Loading...
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