story addition including a kitchen expansion, adding a powder/mudroom area, and adding a
second-story bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Jacobsen also stated the proposed construction will be
constructed in the rear of the house and in keeping with the architectural style of the existing
house. Mr. Jacobsen continued to say the variance is not substantial because the addition
increases the non-conformity by only 2.3%. Mr. Jacobsen affirmed the undersigned lot is currently
over the maximum lot coverage allowed but the applicant is proposing to build most of the 378 sq.
ft. addition on the existing sidewalk and brick patio.
The Board suggested removing the paved driveway and adjourned this application to its next
meeting on March 22, 2006.
4. Carcano
Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board Minutes
March 1, 2006
Page 6 of 6
Steven Chirogianis (applicant's architect)stated to the Board the applicant is proposing to
partially extend the existing basement and extend the first and second floors. Mr. Chirogianis also
stated the applicant is proposing to erect a two-story addition to the rear of the existing two-story
house because the young owners of the house have a growing family and are in need of more
space and another bathroom. Mr. Chirogianis continued to say the residence is non-conforming
but the proposed addition will not increase the nonconformity. Mr. Chirogianis affirmed the
proposed variance is only for minimum side yardage and the proposed addition will continue
along the same plane as the existing dwelling.
Patricia Dunne (7 Hudson Place)stated she is in favor of the addition. Ms. Dunne continued to
say her home is adjacent to the applicant's home and will be most affected by the proposed
addition but she is still in support of it.
The Board requested the architect provide them with a floor plan and adjourned this application to
its next meeting on March 22, 2006.
5. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes of its June 21, 2005 meeting, July 26, 2005 meeting, October
26, 2005 meeting, November 30, 2005 meeting, January 4, 2006 meeting, and January 25, 2006
meeting.
Adjournment
Daniela Gerardi
Secretary to Zoning Board