Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017_03_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, MARCH 22,2017 HELD IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK ROLL CALL: Present:Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh,Alternate Also Present: Lisa Hochman, Counsel to the Zoning Board Absent/Excused:Jeffery King, Evans Simpson,Tom Murphy,Town Board Liaison,John H. Landi, Building Inspector. Mr. Wexler stated that there are only 4 members present tonight and an applicant would have to have 3 positive votes for approval. If any applicant wishes to adjourn they may so request. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:55P.M. MINUTES The minutes were postponed. APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE NO.3051 57 Harrison Drive Corp. 55 Harrison Drive Mr. Wexler stated that at the last meeting a straw pole was taken to determine whether board members were favorable to the application and if so,to state their reasons. On the basis, a draft resolution with proposed findings was prepared and circulated among the board members. Carol Carozza read a statement into the record, objecting to the application. Philip Heinegg also spoke in opposition to the application. The Board discussed the 40-inch caliper oak tree at 3 Robins Nest and proposed a specific condition.The applicant was in agreement that best efforts would be used to protect the tree and replace if the health of the tree were jeopardized during construction. Motion:To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion:To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks 1 After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh seconded by Jonathan Sacks, the following resolution was proposed and unanimously ADOPTED by a vote of 4 to 0. Ayes: Wexler, O'Neill, Sacks, Marsh Nays: None Absent: Simpson, King WHEREAS,57 Harrison Drive Corp. (the "Applicant") requested a variance to construct a single family house on the premises located at 55 Harrison Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Section 5 Block 1, Lot 301; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code)with particular reference to Sections 240-38.A(2), 240-38.B(2)(a) and 240-69, as stated in the Notice of Disapproval dated October 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the above referenced Notice of Disapproval,the Building Inspector determined that relief from the side yard setback requirement of 240-38.B(2)(a) is unnecessary; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from the street frontage and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS,the Application meets all other bulk and dimensional zoning requirements related to front, rear and side yard setbacks, height, FAR and lot coverage; and WHEREAS,the Board examined the following plans submitted by the Applicant: • Site Plan and Architectural Plans prepared by Richau Mustacato Grippi Associates dated October 16, 2015 • Landscaping Plans prepared by Antony Acocella Landscaping Architect, P.C. dated October 16, 2015 and last revised February 1, 2017 (the "Landscape Plan") • Erosion Plan prepared by Jonathan M. Avellino, P.E. dated October 7, 2015 and last revised December 7, 2015 (the "Erosion Plan") • Survey prepared by The Munson Company dated December 5, 2014 and last revised on December 28, 2016 • Relevant portion of the tax map showing subject property and adjacent properties along with lot dimensions (the "Tax Map") WHEREAS,the Board members inspected the site, reviewed and considered documents submitted in connection with this Application; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was opened on November 30, 2016 and continued on January 4,January 25, February 25 and March 22, 2017; and 2 WHEREAS,the Board has heard all persons interested in this Application and considered all oral and written testimony; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§617 et, seq. and, accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS,the owner of an adjacent parcel at 3 Robins Nest Lane (the "3 Robins Nest Owner") expressed concern about the stability of a 40-inch diameter oak tree in her yard (the "3 Robins Nest Oak Tree")which could be damaged during construction; and WHEREAS, at the board meeting on March 22, 2017, the Applicant agreed to engage an arborist during construction to determine whether construction activities jeopardize the stability of the 3 Robins Nest Oak Tree; and WHEREAS,the Applicant further agreed that if such arborist determined that the stability of the 3 Robins Nest Oak Tree were in jeopardy, the Applicant would,with the consent of the 3 Robins Nest Owner, cause and pay for the removal of the 3 Robins Nest Tree; and WHEREAS, in the event the 3 Robins Nest Oak Tree were to be removed upon the recommendation of said arborist,the Applicant further agreed, upon consent of and in consultation with the 3 Robins Nest Owner,to cause and pay for the installation of a 5-inch caliper tree on the property located at 3 Robins Nest Lane; and WHEREAS,the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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. A. 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 houses on similarly narrow lots are prevalent in the neighborhood and there is more than 10 feet of distance between the proposed house and neighboring houses. In particular,the Board refers to the Tax Map referenced hereinabove which shows that there are at least four(4) developed parcels in the immediate vicinity of the subject property that are of equal width or narrower than the subject property: (i) 57 Harrison Drive has lot width and street frontage of 55 feet; (ii) 59 Harrison Drive has lot width and street frontage of 57 feet; (iii) 52 Harrison Drive has lot width of 50 feet and street frontage of 59 feet and (iv) 39 Coolidge Street has a lot width of 50 feet and street frontage of 59 feet. 3 B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 lot is undersized with respect to lot width and street frontage;therefore, any development would require a variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The subject property is 55 feet wide with 63 feet of street frontage whereas the Zoning Code requires 75 feet for lot width and street frontage.The Board finds that this is not substantial due to the prevalence of nearby houses built on similarly narrow(or narrower) lots. Furthermore,the Board is persuaded by the fact that house itself complies with all zoning requirements such as height, FAR, lot coverage and,front, rear and side yard setbacks. D. 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 hereinabove referenced Erosion Plan shows that current drainage conditions will be improved by controlling, slowing down and directing storm water runoff to a nearby catch basin. In particular,the Board notes that the Erosion Plan shows three 30-foot lengths of 3-foot diameter pipes to slow the rate of flow from the subject property in a controlled measure of release. Therefore,the Board finds that the development and drainage plans associated with this Application will benefit neighboring properties downhill from the subject property. Furthermore,the Board finds that the proposed Landscape Plan mitigates drainage as well as well as visual impacts to surrounding properties. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. Although the Applicant was originally informed by Town officials that development on this lot was permissible without application for area variances,the Board finds that the difficulty is self-created; however,this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this 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. 3. 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. 4 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL 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 of the Director of Building 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. SPECIFIC CONDITION: 6. The Applicant shall engage an arborist during construction to assess the stability of the 3 Robins Nest Oak Tree and, if such arborist determines that the stability of such tree is in jeopardy,the Applicant shall,with consent of the 3 Robins Nest Owner, cause and pay for the removal of the 3 Robins Nest Oak Tree and installation of a 5-inch caliper tree. This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE NO. 3 Christopher Fathers 38 Myrtle Blvd. Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill James Fleming,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board asking to legalize the 2 air conditioning condenser units and the stand by generator as there is no other place on the property. He pointed out that the property is burdened with three front yards. He further stated the units are small,very quiet and attached to the house. Ms. O'Neil stated that the notice of disapproval was not correct and it was suggested that the applicant request an adjournment and return next month. Brenda Fathers, the applicant, requested an adjournment. APPLICATION NO. 4 CASE NO.3059 Milja and Ronald TumSuden 11 Briarcliff Road 5 Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Gregory Lewis,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board, stating they are proposing a front porch addition to improve curb appeal. He explained the plan for the new front foyer, porch and steps. Ms. TumSuden,gave the Board a rendering of the house, which was marked Exhibit 1 and entered into the record. The Board discussed the plan and elevations as well as the relationship of the proposed addition to nearby houses. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion:To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Vote: Arthur Wexler, Chairman, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh After review, on motion of Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King, Evans Simpson WHEREAS, Milja and Ronald TumSuden, (the "Applicant")requested a variance to construct an addition including a porch which would encroach into the required front and side yard setbacks at the premises located at 11 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220, Lot 206; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-37B, 240-37 B(2)(a)and 240-69; and 6 WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the design is consistent with houses in the neighborhood and further because the curve of the street obscures the view of the porch from neighboring houses. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 usable front porch requires variances from the setback requirements. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is substantial but consistent with neighboring houses and therefore finds this finding is not determinative. D. 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 they will be no more runoff, light or noise. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created. 7 The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative under the circumstances presented. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this 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. 3. 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: GENERAL 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 of the Director of Building 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. This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 5 CASE NO.3060 Chrystal and Robert Chambers 17 Overlook Terrance Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Paige Lewis,the applicant's architect, addressed the Board requesting a rear yard variance for a 408 square foot deck. The existing nonconforming house is 16 feet from the rear property line. The Board discussed the request and the distance to the neighbor's houses. PUBLIC COMMENTS 8 Briar Lobell, of 87 Edgewood Avenue stated that about 15 years ago 15 Overlook had many increases and he didn't understand the possible impact. He further stated he doesn't understand why the Town just doesn't change zoning requirements regarding setbacks. Mr. Wexler explained the Board's role and that what Mr. Lobel is saying is not under the purview of the Zoning Board. Ms. Hochman stated that the Board is here for when someone seeks relief from the code. Mr. Lobel stated the Board should not grant a variance, Mr. Sacks responded so noted. Motion:To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Motion:To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh After review, on motion of Irene O'Neill, seconded by Jonathan Sacks the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(4-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent/Excused: Jeffery King, Evans Simpson WHEREAS,Chrystal and Robert Chambers, (the "Applicant")requested a variance to construct a rear deck which encroaches the rear yard setback requirements on the premises located at 17 Overlook Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127, Lot 363; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-38(3), 230-38F and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon; and 9 WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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. A. 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 deck is located in the back of the house, and the neighboring house on the left is significantly lower and also has a deck, the house on the right is a great distance away and not visible from the street. Also a fence along the rear of the property will shield visibility. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method 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 they cannot achieve a deck anywhere else on the property due to the placement of the house as it is significantly in the rear in a nonconforming rear yard. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is substantial but the house already encroaches in the rear;therefore this is not determinative. D. 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 will be permeable and there will be no more runoff, light, or noise. E. 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. 10 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this 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. 3. 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: GENERAL 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 of the Director of Building 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. This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 6 CASE NO.3061 Kim and Byran Mitchell 22 Villa Road Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Arthur Wexler, seconded by Irene O'Neill Gregory Lewis,the applicant's architect addressed the Board, stating that the applicants have lived in the house for 12 years and want a family room and extra bedroom. He gave a sheet with zoning calculations marked Exhibit 1 and another sheet showing square footage marked Exhibit 2 and both were entered into the record. Mr. Lewis stated the addition to the back of the house also needs lot coverage and side yard variances. Mr. Wexler stated that the lot coverage is extremely large and asked that it be lowered. The Board discussed the proposed plan,the retaining walls and the patio. Mr. Lewis stated that the applicants in order to save the expense of hiring an engineer wanted to see if they would receive a variance first. Mr. Wexler stated he is reluctant to approve with the large impervious area, 11 although he has no problem with the house. He further suggested the applicant explore what the patio will be covering, and hire an engineer to lessen the coverage. The matter was adjourned. APPLICATION NO. 7 CASE NO. 3062 Mr.and Mrs. Renee Burns 10 Cabot Road Mr. Wexler stated that he had trouble reading the drawing and questioned whether the measurement on the plan is correct. Motion:To open the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Irene O'Neill Larry Bennet,the applicant's architect addressed the Board and explained the plan stating that they are constrained with a Westchester County easement on one side of the property and therefore can only build out on the other side, which and requires a variance. He further stated that the actual disturbance of soil is 30 square feet. The plan measurement referenced by Mr. Wexler was discussed and Mr. Bennett stated that he believes that the 11 foot measurement is correct. Mr. Wexler stated that an as built survey would be required and if the measurement is wrong the applicant would be required to return to the Board with no guarantee of receiving a variance. He further suggested that the applicant get the surveyor to stake the 11 feet and only build within those perimeters. Mr. Bennett stated that they would like to continue for a vote. There were no public questions or comments. Motion:To close the public hearing Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Jonathan Sacks Motion:To approve the requested variance Action: Approved Moved by Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler Vote: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh 12 After review, on motion of Stephen Marsh, seconded by Arthur Wexler the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously(5-0). Ayes: Arthur Wexler, Irene O'Neill,Jonathan Sacks, Stephen Marsh Nays: None Absent/Excused: Evans Simpson,Jeffery King, WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Renee Burns, (the "Applicant")requested a variance to construct a rear deck on the premises located at 10 Cabot Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125, Lot 477; and WHEREAS,the Building Director declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Code")with particular reference to Sections 240-39B(2)(b)and 240-69; and WHEREAS,the Applicant submitted to this Board an application for relief from setback requirements from the Zoning Code; and. WHEREAS,the Board 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 public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6NYCRR§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 by New York State Town Law§267-b; and 1. The Board finds 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. A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance. The Board finds that granting the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties because the design improves the appearance of the front of the house and the deck will not impact a rear neighbor because the property backs up to the Town commuter parking lot. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance. 13 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 due to the location of the county easement,there is no other place for the deck. C. Whether the area variance is substantial. The Board finds that that the variance is not substantial because the applicant is asking for a variance of 16.8 feet combined yard setbacks where 18 feet is required. D. 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 this will not create any added runoff since it is only a minimal increase in square footage. E. 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. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this 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. 3. 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: GENERAL 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 of the Director of Building 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. 14 This decision was filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 CASE NO. 3056 Safe Guard Storage Properties 615 Fifth Avenue Chris Fisher,the applicant's attorney, Stan Bonilla, Safeguard's representative and Chris Michalek, architect, addressed the Board Mr. Michalek, stated that they looked at the project in more detail to address the concerns previously expressed by Board members regarding scale and massing. The height of the building was lowered as well as the loading area door. All floors were reduced to the minimum allowable height for the units at 8 feet with 2-foot clearance for the sprinkler heads. By removing the interior loading dock,the plan now shows a portico over the Town Easement. Nothing can be built on the Easement so they cannot lower the building any further and make it economically feasible. The portico will span the easement allowing for access to maintain the culvert. The building is now proposed at 4 stories,43 feet in height. The Board discussed the changes to the plan as well as parking,trip flow counts,the shadow study and hours of operation. Mr. Bonilla stated the hours are 9 AM-6:00 or 7:00 PM although some customers will have 24 hour access with a key pad code. There will be no outdoor lighting after hours of operation, only interior motion detector lights. Mr. Bonilla further stated that outdoor lighting will be downward photo metrics and will not impact the The applicant asserted that the area is heavily industrial. Mr. Bonilla stated that he believes that Larchmont and the Town is the target area. And that this is an underserved area for storage needs. The Board discussed the role of the Planning Board in granting site plan approval. Mr. Marsh stated that although the improvements are noticeable as compared to the proposal at the February meeting, he is concerned with the massing close to the street and asked if it could be stepped back slightly. Mr. Bonilla stated that they want to be in the area however this building is 60, 000 sq. feet where 100,000 is the average size. The matter was adjourned MINUTES Motion:To approve the minutes of February 15, 2017 with technical corrections Action: Approved Moved by Jonathan Sacks, seconded by Stephen Marsh 15 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:06P.M. Minutes Prepared by Francine M. Brill, Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 16